Is too much money spent on HIV?

[BenF]

According to Roger England, in this weeks BMJ, we are...

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/334/7589/344

 

[looseliam]

He brings up valid points and has the numbers to back them.

However, HIV may not be the number one illness, right now. But I think if unchecked, it could easily grow to the number one.

He compares HIV to respiratory illnesses and diabetes. I have yet to see someone control his or her HIV infection with diet and exercise, or a steam bath.

HIV needs more funding because it's less contrallable and 100% fatal.

 

[Andreus]

i didnt look at the link

we dont spend too much

 

[seanystarr]

Sorry - gotta agree with the BMJ article

HIV may be 100% fatal, but its also 100% preventable.

Play it safe guys.

 

[Andreus]

Sorry - gotta agree with the BMJ article

HIV may be 100% fatal, but its also 100% preventable.

Play it safe guys.

wrong on both counts

 

[hermanding]

he probably has his own agenda. numbers can be crunched in any way needed
ding

 

[fajack]

How can you ever spend too much trying to find a cure for any disease?

 

[Pegasus69]

I think that this is a false arguement in that if the funding were reduced (which would include the distribution of medications), the mortality rate from HIV infection would skyrocket and then we would be talking the reverse. I do not think we spend too much for a couple of reasons. First, and this may be due to the fact that I was in my late teens and early twenties when AIDS hit the scene and lost so many friends so quickly to this horrible disease. The life expectancy as well as the quality of life of those infected with HIV are better now than ever before. In addition to the possiblity to find a cure or vaccination, scientists are learning so much more about the treatment of other diseases as well.

That is just my opinion though......

 

[Soilwork]

HIV is neither 100% fatal or 100% preventable.

There are plenty of people who got infected through non-sexual ways.

 

[dunno260]

Probably not. I haven't read the article, but in science it is important to research for research sakes. Its not like research into HIV has no implications in any other medical research such as anti-viral therapy for other virus as well as a better understanding of cell biology for example. Yeah, there are some other diseases that need some serious research (TB and malaria come immediately to mind). And HIV is certainly "sexier" to fund than either of those two because the people with the money to fund research will probably know someone with HIV. Combine that with the relative lack of malaria and TB cases in developed nations(US, Canada, Japan, England, Germany, France, etc.) goes a long way to explaining the funding.

 

[JASON0980]

i'm sppechless. i can't even find the words to say how ticked i am. we fight and we fight for rights and for people to see us as human. they are finally looking for cure for what is killing to many of us (among to many others), and we are saying they are spending to much?!?! this is one battle that we are winning (at least aginst the idiots that beat us down every where else), and now we decide to second guess.

no they don't spend to much.

 

[BenF]

How can you ever spend too much trying to find a cure for any disease?

Because there is only a finite fund for research and the article asks if a disproportionate amount is spent on HIV.

If the NHS sorted out it massive wastage and took serious looks at its procurement divisions they would be able to shed millions off their annual budget in terms of core and non core savings.

This saving could then be better spent on more drugs and treatment where it is needed.

Part of my work at GPG has been looking at public sector procurement, and the NHS is way ahead in the league tables for wastage and inefficiencies.

This is not an article about the NHS, you have missed the point. The NHS funds very little medical research anyway.

i'm sppechless. i can't even find the words to say how ticked i am. we fight and we fight for rights and for people to see us as human. they are finally looking for cure for what is killing to many of us (among to many others), and we are saying they are spending to much?!?! this is one battle that we are winning (at least aginst the idiots that beat us down every where else), and now we decide to second guess.

no they don't spend to much.

What do you mean us? If by us, you mean gay people; trauma, ischaemic heart disease, diabetes, cancer kills more of us than HIV.

As the article acknowledges, HIV does have a very strong, and very vocal, lobby.

 

[looseliam]

I was thinking a bit on this subject today.

I think HIV receives a disproportionate (as you said) amount of funding is because it's new.

I think most have accepted that heart disease, cancer and diabetes are, for some, just a fact of life.

Perhaps in years to come, it may shift. The veiw on what's most important, that is. Well, aside from preserving life.

But I am, by any means, knowledgeable on the subject.

 

[ambiguity]

In Related news:

Gates, Ottawa to pledge money for AIDS program

Updated Fri. Feb. 16 2007 11:07 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates plans to work with the Canadian government to finance the testing of possible AIDS vaccines, CTV News has learned.

The announcement is expected to be made when Gates visits Ottawa next Tuesday, to address the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper endured harsh criticism last summer when he decided not to attend the International AIDS Conference in Toronto.

Health Minister Tony Clement delivered a speech during the conference's opening day, but a group near the stage booed and chanted "Where is Harper?"

Hoping to undo the political damage caused by his absence, Harper will pledge $110 million for the AIDS program, while the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will offer at least $28 million.

The money will develop a Canadian facility to manufacture promising AIDS vaccines for clinical trials. It will most likely be located in the Toronto area.

Dr. Mark Wainberg, an AIDS specialist at McGill University, said the planned funding decision is welcome news.

"They do now recognize the urgency of the AIDS situation worldwide," Wainberg told CTV News.

Wainberg co-chaired the AIDS Conference, during which he told attendees Harper's absence was a mistake that put him "on the wrong side of history."

On Thursday, he said the funding will mark "a well-intentioned attempt to respond in a positive way." Although, he added that an effective AIDS vaccine could be years away, and using money to actually develop a vaccine should be a higher priority.

Critics have also accused the Conservatives of doing little to stop the spread of AIDS, such as resisting calls to support a safe-injection site in Vancouver and set up others across Canada. The facilities give drug users access to clean needles.

The government has also shut down a pilot project that gave prison inmates clean tools for tattoos. Advocates said inmates would otherwise have a higher risk of contracting AIDS and hepatitis C, which could then be spread into the general population after their release.

A draft evaluation of the project found that the cost of treating an inmate with HIV was 50 times more that that of a tattoo session.

"I think it's fair to say that a vaccine is a politically easy issue," said Joanne Csete of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network.

She added: "We need leadership to move forward in those areas or we are going to lose more lives."

Source

 

[looseliam]

But I am, by any means, knowledgeable on the subject.

I'm sorry, but at 4am, it seems I was missing some adverbs. Let me rephrase:

'But I am not, by any means, knowledgeable on the subject.'

That is all.

 

[seanystarr]

HIV is neither 100% fatal or 100% preventable.

There are plenty of people who got infected through non-sexual ways.

But these days, with blood screening and safer medical practices the only way you are gonna get it is going to be your own fault. Sorry if that sounds harsh....but true.

 

[Andreus]

But these days, with blood screening and safer medical practices the only way you are gonna get it is going to be your own fault. Sorry if that sounds harsh....but true.

no

its not true

and yes

its harsh

 

[Jeimuzu]

no

its not true

and yes

its harsh

Hate to say this Seany, but Andreus knows more about this than you do...

In my opinion, not enough is spent on HIV, no. But then again, not enough is spent on any disease... We don't need to stop spending money on curing one disease so we can spend it on curing another, we need to stop spending money on wars and stupidly overpriced things

(I find government spending is ludicrous... apparently, if England has ID cards, they'd cost something like £100 million to implement, when all you need is a load of printers to make them - one per every major town would surely not cost more than a million - and a big database system, accessable through the governmental intranet - which could be commission for at most a couple of million... oh, and that £100 million it would cost would, I believe, be on top of the revenue from the £100 charge for the card)

so we can spend it on curing diseases.

 

[Andreus]

hiv is a global pandemic and until equal standards are applied globally to all populations and blood resourses OR international travel is illegalized, then it is not preventable by any individual standards.

 

[BenF]

Allow me to just to grab the topic by the scruff of the neck and put it back on track...


The article was not about preventing the spread of HIV by draconian measures, nor was it about the whats and wherehows of HIV transmission, it was asking whether too much was spent on HIV at the expense of other illnesses.

May I suggest that people read the article before shooting their mouth off...