Slashdot Mirror

We agree that pharmaceutical research is the reason for those advances. We also agree that pharmaceutical research today happen partially in pharmaceutical companies, and that pharmaceutical companies make profits through patents. The question, to my mind, is how would pharmaceutical research happen without the present patent regime? According to data from 2006 (see [1]), most of the AIDS research is financed by government money . For the microbicides you are discussing, less than 5% of the money comes from the commercial sector. For vaccines, the investment from the commercial sector is about 10%.
 

Now, I won't say that 5% is nothing - but saying that "5% comes from patents" it is not the whole picture, either. While the patents *does* encourage those 5% of funding, it also adds a cost in patent licensing, research that is blocked due to patents, cost of performing techniques due to having to pay for use of patented techniques, research into licensing situation, and so on. I do not know if this cost adds up to 5% or not - and it may add up to more than 5%.

So, the net situation is that pharmaceutical companies *may* be net contributing to AIDS biocide research, they are clearly earning profits from blocking people's access to it - thereby making a lot of people die.

I won't try to define "greed" in this area; I find it too complicated. I just wanted to help show that crediting Big Pharma for this is giving them credit they haven't earned - the cost of HIV research is borne by all of us, not "Big Pharma".

Eivind.
 

[1] Data from following the first relevant link from http://www.google.com/?q=aids+research+funding to http://www.unaids.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/Resources/FeatureStories/archive/2007/20070830_funding_estimates_R_and_D.asp, which again links to http://data.unaids.org/pub/FactSheet/2007/20070830_resource_tracking_for_randd_en.pdf

We agree that pharmaceutical research is the reason for those advances. We also agree that pharmaceutical research today happen partially in pharmaceutical companies, and that pharmaceutical companies make profits through patents. The question, to my mind, is how would pharmaceutical research happen without the present patent regime? According to data from 2006 (see [1]), most of the AIDS research is financed by government money . For the microbicides you are discussing, less than 5% of the money comes from the commercial sector. For vaccines, the investment from the commercial sector is about 10%.
 

Now, I won't say that 5% is nothing - but saying that "5% comes from patents" it is not the whole picture, either. While the patents *does* encourage those 5% of funding, it also adds a cost in patent licensing, research that is blocked due to patents, cost of performing techniques due to having to pay for use of patented techniques, research into licensing situation, and so on. I do not know if this cost adds up to 5% or not - and it may add up to more than 5%.

So, the net situation is that pharmaceutical companies *may* be net contributing to AIDS biocide research, they are clearly earning profits from blocking people's access to it - thereby making a lot of people die.

I won't try to define "greed" in this area; I find it too complicated. I just wanted to help show that crediting Big Pharma for this is giving them credit they haven't earned - the cost of HIV research is borne by all of us, not "Big Pharma".

Eivind.
 

[1] Data from following the first relevant link from http://www.google.com/?q=aids+research+funding to http://www.unaids.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/Resources/FeatureStories/archive/2007/20070830_funding_estimates_R_and_D.asp, which again links to http://data.unaids.org/pub/FactSheet/2007/20070830_resource_tracking_for_randd_en.pdf

remember that about 50% of people in Africa have AIDS

Incorrect, the 2005 HIV estimate for Sub-Saharan Africa is 6.2%. The highest HIV rate in Africa is in Swaziland, with a 2005 estimate of 33.4% (high estimate of 45.3%).

North Africa and the middle east:
Adult (15-49) rate 2003: 0.2% ±0.1
Adult (15-49) rate 2005: 0.2% -0.1 +0.2

Sub-Saharan Africa:
Adult (15-49) rate 2003: 6.2% -0.7 +0.8
Adult (15-49) rate 2005: 6.1% ±0.7

The worst African country is Swaziland: Adult (15-49) rate 2003: 32.4% ±11.7
Adult (15-49) rate 2005: 33.4% -12.2 +11.9

Global:
Adult (15-49) rate 2003: 1.0% ±0.2
Adult (15-49) rate 2005: 1.0% -0.1 +0.2

Source: 2006 report on the global aids epidemic, Annex 2: HIV and AIDS estimates and data, 2005 and 2003 , UNAIDS, 2006-05. Accessed on 2006-08-21.

It could help the parent of said child know that the child has measles and get them to the hospital.

This is not the US we are talking about here. Recognition of disease is not the problem. People can't just hop into the family car and drive the kid to the hospital. Poor people who make up the majority of South Asia have no cars and few hospitals. Medical care is extremely limited. Having laptops doesn't solve people's basic needs. Vaccination and antibiotics do help and are much needed. This is the problem.

Bill Gates for all his evil has realized this and made it the focus of the Gates Foundation. The Gates Foundation's support for public health initiatives in poor countries now rivals the aid provided by countries such as the US.

There are other foundations such as the Measels Initiative, UNAIDS and the World Health Organization working on global public health problems as well.

Yes, the AIDS pandemic in Africa is all to do with those swarthy Africans and their ravenous sexual appetites...

Of course, according to a UNAIDS overview there are two million children in sub-Saharan africa living with HIV or AIDS; The "vast majority of children who are infected with HIV" are infected via Mother-to-child transmission or through contact with infected blood or unsterilised needles. The WHO estimates that unsafe blood transfusions result in around 5-10% of new HIV infections, and according to Safe Blood for Africa around half of the 6,000,000 blood transfusions which take place in sub-Saharan Africa every year use blood not tested for infectious diseases. Are we to also disregard rape victims? According to estimates from the United Nations Population Fund, around two-thirds of the 60,000 women raped during the course of the Rwandan genocide may have been infected by AIDS. As per the previously cited article, the use of rape as a weapon of war is becoming more common and resources to help reduce infection rates in the immediate onset of rape are stretched.

Public education projects will consistently fail unless accompanied by a systematic response to institutional weaknesses: Efforts to improve transfusion safety, the state of hygiene and nutrition and, yes, medication. A leaflet on abstinence will not save children infected through mother-to-child transmission, but antiretroviral drugs can help treat their disease and prevent the ravages of AIDS from carrying on from generation to generation.

"(repressive Muslim countries have a *far* lower AIDS incidence rate than their economic class would suggest, and indeed places like Afghanistan and Iran have lower rates than developed nations like the United States)."

First I would like to say that blaming HIV/AIDS transmission on infidelity is incredibly short sighted and flat out wrong. Is it a component? Certainly, but the degree to which it is a factor is radically different in different countries. Looking at Pakistan, who you give as an example... From UNAIDS.

"Of the reported cases with known transmission routes, the most predominant during the quarter ending June 2004 was injecting drug use (73.72%), followed by heterosexual relations(22.18%), men who have sex with men (4.0 %) and mother-to-child transmission (0.1%). " http://www.unaids.org/en/Regions_Countries/Countri es/pakistan.asp

Furthermore there is some debate about the quality of the data coming out of regions where these issues are very highly stigmatized. I would suggest to you that the challenges of dealing with a disease that has a religious and social stigmatization, as HIV/AIDS does through most of the world, makes estimates difficult as people are going to be very unwilling to report that they have it. Looking at the UN Epidemiological Fact Sheets on HIV/AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Infections on Pakistan http://data.unaids.org/Publications/Fact-Sheets01/ pakistan_EN.pdf We see that in total only 210 cases of HIV/AIDS have been reported (Page 6) but estimates of prevalance are between 24,000-150,000.(Page 1)

Regarding Afganistan. UNAIDS http://www.unaids.org/en/Regions_Countries/Countri es/afghanistan.asp doesn't even have an estimate in place for the infection rate so I don't think you can accurately make any sort of argument about HIV/AIDS prevalence in that country based upon punishments surrounding infidelity.

Regarding your comment that Iran has a lower HIV/AIDS incidence than the United States. First, is that a reasonable and fair comparison? Treatment programs are much more likely to exist within the United States. As well it is likely that HIV/AIDS is more likely to be diagnosed, and sooner, within the USA than in less developed countries due to less social stigma, better technology, etc.
USA: Between 470,000 and 1,600,000. (0.3% - 1.1%)
http://www.unaids.org/en/Regions_Countries/Countri es/united_states_of_america.asp
IRAN: Between 10,000 and 61,000. (0.0-0.2%)
http://www.who.int/GlobalAtlas/predefinedReports/E FS2004/EFS_PDFs/EFS2004_IR.pdf

From the World Health Organization report on Iran:
"Based on the reported data, the HIV epidemic in the Islamic Republic of Iran appears to be accelerating at an alarming trend. According to reports by the National AIDS programme , the number, 1159 of newly diagnosed HIV infections and AIDS cases in 2001 shows a three-fold increase in comparison to both years 2000 and 1999.

This considerable increase may indicate another outbreak The previous dramatic increase had occurred in 1997, when the number of HIV/AIDS cases had reached 815 new infections.

Injecting drug use drives the epidemic in the I.R.of Iran. In 2001, 64% of all AIDS cases were injecting drug users. The data on HIV seroprevalence among IDUs shows the highest rates of infection compared to all other tested groups. IDU have tested positive in 1996 and a prevalence was found of 5.7% of cases in 1996 , 1.7% in 1997. 8.5% in 2002 and 29% in 2002 among clients of counseling centers. The data is variable as it r

"(repressive Muslim countries have a *far* lower AIDS incidence rate than their economic class would suggest, and indeed places like Afghanistan and Iran have lower rates than developed nations like the United States)."

First I would like to say that blaming HIV/AIDS transmission on infidelity is incredibly short sighted and flat out wrong. Is it a component? Certainly, but the degree to which it is a factor is radically different in different countries. Looking at Pakistan, who you give as an example... From UNAIDS.

"Of the reported cases with known transmission routes, the most predominant during the quarter ending June 2004 was injecting drug use (73.72%), followed by heterosexual relations(22.18%), men who have sex with men (4.0 %) and mother-to-child transmission (0.1%). " http://www.unaids.org/en/Regions_Countries/Countri es/pakistan.asp

Furthermore there is some debate about the quality of the data coming out of regions where these issues are very highly stigmatized. I would suggest to you that the challenges of dealing with a disease that has a religious and social stigmatization, as HIV/AIDS does through most of the world, makes estimates difficult as people are going to be very unwilling to report that they have it. Looking at the UN Epidemiological Fact Sheets on HIV/AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Infections on Pakistan http://data.unaids.org/Publications/Fact-Sheets01/ pakistan_EN.pdf We see that in total only 210 cases of HIV/AIDS have been reported (Page 6) but estimates of prevalance are between 24,000-150,000.(Page 1)

Regarding Afganistan. UNAIDS http://www.unaids.org/en/Regions_Countries/Countri es/afghanistan.asp doesn't even have an estimate in place for the infection rate so I don't think you can accurately make any sort of argument about HIV/AIDS prevalence in that country based upon punishments surrounding infidelity.

Regarding your comment that Iran has a lower HIV/AIDS incidence than the United States. First, is that a reasonable and fair comparison? Treatment programs are much more likely to exist within the United States. As well it is likely that HIV/AIDS is more likely to be diagnosed, and sooner, within the USA than in less developed countries due to less social stigma, better technology, etc.
USA: Between 470,000 and 1,600,000. (0.3% - 1.1%)
http://www.unaids.org/en/Regions_Countries/Countri es/united_states_of_america.asp
IRAN: Between 10,000 and 61,000. (0.0-0.2%)
http://www.who.int/GlobalAtlas/predefinedReports/E FS2004/EFS_PDFs/EFS2004_IR.pdf

From the World Health Organization report on Iran:
"Based on the reported data, the HIV epidemic in the Islamic Republic of Iran appears to be accelerating at an alarming trend. According to reports by the National AIDS programme , the number, 1159 of newly diagnosed HIV infections and AIDS cases in 2001 shows a three-fold increase in comparison to both years 2000 and 1999.

This considerable increase may indicate another outbreak The previous dramatic increase had occurred in 1997, when the number of HIV/AIDS cases had reached 815 new infections.

Injecting drug use drives the epidemic in the I.R.of Iran. In 2001, 64% of all AIDS cases were injecting drug users. The data on HIV seroprevalence among IDUs shows the highest rates of infection compared to all other tested groups. IDU have tested positive in 1996 and a prevalence was found of 5.7% of cases in 1996 , 1.7% in 1997. 8.5% in 2002 and 29% in 2002 among clients of counseling centers. The data is variable as it r

"(repressive Muslim countries have a *far* lower AIDS incidence rate than their economic class would suggest, and indeed places like Afghanistan and Iran have lower rates than developed nations like the United States)."

First I would like to say that blaming HIV/AIDS transmission on infidelity is incredibly short sighted and flat out wrong. Is it a component? Certainly, but the degree to which it is a factor is radically different in different countries. Looking at Pakistan, who you give as an example... From UNAIDS.

"Of the reported cases with known transmission routes, the most predominant during the quarter ending June 2004 was injecting drug use (73.72%), followed by heterosexual relations(22.18%), men who have sex with men (4.0 %) and mother-to-child transmission (0.1%). " http://www.unaids.org/en/Regions_Countries/Countri es/pakistan.asp

Furthermore there is some debate about the quality of the data coming out of regions where these issues are very highly stigmatized. I would suggest to you that the challenges of dealing with a disease that has a religious and social stigmatization, as HIV/AIDS does through most of the world, makes estimates difficult as people are going to be very unwilling to report that they have it. Looking at the UN Epidemiological Fact Sheets on HIV/AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Infections on Pakistan http://data.unaids.org/Publications/Fact-Sheets01/ pakistan_EN.pdf We see that in total only 210 cases of HIV/AIDS have been reported (Page 6) but estimates of prevalance are between 24,000-150,000.(Page 1)

Regarding Afganistan. UNAIDS http://www.unaids.org/en/Regions_Countries/Countri es/afghanistan.asp doesn't even have an estimate in place for the infection rate so I don't think you can accurately make any sort of argument about HIV/AIDS prevalence in that country based upon punishments surrounding infidelity.

Regarding your comment that Iran has a lower HIV/AIDS incidence than the United States. First, is that a reasonable and fair comparison? Treatment programs are much more likely to exist within the United States. As well it is likely that HIV/AIDS is more likely to be diagnosed, and sooner, within the USA than in less developed countries due to less social stigma, better technology, etc.
USA: Between 470,000 and 1,600,000. (0.3% - 1.1%)
http://www.unaids.org/en/Regions_Countries/Countri es/united_states_of_america.asp
IRAN: Between 10,000 and 61,000. (0.0-0.2%)
http://www.who.int/GlobalAtlas/predefinedReports/E FS2004/EFS_PDFs/EFS2004_IR.pdf

From the World Health Organization report on Iran:
"Based on the reported data, the HIV epidemic in the Islamic Republic of Iran appears to be accelerating at an alarming trend. According to reports by the National AIDS programme , the number, 1159 of newly diagnosed HIV infections and AIDS cases in 2001 shows a three-fold increase in comparison to both years 2000 and 1999.

This considerable increase may indicate another outbreak The previous dramatic increase had occurred in 1997, when the number of HIV/AIDS cases had reached 815 new infections.

Injecting drug use drives the epidemic in the I.R.of Iran. In 2001, 64% of all AIDS cases were injecting drug users. The data on HIV seroprevalence among IDUs shows the highest rates of infection compared to all other tested groups. IDU have tested positive in 1996 and a prevalence was found of 5.7% of cases in 1996 , 1.7% in 1997. 8.5% in 2002 and 29% in 2002 among clients of counseling centers. The data is variable as it r

"(repressive Muslim countries have a *far* lower AIDS incidence rate than their economic class would suggest, and indeed places like Afghanistan and Iran have lower rates than developed nations like the United States)."

First I would like to say that blaming HIV/AIDS transmission on infidelity is incredibly short sighted and flat out wrong. Is it a component? Certainly, but the degree to which it is a factor is radically different in different countries. Looking at Pakistan, who you give as an example... From UNAIDS.

