sheselectric, I checked out the site. The results have not yet shown conclusively that the HIV virus is eradicated, simply that the CD4 counts are back up. HAART therapy does this in patients who respond to it. It is possible that the companies drug will help and may even be as effective as HAART or have synergestic effects with HAART therapy but it is not a cure.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Question concerning AIDs cure...
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Ok, So I read the report on Contre-Vir. Woo. So they injected it in two full blown AIDS patients and their CD4 count went up and their viral load decreased. You can do that with several other anti-retrovirals. that is hardly a cure. Not to mention, the site even states that its a 'potential cure', which is not only arrogant, but presumptuous, and immediately smacks of pseudo-science. Then it goes on to say that, and I quote: 'ImmunoScience has planned similar studies in near future in collaboration with those scientists to prove that the various mutations of the HIV virus do not affect the success obtained by the vaccine.'
I for one, would love to see these studies including the materials and methods in proving that. This is nothing novel, typical reaction from any anti-retroviral. However, does it have side effects as these things often do? And why is it that In doing a literature search, I cannot find a single medical or otherwise scientific journal on this medication? Surely these 'phenomenal' results would be published? Or is it possible that no reputable medical journal, or self-respecting scientific publication would dare publish such 'shaky' science?
However, my absolute favorite bit is:' . . . a very exciting prod uct - a potential cure for AIDS named Contre-Vir? . The latter is a recombinant live virus that effectively "teaches" the body's own immune system to fight the wild type AIDS virus. U.S. and International Patents are pending on the diagnostic apparatus, the HIV saliva test and the Contre-Vir? therapeutic vaccine that has restored the immune systems of two near-death AIDS patients and made them symptom free.'
The biggest problem with HIV infection is that the CD4 cells drop in number so far that they become negligible. I'd like to see how this 'designer virus' 'teaches' the body's dwindling immune system to combat a wild-type virus. Anyone who knows anything about virology knows that you aren't fighting one strain of virus. A virus is like a cloud of several sub-species (AKA a viral swarm). It's microevolution on a rapid scale. You can try to treat for one type, but the other strains will kick your ass. Plain and simple.
Please, the only way you can prove me wrong is by pointing out ONE scientific article demonstrating the efficacy of this 'cure'. Certainly, if there was a cure for AIDS, I would assume it would be front page stuff in Science or nature, or even Journal of AIDS. Please. Point me to one article about this Contre-Vir in any of them.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
ATOTers beware this drug
From their FAQ
Contri-Vir is essentially HIV virus weakened by the removal of their nef gene....
Use at your own risk 😛
From their FAQ
Contri-Vir is essentially HIV virus weakened by the removal of their nef gene....
Use at your own risk 😛
Legendary
Diamond Member
A little math, quoted from the above provided stats source (2001)
Let's just count the new infections, and disregard the old ones for a second (because we can't change the past)
Men:
40,000 x .7 = 28,000 <-- Men in the US who get AIDS in one year.
28,000 x .6 = 16,800 <-- Men in the US who gets AIDS from homosexual sex.
28,000 x .25 = 7,000 <-- Men in the US who gets AIDS from injection drug use.
28,000 x .15 = 4,200 <-- Men in the US who gets AIDS from heterosexual sex.
Women:
40,000 x .3 = 12,000 <-- Women in the US who gets AIDS in one year.
12,000 x .75 = 8,000 <-- Women in the US who gets AIDS from heterosexual sex.
12,000 x .25 = 4,000 <-- Women in the US who gets AIDS from injection drug use.
And that's just one year. And according to that site, 1/4 of the 850k to 950k people in the US who have AIDS don't even know, so imagine the exponential increase in AIDS cases. Surely numbers like these can outdo any argument AGAINST the widespread distribution of an AIDS vaccine, if one is created (apparently not likely).
Let's just count the new infections, and disregard the old ones for a second (because we can't change the past)
Men:
40,000 x .7 = 28,000 <-- Men in the US who get AIDS in one year.
28,000 x .6 = 16,800 <-- Men in the US who gets AIDS from homosexual sex.
28,000 x .25 = 7,000 <-- Men in the US who gets AIDS from injection drug use.
28,000 x .15 = 4,200 <-- Men in the US who gets AIDS from heterosexual sex.
Women:
40,000 x .3 = 12,000 <-- Women in the US who gets AIDS in one year.
12,000 x .75 = 8,000 <-- Women in the US who gets AIDS from heterosexual sex.
