Is too much money spent on HIV research and treatment?

According to Roger England in BMJ, the country is.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/334/7589/344

Although not a popular, or even a really loud, opinion; I think there has always been a quiet argument that since HIV is largely preventable, government money should be more fixated on diseases that aren't individually transmitted. Not my opinion, but I've heard it before.

What do you think?

Absolutely not. And the government is partially responsible for its neglect & indifference in the early days. Maybe the Reagan estate should have to donate some money.

^^^^Why should Reagan donate any money? That's bitter hogwash.

The government's got plenty of diseases it has to look into treating. HIV shouldn't be given any more special treatment than any other fatal disease. I think people know the truth and that's why they wanna punish, say the Reagan administration, in order to convince themselves that some enemy is to blame for the disease. We can do research until the cows come home but the fact is that America isn't willing to get rid of HIV. We're more than happy to invite it to dinner.

Reagen isn't to blame for the disease.

Reagen is to blame for his horrible handling of it. Every other major world leader began programs to inform people of the disease immediately. Even in East Germany they began battling it. Reagen didn't do shit, like it was the poor person's disease that couldn't reach him in his ivory tower.

But I will agree about that last thing you said. America doesn't like to cure diseases-- it's bad for the FDA. Didn't somebody cure cancer, like, ten years ago?

No, I don't think too much money is spent on AIDS research.

I never really thought about the preventability of AIDS being a factor in the money spent on research. I don't see how they can blame the millions of children suffering from AIDS. They certainly had no hand in preventing the illness. I'd rather see them find a cure or a vaccine, so that we don't continue to spend money treating people, but can work on healing them or preventing them form being sick. I'd love to see a day when AIDS is no more a concern than polio is.

Rockbird wrote:Reagen is to blame for his horrible handling of it. Every other major world leader began programs to inform people of the disease immediately. Even in East Germany they began battling it. Reagen didn't do shit, like it was the poor person's disease that couldn't reach him in his ivory tower.

But I will agree about that last thing you said. America doesn't like to cure diseases-- it's bad for the FDA. Didn't somebody cure cancer, like, ten years ago?

Oh please. Informing people clearly is irrelevant. What good does informing people who don't care to take necessary action do?

Oh it's got even less to do with the FDA. America just doesn't care about the consequences of choices and so we embrace disease. It's not just limited to AIDS. We know smoking is bad for us and how many of us smoke? We know how AIDS spreads. People just don't care enough to stop it. It's easier to blame Reagan.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

Rockbird wrote:Reagen is to blame for his horrible handling of it. Every other major world leader began programs to inform people of the disease immediately. Even in East Germany they began battling it. Reagen didn't do shit, like it was the poor person's disease that couldn't reach him in his ivory tower.

But I will agree about that last thing you said. America doesn't like to cure diseases-- it's bad for the FDA. Didn't somebody cure cancer, like, ten years ago?

Oh please. Informing people clearly is irrelevant. What good does informing people who don't care to take necessary action do?

Oh it's got even less to do with the FDA. America just doesn't care about the consequences of choices and so we embrace disease. It's not just limited to AIDS. We know smoking is bad for us and how many of us smoke? We know how AIDS spreads. People just don't care enough to stop it. It's easier to blame Reagan.

I agree with you. People got on Reagan's case I think for not speaking up sooner merely because he was a conservative Republican, and in their minds they equated his silence as malevolent contentment over what was happening to people who didn't share his moral outlook. Truth is just like the presidents that followed couldn't stop the spread of AIDS, neither could he. This was a communicable plague being randomly spread by individuals willingly engaging in high risk activity. Reagan couldn't have stopped or controlled what was happening if he tried! Especially not in THOSE days!