Cure for AIDS

[gardenweasel]

The US population was approximately 301,139,947 in 2007

From Kaiser Family Foundation
? Number of people living with HIV/AIDS: 1.2 million, including more than 400,000 with AIDS

? In FY 2007, U.S. federal funding for HIV/AIDS is estimated to total $23.4 billion. Of this, 56% is for care, 11% for research, 9% for cash and housing assistance, 4% for prevention, and 19% for combating the international epidemic.

cdc and american cancer assoc....

Total Federal spending on AIDS/HIV FY 2009 = 24.1 billion
Total Federal spending on cancer (all types) = 4.81 billion

new aids/hiv cases last year=50,000

number of new breast cancer cases/ deaths 2009 = 207,090/39,840
number of new prostate cancer cases/deaths 2009 = 217,730/32,050
number of new lung cancer cases/deaths 2009 = 222,520/157,300

funding 2009 for breast cancer = 599.5 million
funding 2009 for prostate cancer = 293.9 million
funding 2009 for lung cancer = 246.9 million

i`m no scientist or doctor,but theres something wrong with this picture,imo...

 

[Cie]

cdc and american cancer assoc....

Total Federal spending on AIDS/HIV FY 2009 = 24.1 billion
Total Federal spending on cancer (all types) = 4.81 billion

new aids/hiv cases last year=50,000

number of new breast cancer cases/ deaths 2009 = 207,090/39,840
number of new prostate cancer cases/deaths 2009 = 217,730/32,050
number of new lung cancer cases/deaths 2009 = 222,520/157,300

funding 2009 for breast cancer = 599.5 million
funding 2009 for prostate cancer = 293.9 million
funding 2009 for lung cancer = 246.9 million

i`m no scientist or doctor,but theres something wrong with this picture,imo...

I could not agree any more with you on this subject. We both know exactly why this is the case, and I will not even begin to discuss is it here.

And it is absolutely pathetic when you consider that every adult that reads this knows someone close to them who has been afflicted by cancer, if they have not been afflicted themselves.

 

[Cie]

You're a smart guy, the point was Magic has lived as long as he has because he has access to care that just about everyone else can't afford. But you knew that.

I am smart enough to realize that you are about as stubborn as they come......:toast:

 

[ImFeklhr]

Food for thought, and I am not favoring one disease over the other, or trying to start an argument:

AIDS largely effects people early in life. Something like 80% of cases are contracted before the age of 30. Whether or not that makes those people MORE worthy of society's attention I can't say... BUT there is certainly a difference in seeing someone young and with most of their life ahead of them die, than someone who has already lived a longer life pass on to cancer.

Granted, plenty of young people get cancer, but I am sure the median age of cancer patient to AIDS patient is quite different.

 

[bleedingpurple]

Saint, can you f'ing read? Let me state this again. While HAART is expensive (approx. $1,000/month), it is covered by private health insurance, Medicaid and ADAP, the AIDS Drug Assistance Plan. ADAP is funded by Federal funds and the programs are administered by the individual states. For those who earn too much money for the government programs and do not have insurance coverage, the drug companies themselves have patient assistance programs. To say that Magic Johnson has done so well with his disease because he is wealthy is off the mark.

Prove me wrong.

Magic has had HIV for 18 years. Not knowing, has this medication always been covered or did his money significantly help him years ago?

 

[bleedingpurple]

I think many medical professionals believe or believed that AIDS was going to be curable before cancer was.

And yes the age difference right or wrong is a big reason why more is spent on AIDS. Thankfully AIDs awareness and prevention has helped lessen the spread of AIDs but sadly in underdeveloped countries especially places in AFRICA it wreaks havoc.

 

[Cie]

Food for thought, and I am not favoring one disease over the other, or trying to start an argument:

AIDS largely effects people early in life. Something like 80% of cases are contracted before the age of 30. Whether or not that makes those people MORE worthy of society's attention I can't say... BUT there is certainly a difference in seeing someone young and with most of their life ahead of them die, than someone who has already lived a longer life pass on to cancer.

Granted, plenty of young people get cancer, but I am sure the median age of cancer patient to AIDS patient is quite different.

While I see where you are coming from, there is no reasonable justification for 6x more federal spending on aids/HIV than cancer, when regardless of age, there are at least 50X more new cancer cases annually than aids.

On the whole, cancer affects practically everyone directly, while aids, quite simply, does not. What I mean is that everyone knows someone who has battled cancer. I am unaware of any cases of aids within my social/family network. There are two trainees working at my dining table right now, and neither of them knows anyone afflicted with aids/hiv. Meanwhile, between the three of us, it would appear that we know well over 100 people ranging in age from 3 to elderly that have been afflicted with cancer.

I lost a friend to leukemia at 14, another to the same disease at 20, while my uncle lost his battle with leukemia at 33. Several relatives and family friends afflicted by cancer have lost their lives prematurely, albeit deep into adulthood.

My mother in law and aunt have survived breast cancer, my close friend's dad is dying of brain cancer as we speak at 64, a friend of my dad is battling brain cancer in his 50s, my insurance agent's daughter died of leukemia at 3, two of my dads friends in their 60s are battling prostate cancer, my mom's friend in her 60s is also battling a form of cancer. This is off of the top of my head......

Aids is a horrible disease, but the disparity in federal funding remains unacceptable in my opinion.

 

[ImFeklhr]

While I see where you are coming from, there is no reasonable justification for 6x more federal spending on aids/HIV than cancer, when regardless of age, there are at least 50X more new cancer cases annually than aids. That disparity is unacceptable in my eyes.

On the whole, cancer affects practically everyone directly, while aids, quite simply, does not. What I mean is that everyone knows someone who has battled cancer. I am unaware of any cases of aids within my social/family network. There are two trainees working at my dining table right now, and neither of them knows anyone afflicted with aids/hiv. Meanwhile, between the three of us, it would appear that we know well over 100 people ranging in age from 3 to elderly that have been afflicted with cancer.

I lost a friend to leukemia at 14, another to the same disease at 20, while my uncle lost his battle with leukemia at 33. Several relatives and family friends afflicted by cancer have lost their lives prematurely, albeit deep into adulthood.

My mother in law and aunt have survived breast cancer, my close friend's dad is dying of brain cancer as we speak at 64, a friend of my dad is battling brain cancer in his 50s, my insurance agent's daughter died of leukemia at 3, two of my dads friends in their 60s are battling prostate cancer, my mom's friend in her 60s is also battling a form of cancer. This is off of the top of my head......

Aids is a horrible disease, but the disparity in federal funding remains unacceptable in my opinion.

Most people don't advertise that they have AIDS because of social stigma. You might know someone with the disease and not be aware.

It does typically hit gay, poor and minority populations more than middle class families, so if you don't live in one of those communities, quite possible you don't know anyone.

I am blessed by knowing of many stories of cancer and HIV in my circles. Lucky me kurby

Won't argue with you that the dollar figures are quite shocking though. Was not aware of that.

 

[Terryray]

that $20 billion figure of Federal money for AIDS includes care and treatment, cash and housing assistance, etc. 11% of it is for research. The cancer figure provided is just for research.

more issues too: AIDS (a potentially fatal communicable disease) is public health issue much more than cancer, not surprising receives more public funding. AIDS research not been around as long, lots of funding is playing catchup to that and years of neglect/underfunding. AIDS much bigger issue in other countries, our funding also a kind of foreign policy world helper. AID is theoretically more amenable to "magic bullet" vaccination, so much better bang for buck if research successful. Lots, I mean lots, more private funding for cancer research; AIDS ain't the kind of disease gets folks to give up money for, hence the gov't steps in.

 

[Cie]

that $20 billion figure of Federal money for AIDS includes care and treatment, cash and housing assistance, etc. 11% of it is for research. The cancer figure provided is just for research.

more issues too: AIDS (a potentially fatal communicable disease) is public health issue much more than cancer, not surprising receives more public funding. AIDS research not been around as long, lots of funding is playing catchup to that and years of neglect/underfunding. AIDS much bigger issue in other countries, our funding also a kind of foreign policy world helper. AID is theoretically more amenable to "magic bullet" vaccination, so much better bang for buck if research successful. Lots, I mean lots, more private funding for cancer research; AIDS ain't the kind of disease gets folks to give up money for, hence the gov't steps in.

Makes a ton of sense