Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Graybeard58
In defense of the NIH, if you adjust these figures to measure research dollars per year of expected lifespan lost, they don't look quite so bad.

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

5 posted on 07/31/2006 5:39:14 PM PDT by ccmay (Too much Law; not enough Order)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: ccmay

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.


8 posted on 07/31/2006 5:51:35 PM PDT by exit82 (If Democrats can lead, then I'm Chuck Norris.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: ccmay
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.

Cancer and heart disease are not just illnesses of the old.

9 posted on 07/31/2006 5:54:58 PM PDT by PA Engineer (Liberate America from the occupation media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: ccmay
What is the cost of dying of natural causes after raising a family, drinking moderately, eating red meat off the grill on Saturday, and being a Cubs fan?
14 posted on 07/31/2006 6:04:31 PM PDT by Thebaddog (Labs Rules! Brilliant!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: ccmay

Aids is not a disease.

Aids is a RESULT.

Aids is 99.999999% preventable, guaranteed.

These are the most common ways that HIV is transmitted from one person to another:

NUMBER 1 - by having sex (anal, vaginal, or oral) with an HIV-infected person;

This is by far the most prevelant way AIDS is spread.

NUMBER 2 - by sharing needles or injection equipment with an injection drug user who is infected with HIV;

NUMBER 3 - from HIV-infected women to their babies before or during birth, or through breast-feeding after birth.

Since Number 3 can only occur if the woman is HIV positive, that means she did it by #1 or #2.


HIV also can be transmitted through receipt of infected blood or blood clotting factors. However, since 1985, all donated blood in the United States has been tested for HIV. Therefore, the risk of infection through transfusion of blood or blood products is extremely low. The U.S. blood supply is considered to be among the safest in the world.


If every person in the US were tested, starting in 1985, and all AIDS carriers remained monogomaous and didn't do needle drugs, there would be no AIDS cases in the US.

Why are we spending billions of dollars per year on a totally preventable disease? Because Homosexuals want their lifestyle validated.


28 posted on 07/31/2006 6:51:22 PM PDT by Bryan24 (When in doubt, move to the right....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: ccmay
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.

Hi, Jocelyn, we recall your pithy statement as the Clintonoid Surgeon- General when you announced that the life of a fiftyish white guy with heart disease was worth less than that of a thirtyish drug addict in the gutter. Nice work. Now that AIDS carriers are living routinely into their fifties and beyond, sucking up free antidepressants, antiretrovirals, and disablility checks (among even more unsavory commodities,) while contributing nothing of lasting worth, your smug certitudes ring even more hollow.

34 posted on 07/31/2006 7:51:19 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: ccmay
...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.

The wages of sin is death! There is no appeal! There is a cure, but it only works for eternity!

63 posted on 08/02/2006 2:54:48 PM PDT by pageonetoo (You'll spot their posts soon enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson