IGNORANCE & PREJUDICE (do not skip this thread) [Archive]

Dirtybird12

11-30-2006, 11:04 PM

Around forty million people are living with HIV throughout the world - and that number increases in every region every day. In the UK alone, more than 60,000 people are living with HIV and more than 7,000 more are diagnosed every year. Ignorance and prejudice are fuelling the spread of a preventable disease. World AIDS Day, 1 December is an opportunity for people worldwide to unite in the fight against HIV and AIDS. This year, it's up to you, me and us to stop the spread of HIV and end prejudice. <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=-G2PpO7DwsM">A youtube video message from BONO </a>during 2006 some 4.3 million people became newly infected with the virusHIV is not transmitted via casual contact or kissing. It can only be passed on through exposure to HIV-infected blood, sexual or rectal fluids, or breast milk. <h2>Safer sex</h2>The best way to protect yourself and your sexual partner from HIV is by consistent and proper use of condoms. Condoms are the only form of contraception that will protect you from HIV and must be used with care if they are to be most effective. It can take only a single episode of unprotected sex (for example not using a condom or a condom splitting) with an infected partner for HIV to be passed on. However, HIV is not always passed on the first time, so it's never too late to start practising safer sex.

morecowbell11

11-30-2006, 11:28 PM

AIDS is not a disease, its the cure

lintpit

12-01-2006, 01:03 AM

Thank You for taking the time to post this thread. Regardless as to how some might gind the "humor" in all of the death , sadness, and expense of HIV/AIDS , I agree that it is an apocolyptic tragedy, and when this chapter in time is reviewed by our ancestors, will hold true to this thought. Around forty million people are living with HIV throughout the world.

Yerdaddy

12-01-2006, 01:33 AM

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/conditions/11/30/clinton.aids.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest">Clinton launches child HIV drug</a>NEW DELHI, India (AP) -- Former President Bill Clinton and two Indian pharmaceutical companies have struck an agreement to cut prices of HIV and AIDS treatment for children, making the lifesaving drugs far more accessible worldwide, Clinton's foundation's anti-AIDS initiative said.The companies will supply drugs for HIV-positive children at prices as low as 16 cents a day, or less than $60 a year, according to a statement by the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative.The deal will enable an additional 100,000 HIV-positive children in 62 countries to receive treatment in 2007, the foundation said.Clinton was to announce the deal in a speech at a New Delhi children's hospital Thursday at the launch of a new national program by the Indian government to treat HIV-positive children. World AIDS Day is Friday. (<a href="javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/bestoftv/2006/11/30/sot.clinton.aids.cnn','2006/12/07');">Watch Bill Clinton discuss his optimism about the fight against AIDS.</a> <a href="javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/bestoftv/2006/11/30/sot.clinton.aids.cnn','2006/12/07');"><img class="cnnVideoIcon" src="http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/1.5/main/icon_video.gif" border="0" alt="Video" vspace="1" width="19" height="12" /></a> )Under the agreement, the two companies -- Cipla Ltd. and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. -- will supply 19 different antiretroviral formulations for prices about 45 percent less than the lowest current rates for these drugs in developing countries, the statement said."Though the world has made progress in expanding HIV/AIDS treatment to adults, children have been left behind. Only one in 10 children who needs treatment is getting it," Clinton said in a statement.

Yerdaddy

12-01-2006, 01:42 AM

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/30/AR2006113001164.html" target="_blank">Bush gets credit too.</a>President Bush made a historic pledge in his 2003 State of the Union address: to get urgently needed AIDS treatment to 2 million people living with HIV in impoverished countries by 2008. Congress concurred and launched a major initiative to fight AIDS focusing on 15 developing nations. At a U.N. General Assembly conference on AIDS this year, the United States went further and committed, along with other countries, to come as close as possible to universal access to HIV treatment by 2010.We have come a long way since 2000, when AIDS treatment was available to only the fortunate few. Activists campaigned successfully to drive down the cost of treatment with affordable off-patent AIDS medicines that are now available in most developing countries. After initial objections, the U.S. government became a major purchaser of generic drugs.On this World AIDS Day, we must match the audacity of President Bush's 2003 pledge with a complementary initiative for training and keeping enough new health professionals and community-level workers to fulfill the promises the United States has made.Lola Dare is executive secretary of the African Council for Sustainable Health Development International. Jim Yong Kim and Paul Farmer are co-founders of Partners in Health International; both teach at Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School.