12,000 x .25 = 4,000 <-- Women in the US who gets AIDS from injection drug use.
And that's just one year. And according to that site, 1/4 of the 850k to 950k people in the US who have AIDS don't even know, so imagine the exponential increase in AIDS cases. Surely numbers like these can outdo any argument AGAINST the widespread distribution of an AIDS vaccine, if one is created (apparently not likely).
First, let's get something straight...
A "mistake" is when you forget to look both ways before crossing the street and you step in front of a Greyhound Bus. A "mistake" is when you get to the check-out register and find that you left your wallet at home. A mistake is when you write "305" when you were supposed to write "304". Those are "mistakes".
Conversely, a "mistake" is NOT when you take a gun into a liquor store and demand all their money.
A "choice" is when you put your penis into someone, or put a needle into your vein, knowing there are risks, for any reason or motivation at all. In all my years I've never managed to insert my penis into anything accidentally or mistakenly...how about you?
Get it? Two different things, 'mistakes' and 'choices', as different as any two things could be. The earlier in life that you understand the difference, the better it will be on you. Now, on to your fallacious argument that attempts to seize the moral high ground.
Given that I have gay or lesbian relatives, I've known people who died of AIDs. As a health care professional, I've also treated many AIDs patients.
One this is for certain, I would NOT say "Damn, they should be spending MORE or AS MUCH on AIDs research as they do for Uncle Fred who has Parkinson's Disease, Aunt Freda who has Multiple Sclerosis, my father who has rhuematoid arthritis, myself who has narcolepsy and cataplexy, and the five other people I know who have a devastating disease that is not preventable, because I know one person who contracted HIV."
Nor more than I would say "Damn, they should kill every shark because I know one person who was attacked."
Yeah, I should have said 85% of people with HIV are drug-users, homosexuals, bisexuals, or all of the above, not 90%. My bad.
Although we are getting to one of the flaws in how these HIV transmissions are classified. If I am an IV drug user, who meets a female prostitute in the course of my drug-abusing, deviant, and high-risk life, and I contract HIV from her, guess what manner of transmission this is counted as? Yep, "heterosexual" contact. Heterosexual is a 'sanitized' classification which does not account for the true nature of the behavior which lead to transmission.
This was one of the flaws revealed in the Los Angeles county study which found that "heterosexual women were the fastest growing risk group". I must confess that I was wrong when I stated earlier that many of the women in the 1990 LA County study were prostitutes. ALL OF THE WOMEN WERE PROSTITUTES!
So...prostitutes, drug abusers, or bisexuals passing HIV through heterosexual contact to other prostitutes, drug abusers, or bisexuals that they meet in pursuit of their deviant, criminal, or otherwise high risk life-styles, are classified as "heterosexual" transmissions. This isn't exactly sweet Mary College Girl contracting HIV from All-American Tom College Boy.
Your attempt at Ivory Tower is kinda pathetic. My comments have been honest and accurate, how can they be "selfish and heartless", because I am calling a spade a spade, in a manner of speaking? More senseless bleeding heart Politically Correct POPPY-COCK BULLSHIIT!
If my comments are heartless and selfish, then your's are the height of stupidity. See...name calling is easy. Substance is hard and you're failing miserably.
Do you even have any idea what that means?
There are not infinite resources. We as a society are forced to make moral decisions all the time. A man shoots a bunch of school children then turns the gun on himself. The first ambulance arrives on the scene, and there are a few critical children and the gunman who is still alive. Only room for one person in the ambulance, who do you take, the gunman or a child, both of whom are bleeding to death?
Any decent human being would chose the child and say screw the gunman. Do you understand why or are you one of the few idiots who see no difference between the gunman and the child he attempted to murder?
Similarly, you have not yet stated one word which would justify why we should spend so much money to research treatments, cures, or vaccines, for a disease that is 99.97% preventable by simple life-style modifications and overwhelmingly affects a distictly small subset of the population who engage in willfull and deliberate high-risk or deviant behavior TO THE EXCLUSION of any number of diseases which are either not preventable or not easily prevented and affect a much larger portion of the population through no fault of their own?
This is not a difficult question! Do you take the gunman or the child? CHOOSE!
