[Logic]

France raps 'US Aids blackmail'


Thoughts?

[PacHead]

Washington has earmarked $15 billion over five years to tackle the disease, how much are the French giving ?

I thought so.

[itai195]

I'm not sure what to make of this issue, but it does sound Chirac is trying to bump up his popularity rating again.

[dcolton]

Earlier, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan urged Washington to show the same commitment to the fight against HIV/Aids as to the war on terror.

WTF...is the US supposed to finance everything?

[Logic]

Originally posted by dcolton:
WTF...is the US supposed to finance everything?

Well, you'll have to take that up with your government. The US chose the way of funding it instead of making it possible for the poor countries to fund the meds themselves.

So you can't blame us for your governments choices. Sorry.

[Zimphire]

That isn't what he asked.

Why is it the US is always looked to, when handing out money. Why can't other counties pay the bill?

What can't France do it?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Logic:
France raps 'US Aids blackmail'


Thoughts?

Well, for a second I thought Chirac had released an underground mix-tape....

[PacHead]

Is the USA the world's welfare office or something ?

Maybe we should implement programs like we have in the USA, where people on welfare have to work for their money.

If we're giving handouts left and right to various countries and peoples in the world, perhaps we can call them our employees, and they will have to work off the help that they are getting from us.

[Zimphire]

Reminds me of my friends ex-wife.

She would sit there, call him names, belittle him in front of his friends, and at the SAME TIME, be holding her hand out demanding him give her money.

[:dragonflypro:]

Lets see:

Undermining " an international accord that LETS poor countries produce such drugs."

as opposed to:

Actually tagging funds and sending REAL aid.

I somehow don't think those that get treatment give a damn where the aid came from…at least not today.

Chirac is bandying about some techno-political technicality and seems to be spinning it into another US global corpratism charade and America bashing.

USA: $15billion / France: Petty Penny Biatchin'

I'm trying to stay out of the frog-roasts. But, you know, the French are starting to make it real hard!

T

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by :dragonflypro::
Lets see:

Undermining " an international accord that LETS poor countries produce such drugs."

as opposed to:

Actually tagging funds and sending REAL aid.

Allowing them to produce the drugs themselves is FAR more effective (and vital) than just sending them drugs.

Reason? Cost of the drugs. It's far cheaper to produce them than to pay 50x the production cost. Pfizer et al. do need to recoup costs, but if a country has 40% or higher HIV infection rates and very little money, understandably, Pfizer's profits matter jack ****.

South Africa just recently got through this with AIDS-treatment drugs.

-s*

[:dragonflypro:]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Allowing them to produce the drugs themselves is FAR more effective (and vital) than just sending them drugs.

Reason? Cost of the drugs. It's far cheaper to produce them than to pay 50x the production cost. Pfizer et al. do need to recoup costs, but if a country has 40% or higher HIV infection rates and very little money, understandably, Pfizer's profits matter jack ****.

South Africa just recently got through this with AIDS-treatment drugs.

-s*

The point i was getting at is that these countries are unlikely to do it without this mandate. By enlarge they are standing by, pocketing cash or in worst cases slaughtering those people.

How can we possibly think they have the wherewith-all to actually produce this stuff.

I am all for cost control. But if the countries own people can't and won't do it, the last thing we need is to start financing and lining pockets. They can't spend AZT on guns.

T

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by :dragonflypro::
They can't spend AZT on guns.

I see your point, but sure they can.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Why doesn’t Kofi Annan shut his yap and fork over some of the billions he skimmed in his oil for palaces scam, and use that to pay for Africa’s drug needs himself? Fight AIDs with the same ferver you've scammed the world UN.

As for the French, let them buy huge stockpiles of Pfizer’s product at a price that makes everyone happy, and send it to Africa.

Also allow African countries to produce French products/goods/services and undercut their own markets. Ditto the rest of Europe and its products.

Put up, or shut up.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Allowing them to produce the drugs themselves is FAR more effective (and vital) than just sending them drugs.

