I've been given a lot of grief from liberals since I posted on the recent AIDS conference last week, both on this blog and on another. That's okay, though. I understand that facing facts and staring reality in the face is tough for liberals.
In typical liberal fashion, if you do not instantly bow at the altar of politically correct "compassion" which asks no responsibility, then you are an evil, hateful person. But beyond all the bluster and emotionalism, what are the facts and reality of the issue?
Perhaps the most salient aspect of the AIDS epidemic is how it is contracted. We know from Centers for Disease Control figures that 72% of AIDS cases are contracted through homosexual behavior and homosexuals doing drugs. Yet beyond vague promises that condoms will protect, why is there no massive effort to dissuade the public from these behaviors?
If 72% of infected persons got the disease from eating frog legs, do you think public officials would be screaming for people not to eat frog legs--even passing all sorts of laws against buying and selling and consuming and even possessing frog legs?
If 72% of infected persons got the disease from swimming in the Mississippi River, do you think public officials would blanket all forms of media with warnings to stay out of the Mississippi River--or would they simply counsel people to wear a scuba suit?
Another 15% is contracted through heterosexual contact (but I'd be willing to bet that men and women who only had sex with their spouses didn't contract it).
Another 13% is contracted through drug use. Do the math. How many cases of AIDS strike people through no behavioral fault of their own?
Yet we never seem to hear public officials telling people not to do the things which most often result in an AIDS infection. We might occasionally hear advice to wear a condom when people do whatever unnamed thing it is that might possibly cause AIDS, but that's about it.
But beyond the issue of the primary cause of the disease itself is what is being done to cure it. To hear Hillary Clinton, most liberals and perhaps even pastor Rick Warren, you'd think we're hardly spending anything on AIDS. After all, the never-ending cry from homosexuals and other liberals is "More AIDS funding, more AIDS funding, more AIDS funding." And of course we have our "AIDS Walk" in the Black Hills and I'm sure other places around South Dakota, ostensibly to "raise money to assist those living with AIDS with emergency expenses and to promote HIV and AIDS prevention." Given all this, surely we are spending very little to fight AIDS, right? Think again.
This graphic is a list of CDC appropriations for FY 2005 by disease. Go ahead and click on it to enlarge it. You need to see this.
What disease gets the most money? Is it epilepsy? Diabetes? Some form of cancer? Is it heart disease? Well, no. AIDS gets the most--more than four times the next biggest disease, which is breast and cervical cancer. (And how many diseases on this list are behavior-related--in other words, how many can be avoided by avoiding certain types of behavior?)
But that's not what's most stunning about disease funding in the United States. Look at this chart of spending versus death rates from the CDC. 
Does anything jump out at you, anything at all? The proportion of AIDS spending is even more startling when you see it graphically represented. See how much more money AIDS receives than any other area? But that's still not the most starting aspect of disease funding.
Compare the deaths per 100,000 for AIDS and for the next biggest area, heart disease and stroke...oh wait, heart disease and stroke IS the biggest area. For heart disease, it's somewhere around 275 per 100K. For AIDS, it's, well, barely detectable on the graph. I don't have anything against trying to treat AIDS, but is there anything odd about that picture to you?
Give this information from the CDC, is there really legitimate cause for liberals to be beating the drums for more AIDS funding, as if AIDS didn't have it's proper place at the table?
Do you think spending on disease in the United States is dictated by logic, reason, the number of people affected...or politically correct considerations?
So is all the crying from the Left really compassion? Or is it born out of ignorance? Or is it really just about making a political statement?
Those figures above may just hold the answer.
Featured Article
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
AIDS: Time for Some Truth
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You've completely missed the big picture. If you compared the amount of money being spent on HIV research from both the public and private sectors, you'd realize that HIV research funding is tiny compared to, for example, heart disease. The reason is that there's no money to be made in a HIV cure or vaccine, which would only come from publicly funded research, while there's plenty of money to be made from heart disease treatments, which currently all come from privately funded research. Why should the government spend money on heart disease research when the private sector is already pumping massive amounts of money into it? A HIV cure/vaccine could benefit millions around the world, but there's no incentive for the private sector to develop one. That's why the public sector's doing it - it's essentially charitable research. Heart disease research isn't.
I think YOU have completely missed the picture, Beau. There's money to be made in any health care endeavor, and AIDS is no exception.
Do you have any figures or sources for your assertion that the private sector is spending less on AIDS than other diseases? If so, the private sector might be a little more rational and balanced in their approach (refer back to those graphs if you don't know what I'm talking about). Besides, what is spent by the private sector is little of my business; my tax dollars aren't involved.
So AIDS research is "charitable research" while heart disease research isn't. Boy, I'm going to have some one 'splain that one to me.
Post a Comment