It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US not living up to Rhetoric regarding AIDS

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   
With the sheer volume of patients with HIV or AIDS one would assume that governments would be stepping up to help confront the problems faced by what now amounts to millions of people. Instead, according to this article, the US government is retracting from goals set in 2001. Instead the US gov is advocating a "a change from "evidenced-based" to "evidence-informed" "policy.
 



www.commondreams.org
“This is a major step backwards,” said Jodi Jacobson, head of Change, a Washington, DC-based charity monitoring the effect of US policy on women’s health. “The US doesn’t want to commit to any targets by which it can be held accountable, and it doesn’t want anyone else to commit either.”


The details emerged on the eve of the UN general assembly on Aids, which opens on Wednesday but has disappointed many advocates because few high-level delegates from among the leading donor nations will be present.
Colin Powell, then US secretary of state, addressed the 2001 assembly, but this time Laura Bush, the First Lady, will speak instead. “She’s been to Africa, but she has no decision-making power,” said David Bryden from the Global Aids Alliance.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This to me is really shocking, not so much shocking because I would never expect it, but shocking because of the Impact of AIDS on the world community and the syphon on reasources it has become. Second, only to cancer, in research funding, AIDS has trully ate away at the Cutting edge of pharmacology.

By stepping away from thier goals and pushing for other countries do to the same, I think that US government is attempting to bring about new social rules in regards to how much governments help those afflicted by disease and illness.

This further reinforces the idea in my mind that government is now a buisness. Instead of caring about the individual the government is instead interested in overhead costs and end of the year profits.

I would also be interested to know if there as has been any Religous Right wing nuttery, specifically because of the dropping of langauge supportive of contraceptives and condoms.

"You can judge a government by how it takes care of sick, eldery, and criminal populations" what does that say about our government?

[edit on 31-5-2006 by Elsenorpompom]

[edit on 31-5-2006 by UM_Gazz]

[edit on 31-5-2006 by Elsenorpompom]

[edit on 31-5-2006 by Elsenorpompom]




posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   
The bush administration has done this consistantly....promised huge sums to help ____________(you fill in the blank, AIDS, Tsunami relief etc) when the world was watching and once media attention turned to the next new thing either attach so many strings, as with AIDS funding, or als in the tusnami relief gave far less than it pledged....ya see compassionate conservatism works only when people are looking.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 05:24 AM
link   
ain'r it lovely...this is important, AIDS is far more important that Iraq and the other failings of the Bush administration ever will be, and the fact that his administration is living up to its promises (what else is new?) about AIDS and not a peep from the forum.....Hey fellows, Muaddiband semperfortis and all you wrong wingers I am bashing bush over here about something that is deadly real...wake up run to his defenses.
Bush is useless, AIDS is the most important thing to have happened in our lifetime, it is the pandemic we keep getting warned about, not some bloody, distracting bird flu...trouble is AIDS kills in slow motion, but it kills and has killed about 70 million world wide and bush just gives lip service.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   
I have to admit that this bothers me quite a lot. I wonder what WHO has to say about this? OTOH, the government hasn't done a lot for the bird flu either.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   
How's this sounding: HIV/AIDS is an artificial carcinogen intended to reduce third-world population.

www.originofaids.com...



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   
you don't have to invent anything like AIDS, viruses like it arise constantly and disappear constantly. The only real conspirecy about it was the use of needles over and over again in the WHO smallpox vacine program to save money, that and the oppiosition to doing anything about it once it got started...ignorance and apathy are far more deadly than menevolance any day.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elsenorpompom
With the sheer volume of patients with HIV or AIDS one would assume that governments would be stepping up to help confront the problems faced by what now amounts to millions of people.


Why would you assume that? The only time a government will step up is when it is in its interests to step up. Unfortunately for most of the global population suffering from HIV/AIDS they are in a places around the world that are currently very low on the priority list.




“This is a major step backwards,” said Jodi Jacobson, head of Change, a Washington, DC-based charity monitoring the effect of US policy on women’s health. “The US doesn’t want to commit to any targets by which it can be held accountable, and it doesn’t want anyone else to commit either.”


Well the first part sounds about right. However I haven't heard of the US stopping anyone else from commiting.



Colin Powell, then US secretary of state, addressed the 2001 assembly, but this time Laura Bush, the First Lady, will speak instead. “She’s been to Africa, but she has no decision-making power,” said David Bryden from the Global Aids Alliance.


No but she is sleeping with the man so maybe she has some influence :p



Originally posted by Elsenorpompom
This to me is really shocking, not so much shocking because I would never expect it, but shocking because of the Impact of AIDS on the world community and the syphon on reasources it has become. Second, only to cancer, in research funding, AIDS has trully ate away at the Cutting edge of pharmacology.


Yeah we've invested billlions in cash towards treatments and we've come up with some good ones. The medicines however are very expensive. Thats the crux of the issue here Anti-Retroviral drugs are very expensive. Even if you sold them at cost they would still be to expensive for most in the third-world to afford.


Originally posted by Elsenorpompom
By stepping away from thier goals and pushing for other countries do to the same, I think that US government is attempting to bring about new social rules in regards to how much governments help those afflicted by disease and illness.


I just think they can't be bothered. That is it isn't a high priority for the administration right now. I don't think there is a vast conspiracy behind this.


Originally posted by Elsenorpompom
This further reinforces the idea in my mind that government is now a buisness. Instead of caring about the individual the government is instead interested in overhead costs and end of the year profits.


Governments have always had their bed buddies. Thats how they raise money to get into office after all. But in regards to this article I think Bush is a busy man facing a huge budget deficit the economy is going down the toilet and of course the war in Iraq. Even Presidents can handle only so much.


Originally posted by Elsenorpompom
"You can judge a government by how it takes care of sick, eldery, and criminal populations" what does that say about our government?


Well if its criminals then we've got the most caring government on the planet. In fact by the time I retire I've been contemplating committing a federal crime so I can at least have good food a hot shower a nice warm bunk. I'll probably be alot better off.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 06:24 PM
link   
the government has more than enough money to go over to africa and other places and at least give the vaccine to the newborns. to stop the disease before it goes to the next generation. those with the disease dont have much of a chance but the injection is relatively inexpensive to save a human life. the children could be helped and the disease ended in 20 years if it was more of an issue in the US and global community



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   
AZT is not a vacine. It can be given to pregnat women to inhibit the passing of AIDS on to the fetus but it is not 100% effective. The inhibitor drugs are not a vacine either nor do they rid the body of AIDS, stop taking them and it comes back with a vengence. Giving either to the young will not stop the spread of AIDS....AIDS IS A SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE AND THERE IS NO CURE, at least at the present time.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join