johnniewalker

12-01-2006, 09:06 AM

North Korea wins the Aids fight...<a href="http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=healthNews&storyid=2006-12-01T094701Z_01_SEO239269_RTRUKOC_0_US-AIDS-KOREA-NORTH.xml&src=rss&rpc=22">North Korea claims complete success in AIDS fight...</a>

FUNKMAN

12-01-2006, 09:11 AM

one cure would be if everyone had a magic johnson...or his money

Badinia

12-01-2006, 09:18 AM

I'm calling from the future- in 25 years, AIDS will be the #3 cause of death behind heart disease and stroke.  I know it seems hard to believe in the States, where we have stymied the spread of AIDS through education and medicine, but they don't have that advantage elsewhere in the world.

keithy_19

12-01-2006, 01:51 PM

Possibly not the bets place to say this, but I feel that we could use money more effectively in other regions of health. Instead of focusing on a preventable disease, maybe we should focus more on diseases you can't control...I'll go sit in the corner now...<img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/flush.gif" border="0" width="24" height="26" />

BoondockSaint

12-01-2006, 01:55 PM

keithy_19 wrote: Possibly not the bets place to say this, but I feel that we could use money more effectively in other regions of health. Instead of focusing on a preventable disease, maybe we should focus more on diseases you can't control...I'll go sit in the corner now...<img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/flush.gif" border="0" width="24" height="26" />That's a good point Keith.  The only problem I have with that is say some woman goes out and had unprotected sex or shares a needle or gets it some other way that was preventable.  Then she gets pregnant.  I feel for that child that is doomed before it's ever even born just because it's mother made a mistake.

keithy_19

12-01-2006, 02:08 PM

BoondockSaint wrote: keithy_19 wrote: Possibly not the bets place to say this, but I feel that we could use money more effectively in other regions of health. Instead of focusing on a preventable disease, maybe we should focus more on diseases you can't control...I'll go sit in the corner now...<img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/flush.gif" border="0" width="24" height="26" />That's a good point Keith.  The only problem I have with that is say some woman goes out and had unprotected sex or shares a needle or gets it some other way that was preventable.  Then she gets pregnant.  I feel for that child that is doomed before it's ever even born just because it's mother made a mistake.I agree with you that you need to feel sorry for the kid. It sucks. But what about the kids who get cancer whose parents did absolutely nothing wrong? It works both ways.

BoondockSaint

12-01-2006, 02:19 PM

keithy_19 wrote: BoondockSaint wrote: keithy_19 wrote: Possibly not the bets place to say this, but I feel that we could use money more effectively in other regions of health. Instead of focusing on a preventable disease, maybe we should focus more on diseases you can't control...I'll go sit in the corner now...<img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/flush.gif" border="0" width="24" height="26" />That's a good point Keith.  The only problem I have with that is say some woman goes out and had unprotected sex or shares a needle or gets it some other way that was preventable.  Then she gets pregnant.  I feel for that child that is doomed before it's ever even born just because it's mother made a mistake.I agree with you that you need to feel sorry for the kid. It sucks. But what about the kids who get cancer whose parents did absolutely nothing wrong? It works both ways. I know.  It's a tough call.  But to be honest I doubt theyare really trying to find a cure for anything any more, only treatments.  There isn't enough money in cures.

