Good on for the twice a day regimen, too. Full compliance is critical -- partial compliance rapidly breeds resistance in retroviruses.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
AHHHH. Too many Clinton Sex jokes, inappropriate for this forum, but still. I must resist. My brain is about to explode. Ahhhha.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've got a vested interest in combating AIDS, too, although I'm as monogamous (and boring) as can be. It has a lot to do with having cared for children that died of AIDS, and having seen what that birthright did to them.
*poke, poke at Alexa, 'cause I've got trouble joking about this, even if I appreciate the partisanship
The first baby I cared for that died from complications of HIV was 6 months old, and her body was so swollen tight that her arms and legs couldn't bend. Her skin was raw from blisters and stretching.
posted
No, it's Clinton gets Aides behind Bush's back. Speaking of which: I wouldn't describe the National Security Adviser as an "aide". There was an MSN headline that called her that the other day. Now that looked wrong. I didn't mean to imply Clinton "got" Dr. Rice.
posted
One question is whether or not the allegations that the generic drugs are not as effective or may have other problems are true. If true, it's irresponsible to foist them off on third world countries at any price. A good deal on something that doesn't help isn't such a good deal.
Even if they're equally as effective, I can still see a reasonable argument to be made for sourcing from US based companies when spending tax dollars -- like the argument for sourcing military planes from US based companies. Clinton is coming from a position as a private citizen, and so has nothing to lose from making the deal he did -- I say, Good For Him. Bush, however, as the current President, has other considerations he must take into account, like setting a precident for spending tax dollars on drugs for other countries, sourced from employers that potentially take jobs from Americans. That doesn't mean he shouldn't work with the US Pharmaceuticals to solve the problem -- but you have to admit that this may take more time than it would for a private citizen like Bill Clinton to negotiate with foreign pharmaceuticals.
No question, AIDS is a terrible scourge, and America as one of the wealthiest nations in the world SHOULD make all reasonable efforts to assist poor countries combat the disease. No argument there. And I find it honorable and good of former President Clinton to do as he has done. But to compare his actions to those of Bush is not only unfair, it's unrealistic. The constraints of a private citizen are not the same as those of a sitting President.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyhow, this is great. It's wonderful when an individual or a single foundation can make such a huge difference.
Every election year, I believe more and more that the re-election money would be entirely better spent on health and social programs.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Not only a scourge, but a National Security Threat that far, far outweighs that of Saddam Hussein or al-Qaeda. Frightening, huh? I still don't understand why people don't get this fact. It's not like the current spread of aids hasn't been predicted for over a decade. They even know where the next hot spot will be. If we don't get out priorities straight, we won't be far behind.
I can't believe that the White House has listed Aids as a national security threat, but is focusing 99% of it's money on places that are already too far gone to help the spread of the disease worldwide. If we get into India now, and wait 10-20 years like we did in Africa, would could actually do some good. But soon it will be too late. I just don't get it.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is that there are people dying in Africa now. Concentrating on India at the expense of those in Africa because of the worldwide effects requires letting specific, contemporary victims suffer more than they need to.
quote:The problem is that there are people dying in Africa now. Concentrating on India at the expense of those in Africa because of the worldwide effects requires letting specific, contemporary victims suffer more than they need to.
I'd be OK with that. India would be a huge problem if it takes root. Preventing a disease is always a better option than medicating an already diseased population.
Returning funding to family planning organizations should be a priority to help combat the spread of STD's.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, in 2001 five times as many Americans died from AIDS as from terrorism. That number could easily jump 10x with some bad luck and poor management.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
AIDS kills way more people than terrorism does. So yes...I think it's a greater threat to the U.S. than terrorism is. Perhaps for those in low-risk categories for contracting HIV, terrorism might be more of a concern, but in terms of deaths both here and worldwide, AIDS leaves terrorism in the dust.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Has anyone ever read The Coming Plague? I hope we never see the day of biological disasters...but I think we will. I don't think Aids will be the scarey one, unless it mutates into an aie-borne virus.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: You really think that AIDS is a greater National Security threat than terrorism?
Colin Powell, to the UN, a year after 9/11 said, "AIDS is more devastating than any terrorist attack, any conflict or any weapons of mass destruction. AIDS can destroy countries and destabilize entire regions."
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The common flu kills more people each year than terrorists and dictators combined. If its just lives we want saved, we know where the money should be going.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The funny part (as in scary/funny, not haha funny) is that AIDS is really only a bio-level 2 hazard, but USAMRIID treats it as a Bio-4 (highest level) hazard just to be safe. It is fairly hard to catch, as far as viruses go, and there is no chance of it becoming airborne, thank God. It kills enough as it is...
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
