Alright, so I'm prepared to get flambeed for this, but I feel that it's an interesting topic for discussion. If you want to rip my head off, do it in this thread by posting thoughtful replies, so that you can at least give me a chance to counter, as well as share your thoughts with others. I am of the opinion that we should not be funding AIDS research, especially for Third World Countries. We are spending several billion dollars every year looking for ways to prevent it and cure it. If you're looking for a way to make up for the money made due to cigarette taxes if tobacco were outlawed, there you have one. As well as this, the research grants that are allotted to AIDS research would be put to a much better use if they were given to those researching a disease with unknown causes, like cancer. Our country is over-populated as it is, and AIDS is one of the most effective forms of population control in existence. If one is careful, one need never come into contact with a source. Therefore those who do fall victim to AIDS - whether through some kind of oversight, accident or lack of knowledge - are at fault themselves, save those who are intentionally infected or something. Population control aside, between eight and ten billion dollars is spent on AIDS research every year. Approximately 2 million people died as a result of AIDS last year. Twenty times that many people died last year, over ten million of them as a result of Cardiovascular disease. Why allot so much money to something that is but a small fraction of the problem? AIDS research is all about making money - with all the hype, whoever manages to find a cure will have instant money. So they spend money that is not their own in hopes of making money that they can keep. How could anyone say no to that kind of situation? AIDS research is another excuse for the United States to worm their way into third world countries and leech away the few resources that they have. If you want to solve some kind of problem for these people, give them clean water. About the same number of people die every year as a result of some kind of waterborne illness as die from AIDS. In addition to this, even if I was in favour of curing AIDS, it is not going to be cured in a lab. This disease is so particular - it attacks our virus defence system, it blends in with its surroundings, and it mutates incessantly - it is not going to be "cured" or "vaccinated against." It would be easy to halt the spread of AIDS. If we ensure that people who already have AIDS do not pass it on, voilà , it's gone. This could be done through a system of mandatory tests, an increase in education on the subject, and media hype. I think that I've said all that I need to say for now.
Just to put it out there, some people get it at birth. I don't think that its intentionally infecting them, but I think it is not their fault.
I don't understand what you mean by this we aren't funding AIDS research for third world countries we are funding AIDS research to try and find a cure for it for everyone. In Britain in particular the tax will just get pumped back into the NHS to fund the medical crap needed when someone has lung cancer or respiratory disease. How much did the US give to trying to cure cancer I bet it wasn't cheap. Cancer doesn't often have unknown causes other than smoking there is a new thing discovered every day that can give you cancer from not getting 5 fruit and veg a day to eating things that have been fried 100's of times in deep fat friers. I think finding a cure for cancer is important it has affected my life greatly and AIDS hasn't but who is to say which disease deserves more money or which people deserve to live? AIDS gets so much money because of the shear amount of people who have it. Condoms don't always work, rape happens, people lie and having a drunken one night stand hardly deserves the death penalty. In a lot of situations in Africa it's because of rape and then a new generation is born already with AIDS if that keeps happening AIDS will be the genocide of giant nations. Lose weight, don't drink so much and exercise... If people actually followed simple advice then I bet a giant chunk of that number wouldn't have died. I agree with this but doesn't this just contradict that the American government only want to weasel into African countries? The reason they are funding research instead of wells is because they want to be able to eradicate an easily passed on and fatal disease for their people. You don't want AIDS to be cured?!?! If it is going to be cured the lab is the only place it will be cured and even if no cue is ever found 20 years ago being diagnosed with AIDS was a death sentence now people can live normal-ish lives and why is that, because of research. Mandatory tests will never be done and even if they are what happens then? You ship everyone who has it off to an island to die? The disease supposedly originated from a monkey bite so it could happen again anyway even if the governments of the world decided to commit a mass genocide. There is education in place but it still spreads and there cold of been no more media hype during the 80's but still it lives and spreads. Oh and before the gay aspect comes into it more straight people have AIDS than gay granted Africa has a great deal to do with that statistic. The reason gay men got infected so easily in the 80's was because people used contraception to not get pregnant gay men can't get pregnant thus no contraception was needed. Oh and lets not get all biblical here either lesbians have the lowest risk of getting AIDS.