My father is well aware of my opinions, he SHARES them. He does not blame tobacco companies for his cancer, accepts FULL responsibility for his own choices, and for a man who started smoking in the 1940's, KNOWS damned well that anyone who says they "didn't know" smoking was harmful back then is nothing more than an insufferable L-I-A-R.
tcsenter, you say
"Similarly, you have not yet stated one word which would justify why we should spend so much money to research treatments, cures, or vaccines, for a disease that is 99.97% preventable by simple life-style modifications and overwhelmingly affects a distictly small subset of the population who engage in willfull and deliberate high-risk or deviant behavior TO THE EXCLUSION of any number of diseases which are either not preventable or not easily prevented and affect a much larger portion of the population through no fault of their own?"
The justification is in the numbers. Again worldwide, 1/100 adults between the age of 15 and 49 are HIV positive. That is a lot of people. I agree that with the lifestyle modifications you mention, you could drastically reduce the transmissibility of HIV. However, you can't get people to make those changes. The same way that we tell kids about the problems of teen pregnancy, underage drinking, drinking and driving, drug use etc, but they still do it. So HIV has gotten to the point where it is reaching epidemic proportions. There are 40 million people now that have HIV worldwide, and the number is rising. So rather than asking us to justify the spending (which if we cut by 80% as you have suggested in another thread, would greatly increase the time to find a cure/treatment and allow many more people to get the disease) what do you suggest to prevent it's transmission? And assuming that your solution works, what do you plan to do about the people who already have it? Just let them die? You are a health care professional? Who taught your ethics class? Josef Mengele?
Also, I would like you to cite your source for the 85% statistic you gave. I've cited mine already (NIH, 2001).
One other thing, you state "TO THE EXCLUSION of any number of diseases which are either not preventable or not easily prevented and affect a much larger portion of the population through no fault of their own?"
I would like you to name a life-threatening disease which affects more or the same number of people (40 million worldwide) that is receiving less government and private funding than HIV/AIDS.
"Similarly, you have not yet stated one word which would justify why we should spend so much money to research treatments, cures, or vaccines, for a disease that is 99.97% preventable by simple life-style modifications and overwhelmingly affects a distictly small subset of the population who engage in willfull and deliberate high-risk or deviant behavior TO THE EXCLUSION of any number of diseases which are either not preventable or not easily prevented and affect a much larger portion of the population through no fault of their own?"
The justification is in the numbers. Again worldwide, 1/100 adults between the age of 15 and 49 are HIV positive. That is a lot of people. I agree that with the lifestyle modifications you mention, you could drastically reduce the transmissibility of HIV. However, you can't get people to make those changes. The same way that we tell kids about the problems of teen pregnancy, underage drinking, drinking and driving, drug use etc, but they still do it. So HIV has gotten to the point where it is reaching epidemic proportions. There are 40 million people now that have HIV worldwide, and the number is rising. So rather than asking us to justify the spending (which if we cut by 80% as you have suggested in another thread, would greatly increase the time to find a cure/treatment and allow many more people to get the disease) what do you suggest to prevent it's transmission? And assuming that your solution works, what do you plan to do about the people who already have it? Just let them die? You are a health care professional? Who taught your ethics class? Josef Mengele?
Also, I would like you to cite your source for the 85% statistic you gave. I've cited mine already (NIH, 2001).
One other thing, you state "TO THE EXCLUSION of any number of diseases which are either not preventable or not easily prevented and affect a much larger portion of the population through no fault of their own?"
I would like you to name a life-threatening disease which affects more or the same number of people (40 million worldwide) that is receiving less government and private funding than HIV/AIDS.
Not really Linux.. if you read the information carefully and have a background in basic HIV and immunology you will see that this drug doesn't do anything more than the current drugs do. It is not a cure. It does have the potential to be an additional treatment if it works well but its not correct to call it a cure.
Why? You do NOT mass immunize entire populations for an EASILY preventable diseases which is not communicable, highly contagious, nor even particularly infectious.
You might vaccinate particularized subsets of the population who are most at risk for contracting HIV. Hurray! Homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals, drug addicts, prostitutes and their customers can go back to living their high-risk and deviant life-styles without worry...and it only cost several hundred billion to accomplish such a shining example of spending public resources in a manner that maximizes the benefit for the broadest cross-section of the population.
Next up on our list: We will spend a few hundred billion to block the ill-effects of too much cocaine use because millions of people worldwide are harming themselves while snorting too much. Wait, I think we're already doing those things...aren't we?
I have a feeling tscenter is right. A while back I read HIV cases in Californica were no longer dropping. The report suggested the reasons for this leveling off were medications that help treat symptoms. Apparently the high-risk community saw those medications as a "cure" of sorts and went back to business as usual.