"Of the reported cases with known transmission routes, the most predominant during the quarter ending June 2004 was injecting drug use (73.72%), followed by heterosexual relations(22.18%), men who have sex with men (4.0 %) and mother-to-child transmission (0.1%). " http://www.unaids.org/en/Regions_Countries/Countri es/pakistan.asp

Furthermore there is some debate about the quality of the data coming out of regions where these issues are very highly stigmatized. I would suggest to you that the challenges of dealing with a disease that has a religious and social stigmatization, as HIV/AIDS does through most of the world, makes estimates difficult as people are going to be very unwilling to report that they have it. Looking at the UN Epidemiological Fact Sheets on HIV/AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Infections on Pakistan http://data.unaids.org/Publications/Fact-Sheets01/ pakistan_EN.pdf We see that in total only 210 cases of HIV/AIDS have been reported (Page 6) but estimates of prevalance are between 24,000-150,000.(Page 1)

Regarding Afganistan. UNAIDS http://www.unaids.org/en/Regions_Countries/Countri es/afghanistan.asp doesn't even have an estimate in place for the infection rate so I don't think you can accurately make any sort of argument about HIV/AIDS prevalence in that country based upon punishments surrounding infidelity.

Regarding your comment that Iran has a lower HIV/AIDS incidence than the United States. First, is that a reasonable and fair comparison? Treatment programs are much more likely to exist within the United States. As well it is likely that HIV/AIDS is more likely to be diagnosed, and sooner, within the USA than in less developed countries due to less social stigma, better technology, etc.
USA: Between 470,000 and 1,600,000. (0.3% - 1.1%)
http://www.unaids.org/en/Regions_Countries/Countri es/united_states_of_america.asp
IRAN: Between 10,000 and 61,000. (0.0-0.2%)
http://www.who.int/GlobalAtlas/predefinedReports/E FS2004/EFS_PDFs/EFS2004_IR.pdf

From the World Health Organization report on Iran:
"Based on the reported data, the HIV epidemic in the Islamic Republic of Iran appears to be accelerating at an alarming trend. According to reports by the National AIDS programme , the number, 1159 of newly diagnosed HIV infections and AIDS cases in 2001 shows a three-fold increase in comparison to both years 2000 and 1999.

This considerable increase may indicate another outbreak The previous dramatic increase had occurred in 1997, when the number of HIV/AIDS cases had reached 815 new infections.

Injecting drug use drives the epidemic in the I.R.of Iran. In 2001, 64% of all AIDS cases were injecting drug users. The data on HIV seroprevalence among IDUs shows the highest rates of infection compared to all other tested groups. IDU have tested positive in 1996 and a prevalence was found of 5.7% of cases in 1996 , 1.7% in 1997. 8.5% in 2002 and 29% in 2002 among clients of counseling centers. The data is variable as it r

That the proportion of incidence of HIV/AIDS to total population is a low one(about 39.4 million infected(1) in a population of about 6.4 billion(2) for about .6 infected people per 100) means that any random person has a rather low risk of contracting HIV in the next, say, ten years. Statistically, _nobody_ catches AIDS for any reason, except for a few anomalies. Certainly it's easy to ignore AIDS cases caused by a subset of possible causes in a relatively unaffected subset of all people, because _every_ case of AIDS in the USA is a statistical anomaly.

Unfortunately, in the real life you speak of nobody is 6/1000ths HIV+. It's easy to hide information using statistics; with the 6/1000ths number one might not expect for whole countries to have an adult HIV/AIDS prevalence rate of 21.3%(3) One might not even expect 640,000 children 15 and under to have been newly infected with HIV in 2004(4).

Of course AIDS isn't going to kill us all, at least not until it somehow manages to become transmissible by mosquito bite. But to say that "normal" people who "take a modicum of precaution" don't catch AIDS except for a few anomalies is willingness to misleadingly ignore those life has shat on, and because of that ignorance claim those covered shit don't exist.

Consider:

Correctional institutions in the USA have an HIV/AIDS rate five to ten times higher than that of the general population(5).

