Was the war in Iraq worth the costs?

[RussSchultz]

Note: I'm not discussing politics with Natoma.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...bMed&list_uids=10449602&dopt=Abstract

We present here worldwide estimates of annual mortality from all cancers and for 25 specific cancer sites around 1990. Crude and age-standardised mortality rates and numbers of deaths were computed for 23 geographical areas. Of the estimated 5.2 million deaths from cancer (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer)....

http://www.who.int/cancer/en/

More than 10 million people are diagnosed with cancer every year. It is estimated that there will be 15 million new cases every year by 2020. Cancer causes 6 million deaths every year—or 12% of deaths worldwide.

http://www.who.int/cardiovascular_diseases/en/

An estimated 17 million people die of CVDs, particularly heart attacks and strokes, every year.

 

[Natoma]

It's not to be underestimated or taken lightly at all simply because "It's not me" or whatever reasoning you have to believe that AIDS is not a big deal.

Um, I never said it wasn't a "big deal." There are OTHER "big deals", that are receiving far less attention / funds than AIDS is.

There are only three diseases that affect the worldwide population on a scale that HIV does. Malaria, Tuberculosis, and Flu.

Tuberculosis for all intents and purposes has been cured, if you don't count the new strain of "Super TB" that has cropped up in recent years due to our abuse of antibiotics. This is a matter of getting these drugs into the hands of those who need innoculation.

Malaria and Flu both receive tremendous funding, along with HIV. Unfortunately, Flu and HIV share the same vexing problem. They mutate so quickly that it's going to be difficult, if not impossible, to come up with a cure for them. A vaccine on the other hand, is entirely doable, especially now that it's come to light that those who possess an HIV immunity do so because they carry the gene that also happens to give them Smallpox immunity. Their gene prevents Smallpox and HIV from attaching to a particular receptor that they need to do so to gain entrance into a cell and infect it. Unfortunately we've had less success with a Flu vaccine because of the rapidity of the mutations.

But please, enlighten me as to which diseases are more of a problem than the four mentioned above? Unless of course you're talking about other problems that aren't diseases, or diseases that affect a small portion of the world's population percentage wise, such as Cancer and Heart Disease and Diabetes.

Heart Disease and Diabetes, btw, has skyrocketed in large part due to the fact that Obesity levels in developed nations have skyrocketed. If that's not the epitome of a preventable disease, I don't know what is. But that doesn't seem to receive the same moral proselytizing that I've seen on this thread directed towards those afflicted with HIV.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Worldwide Joe. HIV utterly dwarfs Cancer and Heart Disease. It isn't even close.

And here I thought we were talking about the "Reagan era" epidemic...

Huh?

This all started with:

Had action been taken, think of the thousands of lives that could've easily been saved. And then ask yourself why action wasn't taken, why our president at the time wouldn't even publically acknowledge this epidemics existence for most of his office term.

 

[John Reynolds]

This all started with:

Had action been taken, think of the thousands of lives that could've easily been saved. And then ask yourself why action wasn't taken, why our president at the time wouldn't even publically acknowledge this epidemics existence for most of his office term.

"Just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in."
--Al Pacino, Godfather III

 

[Natoma]

Russ,

Do you want me to combine all the deaths from all HIV type diseases? The umbrella term "Cancer" does not take into account the hundreds of different kinds that have nothing to do with one another.

If you want to be really technical about it, there aren't any HIV deaths. It's all caused by cancers and other opportunistic infections that take over due to the depressed immune response.

Cardiovascular disease is another umbrella term as well for various ailments that in some cases have nothing to do with one another. For instance, Heart Palpitations fall under Cardiovascular disease, but it is significantly different than Atherosclerosis.

Maybe I should change my statement to "Deaths from Viral Infections dwarfs....." That should cover everything now shouldn't it?

 

[epicstruggle]

Worldwide Joe. HIV utterly dwarfs Cancer and Heart Disease. It isn't even close.

Natoma please see Russ's post above, you might have missed it while posting your post.

later,
epic
edit:[ignore message]

 

[Natoma]

Worldwide Joe. HIV utterly dwarfs Cancer and Heart Disease. It isn't even close.

And here I thought we were talking about the "Reagan era" epidemic...

Huh?

This all started with:

Had action been taken, think of the thousands of lives that could've easily been saved. And then ask yourself why action wasn't taken, why our president at the time wouldn't even publically acknowledge this epidemics existence for most of his office term.

I see. What the Reagan Administration did in terms of addressing the HIV epidemic was indeed abominable. It wasn't anywhere near the problem in terms of overall infections that it is today, but it was something that could have been curtailed in its early years, had there been information for people to digest. Reagan himself didn't even say the word AIDS until 1986, 5 years after it showed up, and C. Everett Koop didn't do any research on AIDS until later that year at Reagan's request.

That is definitely negligence that cost many people their lives.

 

[epicstruggle]

I see. What the Reagan Administration did in terms of addressing the HIV epidemic was indeed abominable. It wasn't anywhere near the problem in terms of overall infections that it is today, but it was something that could have been curtailed in its early years, had there been information for people to digest. Reagan himself didn't even say the word AIDS until 1986, 5 years after it showed up, and C. Everett Koop didn't do any research on AIDS until later that year at Reagan's request.

That is definitely negligence that cost many people their lives.

