Is AIDS a thing of the past?

[Carl.]

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?

I already said 5 billions looks small to me, but in the first place you were complaining about research for AIDS vs research on Cancer. So far I've only seen numbers on Cancer research, but none specifically on AIDS research, which also seems to be the topic of the article you posted, not foreign aid and supply for AIDS.

 

[Danoff]

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, hand 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.

I agree that this is off-topic and doesn't belong here. But I'm going to respond because I have no self-control. I just want to say that it is ludicrous to separate income sources like that. I mean, with your own personal finances you don't say "this sandwich was purchased by the work I did on Tuesday." "This apple was purchased from the work my wife did on thursday from 2-2:03pm, so really it doesn't belong to me." It doesn't even make sense. I could probably claim that the royalties charged on oil companies effectively levied a tax on either Canadians or others. But I could also claim that those royalties paid for roads, or schools, and that it was the money taken from the lowest income level folks in Alberta that paid for the Cancer research. Or anyone. See, it doesn't make sense. If Chewbacca lived on Endor you must acquit.


Edit:

So far I've only seen numbers on Cancer research, but none specifically on AIDS research, which also seems to be the topic of the article you posted, not foreign aid and supply for AIDS.

I'm talking about general AIDS spending (some of which we need even at the federal level) and general Cancer spending. Not incurred health care costs, and not limited to research.

 

[Carl.]

I agree that this is off-topic and doesn't belong here. But I'm going to respond because I have no self-control. I just want to say that it is ludicrous to separate income sources like that. I mean, with your own personal finances you don't say "this sandwich was purchased by the work I did on Tuesday." "This apple was purchased from the work my wife did on thursday from 2-2:03pm, so really it doesn't belong to me." It doesn't even make sense. I could probably claim that the royalties charged on oil companies effectively levied a tax on either Canadians or others. But I could also claim that those royalties paid for roads, or schools, and that it was the money taken from the lowest income level folks in Alberta that paid for the Cancer research. Or anyone. See, it doesn't make sense. If Chewbacca lived on Endor you must acquit.

That's because you're not aware of the economic situation of Alberta. They got $10 Billion in oil royalties last year. To put that in perspective, our provincial sales tax makes $13 Billion for a population of 7.5 million (Alberta: 3.3 million). Without that money, they would have to cope with a huge deficit, and wouldn't have anywhere near $1 Billion to spend on Cancer research. Nor if they were engaged in a costly, questionnable military conflict, which was the point I was making.

I'm talking about general AIDS spending (some of which we need even at the federal level) and general Cancer spending. Not incurred health care costs, and not limited to research.

Ok, well, that article at the origin of your rant was misleading then. It has more to do with the fact that you're fed up with the US helping poverty stricken countries to cope with AIDS than the amount they spend on AIDS research, which is a fraction of that cost.

 

[Famine]

Err... care to let me in on what you're discussing here? It seems to be very closely related to this:

If you are new to the Internet, allow me to explain how to debate in this medium. When one person makes any kind of statement, all you need to do is apply one of these methods to make it sound stupid. Then go on the offensive.

Turn someone’s generality into an absolute. For example, if someone makes a general statement that Americans celebrate Christmas, point out that some people are Jewish and so anyone who thinks that ALL Americans celebrate Christmas is stupid. (Bonus points for accusing the person of being anti-Semitic.)

Turn someone’s factual statements into implied preferences. For example, if someone mentions that not all Catholic priests are pedophiles, accuse the person who said it of siding with pedophiles.

Turn factual statements into implied equivalents. For example, if someone says that Ghandi didn’t eat cows, accuse the person of stupidly implying that cows deserve equal billing with Gandhi.

Omit key words. For example, if someone says that people can’t eat rocks, accuse the person of being stupid for suggesting that people can’t eat. Bonus points for arguing that some people CAN eat pebbles if they try hard enough.

Assume the dumbest interpretation. For example, if someone says that he can run a mile in 12 minutes, assume he means it happens underwater and argue that no one can hold his breath that long.

Hallucinate entirely different points. For example, if someone says apples grow on trees, accuse him of saying snakes have arms and then point out how stupid that is.

Use the intellectual laziness card. For example, if someone says that ice is cold, recommend that he take graduate courses in chemistry and meteorology before jumping to stupid conclusions that display a complete ignorance of the complexity of ice.

 

[Carl.]

Err... care to let me in on what you're discussing here? It seems to be very closely related to this:

uh? Care to let me in on what you think fits that desrcription?


I've found some info on how the funding is split, here. I was off assuming the bulk of the funding was on foreign aid... that is because the bulk is spent on health care costs.

Care: The greatest amount of federal resources for
HIV/AIDS is channeled into domestic HIV/AIDS health
care for people living with HIV/AIDS, which totals $11.6
billion in the FY 2005 budget request. This would represent
an increase of 6% over FY 2004. Most care funding
is for the federal Medicaid and Medicare programs; these
mandatory programs also account for almost all of the increase
in the care budget over FY 2004. The Ryan White
CARE Act, the largest discretionary HIV/AIDS care program,
is level-funded in the budget request, except for its
AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP), which would receive
an increase of $35 million. All other care programs
received only small increases.

So if you have to compare the $19.8 Billions spent on aids, at least include the 60+ Billions in medical costs for Cancer too. You're most likely spending much more on avoidable occurences of cancer than what you're spending on AIDS.

That said, I do agree about the research funding being out of balance. I expected more than a 5:3 ratio for Cancer vs AIDS research funding. We disagree about where the extra funding for cancer should come from, but that's not the topic at hand.

 

[Danoff]

That's because you're not aware of the economic situation of Alberta. They got $10 Billion in oil royalties last year. To put that in perspective, our provincial sales tax makes $13 Billion for a population of 7.5 million (Alberta: 3.3 million). Without that money, they would have to cope with a huge deficit, and wouldn't have anywhere near $1 Billion to spend on Cancer research. Nor if they were engaged in a costly, questionnable military conflict, which was the point I was making.

Alright, fair enough. None of the money was gotten via income tax. I also agree that Canada has not been forking over money to help fight terrorism.

Ok, well, that article at the origin of your rant was misleading then. It has more to do with the fact that you're fed up with the US helping poverty stricken countries to cope with AIDS than the amount they spend on AIDS research, which is a fraction of that cost.

We spend $18billion of the $21billion total domestically. Some of that is necessary as it's about getting the word out about AIDS and how it's transmitted. Yes, I think the other $3 billion could be better spent domestically than in Africa. Our government shouldn't be getting involved in charity, private citizens can donate to charity if they like. But does it really take $18billion to get the word out? They could have bought a superbowl commerical or three and had money leftover. No a massive portion of that $18 billion is spent on research - which I think is better left to private companies. If they must spend federal money on disease research, it should be on a major illness - like cancer.


Edit: Ok just saw your chart up there. I would suggest that we eliminate all but the "prevention" costs. I wonder if I can find the corresponding cancer chart.

 

[Carl.]

Alright, fair enough. None of the money was gotten via income tax. I also agree that Canada has not been forking over money to help fight terrorism.

Last I've known, we still had 2200 soldiers deployed in Afghanistan, ships deployed in the Middle-East, and a few casualties in the last weeks. That has cost us over $2 billion so far. Canada has 6 million less population than California, by the way.

We spend $18billion of the $21billion total domestically. Some of that is necessary as it's about getting the word out about AIDS and how it's transmitted. Yes, I think the other $3 billion could be better spent domestically than in Africa. Our government shouldn't be getting involved in charity, private citizens can donate to charity if they like. But does it really take $18billion to get the word out? They could have bought a superbowl commerical or three and had money leftover. No a massive portion of that $18 billion is spent on research - which I think is better left to private companies. If they must spend federal money on disease research, it should be on a major illness - like cancer.


Edit: Ok just saw your chart up there. I would suggest that we eliminate all but the "prevention" costs. I wonder if I can find the corresponding cancer chart.

I don't want to go again for the n-th time into the virtues of a libertarian world, but if we're talking about getting our priorities right here, you're still spending much more on avoidable forms of cancer than you do on AIDS.

 

[Danoff]

I do not understand why they lumped medicare and medicaid costs and even housing costs into the AIDS funding package under the budget. But it looks like they did. I noted that this chart says it's a budget "request", but it also appears to be what was approved.

I stand corrected. My $20 billion figure included more than just foreign aid and research/prevention. I cannot find the comparable figures for cancer. Only that we spend ~$5 billion on research and prevention.

you're still spending much more on avoidable forms of cancer than you do on AIDS.

I'm not sure that's true, but even so, avoidable forms of cancer are linked medically with the (as yet) unavoidable forms. So there is still more merit in researching those.

Last I've known, we still had 2200 soldiers deployed in Afghanistan, ships deployed in the Middle-East, and a few casualties in the last weeks. That has cost us over $2 billion so far. Canada has 6 million less population than California, by the way.

$2 billion!! Peanuts!!!

Just kidding. I didn't mean to belittle the Canadian support in Afghanistan. I often forget anything is going on over there anymore since these days everything is about Iraq.

 

[Anderton Prime]

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.

Okay, so you've identified the possible problem(s) behind the extremely high AIDS rate in Africa, but that still does nothing to solve anything. I don't blame people who live in Africa who have AIDS because really, when you look at their government, their living quality, and their level of education (especially concerning their own health) it's almost an exception to not contract HIV.

Thabo Mbecki and his government refuses to recognize AIDS, and as a result South Africa has one of the higher infection rates in the continent, despite enjoying an entirely different reputation worldwide. People think of South Africa as the "civilized" part of the Dark Continent, when in reality it is in as bad shape as the rest of the countries in Africa.

On the other hand, sending money does not seem to help, sending medical supplies and food does not seem to help; in fact, nothing the UN has done to "help" Africa has really worked. So someone needs to come up with a solution that works. One wonders why the Amewrican government, in its continuing plight to police the world, has not comitted to ousting the horrible and atrocious despotic and tyrannical "governments" that have sprung up in Africa, siezed control of countries, raped them of what little money and resources they have, and let the people die off without batting an eye. Sounds as bad - if not twice as bad - as Saddam to me.

By the way, great avatar Famine. "Power! Unlimited POWER!"

 

[Danoff]

I don't blame people who live in Africa who have AIDS because really, when you look at their government, their living quality, and their level of education (especially concerning their own health) it's almost an exception to not contract HIV.

So it's their government's fault (usually is)... and who should do something about that?

One wonders why the Amewrican government, in its continuing plight to police the world, has not comitted to ousting the horrible and atrocious despotic and tyrannical "governments" that have sprung up in Africa, siezed control of countries, raped them of what little money and resources they have, and let the people die off without batting an eye. Sounds as bad - if not twice as bad - as Saddam to me.

They have to blow up our buildings first. That's how it works, you blow up our buildings, we show up to liberate...

 

[Anderton Prime]

So it's their government's fault (usually is)... and who should do something about that?

Well, I wouldn't think the people of Africa have any hope of improving their own lives, so an external power would have to assist.

They have to blow up our buildings first. That's how it works, you blow up our buildings, we show up to liberate...

Not quite, but of course you know that. And anyway, it wasn't Iraq that flew planes into the WTC, yet there America was quick as a flash to "liberate" the people.

I'm going to do my part to not turn this into another American government thread.

 

[Driftster]

AIDS? pssh...I'm more terrified of that one cat dieing in Germany a little while ago!!!

 

[James2097]

According to *cough* BONO *cough* the problems in Africa (all lumped in I'm assuming - food/water/health/economy) have the end result of people dying on the scale of a tsunami every day (or is it week? One of the two...).

If this holds any truth, I AM sickened along with Bono. Especially how our western media is so used to this happening that it doesn't make the news, yet a cat stuck in a tree saved by some burly firemen does (along with the Yarrawarra pie eating contest etc etc)!

Basically, its a huge problem that AIDS is part of - it demands a solution and all the help (within reason - we wouldn't want our lifestyles to take a hit now) we can give it.

Its almost become the canned response when someone wastes something (usually food) - "There are millions of starving children in Africa you know honey!". Pity its just a saying.

Famine – those "internet debating techniques" were hilarious! Now I know why its impossible to get anywhere with Swift.

You're quite deaf

The internet is mainly a visual medium...

Anyway, what I've already layed out covers all the basic points I need to make to counter anything you've said (I know you won't agree - but logic is on my side). If you're gonna start flaming me, I'll see ya later!

 

[Mike Rotch]

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.

I was about to go off at you, but i mis-typed:

Actual

It is a harsh assessment, by [sic] 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 [sic] mortifyingly wrong, but you are being equally dismissive of those infected.

which should have been

It is a harsh assessment, but 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 wasnt mortifyingly wrong, but you are being equally dismissive of those infected.

To clear the record (and feel free to reference the appicable 5.5 year old thread) I do think 3000 perishing was a tragedy and unforgivable.

The point I was trying to make, was that you were valuing 3000 > 40mil.

 

[niky]

@Dquan: there are days when I feel particularly darwinian and dystopian and think that any humanitarian effort is a waste and that we should just let natural selection take its course. Thankfully, such morbidity is often short lived. ?
About the preventability issue, if we're arguing from that angle, there is something there. but then we get into cost vs. results, and the possible time frame

in which we can expect concrete results comes into play. with cancer, those timeframes are pretty long. with AIDS, there's always been the feeling that a cure is just around the corner. whether that's realistic or economically sound is a topic for researchers to comment on.
AIDS is just a virus. find a vaccine and it's whipped. Cancer is more complicated. and again, i have yet to see...

proof that AIDS research is hampering Cancer research in any way. there has been tons of money thrown at cancer in the past few decades, with mixed results. (sorry for the disjointed posts, am on a cellphone... my home connection is RIP. )

 

[Swift]

Famine – those "internet debating techniques" were hilarious! Now I know why its impossible to get anywhere with Swift.

Do me a favor and show me where I did this with one of your statements.

The internet is mainly a visual medium...

Oh Really? Then why did you say this?

My god you don't listen to a word I say!

 

[Danoff]

Alright, fair enough. None of the money was gotten via income tax.

I must have been out of my mind when I typed this. Of COURSE some of the money was gotten via income tax. Alberta obviously gets some national assistance - whatever assistance it gets nationally offsets the high government costs in Canada and frees up other money for cancer research.

Well, I wouldn't think the people of Africa have any hope of improving their own lives, so an external power would have to assist.

Which external power is responsible for the state of Africa?

And anyway, it wasn't Iraq that flew planes into the WTC, yet there America was quick as a flash to "liberate" the people.

I so totally knew someone was going to "point this out". Yes, it was not Iraqis that flew the planes into the WTC. In fact, I believe at least some of them were Saudis - no matter, they part of Al Qaeda. You have to look at the region as a whole. If Africans (the entire region) started knocking down our buildings, you can bet that we'd be paying extra close attention to (and probably considering liberation projects in) Africa as a whole. I'm sure we wouldn't limit our focus to the exact place the terrorists came from - otherwise we'd miss the bigger picture.

Alright let's chat about the state of federal funding.

"The United States invests approximately $16,700 to find a cure for each life lost to prostate cancer; more than $21,800 for each life lost to breast cancer, and about $160,000 for each life lost to AIDS."

http://www.fightprostatecancer.org/site/PageServer?pagename=advocacy_research_home#03

I would add that it's about $10k/life lost to cancer in general, but that includes self-inflicted kinds. Non-self inflicted would be at most $14k/life.

The number is ~ $269 billion for the war in Iraq

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

Deaths on 9/11: 2,819

That's ~$100 million per life right? Wrong. How many lives did Saddam take? How many would he have taken. How many lives will/would terrorism eventually take? Another thousand? Another million? What did 9/11 alone cost this country? The costs to new york alone were over $150 billion. With the damage it did on wall street and to airline companies I'm sure it works out to be at least as much as we're spending protecting ourselves (but to be fair, I haven't thrown in the costs from Afghanistan).

