Is AIDS a thing of the past?

[Danoff]

I won't pull any percentage out of hot air, but I'm quite sure a lot of cancers are easily avoidable too.

Granted. But I'm quite certain the number of people who could not have avoided getting cancer dwarfs the number of people could not have avoided getting AIDS.

And condoms or not, accident still happen.

I don't understand. When I was single, I was very careful.

You're really close to, if you're not.

I'm not seeing it.

It's funny, I often wanted to ask if that is necessary to bring libertarianism into every thread.

It's a philosophy that applies to many subjects, not a particular current event that I'm stuck on.

You know, Iraq is very questionable, but you must be right, stopping a pandemic would never make the word a safer place... point closed.

It's true. Curing AIDS wouldn't really make people safer.

 

[Carl.]

Granted. But I'm quite certain the number of people who could not have avoided getting cancer dwarfs the number of people could not have avoided getting AIDS.

How can you be sure? Perhaps many of them, besides smokers (which is already the major source of deaths by cancer), could have avoided this if they were not using / eating / breathing / living near X product... if in the case of African who aren't aware of AIDS-related risks , it's still their fault, why not apply the same logic here?

I don't understand. When I was single, I was very careful.

I was very careful, too and It still happened to me. Unless that being careful means that you have to put a new one every 10 minutes. Fortunately for me, it was without consquences.

I'm not seeing it.

Explain to me how the African teenager is responsible for now being aware of the risks of AIDS.

It's a philosophy that applies to many subjects, not a particular current event that I'm stuck on.

I didn't mention it because I'm stuck on it, but if you're about to complain about money badly spent by your government, it's hard not to look at this "small" part of the pie. There's a large portion of Americans that don't seem to feel safer after the war in Iraq too, according to every recent poll I've seen.

It's true. Curing AIDS wouldn't really make people safer.

When people think of life threatening, transmitted diseases... the more the merrier!

 

[Famine]

When people think of life threatening, transmitted diseases... the more the merrier!

HIV is very hard to transmit. It's not like you can catch AIDS by being in the same room as an infectee - unlike Ebola or West Nile Virus.

It is very easy to avoid being infected by HIV. True, you can still contract it even if you do your best to avoid it (blood transfusion - rarely... Err... a knife-wielding maniac doesn't wipe his blade after stabbing an AIDS sufferer to death and plunges it into your foot, avoiding killing you but instead infecting you with HIV, assuming less than 30s passed since HIV is quite fragile in the air), but AIDS is really not very easy to pass from sufferer to third party.

 

[Danoff]

How can you be sure? Perhaps many of them, besides smokers (which is already the major source of deaths by cancer), could have avoided this if they were not using / eating / breathing / living near X product... if in the case of African who aren't aware of AIDS-related risks , it's still their fault, why not apply the same logic here?

Are you just trying to be difficult? The the exact frakking thing I'm proposing we do, research cancer as much as possible and figure out how to avoid and/or cure it. Once that knowledge is out there, I'll blame anyone who gets cancer when it could have been prevented. For example, I don't blame anyone who got lung cancer before anyone knew that smoking caused cancer. Once it was known, it immediately becomes your fault if you start smoking (regardless of whether or not you knew). You do have some responsibility for your own health, and that means getting educated however possible.

Over half a million people died from cancer in '02. That's almost 10 times as many as the number of US soldiers that died in Vietnam, which, in turn, is is 30 times more than the number of US soldiers that have died in Iraq. So cancer killed 300 times more Americans in '02 alone than the Iraq war has since it started.

Now, 161,000 of those deaths were lung cancer. Almost 10k is a result of skin cancer. Another 7.5k comes from oral cancers.

If you assume ALL of those deaths were self-inflicted (which is not true). You're left with roughly 350,000 cancer deaths (mostly breast and prostate) in '02 alone.