Nothing I've stated conflicts with the ethics of a health care professional. This is a public policy issue, not a health care issue. Do you understand the difference?
Great, except there has been no discussion of access to health care or treatment. Which begs the question...what thread have you been reading?
And the number is so high due almost entirely to Sub-Saharan Africa. HIV is an epidemic in Sub-Saharan Africa, and perhaps a couple other dung-heaps of the world, but it is not remotely approaching an epidemic anywhere else. This is "not" a 'world figure', it is a 'world figure skewed significantly higher and made to sound more alarming due almost exclusively to the disporportionate contribution made by one small region of the world'.
Once again we see that statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics. Malaria is still epidemic in certain regions, so is cholera, and a dozen other diseases, but we don't spend billions on them annually.
Hey, we agree! Let them settle for what advancements are netted by private funding and a significant cut in public funding.
Not in the United States nor any other progressive Western society. Why should 100% of taxpayers be funding something with such zeal and priority that only .2% of them are at any "REAL" risk of ever contracting?
Again, my ethics as a health care professional are not in conflict here. This is a PUBLIC POLICY issue, not a health care issue. Do you understand the difference?
I see you have endeavored to completely avoid having to answer my question by putting an obfuscatory question to me. Why should 100% of U.S. taxpayers fund with such zeal and priority research to find a treatment, cure, or vaccine for a disease that is EXTREMELY preventable by simple life-style modifications, not communicable, not highly contagious, nor even particularly infectious, when only .2% of those taxpayers are at any "real" risk of contracting the disease, to the exclusion of other diseases that are not nearly as preventable at this time and threaten a much larger percentage of the population through no fault of their own?
BTW, we spend lots of money trying to reduce teenage pregnancy and drunk driving, public education and promotion stuff, and we PUNISH drunk driving, but we aren't trying to eradicate these ills of society with break-neck funding by pulling money away from say...breast cancer research. We spend an amount on these things that is in proportion to their effects on society and the population that is at risk...unlike HIV and AIDS.
The NIH cites CDC sources, it has none of its own figures for the US. I've given links to articles written by Michael Fumento, who is one of the leading authorities on AIDS in public policy. Feel free to read and learn...or not. See my earlier post about what numerous investigations have discovered "heterosexual transmission" to really mean (i.e. the vast majority of "heterosexual transmissions" are no further than one transmission removed from a homosexual, bisexual, or IV drug user).
It is none of my concern what affects Uba Duba Dyba and his 40 starving children in Sub-Saharan Africa, as though AIDS are even the worst thing these people have to worry about next to getting their heads chopped off in a civil war and starving to death. Because we do not fund ANY other disease in proportion to 'world' numbers, I'm speaking strictly from a stand-point of what affects our own population.
Your question is an attempt at sophistry. I need not show that any particular disease is funded less than AIDS, although I have a funny feeling it wouldn't be too difficult, I only need to advance the MAXIM that any disease could be funded MORE using the money we spend on AIDS research (and with greater potential benefit to more people).
tcsenter. I understand the difference between public policy and health care, but apparently you don't understand the concept of PUBLIC HEALTH. You say:
"It is none of my concern what affects Uba Duba Dyba and his 40 starving children in Sub-Saharan Africa, as though AIDS are even the worst thing these people have to worry about next to getting their heads chopped off in a civil war and starving to death. Because we do not fund ANY other disease in proportion to 'world' numbers, I'm speaking strictly from a stand-point of what affects our own population
I'm not even going to comment on the racist tones of what you said. But you should be aware that we do fund research in diseases that affect parts of the world that are tranmissible. I'm sure I don't have to explain why? Since that "dung hill" is not important, what about the increasing rates of HIV in India, China, and Japan, as well as Europe? The point is if it were simple to cure HIV just by telling people not to live risky lives we would have HIV anymore. But we do.. what is your counter to that?
You say:
Your question is an attempt at sophistry. I need not show that any particular disease is funded less than AIDS, although I have a funny feeling it wouldn't be too difficult, I only need to advance the MAXIM that any disease could be funded MORE using the money we spend on AIDS research (and with greater potential benefit to more people).
Actually I have a funny feeling it is difficult and that is why you are consitently avoiding the issue. You have to yet prove that shifting the money to other disease research would provide more benefit to more people. Again, since HIV affects so many people in the world (despite the fact that you don't care about other countries) you will not be able to show this.