Reason? Cost of the drugs. It's far cheaper to produce them than to pay 50x the production cost. Pfizer et al. do need to recoup costs, but if a country has 40% or higher HIV infection rates and very little money, understandably, Pfizer's profits matter jack ****.

South Africa just recently got through this with AIDS-treatment drugs.

-s*

It's also about creating jobs locally...

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by :dragonflypro::
By enlarge they are standing by, pocketing cash or in worst cases slaughtering those people.

I am not clear about whether all those countries are necessary corrupted to that level or not. Can you document that assertion please?

[Spliffdaddy]

To be honest, we already spend a disproportionate amount of loot on AIDS research. AIDS is preventable, after all.

There are more Americans dying of dozens of other diseases for which there is no prevention.

American money should be spent on researching the major causes of American death. And that's not AIDS.

[badidea]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Is the USA the world's welfare office or something ?

Wasn't that what you guys where so proud of??
Seems that you only think this way when guns and bombs are envolved!

[badidea]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
TAmerican money should be spent on researching the major causes of American death. And that's not AIDS.

What is it? Bodyfat?

[Logic]

Originally posted by badidea:
What is it? Bodyfat?

[Millennium]

The US is, unfortunately, right about this: the deal they're making are exactly in keeping with WTO patent rules.

This speaks more poorly of the current system of patent law then it does about the US. The whole patent system is screwed up, probably beyond any hope of repair at this point; I'm not saying the core idea isn't sound, but it needs a total overhaul.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Washington has earmarked $15 billion over five years to tackle the disease, how much are the French giving ?

I thought so.

Leaving aside for a moment the % of GDP comparison, that you were no doubt familiar with before making comments about aid, which also puts a bit of a damper on the claims made in this thread that the U.S. funds everything and nobody else is offering any money for anything. But that is not the whole picture either. Money leaves poor countries faster than it is brought in by either aid or trade.

U.S. aid apparently also hardly ever reaches the poorest countries and budget numbers include flattering but hardly relevant agreements with countries that don't really need a lot of AID. The conditions of the aid are such that the money must be spend on U.S. products. (This is true for approximately 70% of all U.S. aid.)

Let's play rough with some numbers. That is after-all what statistics are for.

Brand medication cost upward of $5000 per person a year. Generic medication costs $350 per person a year. So In the case of AIDS medication these U.S. brandname products can be 15x more expensive than the generic and locally produced medication.

If all the money was spend on medicine and if France allows the purchase of generic medications by aid recipients but FDA regulations restrict US aid money spent on medication to approved brand medication that means that relatively speaking French aid and US Aid a year are approximately the same or -depending on the brand- that France is actually spending a bit more annually.

I'm sure you can do the fuzzy math yourself once you've looked up the amount of money France spends. Or did I assume too much when I came to the conclusion that you don't really know how much France actually spends on AIDS because you didn't mention a real number? If so I apologize.

It means that more people can be treated with the French AIDS aid budget than under the U.S. budget although neither of these two countries has much to brag about when it comes to actual impact of their actions abroad on the treatment or prevention of AIDS in recent years.

For example. If the damage caused by the no condom campaign of the Bush administration could be put in a money figure there would be a severe debt instead of the erection inducing 15 billion that has raised excitement levels in this thread in such a way that only the absence of a partner, not self-control or abstinence, could have caused the practicing of safe sex by you "knee"-jerking defenders of U.S. policies and "morality".

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Great let the French handle it then.

Problem solved.

Next?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Great let the French handle it then.

Problem solved.

Next?

I want to know who let you on to the internet.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
I want to know who let you on to the internet.

Someone has to 'let' you on the internet?

What's the story with that?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Someone has to 'let' you on the internet?

What's the story with that?

Does your Daddy know you use his computer?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Does your Daddy know you use his computer?

You're unwittingly revealing a LOT about yourself today Spheric!

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
You're unwittingly revealing a LOT about yourself today Spheric!