Let me see how many Americans died of AIDS in '02. 16,000. If you take out all of the cases that were basically self-inflicted, you'd probably have almost nothing left. But the fact remains, non-self-inflicted cancer still took over 20 times more lives than AIDS.

Here's an interesting stat:

"For childhood cancers, an estimated 9,100 new cases are expected to occur among children aged 0 -14, with 1,400 deaths. Cancer is the chief cause of death by disease in children between the ages of 1 and 14. "

Explain to me how the African teenager is responsible for now being aware of the risks of AIDS.

Africans are responsible for the state of their respective countries. All adults are responsible for their actions and for getting informed about the consequences of their decisions - and for informing their children.

When people think of life threatening, transmitted diseases... the more the merrier!

Not at all what I said. I said it doesn't make people safer. Almost everyone is safe from AIDS, because we already have an excellent prevention method.

 

[Tourettes Guy]

Everyone can potentially get Cancer at some point in life and not know how. AIDS there are certain ways. I think Cancer is a more pressing issue.

 

[Carl.]

HIV is very hard to transmit. It's not like you can catch AIDS by being in the same room as an infectee - unlike Ebola or West Nile Virus.

It is very easy to avoid being infected by HIV. True, you can still contract it even if you do your best to avoid it (blood transfusion - rarely... Err... a knife-wielding maniac doesn't wipe his blade after stabbing an AIDS sufferer to death and plunges it into your foot, avoiding killing you but instead infecting you with HIV, assuming less than 30s passed since HIV is quite fragile in the air), but AIDS is really not very easy to pass from sufferer to third party.

I know that, a good friend of mine work as a nurse and had to deal once with a mentally ill patient who had AIDS. He was threatening the staff once he woke up after a stomach surgery with his open wound (well, the guy opened it). He still lost a few layers of skin by giving his hands the more extensive hand wash they ever had. Still, he knew the risks were relatively small.

My point is that the threat is still present, it has many costs to society, and I don't see why it should be neglected. I'd expect the research budget for this disease to be a fraction of what should be spent on research for Cancer, though. If it is not the case, then yes, we're not having our priorities right.

 

[Danoff]

In '05 we spent (federally) $21 billion on AIDS (btw: that's about how much NASA gets).

The best comparison I can find is the '03 federal budget for cancer which was upped to $5 billion.

 

[Famine]

My point is that the threat is still present, it does many costs to society, and I don't see why it should be neglected.

The threat level is comparable with BASE Jumping fatalities. No, stick with me here...

Easy way to prevent it - don't BASE Jump. If you must BASE Jump, use protective gear, though if it fails you get a death sentence. Non-BASE-Jumpers stand a very small risk of dying through BASE Jumping (when one lands on them).


The preventative measures - don't have sex (or wear a condom if you MUST have sex, or stay in a monogamous relationship which is almost as good), don't shoot up in a crack house - remove almost the entire population of the planet from the "at-risk" group. On danoff's figures for AIDS-deaths in 2002, only 0.006% of the population was affected. Even if you were to be kind to the numbers and assume that there's ten times as many carriers as deaths, the preventative measures remove 99.93% of the population (of the US) from a risk category. As it happens, I just looked up the World figures, and it seems that 40.3 million people "suffered with" AIDS in 2005 - 0.6% of the population of the world. 99.4% of the world is unaffected by HIV/AIDS. It's really not a problem any more - if it ever was.

 

[Canadian Speed]

There was one figure that stated (I can't remember where, I think it was my sociology class) that if the money spent on AIDS was given to researchers working on other STDS. They could easily cure 90% of the other STDS out there. Before they could even start to crack the surface on curing aids. But here was the question that really got me from all of those classes...

Now, what do you suppose would happen if they actuely cured cancer/aids? What would all those people who've worked in those fields do?

As was stated before... It's a billion dollar enterprise, world wide, probably with far more behind the scenes activites then any of us could ever imagine.