In 1998, 11.5 million inmates were released from jails and prisons(6), re-entering the "normal" population and bringing with them any diseases contracted while imprisoned.

It is estimated that more than 425,000 inmates in the USA are raped every year, although accurate numbers are notoriously difficult or impossible to come by(7)

True monogamy is really very uncommon, with most sexually active people in the USA going through a period of serial monogamy, wherein they may have a great number of sexual partners, allowing diseases such as AIDS to be spread unwittingly even by those held in trust.

(1)http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm
(2)http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ra nkorder/2119rank.html
(3)http://www.unaids.org/en/geographical+area/by+c ountry/namibia.asp
(4)http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm
(5)http://www.spr.org/en/factsheetdisease.html
(6)Ibid.
(7)http://www.menweb.org/throop/abuse/usa-prison.h tml

Your example of the AIDS help that America gives to Africa is just one small example of the terrible hypocrisy that plagues the American hating world. No other country has sacrificed so much and given so much for complete strangers

A quick Google led me to the verification of a counter-argument to the AIDS protestors. I had heard that the United States federal government spends more on AIDS research than the rest of the world, combined. So this is not counting private research efforts, which expands this gap even further. I found out the precise claim is that America, in fiscal 2002 and 2003, spent more than the rest of the world combined. Accounting for fully 50% of global expenditures in each of 2002 and 2003 is not as impressive a claim as spending more in one year than the rest of the world combined, but it is still a metric assload of money, considering America is not the source of 50% of AIDS cases in the world (source).

But wait, there's more. American taxpayers, starting with the current fiscal year, are spending not just more than the rest of the world's nations combined, but nearly twice as much! So we are going from about 50% to nearly 200% in one year, and it's still not enough for these protestors! So why are we still spat upon? Apparently because:

Critics say Washington's bilateral effort undermines the U.N.-backed Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which is facing a funding shortfall. The United States is already the biggest donor to the fund.

I'm incredulous at this point. Let me see if I have this right. Because we decide not to fund the UN effort, for whatever reason, we are the equivalent of evil incarnate, as if we spent zero on AIDS activities. Let's say for the sake of argument we don't quite trust the UN with a big wad of cash (ever seen an audit of UN finances that will stand up to scrutiny?) and try for once to be responsible with how taxpayer dollars are spent. The net result, whatever the root cause of the decision not to go through the UN, is someone's pet organization is maligned.

So instead of saying, "well, it's your money so you get to spend it the best way you see fit," or try to make UN finances transparent to the outside world so we can actually trust them with tons of cash, or do something constructive to find out why the UN was not chosen and fix that, they point the fingers at them dirty Americans and scream that we're just religious nutcases that want to bomb the rest of the world into mega-corporation submission. At the same time we don't choose the UN as the recipient of the increased funding, we still spend so much of our tax dollars on the UN AIDS organization we supposedly don't care about that we outstrip every other nation's funding for that very organization! And we're still hated for it!? Honestly, I don't even know why we Americans even try to be more nice than absolutely necessary to maintain civil but cool relationships with those who won't be satisfied no matter what we do. We're going to be hated and vilified regardless of our actions.

I guarantee you that if an American mega-corporate pharmaceutical finds a cure for AIDS, it still won't be enough for these protestors. They'll have to take a loss "for the good of mankind", and sell it at or below cost.

Spam aside: see UNAIDS - the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS. As was said earlier: raising the issue of spam does not mean that other priorities within the UN system are put on hold. See current UN news. The ITU/WSIS meeting may not be a panacea, but rants alone will not move the issue of curbing spam.

From one of the ITU background papers: ....."Rather, the challenge rests with our
willingness to enforce the existing laws by engaging in aggressive anti-spam national
enforcement as well as cooperating with global anti-spam enforcement initiatives."

Known as the naturalistic fallacy, the problem of deriving norms from nature is very old indeed. It has to do with the impossibility of translating 'is' language (how things are) into 'ought' language (how things ought to be).

That was totally outrageous.

The reason the government doesn't like phrases like "sex workers", "anal sex" and "men who sleep with men" is because they indicate that AIDS discriminates, which is not what the government would like you to believe.

No, the government thinks those phrases look bad on a list of official government-funded projects. That's the obvious explanation, but I guess it doesn't play into your political view of the issue.

If people stopped doing the things that spread AIDS (it's not exactly airborne), it would eventually go away.

Yes, but what are the things that spread AIDS? Other posters have pointed out that blood transfusions and childbirth spread AIDS. It's also spread by sex. That includes non-anal heterosexual sex with a non-prostitute. If you're married and have 2.5 kids, you've done something that spreads AIDS. There are wives who have gotten AIDS from their husband and children who have gotten it from their mother. I'm sure they'd love to hear a little sermon from you about personal responsibility.

Of course, some activities are riskier than others, but we could never starve the disease of victims without killing off the human race.

Consequently, politicians and activist groups would lose a manipulation tool to siphon tax dollars away from issues that are a lot less preventable and affect more people.

You've just accused a whole lot of people of hiding the facts on a fatal disease in exchange for money. Why don't you type "AIDS" into Google and see what these people are actually saying?

Since you're a fan of common sense, consider this: If the government wanted to hide the fact that certain groups are at higher risk, they would reject requests to study those groups, regardless of the wording.

The United Nations Population Fund (link)

Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS (link)

United Nations Children's Fund aka UNICEF (link)

UN's work on women's rights (link)

UN Commission on Sustainable Development (link)

United Nations Environment Programme (link)

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (link)

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (link)

One would HOPE that
that posters have a vague familiarity with the UN before launching such a broadside.

I don't have much time to discuss it and I'm not a virologist, but I can suggest some reading.

The Barcelona report, the result of a conference last year. The link "The Report on the Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic" is particularly informative in showing it isn't just a "handful of sufferers". I suggest browsing around theUNAIDS home page too.

About the HIV/AIDS link, if you have some time and an open mind, I suggest this site's links, this one being particularly useful.

About your questions, I don't know what you mean by epidemic patterns (I'm not an expert) but I don't think that question is important, if it's just a matter of calling it epidemics or not - there are many people infected and dying, and I've seen it referred as epidemics in many places; AZT is covered thoroughly in the links I gave you; I read somewhere that, although not clinically proven, statistics say amyl nitrate increases the chances of HIV infected people developping Kaposi's syndrome, but I don't know what is your point; diseases that are associated with AIDS are opportunistic diseases that take advantage of the damage to the immune system, I don't see a problem with that list changing.

Of course, if you don't want to believe, it's pointless. You can come up with a huge conspiracy theory involving thousands of scientists all over the world, and think whatever you want. Those who are affected by the disease deserve treatment though, and everyone deserves information, because denial theories could prompt people to stop being careful about prevention and to be hopeless about treatment.

That said, science lives off people like you, who are skeptic and don't accept things blindly. Contrary to what you may think, or not, scientists are encouraged to question and go against the establishment, that's very important and science isn't static, but at the end of the day the theory that survives is the one that's supported by the facts. New evidence could come up, and there might be a report tomorrow, saying that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, but based on current evidence, most people strongly believe HIV causes AIDS.

I don't have much time to discuss it and I'm not a virologist, but I can suggest some reading.

The Barcelona report, the result of a conference last year. The link "The Report on the Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic" is particularly informative in showing it isn't just a "handful of sufferers". I suggest browsing around theUNAIDS home page too.

About the HIV/AIDS link, if you have some time and an open mind, I suggest this site's links, this one being particularly useful.

About your questions, I don't know what you mean by epidemic patterns (I'm not an expert) but I don't think that question is important, if it's just a matter of calling it epidemics or not - there are many people infected and dying, and I've seen it referred as epidemics in many places; AZT is covered thoroughly in the links I gave you; I read somewhere that, although not clinically proven, statistics say amyl nitrate increases the chances of HIV infected people developping Kaposi's syndrome, but I don't know what is your point; diseases that are associated with AIDS are opportunistic diseases that take advantage of the damage to the immune system, I don't see a problem with that list changing.

