From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Subject: Re: Clinton's position on AIDS
Note: Copyright 1992, Dan R. Greening. Non-commercial reproduction allowed.
Archive-Number: 5998
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:19:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.231549.17418@cs.ucla.edu> jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton) writes:
>[This was posted on sci.med.  I haven't (so far) seen it on sci.med.aids.]
>
>From: U45301@uicvm.uic.edu (Mary Jacobs)
>Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,sci.med
>Subject: CLINTON NEW TEXT: AIDS
>Message-ID: <92234.040259U45301@uicvm.uic.edu>
>Date: 21 Aug 92 09:02:59 GMT
>Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
>Lines: 214
>
>========================================================================
>              CLINTON GORE ON AIDS
>
>Fighting the AIDS epidemic will be a top priority of a Clinton/Gore
>Administration. If we fail to commitour hearts and resources now to
>fighting AIDS, we will pay a far greater price in the future, both in
>deaths and in dollars. We need leaders who will focus national
>attention on AIDS, to encourage compassion and understanding, to
>promote education and to speak out against intolerance.
>
>We can't afford another four years without a plan to declare war on
>AIDS. We can't afford to have yet another President who remains
>silent about AIDS or who puts the issue on the back burner.

However much one dislikes the policies of the Bush Administration, support
for AIDS has been and is now incredible.  The facts are that AIDS gets about
2 Billion a year for research.  The budget for education on AIDS is some 350
Million (and which, unfortunately, targets the low ris groups).

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.

>
>Promote a national AIDS education and prevention initiative that
>disseminates frank and accurate information to reduce the spread of
>the disease, and educates our children about the nature and threat of
>AIDS.

This would be  a refreshing touch.  But... the problem is not totally the
Bush administration.  A big part of the problem is the pressure from certain
homosexual groups who  are vehemently against any federal advertising that
links AIDS with homosexual behavior.  This is a real problem, becuase being
homosexual does not give one AIDS, but participating in homosexual behavior
rasises one's likelihood of getting AIDS.

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.

>Combat AIDS-related discrimination and oppose needless mandatory
>HIV testing in federal organizations such as the Peace Corps, Job
>Corps and the Foreign Service; stop the cynical politicization of
>immigration policies by directing the Justice Department to follow
>the Department of Health and Human Services' recommendation
>that HIV be removed from the immigration restrictions list;

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.

> 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.

>Reevaluate the AIDS prevention budget at the U.S. Centers for
>Disease Control to ensure that education is a top priority.

Like I said before, more funding is not going to solve the problem.  The
answer is the type of message we are sending.  Taargeting  white, middle class,
non drug using heterosexuals ignores the main problem.
>
>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. 
  
>
>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?

Newsgroups: sci.med.aids