And how do you put a price on US foreign policy? How can you estimate a cost of not enforcing our treaties against agressive dictators? Saddam was spitting in our faces as he violated the agreements that allowed him to keep his country after Gulf War I. You can bet others (North Korea?) were watching and taking note that the US was toothless.

Factoring up the price of the war is a tough thing, and it doesn't belong in this dicussion. Funding AIDS 10 times more per death than prostate cancer I think definitely belongs in a discussion about the future of AIDS research.

 

[Carl.]

I must have been out of my mind when I typed this. Of COURSE some of the money was gotten via income tax. Alberta obviously gets some national assistance - whatever assistance it gets nationally offsets the high government costs in Canada and frees up other money for cancer research.

Though we were done with this. Oh well.

[off-topic]

Alberta actually gives much more to the federal government than it gets back in services at the moment. By doing this they're subsidizing poorer provinces, something that has been a hot topic recently, and sparked a separatist movement over there. (spoiled brats tend to forget that a few years ago they were on the other side of that equation). Despite doing this, they are still swimming in huge cash surplus, to the extent that every Albertan actually receives a check at the end of the year ($400 per head, childrens included), all thanks to the oil royalties.

Each and every penny spent on Cancer research comes from these royalties. If Alberta wasn't sitting on a black goldmine, there wouldn't be $1 Billion to spend in Cancer research, there would be a deficit instead of a surplus.

[/off-topic]

 

[Danoff]

[off-topic]

Alberta actually gives much more to the federal government than it gets back in services at the moment. By doing this they're subsidizing poorer provinces, something that has been a hot topic recently, and sparked a separatist movement over there. (spoiled brats tend to forget that a few years ago they were on the other side of that equation). Despite doing this, they are still swimming in huge cash surplus, to the extent that every Albertan actually receives a check at the end of the year ($400 per head, childrens included), all thanks to the oil royalties.

Each and every penny spent on Cancer research comes from these royalties. If Alberta wasn't sitting on a black goldmine, there wouldn't be $1 Billion to spend in Cancer research, there would be a deficit instead of a surplus.

[/off-topic]

[off-topic] Are these "nationalized" oil feilds or something? Or does Alberta just tax the crap out of whatever company(s) owns the oil feilds? [/off-topic]

 

[Carl.]

[off-topic] Are these "nationalized" oil feilds or something? Or does Alberta just tax the crap out of whatever company(s) owns the oil feilds? [/off-topic]

[really off-topic, but hey, it's your thread]

Again, I guess you think we should give free access to (mostly) foreign companies to exploit all of our non-renewable ressource without any sort of royalties, like they do in, uh... bendoverland?

Last year the 3 major oil companies combined, Exxon, Shell and BP made over $80 Billion in profits, I don't think they would be losing their time over here if we were "taxing the crap out" of their profits. I've also read that Alberta's royalties are lower than what is charged elsewhere.

Do you think we'd be better off if Alberta's PM would be living in a place like this?

(yes, that is a "single" house)


The prince "owns" the field, after all, so everything's great.

[/really off-topic, but hey, it's your thread]

 

[Danoff]

[off-topic, but it looks like the original topic is dead anyway]

That is a sweet "house"!

How you guys treat foreign companies is up to you. But I don't think government should be in the business of discriminating based on the particular product or resource being sold. I can see discrimination between citizens and non-citizens, but not between the guy selling water and the guy selling oil.

Anyway, you're right. It's amazing what you can do when you're sitting on a gold mine. It makes you wonder why Iraq isn't better off though.

(now I'm wondering why the hell my avatar is screwed up)

 

[Carl.]

[off-topic, but it looks like the original topic is dead anyway]

That is a sweet "house"!

How you guys treat foreign companies is up to you. But I don't think government should be in the business of discriminating based on the particular product or resource being sold. I can see discrimination between citizens and non-citizens, but not between the guy selling water and the guy selling oil.

Sweet house indeed. Surely does not qualify in any way as money robbed from anyone!

As for our royalties, the same rules apply to local companies. I think It would be very stupid of us to give away our natural ressources for peanuts, especially if most of that money leaves the country.

It seems we agree about the discrimination between oil and water. We're about to do the same for water (bottled water, mostly). We're already doing the same for other ressources such as soft lumber wood, but to a lesser extent than you guys, apparently. Hence the ongoing dispute on subsidies to your industry (tariffs on ours).

EDIT: Forgot to mention: Tariffs or not, the bulk of the profits from the gold mine we're sitting on does go to the private industry.

 

[Danoff]

Sweet house indeed. Surely does not qualify in any way as money robbed from anyone!

Who was it robbed from?

 

[Carl.]

Who was it robbed from?

Well, not sure I can pinpoint. Let's take Saudi Arabia for example...

Guide - how to become a successful petrol magnate:

- Use your tribe to brutally seize a region, city by city.
- Declare the whole region your kingdom
- Legitimate your country with the western world by negociating oil contracts.
- Keep absolute control over the oil fields.
- Build yourselves great palaces
- In fact, buy anything you like
- Seize any property within your kingdom as you wish.
- Keep good friends in high places from the western world happy. (this one is crucial)
- Profit.

Who's being robbed? Don't know, really.

 

[Danoff]

Well, not sure I can pinpoint. Let's take Saudi Arabia for example...

Guide - how to become a successful petrol magnate:

- Use your tribe to brutally seize a region, city by city.
- Declare the whole region your kingdom
- Legitimate your country with the western world by negociating oil contracts.
- Keep absolute control over the oil fields.
- Build yourselves great palaces
- In fact, buy anything you like
- Seize any property within your kingdom as you wish.
- Keep good friends in high places from the western world happy. (this one is crucial)
- Profit.

Who's being robbed? Don't know, really.

Sucks when people don't have rights huh?

 

[Keef]

OHHHH!!! Count it!

Good one, danoff.

You know, I heard a rumor that if the US took over all the land and money from those Arab oil mongers and then gave all the money to AIDS research, we would have a cure in exactly 2.3357 seconds. We would also have a lot of free oil.

 

[niky]

I doubt if you threw that much money into AIDS research that you would actually find a cure...

Much as I'm arguing the AIDS side of the thread (oh, by the way, thanks for the edit, Swift! It sucks not having internet for so long!!! ), I'd like to point out that with the tons of money poured into AIDS research (just like cancer research... didn't mean to make that post so one-sided, just didn't have the space on SMS)... a lot of it is duplicated work, dead-end research and generally wasted money...

You pour the trillions from oil fields into AIDS or Cancer research, you'll be making a lot of second rate researchers (who otherwise wouldn't get a grant) pretty happy...

There are only so many avenues you can successfully pursue in medical research, and that's the frustrating thing with it... we always seem to be close (that's why you hear about a "cure" for AIDS every year or so, but nothing ever comes of it...) but we never seem to get there.

I can understand where danoff is coming from on the cost front... of all the results of AIDS research, most of the drugs that have been found to make life easier for the AIDS patient are pretty expensive (which is why I contend that most of these are useless for AIDS sufferers elsewhere...).

 

[Touring Mars]

A good example of how far some countries need to come...

 

[Swift]

A good example of how far some countries need to come...

That is just about the DUMBEST thing I've ever read from someone that's supposed to be educated.

 

[Touring Mars]

You've got to ask yourself why people like Zuma and (of course) Thabo Mbeki still hold these attitudes towards HIV... unlike many others, they do not have the excuse of being 'uneducated'.... but yet they are still (highly) ignorant about the disease/virus. I suspect that part of the problem is that HIV is still shrouded in myth, prejudice and stigma - and, above all other types of diseases, STD's carry a heavy burden of moral judgement with them too. These factors all contribute to the misinformation that still exists about HIV...