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.
Why are they working on a cure for Aids? Maybe the better question is, why have pocketbooks opened up so disproportionately for AIDS research versus other afflictions? Labonte18's graphic opens the door to that answer. There are huge politics behind the funding of research. In this current climate, it would be political suicide to argue publicly for a decrease in funding for AIDS or Breast Cancer. In turn, those sending millions of corporate dollars do so to market their image.
Lost in all this are the diseases that primarily affect those from the wrong-side of town and often black/brown that are not causes celebres. They get a fraction is large part because AIDS and breast cancer drives dominate the media and corporate partnership, much to the exclusion of those diseases that greater impact on humanity.
Lots of interesting numbers there. Not only are new infections declining, new infections in children have been slashed 50% over a decade.
But apparently some think it's all a big waste of money and we should stop trying to deal with it. Afterall, as smommaof3 tells us:
Quote:
If people from AIDS/Hiv died faster they wouldn't be making normal people sick.
That's the kind of stunningly ignorant thinking that causes an epidemic.
People don't get AIDS and die in a matter of weeks. It can easily take a decade if completely untreated and symptoms won't start showing up for years. That's a lot of time to infect a lot people.
Perhaps smommaof3 would like to go to Africa or some inner city US neighborhood and explain to kids that they had to get AIDS and now will have to die because making any effort to keep from getting AIDS or putting any effort into treating them would've been a "waste of time, money, and resources." Perhaps tell them that their mother should've died sooner while you're at it.
Because there are some of us in this Country who enjoy having sex before/without marriage GASP. I know I know crazy isn't it. You can try preventative measures all you want but all that has to happen is one patient zero gets back into the population and youre back to square one.
I take it you feel that if a condition is not a "major killer" it does not deserve study?
Publicity or not, the ice bucket challenge has raised over $100 million for ALS research so far.
If ALS and AIDS research are not worthwhile in your viewpoint, what is?
You can roll your eyes at the fact that not everyone with HIV/AIDS is promiscuous or a junkie, but by denying money for research, you are punishing the ones who are not in your attempt to punish those who are morally undeserving from your point of view.
It's not so much about punishing them as it as it fixing worse problems. To give you one analogy, it's like let's say there's a fire and everyone house's burn down. Because everyone lived on the same block, their houses all cost the same. We put up a collection. What if my house burned down like everyone else, but my neighbor has a huge tv and other expensive gadgets? Fixing his problem is taking a lot of time and resources. While we're busy fixing his problem, everyone else is still homeless.
I never said, ALS shouldn't be funded. I said it's clear to me the people funding it (celebrities) have ulterior motives, but they usually do.
Well, if they came up with an AIDS vaccine, it sure would save a lot of money for us all. People who get HIV cost us a lot with the medications they take, and then I would imagine cost a lot in care at the end of their lives. Although I'll admit I'm not up to date on how people with HIV die these days when they have the meds to keep it in check. It used to be a horrible way to die with people in nursing homes/hospice care, wasting away.
They should just give them sugar pills. It would say a lot of money.
It's not so much about punishing them as it as it fixing worse problems. To give you one analogy, it's like let's say there's a fire and everyone house's burn down. Because everyone lived on the same block, their houses all cost the same. We put up a collection. What if my house burned down like everyone else, but my neighbor has a huge tv and other expensive gadgets? Fixing his problem is taking a lot of time and resources. While we're busy fixing his problem, everyone else is still homeless.
I never said, ALS shouldn't be funded. I said it's clear to me the people funding it (celebrities) have ulterior motives, but they usually do.
How about you take up a collection and give everyone the same amount. Suppose the person who lost his expensive electronics gets additional help from a collection at work. Then his getting help outside the neighborhood does not affect what the neighborhood does. You take up the collection on your block and decide in advance how the proceeds will be distributed. How would you treat someone who has insurance which will replace his home (and his toys, if he has them)? Should he get a share of the collection or not?
Increasing funding from private sources for any medical research for a given condition does not automatically mean you are stealing funding from research for something different. The net result is to increase overall funding. For public funding, if funds are cut or increased it is usually based on how promising the individual research project is. That is a form of rationing, unfortunate but necessary because public funds are limited.
Perhaps someone will donate to ALS because of the bucket challenge who would not have donated to another charity. Some will donate to ALS and also donate to other charities. Many folks are participating in the ALS challenge, celebrities or not, for the novelty of it. Why does it bother you that the celebrities get publicity for it? ALS benefits whether the celebrities get recognized or not. What the celebrities can do is challenge other celebrities to participate, folks with deeper pockets than many of the non-celebrities.
To give you one analogy, it's like let's say there's a fire and everyone house's burn down. Because everyone lived on the same block, their houses all cost the same. We put up a collection. What if my house burned down like everyone else, but my neighbor has a huge tv and other expensive gadgets? Fixing his problem is taking a lot of time and resources. While we're busy fixing his problem, everyone else is still homeless.
I can see where you're coming from, but at the same time finding it hard to relate to the HIV epidemic in the U.S. Basically, not everyone's house is burning down in this country. If we were in such a crisis then yes, maybe HIV will be given the least priority like in 3rd world countries where most of its citizens are struggling for basic survival. In this country, there are resources available for a lot of problems that are probably not being ignored. If we focus our resources on the "worst" problem (that's subject to a whole new discussion), then we probably won't have the quality of life that most of us are privileged enough to have now. Laptops, cell phones, Cialis...
Besides, AIDS research might bring about discoveries that might help with our other problems. It's just another puzzle in our quest for human advancement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smommaof3
They should just give them sugar pills. It would say a lot of money.
Lets say there is a close family member that ended up contracting HIV, whether deliberate or not. Should we give them sugar pills and let them be? I would hope the answer is no because that will just be inhuman. Like I said, we live in such a great country and to do this would set us back another 600 years.
They should just give them sugar pills. It would say a lot of money.
Wow. Just wow.
Based on your username, I assume you have 3 children.
Let's say one of your grown up children was infected with HIV by a girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/husband/partner who was unfaithful.
You are saying you would be OK with just giving them a sugar pill. After all, it would save a lot of money.
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.
