Another gem from Christine O'Donnell, AIDS gets too much money (deaths, Jesus)
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.
Originally Posted by oz in SC AIDS is an unimportant disease numbers wise and it is preventable in almost all cases in this country...
The money would be better spent elsewhere on diseases that affect more people...
Which is basically the point of this thread...AIDS gets too much money compared to other diseases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aspiesmom
It is unimportant to whom? Do you plan on NEVER going to the dentist again? Do you and your family plan on NEVER having car accidents or ANY accidents requiring blood transfusions? Will you have "blame criteria" for ALL diseases and accidents, because it would not be fair to only eliminate funding for hiv/aids.
LOL...I love when facts are trotted out to counter the bile spewed by the leftists...
And there is of course the small issue that AIDS is almost 100% preventable with the need for no drugs or treatment beyond the use of a little commonsense.
Ahhh,there is the problem...commonsense having to be used.
The numbers are unimportant compared to other diseases,which is the point of this thread...
You seem REALLY hung up on the chances of getting AIDS from a blood transfusion...what percentage of people does this happen to?
To go any further on this tangent would require some sort of numbers to see what we are discussing.
No, you really seem to be hung up on blame as a funding criteria. There are plenty of other diseases that have lower and higher numbers than AIDS, so its not a numbers game regarding funding of AIDS, it IS a blame game. And if "blame criteria" is a criteria allowed for funding (or not) of HIV/AIDS, then it is only fair to be for ALL diseases.
The numbers are unimportant compared to other diseases,which is the point of this thread...
You seem REALLY hung up on the chances of getting AIDS from a blood transfusion...what percentage of people does this happen to?
To go any further on this tangent would require some sort of numbers to see what we are discussing.
While I agree with the premise that their are other diseases that affect more people then AIDS, and for the most part, AIDS is preventable, the research we are doing into the cause and cure of this disease is benefiting all areas of medical science.
Originally Posted by oz in SC AIDS is an unimportant disease numbers wise and it is preventable in almost all cases in this country...
The money would be better spent elsewhere on diseases that affect more people...
Which is basically the point of this thread...AIDS gets too much money compared to other diseases.
You dodged the issue. Quit hiding and answer.
AIDS gets how much more than other diseases? If that IS your point then publish the different amounts different diseases get in funding compared to HIV/AIDS. Because up until now, the issue you brought up was "blame".
As the figures show,AIDS/HIV main cause is man on man sexual contact,yet billions are being spent.
Cancer on the other hand is not quite as group specific....
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.
