From: budd@ccrs.emr.ca (Mark Budd)
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
Subject: Re: Clinton's position on AIDS
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:39:42 GMT
Organization: Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, Ottawa
Note: Copyright 1992, Dan R. Greening. Non-commercial reproduction allowed.
Archive-Number: 6016

In article <1992Aug25.185552.574@cs.ucla.edu> tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:
>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's policy deleted]
>
>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.
>
There's something that's always bothered me with comparing cancer funding with
funding for AIDS research, and the associated hype.  While it may be true that
more people die of cancer than of AIDS, there are differences.  The most
obvious one is that AIDS is contagious (not to point where it is necessary 
to ban HIV + people from entering the U.S., but I guess some high-ups
disagree), while cancer is not.  Don't interpret this as selfish "Go ahead
and die, it can't hurt me", not at all.  Cancer research is very important.
But the fact that AIDS can spread to others warrants, in my opinion, concern
that may be out of proportion with the number of fatalities.  By the same
reasoning above (about funding proportional to cases), there should be
ridiculous amounts of money spent on preventing death from old age since
a huge number of people die this way.

>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.

Up here in Canada there have been several.  "Don't get stuck with somebody
else's problem."  But since the initial thread was Clinton's/Bush's policy
I suppose this is irrelevant.

>>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.  
Hear hear!  By the way, does the U.S. have an immigration policy concerning
Herpes sufferers?  :-)

>>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 would Clinton be a goner?  Because it would be socially unacceptable?
This is a genuine question, not a rhetorical one.

Mark Budd