keithy_19

12-01-2006, 02:27 PM

BoondockSaint wrote: keithy_19 wrote: BoondockSaint wrote: keithy_19 wrote: Possibly not the bets place to say this, but I feel that we could use money more effectively in other regions of health. Instead of focusing on a preventable disease, maybe we should focus more on diseases you can't control...I'll go sit in the corner now...<img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/flush.gif" border="0" width="24" height="26" />That's a good point Keith.  The only problem I have with that is say some woman goes out and had unprotected sex or shares a needle or gets it some other way that was preventable.  Then she gets pregnant.  I feel for that child that is doomed before it's ever even born just because it's mother made a mistake.I agree with you that you need to feel sorry for the kid. It sucks. But what about the kids who get cancer whose parents did absolutely nothing wrong? It works both ways. I know.  It's a tough call.  But to be honest I doubt theyare really trying to find a cure for anything any more, only treatments.  There isn't enough money in cures.Very true.

Yerdaddy

12-01-2006, 02:34 PM

keithy_19 wrote: BoondockSaint wrote: keithy_19 wrote: Possibly not the bets place to say this, but I feel that we could use money more effectively in other regions of health. Instead of focusing on a preventable disease, maybe we should focus more on diseases you can't control...I'll go sit in the corner now...<img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/flush.gif" border="0" width="24" height="26" />That's a good point Keith.  The only problem I have with that is say some woman goes out and had unprotected sex or shares a needle or gets it some other way that was preventable.  Then she gets pregnant.  I feel for that child that is doomed before it's ever even born just because it's mother made a mistake.I agree with you that you need to feel sorry for the kid. It sucks. But what about the kids who get cancer whose parents did absolutely nothing wrong? It works both ways. "Join us next week on Virgin Chat when the boys tell you how to plug your PS3 to the inside of your friend zone."

BoondockSaint

12-01-2006, 02:57 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: keithy_19 wrote: BoondockSaint wrote: keithy_19 wrote: Possibly not the bets place to say this, but I feel that we could use money more effectively in other regions of health. Instead of focusing on a preventable disease, maybe we should focus more on diseases you can't control...I'll go sit in the corner now...<img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/flush.gif" border="0" width="24" height="26" />That's a good point Keith.  The only problem I have with that is say some woman goes out and had unprotected sex or shares a needle or gets it some other way that was preventable.  Then she gets pregnant.  I feel for that child that is doomed before it's ever even born just because it's mother made a mistake.I agree with you that you need to feel sorry for the kid. It sucks. But what about the kids who get cancer whose parents did absolutely nothing wrong? It works both ways. "Join us next week on Virgin Chat when the boys tell you how to plug your PS3 to the inside of your friend zone."Well, excuse us for having a conversation in a thread.

TheMojoPin

12-01-2006, 03:06 PM

The money and resources being spent researching AIDS and HIV aren't preventing anyone from doing the same towards "non-preventable" diseases like, say, cancer.  Most significant medical research is independently funded anyways.  In short, using those resources to try and fight AIDS and HIV is preventing anything being done in the research of cancer.Bottom line, not wanting to try and understand, treat or cure a disease simply because it's "preventable" is, in my opinion, supremely arrogant and heartless.  Heart disease can, unfortunately, strike seemingly at random to people who lead very or at least relatively healthy lifestyles.  The vast majority of cases, however, are likely due to poor lifestyle choices over the years, ultimately making it "preventable."  Same goes for something like lung cancer.  Where do you draw the line as to what is a "preventable" disease?  And if you allow a disease to run unchecked, how do you know it won't mutate into something more dangerous?  That factor alone, combined with the fact that studies into one disease often also leads to discoveries in regards to other diseases makes research into "preventable" diseases very important and necessary.

