oldspook

Speak for yourself old man.

My tool is alive and active.

I'm sorry to hear your having problems, perhaps a little Viagra would help.

Oldspook

ed seedhouse

This is simply in contradiction to the plain facts of the matter. Aids
treatments, whatever their overall worth, reduce transmission by
reducing the viral load in the blood of carriers. In countries and
areas where such treatment is widespread the transmission rates of aids
went *down*, not up. Transmission rates today are by far the highest in
countries where treatment is *not* widely available.

But hey, your mind is made up along with your "facts" apparently.

mano govender

Money beign spent on AIDS in Africa is dependent on what the US wants to
achieve. Current promises for funds by Bush on AIDS in Africa amounts to a
sizeable budget, but is geared towards education programmes that promote
abstention from *** as a primary tool rather than other realistci social
interventions.

Africa has natural resources on which the US is or will be dependent. Bush's
recent visit was to countries with vast reserves of natural resources that
includes oil as only one of such resources. The historical capitalist
development interventions witnessed development in mining, oil pumping and
agriculture that had little benefit for the local African people. Of what
use if cocoa beans to teh starving local population? The West farms the
rest, pays "market" prices fro produce, whilst there is massive starvation
from the locals because choice agricultural land is used to grow crops for
export. Miners are paid wages that is far below the acceptable living wage
in teh US by US-owned companies. So what if Africa has a AIDS problem? The
US will continue to serve its own self interests to the detriment of others.

Should the US fund AIDS research and treatment in Africa? This world is our
home. The US and them mentality is what creates the many of the problems in
the world.

Mano Govender
T2 in South Africa

bj

was their plan at the age of 20?


I remember seeing an interview with Ralph Reed (who isn't all that old!),
who is so super-pious & preachy about pre-marital abstinence. He was asked
pointblank if he & his wife had had *** or not before marriage and he
refused to answer -- something about "I'm not going to talk about my private
life." Now why do I think that he would have been lying if he had said "no"?
JMO
bj

al

I hope your not betting your life on this BS.

al

Hepatitis C Virus

tiger_lily

kewl....... too bad i had my surgery in 1979 then

next time i'll just tell the Dr..... oh, hold off for another 23 to 25 years
so that technology can advance too

great idea

i'm SO impressed with your information here

NOT

al

Your should be safe from AIDS since the first reported cases were on June 5,
1981. HCV is believed to have started in the 1960s, although there was no
reliable blood test for HCV until 1990.

Al

guy

The original issue here is diabetes research being slighted
by th current AID thing. Being a diabetic i am a bit biased.

The sad thing is that it takes a war to get things done. The
potential resources are always there. We lack the system
to exploit them without the threat of extinction.

No matter what causes diabetes it wrecks many people lives.

No matter what causes Aids it is here.

There are dozens of problems that need attention

What I see here and in almost every aspect is a fight over
the gross profits that are available to be squandered.

Back to the Pogo cartoon. I have seen the enemy and it is
us. Probably will never change.

Our enemy is not the diseases but our inherent greed.

mom

What can we do? Tell me. I'll do it.
Mom


In the race against curing diseases, is it a popularity contest? If you take a look at the funding distributions of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), you'd probably say "without question."

Whether you or a loved one have been diagnosed with a life-threatening disease or not, one can hardly ignore the staggering statistics on disease funding by the NIH. Almost 2.8 billion dollars are going to AIDS research in 2003, while 16 other diseases - which kill many thousands more Americans than AIDS yearly - are only receiving a small fraction of the government's dollars.

AIDS has become the "in" disease. Support among the Hollywood elite, politicians and the wealthy has become almost a fad.

The AIDS activists don't want you to know their disease is no longer epidemic in the USA and they continue to press for more funding - and to their credit, their efforts have accomplished phenomenal feats in the fight against AIDS. Just look at the numbers - deaths from AIDS have plummeted 72% in the USA since 1995. That's why it's time to redirect funding to diseases that are more deserving and currently receiving millions, or even billions, less than AIDS.

For example, diabetes kills more Americans than AIDS and breast cancer combined, yet the NIH is spending $5,500 on every patient identified as having AIDS while spending $70 on each diabetic. And heart disease - which strikes over 700,000 yearly compared to 14,132 from AIDS - receives almost ¾ of a Billion dollars less than AIDS.

Funding needs to be fair and equitable for all diseases. The NIH must look at prorating funds based on a disease's mortality rate, and as a secondary factor, degree of suffering. The disease that kills the most Americans should get the most research funding, and so on.

This issue is especially sensitive in our country, which is very tuned into the world of AIDS. But when the AIDS death rate in newly infected patients has dropped 97% in the state of California, it's time to start congratulating AIDS organizations for their successes while shifting research dollars from AIDS to diseases like lung disease, prostate disease, Alzheimer's Disease, brain disease and diabetes.

To view a list of the 16 diseases that kill more Americans than AIDS, go to http://www.ProrateNIH.com

Disease
Deaths per Disease (2001)
NIH Research Money Spent

Per Patient Death (2003)

Heart Disease
699,697
$35

AIDS
14,132
$5,500

Diabetes
71,252
$70

Alzheimer's Disease
53,679
$161

Prostate Disease
30,714
$145

Parkinson's Disease
16,576
$398

Hepatitis C
NIH Estimate for 2002

= 10,000-12,000
$25

West Nile Virus
In 2002: 284
In 2003: Zero
In 2002: $6,737
In 2003: $ 14 Million,

(2 cases in 2003)

http://www.proratenih.com/update.htm