Also, I think that as time goes on, people will realize that curring cancer would be like trying to cure the "common cold". It would be next to impossible as there are literaly hundreds of kinds of cancers and factors that go into them, as there are germs that go into the common cold.

A horrible way to look at it, but what some say could work, would be not to stop AIDS, but to help it. Change it from a wasting disease, into a killing disease. As horrible as the outcome would be, with millions of people dieing, it would eventualy kill itself and it's hosts off, in effect slitting it's own throat... Hence why Ebola is so hard to spread and hans't broken out into a huge pendemic. The people affected seldome have a chance to get too far before they die. Making it hard for the virus to spread.

 

[Zrow]

Now, what do you suppose would happen if they actuely cured cancer/aids? What would all those people who've worked in those fields do?

Um... work on something else?

 

[niky]

Damn.... I'm gone for eight hours or so and all hell breaks loose.

I'm not going to argue figures with anyone. The only point is AIDS is real, people die from it. If that's not worth curing, I don't know what the hell is.

But wait, only 17 million people die each year from chronic diseases... that's a pretty small number, too, isn't it? And those are preventable... surely...

And as of 2002, there were only 24.6 million people alive with cancer... tiny percentage, definitely.

Now that that's off my chest...

On the morality/education issue. Please, Swift, I'm not knocking Christians, but this is how it stands in third world countries... While all good "Catholics" know they're not supposed to have sex outside marriage, what percentage of those "Catholics" don't? What percentage of those Catholics don't drink or smoke, for that matter? I'll tell you, it's not that big a percentage. However, for those same Catholics, whom the only source of education and medical aid is from Religious Missions, the sources of condom education are absolutely zip. There was a point made earlier that contraception is taboo in the Catholic Church... my (yes, I am a non-practicing Catholic) Church believes that giving ground on contraceptives is a step too far in the direction of abortion... any sex that doesn't lead to pregnancy is.

Bull-****ing-****. I've never had sex with anyone but my wife, but if you follow that doctrine, we should have at least five hundred children by now... more if you could conceive more than once in the same night.

I know you're not arguing that all sex is for procreation, Swift... but that's the official line. Look at how long it took to convince the Church to even consider teaching natural contraception?

Just because your personal morality states no-sex-outside-marriage but it's-okay-if-you're-married-even-if-you're-not-trying-to-conceive, doesn't mean it's any more universal than the Catholic stand.... by the way, I actually have the same belief as you.

Again, with Cancer... it's not always predictable, but there are things you can do to limit the possibility of such. Last I saw, Gluttony and Vice were "sins", just like "sex-outside-marriage"... so why do we persecute the latter and not the former? What makes a heart disease patient better than an AIDS patient if the former got it by being too damn fat?

Hell... it's a sure thing none of you have been on a medical mission to the third world... you can't get people to drink clean water... (where do they get it?)... eliminate malaria-causing mosquitoes (where's the money?) or stop having sex (they're not Christian, so it doesn't count)... what are you going to do? For diseases like smallpox and polio, it's simple... try to vaccinate everyone you can. Thanks to some white philanthrophists, that's done. But for others, it's not so easy...

And no, danoff... it's nobody's fault for being dumb. I've been a teacher long enough to know that some people can't understand certain concepts, no matter how many times you teach them. You can teach and preach till your face turns blue, and they still won't get it. For some people, learning only occurs with hands on experience... and of course, by the time you've learned that particular lesson, it's sometimes too late.

Not everyone has the same learning mode. Some people actually understand the posters, flyers and presentations... for some people, that isn't enough. Some people can't assimilate information through purely visual or auditory channels... you actually have to show them the real thing and walk them through the concepts of consequence... or actually show them the consequences... for them to understand.

Now, if we don't have the money to conduct the lectures in the first place, where does that leave us?

I'm not going to condemn any part of the population for lack of education, money or cultural exposure. Not officially at least... I'm still pissed at them for having so many babies that they can't feed... ...but I'm sure that's a lost cause.