Of course, if you don't want to believe, it's pointless. You can come up with a huge conspiracy theory involving thousands of scientists all over the world, and think whatever you want. Those who are affected by the disease deserve treatment though, and everyone deserves information, because denial theories could prompt people to stop being careful about prevention and to be hopeless about treatment.

That said, science lives off people like you, who are skeptic and don't accept things blindly. Contrary to what you may think, or not, scientists are encouraged to question and go against the establishment, that's very important and science isn't static, but at the end of the day the theory that survives is the one that's supported by the facts. New evidence could come up, and there might be a report tomorrow, saying that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, but based on current evidence, most people strongly believe HIV causes AIDS.

(Here is the properly formatted comment... what a /. newbie I am)

Tru they [viruses] wont survive if we don't, but they don't know that. What's to stop the process?

In one word: evolution. The fact that viruses aren't sentient isn't at all important. No one but humans are sentient: is every species but us just lucky that they don't all decide that it might be fun to stop breathing? Viruses that act in unfit ways, that is, contrary to their survival's best interest, become extinct. It's called "survival of the fittest"; I'm sure you've heard that phrase, but you clearly don't understand it.

I don't see AIDS as a bad example considering 80% of the population in Africa is now infected.
Uhh... 80%? According to the United Nations AIDs Program, there are 42 million people in the entire world currently infected with Aids. The population of Africa is around 800 million. Even if every single person infected with AIDs in the world happened to live in Africa, only 5% of the population would be infected. Not exactly 80%.

Tru they [viruses] wont survive if we don't, but they don't know that. What's to stop the process? In one word: evolution. The fact that viruses aren't sentient isn't at all important. No one but humans are sentient: is every species but us just lucky that they don't all decide that it might be fun to stop breathing? Viruses that act in unfit ways, that is, contrary to their survival's best interest, become extinct. It's called "survival of the fittest"; I'm sure you've heard that phrase, but you clearly don't understand it. I don't see AIDS as a bad example considering 80% of the population in Africa is now infected. Uhh... 80%? According to the United Nations AIDs Program, there are 42 million people in the entire world currently infected with Aids. The population of Africa is around 800 million. Even if every single person infected with AIDs in the world happened to live in Africa, only 5% of the population would be infected. Not exactly 80%.

IANAMD but i do know that disease spreads where there are to many people too, but the point is, human overpopulation isn't because someone else killed off all our predators.

No indeed.

As long as population pressures increase (and I can't see anything short of a plague or mass starvation changing that)

AIDS. Unfortunately. Check the latest stats for some African states (20-30% in some places).

"In Botswana, where about one in three adults are already HIV-infected - the highest prevalence rate in the world - no fewer than two-thirds of today's 15-year-old boys will die prematurely of AIDS."

[Life expectancy] has increased from 42 to 49 in sub Saharan Africa

What planet do you live on? Life expectancy is falling like a stone in sub-Saharan Africa. A half century of progress has been erased by HIV/AIDS.

• Life expectancy in sub-Saharan Africa is currently pegged around 47 years, down from 59 years--reached in the early 90's.
• The average Zimbabwean can now expect to live 39 years, down from 65 prior to the AIDS epidemic
• Life expectancy in some African countries is dropping to "Medieval" levels.
• The dramatic bottom of the list for years of healthy life for babies born in 1999: Sierra Leona, 25.9; Niger, 29.1; Malawi, 29.4; Zambia, 30.3; Botswana, 32.3; Uganda, 32.7; Rwanda, 32.8; Zimbabwe, 32.9; Mali, 33.1; and Ethiopia, 33.5

No other century in history was as good for the human race as the 20th, despite the efforts of Hitler (6 million Jews), Stalin (20 million Ukrainians and rural Russians) and Mao (30 million)

Please don't forget to include the 28 million currently sentenced to die by the WTO.

While capitalism may not be a sinking ship, it is failing to guard its own future. Capitalism is good at sharing its diseases with the poor nations, and not very good at sharing the cure. By aggressively defending intellectual property rights, capitalism is a snake swallowing its own tail.