Nice try.

My daddy died last September.

Take it up with him.

Either way...

-s*

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Sorry to hear that.

[Spheric Harlot]

Thanks.

It was an unfair card for me to play, though.

(Not that your response to lurkalot offered much in the way of insight )

-s*

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Well I wasn't really shooting for 'insightful' just smartass.

Seriously though, I’m just sick of the constant whining and complaining some people do. Nothing is ever good enough; meanwhile no one else is stepping up to bat.

And don’t give me the lame GDP nonsense. We’re not required to give any set percentage of our GDP to anyone, that’s just another ridiculous false goal post someone set up. If a nation’s GDP was $2, then giving $1 away would be HALF the GDP. But it’s STILL just ONE lousy buck.

Straight dollar amount is all that matters, not playing games with GDP.

If what the US doles out isn’t good enough for everyone else, and people want to issue an endless string of demands on top of whining for even more money, while out of the other side of their mouth BITCHING about everything this nation does, well there’s a little phrase for that: TOUGH BULL COOKIES.

Enough already.

If France is doing so much more to fight Aids- GOOD. STFU then and do more.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
American money should be spent on researching the major causes of American death. And that's not AIDS.

The holocaust happened because of attitudes like this. It's not OUR problem so screw 'em.

3,000 people are dying in the poorest countries on this planet EVERY DAY as a result of AIDS. That's a 9/11 per day! That's as many people in the last five years as died in German Concentration Camps. Standing by and watching it happen, making money off those deaths by charging excorbitant prices for drugs, is simply not morally defensible. All it would take to start preventing this is 15Bn. As much as was spent in 3 and a half weeks in Iraq!

Moralising this away is simply disgusting. How are abstinence and condoms supposed to help the children that are getting HIV through mother-child transmission?

The Bush Administration doesn't have a clue how to address this problem. Your tax money would be far better spent if you gave it to experts in the field rather than waste it on administration. It just makes me sick to see the Bush Administration trying to profit from a holocaust. Rather do nothing at all than feel good initiatives that undermine the efforts of people that really are making a difference.

Thank God people all over the world, including Americans (although rather later than most), didn't have your attitude in 1939.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

LOL! Talk about playing every card in the deck!

Now it’s gotten around to pulling out the ol’ “Because you disagree with me, you’re responsible for the holocaust!” card.

You even get in an ultra-lame ‘America was late to come fight the battle for them that Europeans appeased, looked the other way, and ignored until most all were SLAVE STATES’ argument that couldn’t be more laughable if you tried hard at it!

You’d have been hard pressed to find all that many people in Europe in particular who gave a flying rat’s ass about German Concentration Camps (or who was being put in them and why) in 1939. Most people didn’t have a clue, and if they did, sure as hell didn’t do anything about it.

And PUH-LEASE, excuse me while I hold my nose while you extol us about France’s oh-so-squeaky clean and virtuous role in the holocaust! LOL! You’d have to be out of your freakin’ mind if you even wanted to go down that mine-field laden path!

It’s just the height of bizarre humor when Euroweenies try to get up on their high horse lecturing America over THEIR OWN holocaust! What must you be smoking anyway?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Troll:
The holocaust happened because of attitudes like this. It's not OUR problem so screw 'em.

Would this be an indirect invocation of Godwin's Law?

3,000 people are dying in the poorest countries on this planet EVERY DAY as a result of AIDS. That's a 9/11 per day!

And bringing 9/11 into the discusssion, too. Truly, you have a dizzying talent for rhetoric.

Standing by and watching it happen, making money off those deaths by charging excorbitant prices for drugs, is simply not morally defensible.

Um, the drug companies aren't making money off of anyone's deaths. Quite the opposite, actually. I am not trying to defend the drug companies -they may be the only corporate entities on Earth more corrupt than Microsoft- but call this a case of giving the Devil his due. The drug companies don't want people to die, even if only because every death is a customer lost.

Moralising this away is simply disgusting.