Team_Ramrod

12-01-2006, 11:16 PM

CircusFreak wrote: Around forty million people are living with HIV throughout the world - and that number increases in every region every day. In the UK alone, more than 60,000 people are living with HIV and more than 7,000 more are diagnosed every year. Ignorance and prejudice are fuelling the spread of a preventable disease. World AIDS Day, 1 December is an opportunity for people worldwide to unite in the fight against HIV and AIDS. HIV is not transmitted via casual contact or kissing. It can only be passed on through exposure to HIV-infected blood, sexual or rectal fluids, or breast milk. <h2>Safer sex</h2>The best way to protect yourself and your sexual partner from HIV is by consistent and proper use of condoms. Condoms are the only form of contraception that will protect you from HIV and must be used with care if they are to be most effective. It can take only a single episode of unprotected sex (for example not using a condom or a condom splitting) with an infected partner for HIV to be passed on. However, HIV is not always passed on the first time, so it's never too late to start practising safer sex. I guess my plan to go to the UK for some sex crazed Brits isn't that well thought out. As far as safer sex on this world aids day.... I'm good, I'm married and I'm 'without'.I've only known one person to die from HIV but as everyone knows, it is a devastating disease that tears it's victims and victims families/ friends apart both physically and emotionally. It's a disease that has brought on so much destruction in what is really a short amount of time and has become our biggest 'nemesis' due to the lack of progress made in curing it or even understanding it.I applaud individuals such as Bono for fighting so hard to bring awareness to the problem... Thanks for posting this Perry.Happy aids day everyone..... happy???....doesn't really fit

keithy_19

12-02-2006, 12:27 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: The money and resources being spent researching AIDS and HIV aren't preventing anyone from doing the same towards "non-preventable" diseases like, say, cancer.  Most significant medical research is independently funded anyways.  In short, using those resources to try and fight AIDS and HIV is preventing anything being done in the research of cancer.Bottom line, not wanting to try and understand, treat or cure a disease simply because it's "preventable" is, in my opinion, supremely arrogant and heartless.  Heart disease can, unfortunately, strike seemingly at random to people who lead very or at least relatively healthy lifestyles.  The vast majority of cases, however, are likely due to poor lifestyle choices over the years, ultimately making it "preventable."  Same goes for something like lung cancer.  Where do you draw the line as to what is a "preventable" disease?  And if you allow a disease to run unchecked, how do you know it won't mutate into something more dangerous?  That factor alone, combined with the fact that studies into one disease often also leads to discoveries in regards to other diseases makes research into "preventable" diseases very important and necessary.I never said I don't want to understand, treat, or try to cure aids. I draw the line of preventable diseases when there is no behavior that causes the ailment. I must point out, however, that I am biased. Suffering from a disease that is not preventable at all makes me wish more money was going into the research.I just personally feel that more would get done if the money was going towards neurological problems, rather than aids.

JamMaster

12-02-2006, 04:21 AM

<pre style="font: 12px arial">One of best songs that Rush made. The lyrics are quite relevant to this topic. </pre><pre style="font: 12px arial">The night is black Without a moon </pre><pre style="font: 12px arial">The air is thick, and still </pre><pre style="font: 12px arial">The vigilantes gather on </pre><pre style="font: 12px arial">The lonely torchlit hill </pre><pre style="font: 12px arial">Features distorted in the flickering light </pre><pre style="font: 12px arial">Their faces are twisted and grotesque </pre><pre style="font: 12px arial">Silent and stern in the sweltering night </pre><pre style="font: 12px arial">The mob moves like demons possesed </pre><pre style="font: 12px arial">Quiet in conscience, calm in thier right </pre><pre style="font: 12px arial">Confident their ways are best </pre><pre style="font: 12px arial">The righteous rise </pre><pre style="font: 12px arial">With burning eyes </pre><pre style="font: 12px arial">Of hatred and ill-will </pre><pre style="font: 12px arial">Madmen fed on fear and lies </pre><pre style="font: 12px arial">To beat, and burn, and kill </pre><pre style="font: 12px arial">They say there are strangers, who threaten us In our immigrants and infidels </pre><pre style="font: 12px arial">They say there is strangeness, too dangerous In our theatres and bookstore shelves </pre><pre style="font: 12px arial">Those who know what's best for us- </pre><pre style="font: 12px arial">Must rise and save us, from ourselves </pre><pre style="font: 12px arial">Quick to judge </pre><pre style="font: 12px arial">Quick to anger </pre><pre style="font: 12px arial">Slow to understand </pre><pre style="font: 12px arial">Ignorance and prejudice </pre><pre style="font: 12px arial">And fear Walk hand in hand</pre><pre style="font: 12px arial"> </pre>