By the way, this wonderful Michael Fumento you quote repeatedly is not a respected scientist, policy maker, or public health official, but is a lawyer and columnist who has no real experience in the field so his opinion does not outweigh that of the National Institutes of Health!
From all of your statements it appears that you don't consider homosexuals prostitues and other people who make decisions in their life that you feel are incorrect (keep in mind this would include your father) as being as worthy as other people and we should not consider the treatment of their diseases as a worthwhile effort. You do realize that goes against medical ethics which despite your statements to the contrary affect Public Policy and Public Health!
"It is none of my concern what affects Uba Duba Dyba and his 40 starving children in Sub-Saharan Africa, as though AIDS are even the worst thing these people have to worry about next to getting their heads chopped off in a civil war and starving to death. Because we do not fund ANY other disease in proportion to 'world' numbers, I'm speaking strictly from a stand-point of what affects our own population
I'm not even going to comment on the racist tones of what you said. But you should be aware that we do fund research in diseases that affect parts of the world that are tranmissible. I'm sure I don't have to explain why? Since that "dung hill" is not important, what about the increasing rates of HIV in India, China, and Japan, as well as Europe? The point is if it were simple to cure HIV just by telling people not to live risky lives we would have HIV anymore. But we do.. what is your counter to that?
You say:
Your question is an attempt at sophistry. I need not show that any particular disease is funded less than AIDS, although I have a funny feeling it wouldn't be too difficult, I only need to advance the MAXIM that any disease could be funded MORE using the money we spend on AIDS research (and with greater potential benefit to more people).
Actually I have a funny feeling it is difficult and that is why you are consitently avoiding the issue. You have to yet prove that shifting the money to other disease research would provide more benefit to more people. Again, since HIV affects so many people in the world (despite the fact that you don't care about other countries) you will not be able to show this.
By the way, this wonderful Michael Fumento you quote repeatedly is not a respected scientist, policy maker, or public health official, but is a lawyer and columnist who has no real experience in the field so his opinion does not outweigh that of the National Institutes of Health!
From all of your statements it appears that you don't consider homosexuals prostitues and other people who make decisions in their life that you feel are incorrect (keep in mind this would include your father) as being as worthy as other people and we should not consider the treatment of their diseases as a worthwhile effort. You do realize that goes against medical ethics which despite your statements to the contrary affect Public Policy and Public Health!
I'd just like to say that this is one of the most interesting threads I've read in a while. We have government policy, biomedical research, and medical ethics/public policy debates all stemming from this thread. I dare not venture into the hotly debated 'we spend too much on AIDS research topic.' I may somewhat agree as Cancer research doesn't get near the funding, but seems to be a more prevalent and just as devestating a problem as AIDS. Unfortunately, they are both complex topics. However, I do live off of what the NIH gives me for what I do, so i'll consider myself biased and just not venture into that branch. But hey, great thread Zackath!
This is not even particularly revealing, the gay community has since the very beginnings of AIDS problem conducted itself with reprehensible resistance to even the suggestion that they should modify their life-styles. They were the most ardent opponent of the Red Cross instituting a ban on homosexuals donating blood before there was an adequate test for HIV or screening measures, a stunt that is estimated to have killed hundreds of thousands of people as HIV positive gay men flocked to donate HIV contaminated blood in an act of defiance and protest, blood which was transfused into God knows how many Americans.
There has been and continues to be a BOOMING sub-culture among the homosexual community that calls itself or is known as the 'bareback' community. They refuse to wear condoms or avoid high risk sexual contact even in the most risky of gay meeting places and clubs such as gay bath houses.
You give these cretins a pill and they will simply abuse it, misuse it, or take it for granted, now they have a 'cure', facilitating wide-spread drug resistance to mutations of HIV.
OK tcsenter. Well from your arguments that you've posted, its clear that you are not only ignorant of basic public health concepts but are also a racist and homophobe. I refuse to continue to debate with you since I really do not feel like demeaning myself to your level. You are incapable of debating at an intellectual level and resort to citing outdated or disproven facts or disreputable sources. It wouldn't surprise me if you received most of your information about AIDS from sites like godhatesfags.com. It is disgusting to even believe you are somehow involved in the health profession with these views as well as your casual disregard for human life Hopefully your involvement is limited to cleaning the bedpans of those "cretins" as you describe. It is comforting to know that the people who are actually in charge of HIV research and research funding do not share your beliefs. I will not waste anymore time with you.