For the last few decades people have known that smoking leads to cancer. Yet MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people smoke/chew tobacco. No amount of educating the public has helped. The same thing with hiv/aids. With all the education we have today, people still have unprotect sex. Those in the early days who had hiv/aids (mostly gays) would not have believed anything coming out of the reagan admin. Ontop of that the lifestyle had to be dramatically changed, something that takes years if not decades.

later,
epic
people tend to do what feels good, regardless of the consequences. blaming others is also expected, when you should really blame yourself for your own mistakes.

 

[Natoma]

I see. What the Reagan Administration did in terms of addressing the HIV epidemic was indeed abominable. It wasn't anywhere near the problem in terms of overall infections that it is today, but it was something that could have been curtailed in its early years, had there been information for people to digest. Reagan himself didn't even say the word AIDS until 1986, 5 years after it showed up, and C. Everett Koop didn't do any research on AIDS until later that year at Reagan's request.

That is definitely negligence that cost many people their lives.

For the last few decades people have known that smoking leads to cancer. Yet MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people smoke/chew tobacco. No amount of educating the public has helped. The same thing with hiv/aids. With all the education we have today, people still have unprotect sex. Those in the early days who had hiv/aids (mostly gays) would not have believed anything coming out of the reagan admin. Ontop of that the lifestyle had to be dramatically changed, something that takes years if not decades.

later,
epic
people tend to do what feels good, regardless of the consequences. blaming others is also expected, when you should really blame yourself for your own mistakes.

I agree epic, that people will do whatever they want to do. What I'm saying is that the information should be put out there. If you know that smoking causes cancer, and you do it anyway, well then you're a dumbass and you shouldn't cry to anyone if you get cancer. If you know that unprotected sex exposes you to HIV and you will die from it, and you do it anyway, well then you're a dumbass and you shouldn't cry to anyone if you are indeed infected.

But the information regarding HIV wasn't in the public's hands in order for them to make a decision, just as the information on smoking and tobacco chewing causing cancer wasn't in the public's hands for decades.

What people do after they're educated is their own business. But you have to give them the information so they can at least make informed choices, and therefore live with their informed consequences. Do you see where I'm coming from?

 

[pax]

Actually tobaco sale are waning in modern countries like in NA and Europe. Its in other parts that that have boomed. We have plenty of education and regulation but little of that exists outside our borders in the third world.

 

[Natoma]

Worldwide Joe. HIV utterly dwarfs Cancer and Heart Disease. It isn't even close.

Natoma please see Russ's post above, you might have missed it while posting your post.

later,
epic
edit:[ignore message]

No he had a point. I should have clarified what I was talking about when I made my statement regarding HIV infections/deaths vs Cancer and Heart Disease. I'm speaking about the different diseases themselves, not the umbrella grouping.

Anyway, I hope that has been clarified now.

 

[Natoma]

Actually tobaco sale are waning in modern countries like in NA and Europe. Its in other parts that that have boomed. We have plenty of education and regulation but little of that exists outside our borders in the third world.

Aren't rates of smoking increasing significantly in Latin America and China? I think I read that somewhere but I'm not sure.

 

[epicstruggle]

What people do after they're educated is their own business. But you have to give them the information so they can at least make informed choices, and therefore live with their informed consequences. Do you see where I'm coming from?

I do see what your saying, but:
In the early 80's in the homosexual community, I very much doubt that anyone would believe anything coming out of the reagan admin. No amount of info would have been believed. Independent scientists needed to come out and inform the public, which they did but it took a while for the info to get out there to the masses.

later,
epic

 

[Natoma]

What people do after they're educated is their own business. But you have to give them the information so they can at least make informed choices, and therefore live with their informed consequences. Do you see where I'm coming from?

I do see what your saying, but:
In the early 80's in the homosexual community, I very much doubt that anyone would believe anything coming out of the reagan admin. No amount of info would have been believed. Independent scientists needed to come out and inform the public, which they did but it took a while for the info to get out there to the masses.

later,
epic

Unfortunately, we don't have the historical knowledge of whether or not that would have been true wrt the gay community in the 80s. Though I was only 9 by the time Reagan and Koop came out on AIDS, I do remember it being such a terror that people were afraid of shaking hands, coughing in public, sitting on toilet seats, drinking water from the same glass, etc.

I believe, and maybe this is the optimist in me, that the gay community and the general population would have listened intently to what Koop had to say on the matter. Too many people were dying for people to remain oblivious.

 

[RussSchultz]

SF's gay community was well aware of what caused AIDS when they fought to keep the bath houses open in the eighties.

 

[Fred]

On a historical note, Reagan was very aware of Aids, he often wrote letters to families of victims in the early years. (As published in some of his correspondances that were released this year).

He never called it the 'gay disease', and I think he felt it was the responsibility of other branches of government to do the job initially (CDC etc). Negligence maybe, but I doubt a public statement would have made a difference. It was already from day 1 on the cover of every newspaper/talk show.

The CDC had the information out, and it was generally met with derision. People didn't want to change their lifestyle (particularly true in San Fran), and of course many felt it was just propoganda from a right wing administration to scare 'homosexuals' into changing their lifestyle.

I don't think AIDS was fully appreciated until the blood bank scandals came full course.

Years later, I think the programs to encourage condom use/engage in safe sex slowly ate away at the disease spread in America.

 

[Sage]

I absolutely could not agree more with everything you wrote in this post. If I were gay I'd propose we hop a flight to SF.

j/k

yeah, I was thinknig the same thing... well, take out the "if" and "j/k"