Posted on 07/31/2006 4:57:26 PM PDT by Graybeard58
The July/August AARP Bulletin had a piece on federal aid for medical research in which it criticized the President Bush's request to freeze the National Institutes of Health's budget for fiscal 2007. The AARP correctly interpreted the move as a reduction in federal funding for disease research. Naturally, it advocated devoting larger sums to investigating better treatments for Alzheimer's disease, which primarily affects its core constituency.
But we were struck most by the accompanying morbid graphic, which broke down research grants per fatality. It is beyond dispute that a good chunk of federal research dollars is wasted on frivolous projects. But if it can be described this way, taxpayers get the best bang for their buck on stroke research, with gets just $2,143 per fatality. Heart disease was next at $3,649 per corpse. Surprisingly, cancer was well down the list at $14,006 per death.
The most stunning number, however, was $212,330, which is what taxpayers cough up for each HIV/AIDS fatality. In 2007, they will contribute a staggering $2.9 billion for HIV/AIDS research, which is only slightly less than the total for diabetes and Alzheimer's, respiratory and kidney diseases. They afflict tens of millions more Americans than AIDS, yet comparatively, they get the short end of the funding stick.
It's no secret the generous appropriations for HIV/AIDS research are dictated by political correctness rather than in response to a true public-health crisis. Moreover, HIV/AIDS is the most easily prevented cause of death on the NIH list; all that is required is a modicum of personal responsibility. In a perfect world, the NIH would dole out research dough proportional to the quantifiable health threat rather than the empty-barrel politics of HIV/AIDS.
Just keep repeating the leftist mantra "We're all at risk for getting HIV. We're all at risk for getting HIV."
Obviously the AARP should spend less time campaigning for Democrats and more time lobbying for more of the research pie. But, then again, since so much is being spent on HIV/AIDS and the life expectency of patients is rising ... I guess an ever-increasing number will make it to AARP's age requirement.
In other words, someone who dies of a stroke could have been expected to die soon anyway, of cancer or heart attack or some other disease of old age. But someone who dies of AIDS at age 32 might have lived another sixty years in good health if he hadn't succumbed to his perverted cravings.
We can argue about the morality of enabling homosex all we want, but on a purely epidemiological and statistical plane, the NIH is on solid ground.
-ccm
And so you see the result of Hollywood and their propogation of the AIDS issue. That is a disgusting figure to see that AIDS collects so much in research funding, for something that is an easily avoidable disease. Other issues that deal with genetic problems are the real killers. My mother used to run Alzheimers research studies at USC before she retired. She always told me how they had to scrimp by on what they got. They were doing Phase 2 Human trials for new drugs.
Your argument has more holes than a cheese grater.
Young people have strokes. Young adults in their thirties and forties have heart attacks and get cancer too. Young women die of breast cancer and ovarian cancer.
The truth is, that since 1981, AIDs has been the disease dujour, highlighted by the glitterati, and by now, should have been totally eradicated because it is so preventable.
Money spent for cures for cancer, for instance, would be more beneficial to more people and more families than HIV/AIDS, but doesn't have the media spotlight that HIV/AIDS has had bestowed upon it.
The article is dead on. For all of the money spent on AIDS in 25 years, no one on earth should be dying of it.
In case you haven't seen this one yet. BTW, what does "PWN3D" mean? Pound? Pawned?
One of the biggest differences between HIV infection and the other disorders listed is that HIV is contagious. Look at countries who didn't spend that much on HIV early on. Swaziland has something like a 40-50% rate of HIV infection. Obviously, not all the money is spent efficiently, but Bush is working on that with some reforms on HIV spending here in the states.
We're all at risk for having our chosen lifestyles modified by HIV. Therefore, it is clearly deserving of ten times the funding of a mere killer like diabetes - since HIV is interfering with our right to choose. ;)
Of course they do, but at a miniscule fraction of the rate of those in their 60's and 70's. Adjusting for expected years of life lost takes all of those factors into account.
I reiterate, I am not defending the homosexual lifestyle or agenda. I am simply pointing out that the NIH is on a sound actuarial footing when they fund AIDS research in the manner they do. We can debate whether this is a good thing, but not the underlying mathematics.
-ccm
But HIV is not contagious like measles or mumps. It is spread mainly by one way, and we have known how to stop that way for over twenty years.
The truth is that HIV positive gay men are not responsible when it comes to having sex, and that the gay world puts a premium on having sex with those already HIV/AIDS positive. The amount of anonymous gay sex increases the chances of infection exponentially. That is why we still see ridiculously high rates of infection, and that these rates cross over into heterosexual groups of both sexes.
It stems from irresponsible, unrestricted, and unprotected gay sex.
All of the money in the world and advertising can not overcome a lack of personal responsibility.
Yes, I know you are not defending the gay lifestyle.
By the underlying mathematics on disease and disease prevention is always based on the number of people affected, not the remaining years of life of an affected group.
Aid for HIV/AIDs has been overblown for years based on any cost/benefit ratio, solely due to its strident and media savvy advocates.
Nonetheless, it is a preventable disease, which after 25 years, should in no way be shgowing the same kinds of infection rates that we saw in the 1980s. Obviously, personal behavior is affecting these rates.
Rubbish, otherwise why bother finding cures for rare childhood diseases like phenylketonuria?
-ccm
Is this "per fatality" in just the U.S. or worldwide?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.