Skyclad1uhm1
Lifer
Ah yes, and no heterosexual would ever think of having multiple partners, we're all virgin till marriage and stay married to the same person our whole life without ever having sex with another person.
Go to South-Africa, have unprotected sex with 10 different girls, and the chances you aren't HIV positive after that is less than 40%. (If you choose the wrong area there it's less than 3% btw). Then come back.
The ethics of a health care professional do NOT prevent them from having an opinion on public policy matters, not even those that directly impact public health and health care.
That's a good choice...for you.
Name one. We as a country do NOT decide US public policy matters based on an inversely proportional scale of benefit or interest to the US population. Do you understand the utter absurdity in what you're saying?
Can you imagine the following debate on Capitol Hill:
"Since Problem A is very small in the United States but a big problem in Sub-Saharan Africa, we are going to throw lots of money at it, while we will nickel and dime Problem B because its not a big problem in the rest of the world, but is a big problem in the United States."
Do you know of any politicians who would commit political suicide in such a flagrantly stupid manner? Besides welfare queens like Barbara Boxer or some other idiot. We prioritize what affects our population the most, on a proportionate scale, what affects other populations is a distant second.
I have no interest in "curing" a disease to the tune of tens of billions of dollars that is ALREADY easily prevented! There are more pressing and important things to fund, things that aren't preventable as of yet and actually threaten more than .2% of our population.
Stop trying to ignore the fact that the 'world AIDS statistics' are hardly representative of "the world".
If there were 10,000 murders in Los Angeles county annually and only a handful of murders in every other county in the United States, would it be fair to incessantly refer to the "high national murder rate" without caveat that this 'high' murder rate is actually not representative of the whole country, only Los Angeles county? Not if you have an ounce of intellectual honesty.
The same is true of the 'world AIDS statistics'. This is hardly representative of 'the world' as I've already explained.
Straw man. Nor did I contend that Michael Fumento is a "respected scientist, policy maker, or public health official". I stated he was a leading authority on AIDS in public policy matters which is EXACTLY what he is. Do you even understand any of the terms I'm using? "Public policy" Do you know what that means? For crying out loud my 5 year-old nephew provides better intellectual fodder!
BTW, Fumento repeatedly demonstrates that he possesses enough competence in scientific matters that he has put numerous credentialed 'scientists' in their proverbial place without rebuttal. Fumento's contributions in the area of AIDS policy, risk, and research has earned praise from many persons in the medical and public health communities:
Fumento's book is currently the best single source available to enable heterosexual persons to assess their personal risk and, as an informed electorate, take a closer look at overall health care spending, particularly the power of political action committees, the media hype, and the influence of AIDS alarmists." - Virginia M. Anderson, M.D., Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)
"Mr. Fumento marshals a substantial amount of epidemiological data and interprets it in a credible fashion to support his contention. He demonstrates successfully that the `heterosexual breakout' widely predicted in the mid-1980s has failed to materialize and does not seem likely to. The book is well worth reading for this critical reinterpretation of the available data." - Andrew M. Wiesenthal, M.D., New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)
So instead of attacking Fumento's credibility in ad hominem fashion, why don't you try to discredit his ARGUMENT?
You have already shown I've stated elsewhere that AIDS funding should be cut by 80%, but doesn't that leave 20%? Obviously, I feel that AIDS research is deserving of a piece of the public funding pie, I don't feel that by any objective standard could it be remotely justified for it to get such a disproportionate piece of the pie, which is a slam-dunk refutation of your straw man that I do not feel AIDS research is a worthy cause. You apparently don't even read or understand your own reference to my statments.
Oooo! I seem to have really struck a sore nerve there. Perhaps you're not just a do-gooding advocate for AIDS victims, maybe your interest is a bit more deeply personal? I mean, why else would you find the following FACTS so offensive?
FACT
FACT
FACT
Reasonable Conclusion
Your parting post was all one big ad hominem and personal attack that didn't even attempt to dispute anything I said which you apparently found offensive. "Racist..homophobic" et al. That's good. It means you're becoming frustrated by me.
Let me give you a tip: that wouldn't happen if you had a credible argument to begin with! Try it next time, it works wonders.
Let's get another thing straight...
The ethics of a health care professional dictate that they RENDER the best treatment they are able to provide to every person in need without regard to race, gender, etc. according to the law and accepted standards of care, which I do as well as Florence Nightingale herself. THAT IS WHERE MY ETHICAL OBLIGATION ENDS.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
