From: sheppamj@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Matthew Sheppard)
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
Subject: Re: Clinton's position on AIDS
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:48:29 GMT
Organization: Clarkson University
Note: Copyright 1992, Dan R. Greening. Non-commercial reproduction allowed.
Archive-Number: 6018

tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:

>In article <1992Aug23.231549.17418@cs.ucla.edu> jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton) writes:

>Compared to Breast cancer, AIDS funding is astounding, especially since
>Breast cancer kills many more people than AIDS.  Funding for research of
>diseases should be proportioned fairly in view of the number of people
>affected and at risk.  WHO's 1985 figure of 400 million was a gross
>overstatement.  And besides, no one gives press releases about the world
>figure for diseases such as Breast cancer.  When charted by careful analysis
>of the statistics, AIDS does not come close to touching the Breast Cancer
>problem, especiallly here in America.

The reason so much more is being spent on AIDS is because it's an
epedemic.  Breast cancer rates may go up, but not exponentialy like AIDS
has been threatening to do.  If less is spent on AIDS now because not as
many people are affected by it then we'll end up spending much more
later when is does affect more people.  Perhaps you could consider AIDS
to be affecting more people because the risk of getting aids is probably
more controlable than that of getting breast cancer.

>I still don't know why there are not direct commercial on TV warning of the
>link between drug use by needles to AIDS.  What's going on?  Let's here the
>truth.

A good point I think, the commercials seem to make the link between
using any drug.  i.e. Get High, Get Stupid, Get AIDS.

>The U.S. discriminates on matters of immigration all the time.  We have to. 
>For example, we discriminate on those with contagious diseases such as
>Teberculosis.  However, AIDS is not contagious, and hence I would favor not
>restricting immigration for AIDS.  But, if there is a strain of AIDS that is
>more likely to spread as some have hinted at lately, then restriction should
>be in effect.  So, some seem to want their to be a new virus that is
>spreading rapidly for various political and research reasons, but this hope
>inevitably justifies immigration restrictions.  The problem is more complex
>than a group of shouters in Amsterdam imply.

AIDS is contagious.

>> promote
>>legislation based on sound scientific and public health principles, not
>>on panic, politics and prejudice.

>Boy this would be a relief. But don't count on it. Most politicians are too
>afraid to tell the truth.

Most politicians do tell the truth about AIDS.  They have little choice
now that many people are taking the responsibility to educate themselves
rather than listen to what politicians have to say.

>>Support local efforts to make condoms available in schools.

>If Clinton is  really for this, he's a goner. And for AIDS activists, I am
>convinced this is the wrong way to go. 

Why?  Kids learn about sex in school, maybe not from the school, but in
school among their peers.  Isn't it best to make the protection
available?  

>>Increase funding for both AIDS-specific and general biomedical
>>research.
>>Expand clinical and community based trials for treatments and
>>vaccines, and raise the level of participation of under-represented
>>populations.
>>Reorganize the NIH infrastructure to streamline AIDS research
>>efforts and improve planning efficiency and communication.

>Alot of funding, what about the national debt?  How will pay for all of
>these New programs?

What about the national debt, it's either spend the money now on
preventing the spread of the disease or spend it later on treatment,
which I'm sure is a lot more expensive.  If doubling the national debt
would find a cure, or even a vaccine, I'd say do it.

Does anyone know how the black plague was finally controlled?  I'm
pretty sure it was just a matter of getting antibiotics to all the
victims and wiping out the rat vector.  There are still small versions
of bubonic plague today, even in the United States.  If we haven't
completely wiped out that how can we get rid of AIDS without getting
very tough on the spread of the disease?  

If we do discover a vaccine, what happens to all the people who have
already contracted HIV?  The majority are not going to want to continue
the funding.  

--
| Matthew Sheppard  CLARKSON UNIVERSITY  sheppamj@sun.soe.clarkson.edu |
| I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.ANoN |
| I don't want a pickle. DoD#477 TEP#477 RIDE FREE (8^]..etcetera..    |
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids