AIDS funding..is it worth it??

Kayz

New Member
10+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Guys..this is going to be a very heated debate. I want to discuss a very sensitive and volatile issue, but I want to do so in a civil manner. If you disagree with me, fine. Tell me why you think I am wrong, and more importantly, why you think you are right! Don't say "kayz you are a piece of shit....I hope you die". That adds nothing to the debate.

Again, this is a touchy subject and I will probably offend many of you with my ideas and opinions. But please understand that these are just MY opinions.

Okay, here goes.

I think we need to get rid of funding for AIDS in the United States (or drastically reduce it). If other countries want to tackle this "epidemic", so be it. But I don't think the US should contribute.

Why???

Becuase AIDS is a disease of choice. Yes, a disease of choice. There are ZERO genetic predispositions to HIV/AIDS (unless of course your mother had it and passed it along to you at birth....we'll discuss this in a moment). An individual contracts AIDS/HIV thru his own actions..period. HIV/AIDS can only be contracted when an infected individual's bodily fluids (not all fluids) come into direct contact with a non-infected person. This occurs via sexual intercourse, oral sex, needle sharing (blood), and other less known/publicized ways.

The reason it bothers me so much is that I look at the amount of money we spend on AIDS research in the states and I compare it to the amount of money set aside to combat diseases such as Prostate Cancer in males and breast cancer in women.

Each year, the CDC sets aside approximatley $14 million dollars to help combat prostate cancer. EAch year, approximately 220,000 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer, which ranks second to only lung cancer in cancer related deaths in males. This year alone, about 29,000 men will die from prostate cancer, which is typically regarded as a fairly cancer to treat if caught in time.

Unlike HIV/AIDS, prostate cancer is based largely on genetic predisposition. Obviously there are environmental factors that will exacerbate the condition, but there is a great deal of genetics involved. However, AIDS contraction is based solely on ones lifestyle/actions.

Each year, the CDC sets aside approximatley $100 million (varies depending on the source of info.) to help combat and screen for breast cancer, which kills more women than any other cancer except lung cancer. This year alone, approximately 250,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and about 43,000 women will die from it.

Like Prostate cancer, breast cancer is largely genetic. Women whom have a family history of breast cancer (either on the dads or moms side) is at a much greater risk of getting breast cancer.

The same cannot be said for AIDS because there is no genetic predisposition.

Each year in the United States alone, about 43,000 individuals will contract HIV. And this year, about 18,000 will die from AIDS. Here are some interesting stats on HIV/AIDS:

1) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate that 850,000 to 950,000 U.S. residents are living with HIV infection, one-quarter of whom are unaware of their infection.......the fact that 1 in 4 people who have it are unaware they are infected is disturbing and that is the main problem.

2) Of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex. This does not leave room for error.

3) Of new infections among women in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 75 percent of women were infected through heterosexual sex and 25 percent through injection drug use

Each year, we spend almost a half of a billion dollars to combat AIDS worldwide. That is 5 times more than we spend on breast cancer and about 33 more times than we spend on prostate cancer. This to me is disturbing. Here we have 2 diseases that in most cases, cannot be prevented..but can be treated when caught early. On the other hand, AIDS is COMPLETELY preventable, and virtually untreatable. The virus mutates faster than we can creat new cocktails to fight it. It is always one step ahead of us.

Now, lets look at the cases where AIDS is contracted when sex, needle use, or any "acts" are not involved:

1) Transmission at birth. In 1992, the number of AIDS cases in adolescents (from birth -12 years of age) was less than 100 nationwide!!! This is a relatively low number IMO. Babies born with AIDS rarely live past the age of 5.

2) Blood transfusions. The odds of this happenign are about 1 in 450,000. Thus, it accounts for a negligible amount of new cases each year...if any at all. This is contributed to the new blood screening processes put into place.

3) Hospital workers sticking themselves with needles accidentally.This is highly rare.

So, my question to you guys is this:

Since it is the actions of primarily irresponsible individuals, does AIDS justify the amount of dollars it receives for funding when compared to other diseases??? There are a few cases each year that results from freak accidents.Do those justify hundreds of millions of dollars??

If you agree with me, what would you do to stop the spread of AIDS??

If you disagree with me, why?? and don't say "you are so ignorant and clueless". Give me a real answer.

And before anyone asks: "No, I do not know anyone with AIDS. At least I don't think so, but then again, 25% of those infected dont' even know...so how would I"?

I'm interested in your opinions.
 
No i dont think it is worth it. As for limiting it, more education and more free condoms. Ive had a very reckless approach to safe sex in the past and couldnt agree more it would be entirely my own fault if i was HIV+ which last i was tested i wasnt
 
"Becuase AIDS is a disease of choice. Yes, a disease of choice. "

Kayz, I say this to you respectfully, but you need to check your facts more carefully before mounting an opinion.

There are millions -- MILLIONS -- of people who died of AIDS as a result of blood transfusions. Also, lots of medical staff contracted AIDS in the course of treating patients.

You also need to think more carefully about the implications of your positions. For example, if we stop funding AIDs research because it;s a disease of choice, we should stop funding lung cancer research because most of the people who contract it are smokers.
 
greyowl said:
"Becuase AIDS is a disease of choice. Yes, a disease of choice. "

Kayz, I say this to you respectfully, but you need to check your facts more carefully before mounting an opinion.

There are millions -- MILLIONS -- of people who died of AIDS as a result of blood transfusions. Also, lots of medical staff contracted AIDS in the course of treating patients.

You also need to think more carefully about the implications of your positions. For example, if we stop funding AIDs research because it;s a disease of choice, we should stop funding lung cancer research because most of the people who contract it are smokers.

First, I addressed both of your issues in my post. AIDS is why we have screened blood transfusions. And like I said, about 1 in 450,000 people contract AIDS this way. As far as medical staff goes...be more careful!

There are still genetic predispositions to lung cancer. MY grandpa died from lung cancer (well, it started in his lungs but spread to his pancreas)...and he never smoked or dipped. But you are correct, it is often times people's actions that lead to lung cancer.

My whole argument is that there are ZERO genetic predispositions to AIDS. There is no "HIV/AIDS gene" that is gonna make you develop the disease later in life.
 
greyowl said:
Sorry if I missed it. One third of the way through your post I felt an irresistable urge to take a nap.

Damn...I'm not that boring am I???
 
Kayz said:
My whole argument is that there are ZERO genetic predispositions to AIDS. There is no "HIV/AIDS gene" that is gonna make you develop the disease later in life.
Not exactly true. Not to dispute the behavioral component involved, but...

Women have a genetic predisposition expressed in the biomechanics of sex. They are much more likely to contract HIV than men when engaging in the same heterosexual behavior.
 
Of course, funding medical research based on whether it is a disease of choice or a disease of genetic predisposition isn't that clear of a distinction.
 
administrator said:
Not exactly true. Not to dispute the behavioral component involved, but...

Women have a genetic predisposition expressed in the biomechanics of sex. They are much more likely to contract HIV than men when engaging in the same heterosexual behavior.

Biomechanics of sex and a pure genetic predisposition are two different things IMO.

Just sitting around the house doing nothing....you will NOT contract HIV/AIDS.

But you are correct to a certain extent: recipients of anal sex (female in a hetero relationship) are more likely to contract the disease....but the underlying cause of this is still the act of sex itself.
 
Kayz said:
Biomechanics of sex and a pure genetic predisposition are two different things IMO.

Just sitting around the house doing nothing....you will NOT contract HIV/AIDS.

But you are correct to a certain extent: recipients of anal sex (female in a hetero relationship) are more likely to contract the disease....but the underlying cause of this is still the act of sex itself.

Don't you think that the fact that AIDS is a transmitable disease is a good reason to put all this money on it? You cannot transmit cancer. What if there was a genetic mutation in the gene in 10 years from now and the vectors of transmission were changed?
 
vampirique said:
Don't you think that the fact that AIDS is a transmitable disease is a good reason to put all this money on it? You cannot transmit cancer. What if there was a genetic mutation in the gene in 10 years from now and the vectors of transmission were changed?