And please, answer me... how do you buy condoms if you don't have money? As for this cocktail of drugs... whoop-de-doo... Western druggies and gay people have a new line of defense (so there go your immorals, boys...), while the rest of the world still have nothing.

 

[Mike Rotch]

You can't blame the spead of AIDS on the church.

Actually you can, and I do.

When the church says "using condoms is the anti-christ", it rules out protected sex for those people that give the church sway. No condoms, no protected sex, no protected sex, more AIDS

Also, when did I ever say you shouldn't use any means of contraception

Yes, of course. People living below the poverty line in africa and asia can afford to spent money on spermicide and diaphrams 👍

but sex outside of marriage.

Oh man, dont even get me started here. What about people whom have multiple wives, as it s culture in many places in Africa?

What amuses me here is that a bunch of people (incidentally, not James) are arguing that they have all the answers. This is the most uninformed thread I have seen in ages. Dont have sex, dont get aids, use a condom, dont get aids, abstain, dont get aids, educate, dont get aids. What you are all forgetting is the small matter of 'traditional' beliefs that are archaic but remain in place. Unfortunately these people are the lowest common denominator, and thus also indulge in crime (rape) that leads to aids infected orphans and rape victims, many of whom continue the cycle in watered down fashion.

 

[TheWizard]

The only point is AIDS is real, people die from it. If that's not worth curing, I don't know what the hell is.

Cancer is. Which is the whole point of this thread.

It's like saying people die from elevator crashes and people die from car crashes. Where should we put more money into? Safer elevators or safer vehicles?

I understand people die from AIDS. But it's preventable. And it's surely more preventable than other deseases/illnesses that kill way more people percentage wise.

The money should be redirected where it serves a better purpose.

Also, since there's a lot of bashing against condoms, I wanted to add this: even if condoms only work 90% of the time (I don't have an exact figure here, but whatever their efficiency is - if used correctly - I think it might be a good assumption), that's still preventing 90% of the "self-inflicted" cases due to sex with a person "suffering with" AIDS.

Now somebody tells me where I can buy a "condom" that works this well against cancer, and I'll be the first one in line at such store, tomorrow...

The Wizard.

 

[a6m5]

In '05 we spent (federally) $21 billion on AIDS (btw: that's about how much NASA gets).

The best comparison I can find is the '03 federal budget for cancer which was upped to $5 billion.

Come again? That is just unbelievable. Could it be that maybe most of the Non-Federal funds are going to the cancer research, or something like that? It's truly unbelievable that the U.S. government spends more money on AIDS(research) than cancer. It really should be cancer>NASA>AIDS IMO. I wonder if upside is huge in AIDS research, maybe thru the "cure", the governement is bound to make a lot of money.......

The threat level is comparable with BASE Jumping fatalities. No, stick with me here...

Easy way to prevent it - don't BASE Jump. If you must BASE Jump, use protective gear, though if it fails you get a death sentence. Non-BASE-Jumpers stand a very small risk of dying through BASE Jumping (when one lands on them).

I'm not concerned with people BASE Jump by choice(bit harsh). It's people(underage girls and rape victims) who are forced to BASE Jump, I'm worried about. I think most of us has heard about the widespread sexual abuses of women that goes on in Africa. For those victims and their (future)babies, lessons on safe sex won't do bit of good.

 

[niky]

Cancer is. Which is the whole point of this thread

And I believe in curing cancer, too. The point, is what makes a person suffering lung cancer more worth saving than one from aids? People get both without trying, okay? Let's get over that point.

It's like saying people die from elevator crashes and people die from car crashes. Where should we put more money into? Safer elevators or safer vehicles?

Duh... both. And if you're saying, in this analogy, people have a choice not to use elevators... they also have a choice not to use cars.