This message was edited by JamMaster on 12-2-06 @ 8:31 AM

TheMojoPin

12-02-2006, 04:27 AM

keithy_19 wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: The money and resources being spent researching AIDS and HIV aren't preventing anyone from doing the same towards "non-preventable" diseases like, say, cancer.  Most significant medical research is independently funded anyways.  In short, using those resources to try and fight AIDS and HIV is preventing anything being done in the research of cancer.Bottom line, not wanting to try and understand, treat or cure a disease simply because it's "preventable" is, in my opinion, supremely arrogant and heartless.  Heart disease can, unfortunately, strike seemingly at random to people who lead very or at least relatively healthy lifestyles.  The vast majority of cases, however, are likely due to poor lifestyle choices over the years, ultimately making it "preventable."  Same goes for something like lung cancer.  Where do you draw the line as to what is a "preventable" disease?  And if you allow a disease to run unchecked, how do you know it won't mutate into something more dangerous?  That factor alone, combined with the fact that studies into one disease often also leads to discoveries in regards to other diseases makes research into "preventable" diseases very important and necessary.I never said I don't want to understand, treat, or try to cure aids. I draw the line of preventable diseases when there is no behavior that causes the ailment. I must point out, however, that I am biased. Suffering from a disease that is not preventable at all makes me wish more money was going into the research.I just personally feel that more would get done if the money was going towards neurological problems, rather than aids. So if he were still alive, Christopher Reeves should get further back in the line, right?  I mean, nobody MADE him get on that horse.  He had total control as to whether or not he wanted to ride horses.  In short, him ending up paralyzed was totally preventable and was ultimately just the result of his "behavior."My point is that it's ridiculous to try and classify medical conditions in terms of priority based on how "preventable" they are.  If we're going to somehow rank them, you don't think scope and number of people affected should come into play?  Neurological problems don't spread from person to person like HIV does.  That factor alone is enough to encourage the amount of funding and research AIDS get...the politics and social stigma of a disease should be irrelevant when it's on such a threatening scale to, yes, everyone.

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 12-2-06 @ 12:32 PM

A.J.

12-02-2006, 06:07 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: So if he were still alive, Christopher Reed should get further back in the line, right? He's alive -- and teaching chemistry at UC Riverside.<img src="http://www.facultydirectory.ucr.edu/faculty-images/photos/481.jpg" border="0" width="160" height="240" />

empulse

12-02-2006, 06:54 AM

Stem Cell Research and Nano-Technology are the future of medicine.  Unfortunately some think that corporations or the Private sector is going to throw money at this in order to cure us all.   They WILL NOT.  99% are completely profit driven and there is no profit in cures, only in treatment.   Its a fucking ignorant as BP saying "we're investing in alternative energy for the future". Bullshit.  Needs a gov't mandate. Gov't funding.  And we should just suck it up.   Nano technology will be able to treat AIDS, and stem cell research wil lbe able to repair most other ailments that affect us, its just a matter of people stopping the crying about "it's gonna raise my taxes" .  How many people go broke from just paying their income tax.. whether its 17% or 25%, probably none.    But as with most societies through out history greed will probably be our undoing.