Oh, I quite agree. I suggest you practice what you preach, though.

How are abstinence and condoms supposed to help the children that are getting HIV through mother-child transmission?

By preventing new cases from forming?

It's very odd; people seem to have very different -and, for that matter, wildly inconsistent- views on when prevention is appropriate and when cures are. People who seek to "prevent" terrorism would "cure" AIDS, and vice versa. I'm as guilty of this as anyone else, I suppose, but it remains an interesting observation.

[Logic]

Crashes post above is the perfect example of someone not being able to answer any of the points raised. Thank you for providing us with a perfect example of the rightwing debating skills, Crash

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Logic:
Crashes post above is the perfect example of someone not being able to answer any of the points raised. Thank you for providing us with a perfect example of the rightwing debating skills, Crash

Hey thanks for ALWAYS providing a good chuckle over the irony of your username!

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Well I wasn't really shooting for 'insightful' just smartass.

Figured.

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Seriously though, I’m just sick of the constant whining and complaining some people do. Nothing is ever good enough; meanwhile no one else is stepping up to bat.

That point has been thoroughly smashed by lurkalot, in every which way.

You should read his post sometime. It's quite interesting.

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
And don’t give me the lame GDP nonsense. We’re not required to give any set percentage of our GDP to anyone, that’s just another ridiculous false goal post someone set up. If a nation’s GDP was $2, then giving $1 away would be HALF the GDP. But it’s STILL just ONE lousy buck.

Straight dollar amount is all that matters, not playing games with GDP.

You must have missed the drivel that was in response to:

Originally posted by PacHead:
Washington has earmarked $15 billion over five years to tackle the disease, how much are the French giving ?

I thought so.

Now, if Paccy's gonna ride the high-and-mighty, it only makes sense to put it in relation, don't you think?

And I'm sure you won't argue that a dollar-donation is a lot more to a minimal-wage household than to a millionaire. And huge figures look real good on paper, but it might be fair to point out that 9/10s of that money are just wasted to the recipient, since he has to spend it on stuff he can get for 1/10 the price, were he allowed to.

So basically this huge and wonderful charity is exposed as US government subsidies to pharmaceutical companies, pure and simple.

And we all know that subsidies are pure Socialism™...

-s*

[Logic]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Hey thanks for ALWAYS providing a good chuckle over the irony of your username!

Simple minds, simple pleasures I guess. Glad to help

[Troll]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
You even get in an ultra-lame ‘America was late to come fight the battle for them that Europeans appeased, looked the other way, and ignored until most all were SLAVE STATES’ argument that couldn’t be more laughable if you tried hard at it!

Actually, I wasn't talking about France's role in WWII. I come from a country where hundreds of people die every day from AIDS. A country that isn't poor but can't be expected to deal with half of its working population being wiped out over the next 15 years any more than any other country could be. A country that needs external help to prevent mass death.

When jews and Europeans were dying in numbers on the other side of the world because of a murderous German regime, my country didn't stand by and watch the slaughter. And neither did many of the other countries that today suffer from AIDS. South Africa, Kenya and Zimbabwe, to take just three examples, were sending their sons to fight Germans long before Americans thought of getting involved.

I used the analogy to a holocaust because that is what is happening today. Millions of people are dying. Millions. And they need our help if they're going to make it. Just as millions of people needed our help in 1939. They got the help they needed then and people involved in this holocaust should similarly be the getting the help they need now. This is no more someone else's problem than the holocaust was.

[Spliffdaddy]

make up your mind.

or ask me to do it for you.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
And I'm sure you won't argue that a dollar-donation is a lot more to a minimal-wage household than to a millionaire.

No one would argue against its veracity. However, there are plenty who would argue against its relevance. Myself included, actually.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Millennium:
No one would argue against its veracity. However, there are plenty who would argue against its relevance. Myself included, actually.

PacHead's chest-pounding notwithstanding?

