Thursday December 1, 2005 The 18th Annual AIDS Day and no telling when there will ever no longer need to be one.. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10268644/ A story of failure for World AIDS Day Other catastrophes have diverted attention from the spreading health crisis By Robert Bazell Correspondent NBC News Updated: 12:08 p.m. ET Dec. 1, 2005 NEW YORK - World AIDS day traditionally has become an occasion for reciting statistics of a plague so overwhelming it remains beyond comprehension. Just one example: 3 million die a year—an average of 5.7 every minute of every day. But there was one AIDS day that was different and it was just two years ago Around that time, the World Health Organization announced an ambitious plan called “three by five” to get three million people in poor countries on the effective anti-viral medications that have saved many lives in the U.S. and other wealthy countries by the end of 2005. President Bush announced that the U.S. would spend $15 billion over five years to combat AIDS in the developing world. And something called the Global Fund for Fighting AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria said it too would spend billions for effective AIDS therapy. Until then most international health experts agreed that treatment with effective anti-viral drugs for poor countries was simply impossible. For one, the cost was astronomical and would drain funds that could be used to fight other deadly diseases in these areas, such as malaria and tuberculosis. For another, anti-retroviral drugs control the virus but don't cure it, so providing them represents a long-term commitment. Doctors worried about the logistics of administering complex medications in places with ramshackle roads, inadequate hygiene, and no running water. What if people missed doses, allowing drug-resistant forms of the virus to emerge? Experts also worried that if people believed there was an effective treatment for AIDS, then prevention efforts would fail. The result was the infected poor watched while the infected wealthy survive. But an amazing coalition of activists, bureaucrats and politicians from rich and poor countries, the United Nations, academics and several non-governmental groups—most notably Ralph Nader's Consumer Project on Technology, Médicins Sans Frontières, President Clinton’s Global Initiative and Act Up—brought critical changes. The annual cost of the medications fell from more than $10,000 to less than $150. Numerous demonstration projects showed that the treatments could be effective in those surroundings. Countries pledged money for the effort and two years ago it seemed like true progress was possible. Return to horrible statistics But the story of this year’s World AIDS day is again failure. The World Health Organization says that only one million people in poor countries are getting the drugs out of the six million who will surely die soon without them. And even the one million figure is an exaggeration. Fully 300,000 are in Brazil, a relatively wealthy country that manufactures its own AIDS medication and is one of the only nations of the developing world to truly confront and conquer its AIDS threat. The cause for the failure is almost due to shortfalls in the financial commitments, and not just by the United States. The Tsunami, Katrina, the Pakistani earthquake and other catastrophes diverted the world’s attention from AIDS. So, for World AIDS Day 2005 we can return to the horrible statistics: 40 million currently infected and massive epidemics preparing to erupt in India, China, and Russia with little apparent concern for prevention methods that could stop the unfolding disaster. And let us not think that failure with respect to AIDS occurs in only other countries. We are approaching the twenty fifth year of the AIDS epidemic in the U.S. The drugs brought a 70 per cent decline in the death rate in the this country from their discovery in the early 1990s to the mid-1990s. But they are not a cure and eventually they stop working. In this country, 14,000 people a year still die from AIDS and that number has not changed since 1998. Health officials estimate that 40,000 Americans still get infected every year. Some well known prevention strategies could lower that number—public education, condom use, clean needles and syringes and more widespread testing for infection with the AIDS virus. An old fashioned public health method where people who are infected are identified and their sexual partners are contacted anonymously could also lower the infection rate. But as New York City Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden and his colleagues write in the current New England Journal of Medicine “religious and political groups oppose the use of effective prevention measures” while “some advocacy groups oppose” contact tracing and widespread testing. World AIDS Day seems destined to be a time when we call attention to our failures in the face of the greatest public health crisis ever. © 2005 MSNBC Interactive
Pardon me if I sound like a jerk here but it seems sad that the hanging of one man for drug smuggling gets more attention than 3 million dying annually from AIDS. I guess Stalin was right when he said one death is a tragedy and a million deaths is a statistic.