MadMatt

12-02-2006, 07:57 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: keithy_19 wrote:I never said I don't want to understand, treat, or try to cure aids. I draw the line of preventable diseases when there is no behavior that causes the ailment. I must point out, however, that I am biased. Suffering from a disease that is not preventable at all makes me wish more money was going into the research.I just personally feel that more would get done if the money was going towards neurological problems, rather than aids. So if he were still alive, Christopher Reed should get further back in the line, right?  I mean, nobody MADE him get on that horse.  He had total control as to whether or not he wanted to ride horses.  In short, him ending up paralyzed was totally preventable and was ultimately just the result of his "behavior."My point is that it's ridiculous to try and classify medical conditions in terms of priority based on how "preventable" they are.  If we're going to somehow rank them, you don't think scope and number of people affected should come into play?  Neurological problems don't spread from person to person like HIV does.  That factor alone is enough to encourage the amount of funding and research AIDS get...the politics and social stigma of a disease should be irrelevant when it's on such a threatening scale to, yes, everyone.This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 12-2-06 @ 9:34 AM Mojo, quit slamming Keithy!  For several reasons:<ol><li><div>He is discussing the point, not shouting "fags should die," "AIDS isn't important," or some other nonsense.  He is stating his views rationally and providing reasons for his thoughts.</div></li><li><div>He is currently suffering from a disease and feels more money should be spent researching it.  There is NO WAY you can fault him for that, or for the frustration it inspires.</div></li><li><div>Your Christopher Reeve argument is flawed.  He had an injury, not a disease - it is completely different.  I'm not saying don't research spinal repair, but you are comparing apples and oranges.</div></li></ol>All things being equal, there is a lot of money going places that maybe it shouldn't - extensive military expenditures, congressional pay increases, pork-barrel projects, etc.  The argument should be why isn't more money going into medical research and NOT which disease is "more important."

KC2OSO

12-02-2006, 08:22 AM

A.J. wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: So if he were still alive, Christopher Reed should get further back in the line, right? He's alive -- and teaching chemistry at UC Riverside.<img src="http://www.facultydirectory.ucr.edu/faculty-images/photos/481.jpg" border="0" width="160" height="240" /> Christopher Reed died from playing the skin clarinet.

TheMojoPin

12-02-2006, 08:41 AM

MadMatt wrote: Mojo, quit slamming Keithy!  For several reasons: How am I "slamming" him?  I'm disagreeing with him.  Where have I been uncivil or rude?  I'm just debating another side of his point.*>He is discussing the point, not shouting "fags should die," "AIDS isn't important," or some other nonsense.  And nowhere did I even imply that he was doing anything along thise lines.He is stating his views rationally and providing reasons for his thoughts. I'm not?  Where did I say he wasn't?*>He is currently suffering from a disease and feels more money should be spent researching it.  There is NO WAY you can fault him for that, or for the frustration it inspires. And I'm not, but as I said, the resources used to research AIDS and HIV aren't hindering any other medical research.  Since most significant medical research is privately funded, you can't force where that money goes.  Besides, how you deiced how much "less" the cause deserves?  How much "more" does another get?  What could the guidelines possibly be for such a system? *>Your Christopher Reeve argument is flawed.  He had an injury, not a disease - it is completely different.  I'm not saying don't research spinal repair, but you are comparing apples and oranges. No, I'm debating the idea that a disease that's "preventable" deserves less attention than it's getting.  My point is that that kind of logic is an incredibly slippery slope...if you're going to start approaching diseases that way, why not any other medical condition?  It's a morally and emtionally dishonest approach to the issue.  A disease is a disease.  The social ramifications of attempting to "value" them are dangerous and unfair and, quite frankly, a waste of time.All things being equal, there is a lot of money going places that maybe it shouldn't - extensive military expenditures, congressional pay increases, pork-barrel projects, etc.  The argument should be why isn't more money going into medical research and NOT which disease is "more important." I've been arguing that the idea of basing research on whether or not it's "preventable" is a subjective and ultimately unecessary approach.  The basic point of that is that it's ridiculous to try and determine which disease or condition is more deserving of research and funding.

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 12-2-06 @ 12:44 PM