Ah, delightful. Now I'm going to sound like even more of a heartless bitch. Natural selection is doing its best, here - the mother is obviously unfit to raise a child herself, and her genes should not be continued. Any children that are infected at birth as a result of a parent who has AIDS...well, I wish for their sake that the mother had been successfully removed from the gene pool before she could reproduce. You're correct, though, of course. It is only intentional infection if the mother knows that she is suffering from AIDS. There are several pilot studies that are currently taking place in Africa - yes, AIDS research is to remove the disease from everyone's lives, but key parts of the research are being completed in Africa. There are many people who use the statistics from third world countreis - where most AIDS-related deaths occur - as an excuse to gain funding for research. Only about 15,000 people out of over 2,500,000 who die per year die as a result of AIDS. Alright. Cancer is number two on the list of reasons for death, second only to heart disease. AIDS does not make the top ten. Aside from this, cancer is recorded to have no known cause. There are several contributing factors, but none of them are certified "causes." There is all sorts of hype about such and such a substance causing cancer, but even cigarettes don't cause cancer as such. Contributing factor does not equal cause. Population control. That's very true. So how about we devote a fraction of the money that we spend on AIDS research to further educating the general population about the risks of heart disease, making exercise facilities more readily available and working some other kind of lifestyle into the med than the kind where you have to drink to be socially acceptible. Clean water is something that could easily be organised by the African people, they don't need Americans to oversee everything. If people weren't more concerned about making known the fact that they're doing good deeds than the fact that they're doing them, then it would be easy to set something in motion with minimal outside activity. I think that transmittance is the pivotal point in stopping a disease like AIDS. Viruses, as primitive as they may seem, are much better developed than we are, and beating an ever-changing virus is more trouble than it's worth - the cure likely wouldn't last anyways. Isolation would be a fantastic idea - people could live out their lives without the fear of accidently infecting the one that they love, and the people who did not have AIDS would be free to live without worries of contracting the disease. However, seeing as how this would severely impede several different human rights, I would never suggest this. Quarantine is idyllic, but completely unrealistic. The mandatory tests would be for awareness' sake. The quicker that you are informed of your status as someone who suffers from this disease, the less chance that you will pass it on. As well as this, you have more time to adjust - your family and friends have more time to adjust - to the situation.
If you believe AIDS is population control what makes cancer and cardiovascular disease not? Cardiovascular disease and diabetes often could be avoided and in the case of heart problems reversed. What person doesn't know don't eat crap and exercise yet still obesity and obesity related diseases are rising sharply. Why do exercise facilities need to be built? People can run on the street and do sit ups themselves, your seriously advocating taking money away from research into a deadly disease to build gyms for fat lazy people? Obesity is ignorance and reversible unlike AIDS which once caught your screwed. Cancer I believe is very important but I don't see why many other diseases are more deserving of funding than AIDS.
Firstly, the point about us stopping funding for AIDs research in order to recoup money lost if tobacco products were made illegal is quite contradictory. Why would you want to ban smoking if you would allow people to die of aids? Surely, it's far more their choice to smoke than it is for a child who just happens to be born with aids. Also, I take it you have never known anyone inflicted with aids? Very easy to say "Ooh, look at me. I'm so controversial' when the topic is completely removed from you and you have no connection or empathy with the situation. Also, you seem to have completely ignored one of the reasons that seems to be why aids is so prevelant in Africa.. Were you aware that soldiers with aids used to rape civilians to knowingly pass it on? Yes, countries like America had some great fun spreading that around at the expense of millions of people's lives. And we should spend the money saved from stopping aids treatment in educating people about heart disease?? Are you joking? Educate people on the fact that eating fatty foods and not exercising is bad for them? Surely you would say this is also natural selection. Why are people with fatty arteries more deserving of our money than someone with aids? You're view is entirely ethnocentric - focussing on what you and your country come into contact with regularly.
i think any kind of desease that cant be provented by doing move activities or eat less crap or smoke should be funded cancer runs in my family many females have had it some could be helped others died but still its a desease that needs to be funded to find out more about it just like aids if we wouldnt have done the reseach back then we would still be straight away on the death list instead of beeing given something that can make ur life longer its harsh to say stop funding this cause as it is theyre own fault .. if you was to sleep with someone you didnt know had it you would be glad to know there has been research about it if there where no reaching hands out there to help you when you have any kind of desease well i think we would be near enough extinct by now
@ the exercise point. That is absolutely correct - the only thing money needs to be put in to is making people aware that even small amounts of exercise will help; In a General Surgeons report, it was said that 3500kcal of exercise a week could reduce all-cause mortality by 30%. Everything else has already been over said....it's just that no one listens. And obesity really isn't the issue (although in the more extreme cases there can be issues) - it's the fact that people are living sedentary lives; a person who is 'obese/overweight' but does regular exercise is healthier than a person who has an 'ideal' body but with no regular exercise. If anything, we should remove funding from things like cardiovascular disease - which could be entirely avoided if people weren't so lazy.