Yes, it is a transmittable disease; however, it is transmitted based on ones actions. An individual has TOTAL control over whether or not he/she gets this (within reason of course).

As far as a genetic mutation in cancer causing it to be transmittable. That is perfectly plausible, and I don't have an answer for you. If that happened, it'd set us back to day one and probably ruin 30 years of research.
 
Kayz said:
Yes, it is a transmittable disease; however, it is transmitted based on ones actions. An individual has TOTAL control over whether or not he/she gets this (within reason of course).

As far as a genetic mutation in cancer causing it to be transmittable. That is perfectly plausible, and I don't have an answer for you. If that happened, it'd set us back to day one and probably ruin 30 years of research.


No, I made a mistake, I meant the virus, not the gene :eek: . I'm talking about what if the AIDS virus would mutate, there are no guarantees you and I could not get it.
 
vampirique said:
No, I made a mistake, I meant the virus, not the gene :eek: . I'm talking about what if the AIDS virus would mutate, there are no guarantees you and I could not get it.

It IS mutating regularly, which is why the new drugs are less effective. What we are doing now is not solving the problem as we can not keep up with the virus as it is.

I know what you are saying though.
 
vampirique said:
No, I made a mistake, I meant the virus, not the gene :eek: . I'm talking about what if the AIDS virus would mutate, there are no guarantees you and I could not get it.

I dont see how it would be possible but God forbid it ever became a airborn virus. I believe if we can spend a billion dollars a week fighting over in Iraq than we can dump the same on Aids research.
 
Liv2grw said:
I dont see how it would be possible but God forbid it ever became a airborn virus. I believe if we can spend a billion dollars a week fighting over in Iraq than we can dump the same on Aids research.

LOL...you had to plug the war didn't you????? :D
 
Kayz, once again I agree with you. I would rather see that money go into prostate cancer and BPH research. I know many older men who suffer in silence and the doctors seem to know very little about these enigmas.

AIDS research needs to be funded a little, but not to the degrees it is now. As long as you live a clean lifestyle, you chances of contracting it are miniscule. The same can't be said for prostate cancer, breast cancer... etc.
 
UVX-Rx said:
Kayz, once again I agree with you. I would rather see that money go into prostate cancer and BPH research. I know many older men who suffer in silence and the doctors seem to know very little about these enigmas.

AIDS research needs to be funded a little, but not to the degrees it is now. As long as you live a clean lifestyle, you chances of contracting it are miniscule. The same can't be said for prostate cancer, breast cancer... etc.

My point exaclty!!!

I think you and I share a brain. :D
 
Kayz said:
My point exaclty!!!

I think you and I share a brain. :D

You want to really get pissed...

Look at how much money is spent on diabetes, compared to the number of deaths...It is sickening.

Yes, we should still fund AIDS, but the funding is out of control. Unfortunately, we give funds to those that scream the loudest, and AIDS is pretty high up there. I love people who say they are "against AIDS," like there is a group out there that is pro-AIDS...
 
Mark Kerr said:
You want to really get pissed...

Look at how much money is spent on diabetes, compared to the number of deaths...It is sickening.

Yes, we should still fund AIDS, but the funding is out of control. Unfortunately, we give funds to those that scream the loudest, and AIDS is pretty high up there. I love people who say they are "against AIDS," like there is a group out there that is pro-AIDS...

I totally agree. My dad is a bad diabetic, but it doesn't really cause him problems. Once in a while his sugar will get our of whack a bit, but as long as he monitors his diet he is fine.

I'm sorry, I don't consider AIDS and epidemic. Polio was an epidemic. Small pox was an epidemic.....AIDS is not.

Also, why do we have to fund AIDS research for the entire world??? Why doesn't the UN chip in here since they are the world's governing body???

One of the AIDS groups wanted the US to chip in $1.2 billion for international research. Bush said "$200 million is more than enough right now".
 
Back
Top