I understand people die from AIDS. But it's preventable. And it's surely more preventable than other deseases/illnesses that kill way more people percentage wise.

Like e. coli infections, malaria, polio, etcetera? All of those are preventable. And people still die. And again, 40.3 million people (est. - WHO) with AIDS is a small number compared to the world population, but so is the total number of people alive with cancer, 24.6 million (2002 est., vs 2002 est. of 42 million with AIDS).

Preventable doesn't always mean it can and will be prevented. If you think different, try being poor and uneducated.

The money should be redirected where it serves a better purpose.

Uh... better elevators? It's just mind-blowing to me that people think that any research into a disease they don't care about means that no research is being done on diseases they do care about (because they're at risk for them)... knock it off.

Also, since there's a lot of bashing against condoms, I wanted to add this: even if condoms only work 90% of the time (I don't have an exact figure here, but whatever their efficiency is - if used correctly - I think it might be a good assumption), that's still preventing 90% of the "self-inflicted" cases due to sex with a person "suffering with" AIDS.

Read back the past few pages on why and how condom use is not effective in the fight against aids. Condoms are 99.somethingsomething percent effective in stopping AIDS transmissions. But if you believe the Church line, microscopic pores in condoms allow HIV viruses to get through... this is of course, ignoring the fact that the average condom is less porous than the average surgical glove.

Condoms do work, yes, hallelujah. And they cost money to make and distribute. And you need a new one every pop... that is, considering you know what a condom is in the first place (that's where education comes in) and that you can get one (that's where money and distribution come in).

Still, they're the best defense, and our biggest ally in the war on AIDS.

Now somebody tells me where I can buy a "condom" that works this well against cancer, and I'll be the first one in line at such store, tomorrow... The Wizard.

Let's see... don't drink, don't smoke, don't get hit in the breast by an umbrella... don't overeat, don't eat asbestos or lead or mercury...or... heck, don't grow old. it's not 100% effective, but it works. The point is not whether or not AIDS is preventable... it's that it's there.

Truthfully, the total number of AIDS cases has gone down since 2002 thanks to the aforementioned condom use, education, and yes, increased abstinence and safe sex in some target areas. But new outbreaks are cropping up in other depressed areas. So we can't really consider the war won yet.

Am I at risk for AIDS? Hell, no. I've only had one partner my entire life. But do I think money spent on finding a cure is wasted?

[sarcasm] Obviously. We should be using that money to cure Obesity. Considering 1 billion people (again, WHO est.) are obese, I'd say it's an epidemic that needs curing.

Of course, all medical research is wasted. We should just let every sick person on Earth die off... rids us of all the genetically and morally inferior members of our species, and ensures mankind's survival.[/sarcasm]

All medical research aimed at saving lives is important. If there's a problem with how and where the money is spent, that's a political problem, IMHO, not a problem with the research itself or the validity of the research being done. And, yes, I'd like to see a cure for lung cancer and obesity while we're at it, too.

 

[kennythebomb]

I don't have much really to add to this thread, except that money in the US spent on AIDS research, in my opinion, is mostly wasted. Americans already are educated about it, and so few people get it from blood transfusions and drug use it's not even worth mentioning further. Don't share needles and don't fornicate with random people, and you won't get AIDS in America, unless you are raped, or you have extremely bad luck in the hospital.

If anything, the money spent by the US gov't on AIDS could be spent in Africa where it really is a big problem. However, it's not our place to go in as an organized effort and teach all the Africans about sexual education. That's their govt's job, and if they don't do it... that's not our fault. No matter how much money you throw at Africa, no matter how much education, they are still a backwards society and are going to keep raping each other like animals until all of them die. It will take the will of the African people to stop the spread of AIDS there, not education.

Spend the money on cancer!

 

[Mike Rotch]

It is only I that sees the rich irony in this thread?

Here is the flaw in the logic of at least Danoff, Swift and others..(at least as how i understand their message from the first few pages):

Danoff:
Action: People have unprotected sex
Result: They contract Aids
Conclusion They knew the risks, therefore they deserved it. Tough luck.

Swift
Action: People have unprotected sex (due to sex outside marriage, ergo it is sin anyway)
Result: They contract Aids
Conclusion They commited a sin, therefore pay the price.

???
Action: A govt of a certain country p!ssed off certain nations
Result: They suffered terrorist attacks
Conclusion You reap what you sow.


????
Action: your nation drives autentatiously uneconomic cars for 50 years, polluting the earth out of proportion to the rest of the world
Result: That country gets smashed with increasingly violent natural disasters
Conclusion The chickens have come home to roost.

It is a harsh assessment, by 40mil people I think count more then 3000, at least when looking at the value of human life as equal. That doesnt mean 3000 dont count or what happened was mortifyingly wrong, but you are being equally dismissive of those infected.

 

[James2097]

Mike, thank you. The voice of reason – finally.

On the "bandaid" effect of condoms:

Contraception coupled with education has worked brilliantly in westernised countries. Why does the west have such a minimised AIDS problem compared to Africa? The sex-ed movement wasn't a band-aid solution for us (unless you count a solution to only be effective when 0% of the population suffer from STDs), so why would it be for Africans? The idea that you can just "win" a war against all STDs is silly anyway, there will always be STDs and people will always need to be wary and take precautions. However, you can certainly greatly reduce the spread of, and minimise AIDS and other STDs by a long way, and this is certainly a good move IMO. Considering its pretty much the ONLY realistic move you CAN take on a large scale without knowing for sure people are gonna just keep on getting AIDS (the "just tell them to stop having sex" solution). Its the same move that worked well in the west years ago.

 

[Anderton Prime]

AIDS is NOT a thing of the past, and to claim such a thing is to reveal yourself as ignorant. In some parts of Africa, 1 in 4 people are infected with HIV. That should be proof enough that AIDS is not gone, and won't be going anywhere soon.

And no one better dare say that Africa doesn't matter as much as the developed world.

 

[Famine]

But it is!

We have two very good preventatives which remove 99.94% of the population from any possibility of contracting the disease - barrier contraception and education. Why is the problem so prevalent in Africa (amongst others)? Religious beliefs (Catholicism) supercede use of contraception and oppose education about it. The problem is not that HIV has no known cure but that people do not know how to protect themselves from contracting it in the first place - reinforced by the fact that the President of the Republic of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, states that HIV does not cause AIDS and can be cured by eating onions.

Does AIDS deserve to be researched? Of course! We can and have conquered viruses, and the mechanism of HIV's pathogenicity is a special (though not unique) and interesting case. But it's a disease which almost never, ever, ever affects people who have been educated in the very simple way to protect themselves from it and almost always affects people who do not know this or choose to disregard it. Does it deserve to be funded 10 times better than cancer, which has no known preventative method and can strike anyone regardless of how well they protect themselves from it.

 

[DQuaN]

This may sound horribly horribly cruel......

Why not just stop all treatment for aids? People with aids are living very long lives due to the drugs they are given. The longer they survive, the bigger chance they have of passing it on.

By keeping them alive longer, we are interfering with natural selection.

The problem would be solved in 10 years.

 

[Mike Rotch]

But it is!

We have two very good preventatives which remove 99.94% of the population from any possibility of contracting the disease - barrier contraception and education. Why is the problem so prevalent in Africa (amongst others)? Religious beliefs (Catholicism) supercede use of contraception and oppose education about it. The problem is not that HIV has no known cure but that people do not know how to protect themselves from contracting it in the first place - reinforced by the fact that the President of the Republic of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, states that HIV does not cause AIDS and can be cured by eating onions.

Does AIDS deserve to be researched? Of course! We can and have conquered viruses, and the mechanism of HIV's pathogenicity is a special (though not unique) and interesting case. But it's a disease which almost never, ever, ever affects people who have been educated in the very simple way to protect themselves from it and almost always affects people who do not know this or choose to disregard it. Does it deserve to be funded 10 times better than cancer, which has no known preventative method and can strike anyone regardless of how well they protect themselves from it.

Damn Famine and his sensibility! Good summary chap 👍

I also agree cancer should get equal if not more money for R&D then Aids R&D. That doesnt mean Aids expenditure should be zero however.

 

[Touring Mars]

Why not just stop all treatment for aids? People with aids are living very long lives due to the drugs they are given. The longer they survive, the bigger chance they have of passing it on.

...and the better the chances they have of living long enough to see the day when a cure is available.

The problem of AIDS proliferation is, in the main, not due to people who are being treated for AIDS-related illnesses, but rather people who are not being treated at all. People who know they have AIDS are, by definition, educated about the risks of spreading the disease, and are less likely to spread the disease as people who don't know that they are infected. Left unchecked, and untreated, an AIDS pandemic would be inevitable...

By keeping them alive longer, we are interfering with natural selection.

Fair enough, after this 'AIDS holocaust', the survivors would (by default) be rid of AIDS... but what a high price to pay just to treat one virus. Also, natural selection is a completely blind process anyway, with no pre-determined goal... so by treating people with AIDS, we're no more interfering with natural selection as we are when we swat a fly.

Only through treatment can AIDS be stopped, or more likely, reduced to the status of a disease/virus that is managable and livable-with... only through challenging prejudices that hinder education and promote myths about the virus (such as religious and moral prejudices that Famine, James2097 and niky touch upon) can the epidemic be kept to at or below the current level.

 

[Swift]

Mike, thank you. The voice of reason – finally.

On the "bandaid" effect of condoms:

Contraception coupled with education has worked brilliantly in westernised countries. Why does the west have such a minimised AIDS problem compared to Africa? The sex-ed movement wasn't a band-aid solution for us (unless you count a solution to only be effective when 0% of the population suffer from STDs), so why would it be for Africans? The idea that you can just "win" a war against all STDs is silly anyway, there will always be STDs and people will always need to be wary and take precautions. However, you can certainly greatly reduce the spread of, and minimise AIDS and other STDs by a long way, and this is certainly a good move IMO. Considering its pretty much the ONLY realistic move you CAN take on a large scale without knowing for sure people are gonna just keep on getting AIDS (the "just tell them to stop having sex" solution). Its the same move that worked well in the west years ago.

Yeah, you're rather deaf. What I and particularly Danoff have been saying is that when people ARE educated about sex and the consequences that their behavior will change. And you do realize that part of sexual education is that you are at the least risk in a monogamous relationship?

Mike - I'm not trying to be some cold hearted ego filled, holier then thou monarch. AIDS is rough, seriously rough. But at the same time, once people know how you can get it and they STILL get it, who's fault is that? Yeah, it's a sin, but that's not what I'm focusing on here. It's the fact that said behavior gets them dead.

 

[Danoff]

But it is!

We have two very good preventatives which remove 99.94% of the population from any possibility of contracting the disease - barrier contraception and education. Why is the problem so prevalent in Africa (amongst others)? Religious beliefs (Catholicism) supercede use of contraception and oppose education about it. The problem is not that HIV has no known cure but that people do not know how to protect themselves from contracting it in the first place - reinforced by the fact that the President of the Republic of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, states that HIV does not cause AIDS and can be cured by eating onions.

Does AIDS deserve to be researched? Of course! We can and have conquered viruses, and the mechanism of HIV's pathogenicity is a special (though not unique) and interesting case. But it's a disease which almost never, ever, ever affects people who have been educated in the very simple way to protect themselves from it and almost always affects people who do not know this or choose to disregard it. Does it deserve to be funded 10 times better than cancer, which has no known preventative method and can strike anyone regardless of how well they protect themselves from it.