[Spliffdaddy]

liberal timeline of any event:


complain, complain, complain about the USA

complain some more.

ask the USA for a handout.

complain that it wasn't enough.

complain, complain, complain about the USA

complain some more.

ask the USA for a handout.

complain that it wasn't enough.





I mean, c'mon. If the USA sucks so bad - then why is *your* country always needing help from the USA?

It stands to reason that your country must be something north of "sucks bad".

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
PacHead's chest-pounding notwithstanding?

Even PacHead doesn't seem to be arguing against the idea that a dollar means more to a pauper than a millionaire.

Like him, I don't find that to be relevant to this discussion, however. He could use some lessons in written argument, but if he's trying to say what I think he's trying to say, then I agree with it.

Who has the right to dictate how much another should give, anyway? To pretend that anyone else has that right is really just another form of the same moralizing for which people are condemning the US.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Would this be an indirect invocation of Godwin's Law?

The AIDS pandemic is regularly referred to as a holocaust. President Clinton, Thabo Mbeki, Nelson Mandela, the South African Medical Research Council - a lot of people refer to it as a holocaust.

Originally posted by Millennium:
And bringing 9/11 into the discusssion, too. Truly, you have a dizzying talent for rhetoric.

Why thank you. Perhaps if you could mention another cause of 3,000 deaths in a single day, I'd be able to get the scale of this problem across without "bringing up" 9/11.

Originally posted by Millennium:
Um, the drug companies aren't making money off of anyone's deaths. Quite the opposite, actually. I am not trying to defend the drug companies -they may be the only corporate entities on Earth more corrupt than Microsoft- but call this a case of giving the Devil his due. The drug companies don't want people to die, even if only because every death is a customer lost.

You probably know the history of the two legal cases that the South African government was involved in and you probably know how many of the drugs the drug companies promised, in the settlement, to supply, have been delivered. If not, you can look up the history.

If the SA Government had set aside the patent rights as they planned to do all those years ago, thousands of people may be alive today and the drug companies coffers would be a little (it really is a little) emptier. The drug companies are putting profits before human life. They have fought tooth and nail to ensure that AIDS drugs are not affordable. They actively petition governments (not the least the US government) to put money before lives and they have been largely succesful. People that face the very real prospect of dying have no choice but to turn over the vast majority of their earnings to drug companies.

Originally posted by Millennium:
By preventing new cases from forming?

It's very odd; people seem to have very different -and, for that matter, wildly inconsistent- views on when prevention is appropriate and when cures are. People who seek to "prevent" terrorism would "cure" AIDS, and vice versa. I'm as guilty of this as anyone else, I suppose, but it remains an interesting observation.

I think you're missing my point. I'm all for prevention but not at the expense of cure and not only by educating. I believe that we need to use all of the tools available to us. We need to PREVENT AIDS by giving HIV mothers drugs so their children aren't born with HIV amongst other things.

I'm talking about Bush and his neo-con, Christian fundamentalists moralising. Their solution to the AIDS problem is to turn people into good Christians. Do you know that 30% of the money [EDITED this part] that you get if you sign on to their scheme must be channeled through faith based groups and MAY NOT be used for classes which also promote the use of other forms of birth control. If contraception is mentioned, it can only be done in reference to its likelihood to fail both in terms of protection from pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases!! Bush wants us to tell people that contraception is unlikely to work!! OMG - this could undo YEARS of work!! If you've got a captive audience why not give them all of the tools they need to combat AIDS? How stupid do you need to be to think that this is going to work? I grew up in Zululand. The English tried for hundreds of years to persuade the Zulus to be good Christians. They beat them senseless sometimes in an effort to persuade them to abandon their polygamous ways and the apartheid government took over where the English left off. It worked for some but it didn't work for. Hundreds of years of oppression and a Zulu man's position in society is still largely reflected by the number of wives and children and mistresses he has. This is a different culture. Men and women have different roles in this culture. Painting them black because they don't share your Christian values is not the way you're going to save this society. You need to save people that are going to die next year and the year after as well as look for a solution 100 years down the line - assuming abstinence is a viable solution!

