Subject:
|
Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 6 May 2000 11:25:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
312 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> Thanks for the note.
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ed Jones writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > >
> > > > Why is AIDS such a big deal?
>
> > Why is AIDS such a big deal:
> >
> > 1. Because it is a huge blemish on the US government for their lack of early
> > funding for research.
>
> I agree that the government's bizarre inaction is a cause for concern, but I
> don't see the link between that occurance ~15 years ago and the current
> over-representation in the media.
Its very simple: AIDS is a communicable disease, a plague that spread
exponentially in the late 70s and early 80s, and continues to do so in Africa.
If the US Government had funded AIDS research, or even AIDS education, in the
early 80s, far fewer people would have died, far fewer would have contracted
the disease, and far fewer would be continuing to spread the disease.
Africa, even in the early years of AIDS, was the hardest hit. Now Africa wants
the US to supply maintenance drugs for the millions suffering in Africa.
>
> > 2. Because a disease mobilized a "special interest group" to take action to
> > defend their own lives.
>
> And they did a good job of protecting their special interest. But again, I
> don't see the link.
They weren't protecting their "special interest", they were fighting to defend
their lives. This fight is now taken up by highly infected Africian countries.
They now seek assistance from the US government for maintenance drugs.
Additionally, the group that now has the fastest AIDS infection rate is high
school kids. At 16 you think you're invincible, you don't bother to practice
safe sex. You reap the results. If safe sex education was working, we would
have seen a decline in teenage pregnacny. Instead, the news reports that now
pre-teens are having sex.
>
> > 3. Because a "special interest group" brought chnage to the FDA.
>
> Great. And almost any change to the FDA would be good.
>
> > I could go on. But unless you lived through the AIDs 80s, you really don't
> > understand the battles that had to take place to survive.
>
> By "lived through" do mean been gay and thus at-risk through that time? Or do
> you just mean generally aware? I was in high school from '84-'88 and I
> remember it becomming a national concern, but I also seem to remember it being
> on the news at least as early as '82 or so.
Yes it was on the news, but what did you see on the news:
- exponentially growing death statistics among gays and needle users
What you should have seen but didn't was:
- the statistics of AIDS in Africa among heterosexual non needle users which
was already an epidemic
Not only did the US government not care about the lives of gays and needle
users, but black Africans were expendable too.
What did you see on the news:
- three children who were not only forced out of their school, but forced out
of their community by the ignorance of their neighbors
- religious leaders who were permitted to spew their hate of homosexuals by
claiming AIDS was a gay disease brought by god to smite the homosexual
- members of Congress who spewed the same bigoted filth even though they knew
the African statistics (evidently a gay plague was good for re-election)
What you should have seen but didn't was:
- a statement from the President saying that these actions were morally wrong
- reports from the press stating that it was not a gay plague, but could
affect anyone, using Africa as an example (we didn't get that message until
the very late 80s)
A very close friend of mine is
> touched by this issue and has read some passages from _And the Band Played On_
> to me. Is that book generally considered valid? I've sort-of been meaning to
> read it for about six years.
Its a very interesting history of the early stages of AIDS research. It also
fully displays the current problem of all disease research: backstabbing
researchers/research institutes trying to claim notarity either for faulty
research conclusions or by falsely claiming first knowledge.
>
> Basically, I agree with your points and I acknowledge that especially to the
> growing number of people personally impacted by HIV it's a terrible social
> concern. But I guess I also tend to agree with the "other side" that says • that
> (public) funding should be roughly matching of the severity of the issue.
If AIDS had first struck the heterosexual community:
- Would you still hold the same opinion?
- Would the US Government had acted differently?
While both diseases are terminal:
If you have cancer, you know you have a physical ailment. You see a doctor.
Cancer is not communicable. And in most cases is now curable or at least
removeable. If you contract cancer, you don't need to worry that you have
infected anyone else (and yes, some cancer can be hereditary).
The dormancy period of the AIDS virus is 3-15 years. Unless you have an AIDS
test performed, you could be infected for years and not know it. How may other
people could you have infected in that time frame?
AIDS is communicable and not curable. Maintenance drugs have done much for
prolonging the lives of those it has touched, but there is no cure in sight.
No researcher is even close to developing an AIDS vaccine. Despite all efforts
to educate the public on AIDS awareness and safe sex, it continues to infect
people every day. You don't know you have the disease until you take an AIDS
test or become ill, long after you could have spread to disease to others who,
also not knowing they are infected, have spread the disease.
>
> I may be biased too. I am much more likely to bite it from cancer than from
> AIDS.
Unless you are practicing safe sex, you are more likely to bite it from AIDS.
>
> Chris
Cancer is a horrible disease, but you can't spread cancer.
AIDS is a plague that was left to run uncontrolled in the 80s. Africa is now
devistated by an AIDS epidemic that threatens extinction.
Ed "Boxer" Jones
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) countries. (...) Maybe I used the term special interest incorrectly. I think of a special interest as being any sub-group of the population who wants public monies distributed in a certain way such that it will specifically help their sub (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| Thanks for the note. (...) I agree that the government's bizarre inaction is a cause for concern, but I don't see the link between that occurance ~15 years ago and the current over-representation in the media. (...) And they did a good job of (...) (24 years ago, 5-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
228 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