Naw - you're not a jerk. I don't think this gets much attention here because we'd rather argue. There does seem to be some conspiracists out there who question the validity of heterosxeual HIV transmission. http://www.fumento.com/disease/aids2005.html I have read some stuff out there that says the risk of contracting HIV through v*gin*al intercourse (can I write that here?) is extremely small - that the transmission rates thru that type of intercourse would be too low to sustain the epidemic. I don't know anything about this stuff - but Michael Fumento (the author above) was right about HIV in the US - that it has stabilized. I've also read some stuff about the extremely toxic nature of the anti-viral treatments patients receive. I've heard somewhere that the Magic Johnson himself does not take any anti-virals. Once again - I know next to nothing about the subject. Just thought I'd throw something out there for people to argue about.
Not sure if this article was posted before, but it's unfair not to bring up the name of Ronald Reagan again when the history of early AIDS/HIV epidemic in America is examined. Reagan's AIDS Legacy Silence equals death Allen White Tuesday, June 8, 2004 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/06/08/EDG777163F1.DTL As America remembers the life of Ronald Reagan, it must never forget his shameful abdication of leadership in the fight against AIDS. History may ultimately judge his presidency by the thousands who have and will die of AIDS. Following discovery of the first cases in 1981, it soon became clear a national health crisis was developing. But President Reagan's response was "halting and ineffective," according to his biographer Lou Cannon. Those infected initially with this mysterious disease -- all gay men -- found themselves targeted with an unprecedented level of mean-spirited hostility. A significant source of Reagan's support came from the newly identified religious right and the Moral Majority, a political-action group founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. AIDS became the tool, and gay men the target, for the politics of fear, hate and discrimination. Falwell said "AIDS is the wrath of God upon homosexuals." Reagan's communications director Pat Buchanan argued that AIDS is "nature's revenge on gay men." With each passing month, death and suffering increased at a frightening rate. Scientists, researchers and health care professionals at every level expressed the need for funding. The response of the Reagan administration was indifference. By Feb. 1, 1983, 1,025 AIDS cases were reported, and at least 394 had died in the United States. Reagan said nothing. On April 23, 1984, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced 4,177 reported cases in America and 1,807 deaths. In San Francisco, the health department reported more than 500 cases. Again, Reagan said nothing. That same year, 1984, the Democratic National Convention convened in San Francisco. Hoping to focus attention on the need for AIDS research, education and treatment, more than 100,000 sympathizers marched from the Castro to Moscone Center. With each diagnosis, the pain and suffering spread across America. Everyone seemed to now know someone infected with AIDS. At a White House state dinner, first lady Nancy Reagan expressed concern for a guest showing signs of significant weight loss. On July 25, 1985, the American Hospital in Paris announced that Rock Hudson had AIDS. With AIDS finally out of the closet, activists such as Paul Boneberg, who in 1984 started Mobilization Against AIDS in San Francisco, begged President Reagan to say something now that he, like thousands of Americans, knew a person with AIDS. Writing in the Washington Post in late 1985, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, stated: "It is surprising that the president could remain silent as 6,000 Americans died, that he could fail to acknowledge the epidemic's existence. Perhaps his staff felt he had to, since many of his New Right supporters have raised money by campaigning against homosexuals." Reagan would ultimately address the issue of AIDS while president. His remarks came May 31, 1987 (near the end of his second term), at the Third International Conference on AIDS in Washington. When he spoke, 36,058 Americans had been diagnosed with AIDS and 20,849 had died. The disease had spread to 113 countries, with more than 50,000 cases. As millions eulogize Reagan this week, the tragedy lies in what he might have done. Today, the World Health Organization estimates that more than 40 million people are living with HIV worldwide. An estimated 5 million people were newly infected and 3 million people died of AIDS in 2003 alone. Reagan could have chosen to end the homophobic rhetoric that flowed from so many in his administration. Dr. C. Everett Koop, Reagan's surgeon general, has said that because of "intradepartmental politics" he was cut out of all AIDS discussions for the first five years of the Reagan administration. The reason, he explained, was "because transmission of AIDS was understood to be primarily in the homosexual population and in those who abused intravenous drugs." The president's advisers, Koop said, "took the stand, 'They are only getting what they justly deserve.' " How profoundly different might have been the outcome if his leadership had generated compassion rather than hostility. "In the history of the AIDS epidemic, President Reagan's legacy is one of silence," Michael Cover, former associate executive director for public affairs at Whitman-Walker Clinic, the groundbreaking AIDS health-care organization in Washington. in 2003. "It is the silence of tens of thousands who died alone and unacknowledged, stigmatized by our government under his administration." Revisionist history about Reagan must be rejected. Researchers, historians and AIDS experts who know the truth must not remain silent. Too many have died for that.
Well, there's really not much I have to say. AIDS kills a lot of people. It's a terrible thing. ...ummm.... ... that's about all I've got.
I can't really blame Ronald Reagan for this epidemic. While I wouldn't argue that Reagan was not sympathetic to a "homosexual" disease, I don't see what he could have done. Eight years of Clinton hasn't really produced many breakthroughs. Again I don't know much about the subject. I highly doubt that HIV would have been stamped out in those early days even if billions of dollars were spent. I hear that the virus mutates and evolves but certainly no cure or vaccine would have been produced back in the 80's. I mean after 20 years and billions of $$, no cure or vaccine has yet to be found. I've read that HIV transmission is extremely low for virtually all types of sexual intercourse. When both partners do not have any existing STDs (the existence of sores, lesions, greatly increases transmission probability), unprotected an*l intercourse (along with injection drug use) are still the main routes of transmission. The virus has to enter the bloodstream somehow. For an experts or MD's out there - is this true?
I always thought you langal were a fair-minded Republican poster. Boy was I wrong. Annual deaths caused by AIDS in US rose sharply every year during the Reagan era, except in 1986. In fact, annual AIDS death rate increased more than 20 fold in Reagan's eight years (1981-1988) in the White House, and if you include Bush Sr. term, that number would be a staggering 100 fold. By comparison, annual AIDS mortality in US declined steadily during the Clinton administration, except in 1995. The number of Americans died from AIDS in 2000 was only about one-third of that in 1993, when Bill Clinton began his first term. It was not until September 17, 1985 did Ronald Reagan mentioned the word "AIDS" first time in public. By then, AIDS was already a full-blown epidemic. The only noticeable medical significance in AIDS treatment during Reagan's White House year was probably AZT, developed by Glaxo Wellcome and approved by FDA in 1987. But the price of the drug incurred so much protest that two years later, Wellcome had to lower the price by 20%. The bad news was monotherapy of AZT in early stage of the disease had no benefits. Contrary to langal's belief, many new and much more effective AIDS drugs and therapies were developed and approved during the Clinton era. 1996 saw the first major breakthrough in the fight against AIDS with the "cocktails" of protease inhibitors, developed by TIME magazine's 1996 Man of the Year, AIDS researcher Dr. David Ho (a Chinese-American) from Rockefeller University.
Geez - I said more than once that I don't know much about the subject. I also said that Reagan was not sympathetic to a "homosexual" disease. Thx for the info though. So Reagan could have saved (or prolonged) a lot of lives but he didn't. But it's not like the disease was curable during the 80's and he prevented a cure from being discovered. I suppose that I was viewing it from a cure rather than a treatment angle. What about some of the conspiracy stuff that comes from people like Mike Fumento? Or virusmyth.net? Again - I'm not saying that I agree with those people - just curious. BTW - I freely admit that I'm not a fair-minded person. And I'm not sure how much longer I'm gong to stay a Republican. I AM a YOF though. I try to be objective but admit that I have plenty of prejudices. I don't think a lot of people on this board are very fair-mided either. What's odd is that it seems that the more well-read and politically aware people are also the ones that are more prone partisanship.
Obviously you don't know me very well. I haven't had the chance to read the link but I've heard several people who say that AIDS isn't caused by HIV. I'm not an expert in this subject either but from what I've seen there certainly appears to be a strong correlation between HIV and AIDS. From what I understand the transmission via vaginal (and yes I think we can say "vaginal" since that's a medical term) intercourse is less frequent from the woman to the man since bodily fluid transmission is mostly one way. That doesn't mean that heterosexual sex is safe but that women are likely to get it far more often than men. I think you're right to that the chances are much higher if the partners have pre-existing STD's causing sores on the genitals.
I gotta agree with Wnes that the Reagan Admin. could've saved a lot more people if they had been active about AIDS. Even without an effective treatment the Reagan Admin. could've tracked the spread of the disease better, pushed for safe sex more and also instituted better screening of blood supplies. They could've contained the disease before it started spreading wider.
