Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nobody has any "right" to infect any others. Yes it is a liberal thing. You lefties let aids go wild now want ebola to do the same? Are you off your rocker?
Ah, so it wasn't President Reagan & admin who fiddled while HIV burned through the US population of homosexual men, needle injectors, people who needed transfusions &/or plasma, hemophiliacs, diabetics & so on?
Ebola is in the World, & there's no putting it back into Pandora's box. Better we learn to deal with it, prevent it, cure it, ameliorate the course of the disease. It's a virus, & it's always going to be out there, hiding out in its reservoir, waiting for general weakening of our health systems. That's when it'll become a problem in industrialized countries, if something knocks down the usual health maintenance systems.
Ah, so it wasn't President Reagan & admin who fiddled while HIV burned through the US population of homosexual men, needle injectors, people who needed transfusions &/or plasma, hemophiliacs, diabetics & so on?
No, but it sure sounds good to really stir up the base.
In case you didn't know this congress controls the purse strings and all spending bills originate in the House.
In September of 1982 congress (Waxman and Burton) introduced the first request for funding for AIDS research. That piece of legislation was for $15 million. Five million for surveillance and $10 million to NIH.
In May of 1983 congresses passed $12 million for AIDS treatment and funding. That's that lightning quick speed liberals love from the Federal Government.
During that time congress was split with 46 democrats in the Senate to 53 republicans (with 1 indie). In the House there were 269 democrats and 166 republicans.
By the time Reagan left office AIDS funding had increase to $1.3 billion or 6,500 times what it was when he took office.
Anyways, I'm sure you have some left-wing hack opinion piece to refute your own government though.
I'd certainly say that bringing two patients infected with a communicable disease that has never been on American soil before to the U.S. fits that bill.
Ebola is/has been in the US before. See The Hot Zone (a true-life biological techno-thriller) - there was an outbreak of Ebola Reston in Reston, VA - within sight of WADC. We got lucky that time - but read the book & get a fairly painless education on Ebola, Marburg, the history & background of Ebola & ARMIID & CDC. It's a real eye-opener - not for the faint of heart, though.
Cultures of Ebola, etc. sit in ARMIID in Maryland & @ CDC. We're working with the live cultures, to study how they work, how they spread. & to develop vaccines, treatment, cures. This has all been underway since @ least 1976 - when Ebola first showed up & was recognized as viral in Central Africa.
Actually the perturbing thing is that these sorts of things mutate. The high numbers here might just be due to bad procedures, but it kinda sounds like something may be new, and that could be very bad.
The original Ebola virus killed 140 people in a small African village . It was airborne. Before they could
collect it and transport it to labs in Johannesburg, Africa, it mutated into a blood borne virus.
I still think was a Government biological weapons test that got out of hand.
Ok, you can start throwing those rocks now..........
The original Ebola virus killed 140 people in a small African village . It was airborne. Before they could
collect it and transport it to labs in Johannesburg, Africa, it mutated into a blood borne virus.
I still think was a Government biological weapons test that got out of hand.
Ok, you can start throwing those rocks now..........
Not throwing rocks, but you really need a source to support your statement.
What you are postulating is biologically improbable, by the way. Also, a biological weapon with no way to control it could easily turn on its maker. That is why ebola is a poor candidate for weaponization.
In September of 1982 congress (Waxman and Burton) introduced the first request for funding for AIDS research. That piece of legislation was for $15 million. Five million for surveillance and $10 million to NIH.
In May of 1983 congresses passed $12 million for AIDS treatment and funding. That's that lightning quick speed liberals love from the Federal Government.
During that time congress was split with 46 democrats in the Senate to 53 republicans (with 1 indie). In the House there were 269 democrats and 166 republicans.
By the time Reagan left office AIDS funding had increase to $1.3 billion or 6,500 times what it was when he took office.
Anyways, I'm sure you have some left-wing hack opinion piece to refute your own government though.
"Perhaps the greatest criticism surrounds Reagan's silence about the AIDS epidemic spreading in the 1980s. Although AIDS was first identified in 1981, Reagan did not mention it publicly for several more years, notably during a press conference in 1985 and several speeches in 1987. During the press conference in 1985, Reagan expressed skepticism in allowing children with AIDS to continue in school although he supported their right to do so, stating: ...
"The CDC had previously issued a report stating that "casual person-to-person contact as would occur among schoolchildren appears to pose no risk." During his speeches Reagan called for expanded funding on AIDS, which took place. increased AIDS testing for marriage licenses and mandatory testing for high risk groups.
"Even with the death from AIDS of his friend Rock Hudson, Reagan was widely criticized[SIZE=2][citation needed][/SIZE] for not supporting more active measures to contain the spread of AIDS. Until celebrity Elizabeth Taylor spoke out publicly about the monumental amount of people quickly dying from this new disease, most public officials and celebrities were too afraid of dealing with this subject.
"Possibly in deference to the views of the powerful religious right, citation needed] which saw AIDS as a disease limited to the gay male community and spread by immoral behavior, Reagan prevented his Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, from speaking out about the epidemic. When in 1986 Reagan was highly encouraged by many other public officials to authorize Koop to issue a report on the epidemic, he expected it to be in line with conservative policies; instead, Koop's Surgeon General's Report on Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome greatly emphasized the importance of a comprehensive AIDS education strategy, including widespread distribution of condoms, and rejected mandatory testing. This approach brought Koop into conflict with other administration officials such as Education Secretary William Bennett.
"Social action groups such as ACT UP worked to raise awareness of the AIDS problem. Because of ACT UP, in 1987, Reagan responded by appointing the Watkins Commission on AIDS, which was succeeded by a permanent advisory council.
"Supporters of Reagan past and present have pointed out the fact that he declared in the aforementioned September 1985 press conference that he wanted from Congress massive government research effort against AIDS similar to one President Nixon had oversaw against cancer. Reagan said, "It's been one of the top priorities with us, and over the last 4 years, and including what we have in the budget for '86, it will amount to over a half a billion dollars that we have provided for research on AIDS in addition to what I'm sure other medical groups are doing." He also remarked, "Yes, there's no question about the seriousness of this and the need to find an answer." Annual AIDS related funding was $44 million when he took office and was $1.6 billion in 1988, an increase of over 1000 percent."
(My emphasis)
I remember a fair amount of this maneuvering - Wikipedia's timeline is what I recall. I don't know that Pres. Reagan understood the issues nor public policy, my impression of him was that he was always looking out for the main chance. I didn't expect him to be fully conversant with all phases of government/health/virology/ethics. & he surrounded himself with people who were taking advantage - MO - of his weak grasp on government to implement their own - or their puppeteer's - agendas.
There have been whole books on the Reagan presidency, his domestic policy, & so on.
& it's a pleasure to meet you too, I'm sure.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
An opportunistic virus