What I have been trying to say the whole time. 👍

However, I'm not sure AIDS rises to the level of threat for federal funding. Yes, it will be funded in massive quantities by private industries hoping to make a profit off of the cure, and charity. But the US government funding could be better spent on things that kill way more Americans. Why? Because we already know how to stop AIDS.

That being said, this thread started out about this new preventative drug that seems to work well at preventing monkeys from getting infected. So perhaps someday soon this drug will help protect people who aren't educated or refuse to act on their education about AIDS.

???
Action: A govt of a certain country p!ssed off certain nations
Result: They suffered terrorist attacks
Conclusion You reap what you sow.


????
Action: your nation drives autentatiously uneconomic cars for 50 years, polluting the earth out of proportion to the rest of the world
Result: That country gets smashed with increasingly violent natural disasters
Conclusion The chickens have come home to roost.

Rediculous. And I find it altogether reprehensible that you think thousands deserved to die because gas was cheap or because islamic fundamentalists are easy to piss off. Not that I agree with your assessment of the situation, but since you believe it, you think it was just that so many innocent people died.

This isn't the thread for these discussions though, so I'd appreciate it if we could maintain at least a little focus.

 

[Carl.]

In '05 we spent (federally) $21 billion on AIDS (btw: that's about how much NASA gets).

The best comparison I can find is the '03 federal budget for cancer which was upped to $5 billion.

How can you compare the total spending on AIDS to the the research budget for Cancer? Estimates I've seen for direct medical costs of Cancer in the US range from 65 to 80 Billion yearly, so you might want to include that in there, while you're at it.

That said, 5 billion on Cancer research isn't that great. Alberta, a province of 3.3 million is spending $1 billion on cancer research this year... Granted, this is partly due to recent profits from the oil price spikes, but still, that's amazing what you can do with budget surplus when you're not fighting spending hundreds of billion on questionable wars (oops, brain got stuck again).

 

[Danoff]

How can you compare the total spending on AIDS to the the research budget for Cancer? Estimates I've seen for direct medical costs of Cancer in the US range from 65 to 80 Billion yearly, so you might want to include that in there, while you're at it.

I'm sure that the total medical costs of AIDS are quite a bit higher too. I'm talking about federal spending on one disease vs. another - which is directly comparable. $20 billion on AIDS doesn't include any medical care. It's all either research, information, or handouts of supplies like contraceptives or pamphlets.

That said, 5 billion on Cancer research isn't that great. Alberta, a province of 3.3 million is spending $1 billion on cancer research this year... Granted, this is partly due to recent profits from the oil price spikes, but still, that's amazing what you can do with budget surplus when you're not fighting spending hundreds of billion on questionable wars (oops, brain got stuck again).

It's amazing what you can do when you hold your rich at gunpoint and rob them blind.

 

[Carl.]

It's amazing what you can do when you hold your rich at gunpoint and rob them blind.

Yeah right, we ought to let (mostly) foreign companies freely take all of our natural ressources without charging them any sort of royalties. Otherwise we would be robbing them blind, at gunpoint.

 

[Danoff]

Yeah right, we ought to let (mostly) foreign companies freely take all of our natural ressources without charging them any sort of royalties. Otherwise we would be robbing them blind, at gunpoint.

I think you missed me. I'm talking about taxes on Canadian citizens.

Edit: Not that that's really on-topic, but hey... you started it.
Edit #2: Would you mind conceeding the point about US federal spending on cancer vs. AIDS? That my numbers are fair? Or did you want to just drop that and move on?

 

[Carl.]

I think you missed me. I'm talking about taxes on Canadian citizens.

That money is the result of royalties charged on oil companies by the provincial government of Alberta, the only province in Canada not charging for a provincial sales tax, and that has the lowest income tax rates. So that's not what anyone could call "money robbed at gunpoint". Anyways, that's beside the point I was making.