's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Not to sound callous but(16 posts)

Not to sound callous butlotterypick
Dec 1, 2003 12:40 PM
I don't see why business leaders or anyone should be incented to fight AIDS when the nations and people at risk aren't.

So much of AIDS in the US and Africa is caused by unsafe sex, yet gay groups and african cultural groups aren't interested in stopping the activities that allow most of it to happen.

Help me out on this one. Why should I feel bad for them, when they don't want to help themselves?
re: Not to sound callous butbill105
Dec 1, 2003 1:07 PM
youre right
re: Not to sound callous butNo_sprint
Dec 1, 2003 1:13 PM
You guys are pretty much right. The real impetus for fighting the virus for ANYONE is the money to be made on the drug patent. The gov't probably wants that just as much as anyone else.
You want to talk about callous?Spoiler
Dec 1, 2003 2:38 PM
Magic Johnson's still hanging around ten years after, and he's only getting fatter. I think he's faking it.
Hey Spoiler, where you been? I miss ..Live Steam
Dec 3, 2003 7:38 AM
your usual utterance of whit to break the, shall we say, tension :O)
Strive for an informed callousnessbaylor
Dec 1, 2003 7:20 PM
or it merely looks like your bias is showing.

Saying that AIDS education is not an aggressive priority in gay communities and communities of color is simply uninformed. The fastest growing groups are NOT gay men, it is teens. The same folks who know that unprotected sex makes babies but wind up needing abortions by the boatload.

Saying that "gay groups" "aren't interested" is frankly ridiculous.

As for the AIDS boom in Africa, I think that health organizations (don't really know what you mean by "African cultural groups") are busting their butts to distribute both information AND condoms on a huge continent with military, cultural, logistic, and language barriers.

Back up your apathy theory; it will enhance your credibility.

I can be callous towards an individual teen, needle-sharing, bare-backing gay man, or whatever who knows and is stupid, but these group-wide generalizations don't strike me as true.
That's not callous but ignorantTri_Rich
Dec 2, 2003 10:27 AM
Heterosexuals are now the most at risk group for AIDS.

Second, to think that african people and governments are not fighting against the spread of AIDS is simply uninformed.
Who's ignorant?53T
Dec 2, 2003 11:43 AM
Heterosexuals are not the most at-risk group for HIV infection. Where on earth did you dig up that tid-bit of distortion?

Heterosexuals, as a group, make up anywhere from 80% to 90% of all the people of earth. Of those, a very small fraction fall into any of the HIV risk groups.

Furthermore, "African governements" is too broad a generalization for public health policy reasons. Liberia, Eritrea, and South Africa have very different public health priorities.
The original posterTri_Rich
Dec 2, 2003 12:32 PM
You are right "at risk" is the wrong term. The fact is that worldwide over the past 5 years heterosexuals represent the fastest growing segment of the HIV positve population. To think it is a "gay problem" is incorrect.

As to the second part I simply stated that there are african governments and NGOs which are actively addressing the AIDS epidemic. To state other wise is ignorant in the real sense of the word, which is to not have knowledge of the facts.
world wide, the majority of infections are from...dr hoo
Dec 2, 2003 4:57 PM
... HETEROsexual sex. In the usa, heterosexuals are mostly at low risk. Lesbians are at even lower risk.

But the single biggest transmission vector world wide is heterosexual sex.
tend to agreeDuane Gran
Dec 3, 2003 6:15 AM
It seems like AIDS is very simple to avoid and there is plenty of motivation for the private sector to find a cure, provided that governments don't treat drug companies like a public service. I'm more interested in funding and effort to go into cancer research.
tend to agreebill105
Dec 3, 2003 6:44 AM
absolutely, cancer research would do the most good for the most people. you are a lot more likely to develop cancer and can get it from alot of other places than aids. the problem is, the left and dems need an issue where they can create fear and paint a picture of something they say the right hasnt paid attention to or done enough for. they need an issue so bad that they will throw the health of those infected or the families affected into the ring as fodder to be debated.
because it's "hip"Spoiler
Dec 3, 2003 7:34 AM
Whether heteros or homos are most at risk or most infected is besides the point. It's preventable, unlike so many other diseases that kill people through no fault of their own. If countries want to unite behind a disease, pick one that isn't preventable.

The decision to wear a condom is free. There's no condom for cancer.
because it's "hip"bill105
Dec 3, 2003 7:45 AM
man, that last line is great. i wish i had thought of that. you better patent that before the american cancer society steals it!
Calling cancer a disease is missleading.....Tri_Rich
Dec 3, 2003 7:52 AM
and leads people to believe there is a single cause. This is not the case. Cancer is more akin to a symptom which can have many different underlying causes. Current cancer treatment and research focuses on eliminating the tumor not on addressing the reason it formed.
Calling cancer a disease is missleading.....maddog
Dec 4, 2003 9:01 AM
I'm not sure I agree completely with your characterization of cancer. You are correct in saying that cancers are a family comprised of many individual diseases. All of these diseases are marked by increases in growth of diseased cells. In all cancers, a cell divides more than it is supposed to, and forms a tumor (blood cancers like leukemia are slightly different). The severity of the cancer is a result of many factors, including the location of the tumor, and it's degree of invasiveness, or ability to form new tumors.

All cancers arise by similar means. Mutations in genes that are required to limit cell growth allow cells to grow uncontrollably. There are many ways we get these mutations. Some are hereditary (breast cancer runs in families). Many are environmental (sunlight, smoke, radiation, etc.) It requires multiple mutations to get cancer. This is why older people get more cancer - they are subjected to environmental stresses over a longer time. When the right combination of mutations occurs in a cell, it becomes cancerous. Many diverse cancers have mutations in the same genes, suggesting these cancers arise by very similar mechanisms. So all cancers are closely related in some very important molecular details.

So how do we treat cancer? Well, it's hard to address the reason it formed, because it is hard to eliminate genetic mutations. The ones we are born with, we are stuck with (until genetic engineering is perfected - closer than you think). We can reduce other mutations by avoiding risk factors like smoking, etc. BUT, we are not even close to being able to eliminate these mutations, and probably never will be able to. So we are stuck trying to get rid of cancer cells that have already formed. The immune system is actually quite good at this, and clears the body of many cancer cells before they cause disease. One idea for treatment is to boost a patient's immune system to fight his own cancer. The most common chemotherapies are aimed at killing cells that divide most rapidly to limit (or eliminate) tumor growth. (Because hair, stomach cells are amongst the most rapidly dividing cells in the body - these cells are also killed, thereby producing common side effects, hair loss and nausea.) There are many other treatment ideas as well. It's a lot of trial and error - and is the major focus of biomedical research in this country. I can't give exact numbers, but the number of people and dollars aimed at fighting cancer far exceeds those studying AIDS.

AIDS is scary stuff. A sexually transmitted, nearly always fatal disease with a long incubation period. This is the kind ov virus that can do terrible, terrible things to a population (not to mention the terrible effects on the lives of individual patients). And viruses are tough nuts to crack. They talk about a cure for AIDS on the news. Well, were not close. We have developed cures for exactly zero viral diseases. That means, once you have a virus, you have it. Some can be controlled somewhat, but none can be eliminated. And the AIDS virus is a tricky virus to control. Vaccination to stop the spread of the disease is more likely to work, but this too is hard because the virus changes so much.

I believe we should spend more on researching each of these terrible diseases. It is in our best interests as a nation, and a species, to improve the health of all peoples.