Skip to comments.Smoking deadlier for HIV patients than virus itself
Posted on 12/20/2012 8:01:52 PM PST by Bronzy
WEDNESDAY, Dec. 19 (HealthDay News) -- A new study finds that HIV patients who receive good care but who smoke lose more years of life to smoking than to HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
(Excerpt) Read more at wthr.com ...
Smoking is totally legal whether you're healthy, suffer from COPD, or HIV. If they're THAT dangerous, make them illegal! But that won't happen because the gov't depends on OUR cigarette taxes to pay a heck of a lot of bills, such as the children's insurance program right here in Indiana-SCHIPS, isn't it called? And YOU folks don't want to pay the extra taxes that would hit you without us smokers, so just let it go! As Peter Townshend said at the end of the Sandy concert, "go get a **** beer"!
In America, the federal government spends 21 times more money on AIDS as we do on cancer. It spend 78 times more money on AIDS as we do on heart disease. Anti-stroke funding? AIDS gets 97 times more money.
As reported in the New York Post, the Ryan White Act mandates taxpayer handouts to HIV/AIDS victims of about $1.2 billion a year. We have no remotely similar program for victims of any other disease.
All this money for a disease that the World Health Organizations top HIV expert says is largely confined to gay men, drug addicts and prostitutes and their clients, i.e. largely preventable.
“In America, the federal government spends 21 times more money on AIDS as we do on cancer”
Try to get that funding cut to fund cancer and be called homophobic.
I am sure that pot smoke and sucking down plastic fumes have similar effects
“Although the study tied nonsmoking to longer life in HIV patients, it did not establish a cause-and-effect relationship.”
The last paragraph sums it up nicely. They really don’t know.
Interesting that they are worried about the destructive behavior of smoking...but not the deadly behavior that gave them AIDS.
Liberalism is insane.
I was kind of taken aback by the idea that more money was spent on AIDS research than cancer research. I looked it up and I guess it is but this is research and not total spent in regards to each disease.
the place I found the number about AIDS and cancer trailed off with the argument that AIDS was 99% preventable.
What if they ever said Cancer was 99% avoidable? But it took healthy living. No McD’s, no alcohol, no smoking, etc.?
Couldn’t it possibly that cancer it 99% preventable, but that, we the people eat corn based everything 3-6 times a day?
What if diet was a proven way to prevent 99% of cancer? Would it make a difference?
Just throwing that out there. I always here how behavior choices cause things. I think eating choices probably cause more deaths than HIV and Cancer combined. i.e. Heart disease.
Any thoughtful thoughts?
Probably got AIDS in the first place from smoking White Owls. IYKWIM
“make them illegal!”
Don’t you think that is exactly what they want? Far fetched? Hardly. Do you recall when the idea of even gay “civil unions’ was considered outrageous, it’d never fly? The left is nothing if not persistent. And aggressive.
This is just BS liberal science trying to keep HIV (gay) disease in the limelight, the primary motive of which is to somehow connect smoking with HIV and THEN somehow say a portion of the cigarette tax money should go to HIV/AIDS research. MONEY MONEY MONEY. Liberals can’t live without other peoples’ money.
The lesson here: Don’t smoke a cigarette after unprotected sex with a stranger.
Much of the power elite (big business, government, education and science) have adopted humanism as their professional and personal culture. Western ethics and morals are not standing in the way of killing and enslaving people for profit, power and control.
Many humanist professionals are into eugentics to unload the big generation of boomers as they age (they will be in the way of profits and require too much taxation for their health care. They are economic sponges, not producers.)
In addition, they want to depopulate the earth because futurists think men are being replaced in labor by robots and they think man has overpopulated their globe. Their highest value is themselves and materialism. They can rationalize anything immoral and unethical.
So, given that, I think the elite of this generation are perfectly capable of imposing a product like egnetically engineered food that shortens human life and reduces the population of the earth. Humanist science is capable of finding a major food product safe that is not safe, for their own profit and job protection (research money).
But I'm sure they know they need more money to "study" it further.
Merry Christmas, Mears.
Does this mean that smokers can qualify for full Social Security Disability payments for the rest of their lives? (HIV virus qualifies a person for full benefits for life)