People who have been involved for a little while in trying to address the AIDS problem know that a single approach alone is not going to help. You have to address it with everything you've got. You need drugs, condoms, education, moral arguments about abstinence, you need to improve women's rights, deal with prostitution, improve healthcare, address poverty. The Bush binary logic has never been less relevant than it is in the case of AIDS.

I got together with a few people last year to help one of the girls who lives on a farm adjacent to one my parents part own. This girl was a devout Zionist Christian and a virgin when she got married at the age of 17. She somehow persuaded her Zulu husband to have an AIDS test before they got married (which was unheard of) and somehow persuaded him, despite his wealth, not to take another wife. When she was pregnant with her second child last year, the clinic told her she had HIV. Evidently her husband was not as faithful as she thought. If we hadn't been able to collect the $600 she needed for Neviroprine, her child would have been born with HIV. Her husband is now in full blown AIDS and has stopped working. Her mother, who is over 70 looks after 5 kids (my friend's 2 and her sister's 3 (the sister died of AIDS)) and a dying man while this girl works to support the 7 of them. She's now finally getting free AIDS drugs from the government and she hopes that her mother survives and the Government doesn't change its policy before the kids are old enough to work. How the ('scuse my French) is a class on abstinence (don't mention the condom) supposed to help her or the thousands of babies being born to HIV parents? Preaching abstinence has been tried. It is being tried. It doesn't work on its own. The Bush Administration is plain stupid to throw out the collective learning that the UN Global Fund has and waste money on programmes that we know don't work on their own.

Africa can't write off the people that have HIV now by focussing on preventing the future spread. That's what the Bush approach suggests - focussing on prevention at the expense of cure is paramount to condemning all of the people that have HIV to death. It's inhumane to stand by and watch these people die while we focus on educating future generations. Millions of people are going to die without drugs, without condoms. Besides, who do you plan to give your classes to when all that is left is a bunch of old people and HIV positive orphans?

Lastly, where is the commitment from the Bush Administration? Of the $15Bn they promised to spend over 5 years, only $250 million has been spent and all of it has gone into duplicating an administrative structure that already exists in the global fund. By now they should have dished out nearly $6Bn. I'm not surprised those protesters held up banners saying "He's lying," while the US representative was speaking.

We have no right to your help. But we would like to think you'd like to help us in the same way as we'd help you. Just don't sit there feeling all warm inside thinking you give more money to the cause than anyone else. Your money is being wasted by a bunch of Christian fundamentalists that think that people with AIDS are a bunch of immoral lost causes, that only the unaffected can be saved by embracing Jesus. At least those are the beliefs their policies reflect.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Troll:
I'm all for prevention but not at the expense of cure and not only by educating. I believe that we need to use all of the tools available to us. We need to PREVENT AIDS by giving HIV mothers drugs so their children aren't born with HIV amongst other things.

I'm talking about Bush and his neo-con, Christian fundamentalists moralising. Their solution to the AIDS problem is to turn people into good Christians. Do you know that more than half of the money that you get if you sign on to their scheme has to be used to educate people about abstinence and that in these classes, the word "condom" is banned?! If you've got a captive audience why not give them all of the tools they need to combat AIDS? My God! How stupid do you need to be to think that this is going to work? I grew up in Zululand. The English tried for hundreds of years to persuade the Zulus to be good Christians. They beat them senseless sometimes in an effort to persuade them to abandon their polygamous ways and the apartheid government took over where the English left off. It worked for some but it didn't work for. Hundreds of years of oppression and a Zulu man's position in society is still largely reflected by the number of wives and children and mistresses he has. This is a different culture. Men and women have different roles in this culture. Painting them black because they don't share your Christian values is not the way you're going to save this society. You need to save people that are going to die next year and the year after as well as look for a solution 100 years down the line - assuming abstinence is a viable solution!

People who have been involved for a little while in trying to address the AIDS problem know that a single approach alone is not going to help. You have to address it with everything you've got. You need drugs, condoms, education, moral arguments about abstinence, you need to improve women's rights, deal with prostitution, improve healthcare, address poverty. The Bush binary logic has never been less relevant than it is in the case of AIDS.

I got together with a few people last year to help one of the girls who lives on a farm adjacent to one my parents part own. This girl was a devout Zionist Christian and a virgin when she got married at the age of 17. She somehow persuaded her Zulu husband to have an AIDS test before they got married (which was unheard of) and somehow persuaded him, despite his wealth, not to take another wife. When she was pregnant with her second child last year, the clinic told her she had HIV. Evidently her husband was not as faithful as she thought. If we hadn't been able to collect the $600 she needed for Neviroprine, her child would have been born with HIV. Her husband is now in full blown AIDS and has stopped working. Her mother, who is over 70 looks after 5 kids (my friend's 2 and her sister's 3 (the sister died of AIDS)) and a dying man while this girl works to support the 7 of them. She's now finally getting free AIDS drugs from the government and she hopes that her mother survives and the Government doesn't change its policy before the kids are old enough to work. How the ('scuse my French) is a class on abstinence (don't mention the condom) supposed to help her or the thousands of babies being born to HIV parents? Preaching abstinence has been tried. It is being tried. It doesn't work on its own. The Bush Administration is plain stupid to throw out the collective learning that the UN Global Fund has and waste money on programmes that we know don't work on their own.

Africa can't write off the people that have HIV now by focussing on preventing the future spread. That's what the Bush approach suggests - focussing on prevention at the expense of cure is paramount to condemning all of the people that have HIV to death. It's inhumane to stand by and watch these people die while we focus on educating future generations. Millions of people are going to die without drugs, without condoms. Besides, who do you plan to give your classes to when all that is left is a bunch of old people and HIV positive orphans?

Lastly, where is the commitment from the Bush Administration? Of the $15Bn they promised to spend over 5 years, only $250 million has been spent and all of it has gone into duplicating an administrative structure that already exists in the global fund. By now they should have dished out nearly $6Bn. I'm not surprised those protesters held up banners saying "He's lying," while the US representative was speaking.

We have no right to your help. But we would like to think you'd like to help us in the same way as we'd help you. Just don't sit there feeling all warm inside thinking you give more money to the cause than anyone else. Your money is being wasted by a bunch of Christian fundamentalists that think that people with AIDS are a bunch of immoral lost causes, that only the unaffected can be saved by embracing Jesus. At least those are the beliefs their policies reflect.

Great post!

[OldManMac]

Well said, Troll!

[dcolton]

Troll,

Very well thought out post, but as usual and with all due respect, I disagree. The goal isn't to keep drugs out of the hands of infected people. The goal isn't to prevent a cure from being found. The goal is to educate so drugs don't become a simple solution to a disease that isn't only a health issue..but a social issue as well. Education is preventative maintenance and is the true solution . It is the responsible way, IMO, to go about saving lives instead of throwing money and drugs at the problem. Don't get me wrong, a cure would be most excellent; but no matter how much money is thrown at the issue...it won't find a cure tomorrow. So, we educate to prevent the spread of aids as the first line of defense. Research to find a cure is the second line of defense. Both approaches save lives...but I believe in the long wrong, education then research will save more lives.

I do disagree somewhat with the refusal to distribute condoms. Safe sex shuld be part of the program. I thought that condoms were distributed, but I may be wrong. I thought that safe sex eas part of the curiculim as well, but again - I am not certain. Could you provide a link to your assesment that condoms and the mention of the word is banned?

[Troll]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Troll,

Very well thought out post, but as usual and with all due respect, I disagree. The goal isn't to keep drugs out of the hands of infected people. The goal isn't to prevent a cure from being found. The goal is to educate so drugs don't become a simple solution to a disease that isn't only a health issue..but a social issue as well.

We're not talking about a future drug that will cure AIDS. That would be great but no one in Africa expects one. We're talking about drugs that are currently available that prevent mother to child transmission and keep HIV at bay. The companies that make these drugs are the ones being criticised. Some of my criticism is aimed at the governments that protect these companies' profits at the expense of people's lives. Patent rights shouldn't apply in this case. Drugs that can prevent a disaster like this should be free.

Originally posted by dcolton:
Education is preventative maintenance and is the true solution .

I agree wholeheartedly. But a) people should be educated about ALL of the solutions to the problem. 30% of the money goes to religious groups and must be used to tell people that contraception is bad!! This is just a crazy policy to have. One third of the money getting wasted in this way. b) We're facing a situation where the working population of an already poor continent is going to be wiped out. We can't watch that happen. We need to keep these people alive and healthy for as long as we possibly can or Africa will come apart at the seams. I wish I could take some of you to my parent's farm today and have you compare the area with what it was like 20 years ago. AIDS has destroyed this community. All you see is sick kids with their grandparents. Almost everyone that you meet either has AIDS or has a close member of their family that has it. I know some of these people and I don't consider them to be immoral and I can't bear to see people brush them aside and focus on the future. They need help now. The future is in their hands as much as it is in the hands of the children who might survive the pandemic. c) The social context here has as much to do with poverty as it does with the "immorality" of polygamy and promiscuity. Focussing on their lack of morality without recognising that we need to raise these people's quality of life is as short-sighted as throwing condoms at the problem. On a scale of what works and what doesn't, experience has shown us time and time again that preaching from the pulpit to people is the least effective way of preventing a disaster. It shouldn't be getting as much money as the Bush plan has allocated to it.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Troll:
We're not talking about a future drug that will cure AIDS. That would be great but no one in Africa expects one. We're talking about drugs that are currently available that prevent mother to child transmission and keep HIV at bay. The companies that make these drugs are the ones being criticised. Some of my criticism is aimed at the governments that protect these companies' profits at the expense of people's lives. Patent rights shouldn't apply in this case. Drugs that can prevent a disaster like this should be free.

Fair enough. But what is preventing other nations from providing these drugs? I don't think it would undermine Bush's approach...on the contrary, it would be an excellent complement. So why can't France, for example, provide aid in this form.

I agree wholeheartedly. But a) people should be educated about ALL of the solutions to the problem. 30% of the money goes to religious groups and must be used to tell people that contraception is bad!! This is just a crazy policy to have. One third of the money getting wasted in this way. b) we're facing a situation where the working population of an already poor continent is going to be wiped out. We can't watch that happen. We need to keep these people alive and healthy for as long as we possible can or Africa will come apart at the seams. c) The social context here has as much to do with poverty as it does with the "immorality" of polygamy and promiscuity. Focussing on their lack of morality without recognising that we need to raise these people's quality of life is as short-sighted as throwing condoms at the problem. On a scale of what works and what doesn't, experience has shown us time and time again that preaching from the pulpit to people is the least effective way of preventing a disaster. It shouldn't be getting as much money as the Bush plan has allocated to it.

I believe there are a number of approaches to this issue. As mentioned before, education would be my priority. It is attacking the issue at the root.

As for religious organizations recieving money for 'mission', I don't thnk it is that big of an issue. Many of the free clinics, shelters, etc in the US are run by one religious org or another. You may disagree with the tactic, but in the long run, they are working in the best interest of those they are trying to reach. And no, I am not talking about 'converting' or anything like that. I am not even talking about imposing their morals on the victims. Nonetheless, whenever 'Christianity' is brought up...it is demonized for its efforts. The africans don't have to take god with them when they leave...but they get to leave with a better understanding as to why the disease is spread and what they can do to prevent from being infected or infecting someone else. They can be tested for the virus. They can be directed to where they need to go. They can appreciate the benevolence of a group who is providing support and knowledge. If they leave with God...that is a plus. If they don't, they till recieved many benefits.