Tea hinders HIV transmission!!

[Empty Hands]

]I will admit that I find it a trifle galling that medical research has had to become a political event - so now if you say "more homosexuals than heterosexuals get AIDS," you are tarred and feathered as a hater, a bigot, etc, etc. It has become anathema to even SAY the truth - because you'll be descended upon with a fury by the gay lobby.

Who said that? However, if you are going to claim that AIDS is a "gay disease" and that it shouldn't be as funded as it is, you might expect some "colorful" responses at the least. At least be accurate.

I note with some irony that more Americans will die of bacterial infections this year than of AIDS; anti-biotic resistant bacterial infections are on a steeply-rising path - and they can't get much in the way of federal funding; because the AIDS lobby has soaked it all up.

Absolute nonsense. Out of a total research budget of 29 billion in 2008, the NIH put 2.9 billion towards HIV/AIDS - and 3.6 billion towards infectious diseases. Like I said, at least be accurate. It's obvious you didn't consult any of the actual sources before constructing this opinion of yours. That is what might make others think you have other motives. That, and the overly colorful way of describing and the focus on male anal sex.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Who said that? However, if you are going to claim that AIDS is a "gay disease" and that it shouldn't be as funded as it is, you might expect some "colorful" responses at the least. At least be accurate.

I don't claim it is a 'gay disease'. I claim that statements made that indicate more heterosexuals get AIDS than homosexuals are correct only in a certain sense, and in any case, are geared towards inculcating an attitude that AIDS is not a 'gay disease'. Nuance here - while I agree AIDS is not a gay disease, I disagree with the aggressive methods used to put forth this 're-education' of the US public with half-truths.

It is politics, as I said. I dislike politics when it comes to allocating funds for medical research. Like trying to convince people to fund lung cancer, when the public perception is that people with lung cancer did it to themselves by smoking, or funds for diabetes, when people think only fat bastards get it. While I agree that it is wrong to withhold funding for HIV/AIDS research on the basis that it is a 'gay disease', it is equally wrong to try to inculcate an untruth to make it seem to be an 'everybody' disease.

Absolute nonsense. Out of a total research budget of 29 billion in 2008, the NIH put 2.9 billion towards HIV/AIDS - and 3.6 billion towards infectious diseases.

Infectious diseases is a big bucket - and by the way, NIH considers HIV/AIDS an 'infectious disease' and money allocated to infectious diseases can also find it's way to HIV/AIDS research. More people die of bacterial infections, which is a tiny subset of 'infectious diseases' than die of AIDS in the USA. So you're comparing apples and oranges.

Like I said, at least be accurate. It's obvious you didn't consult any of the actual sources before constructing this opinion of yours.

I consulted the same sources you did, it appears. nih.gov.

That is what might make others think you have other motives. That, and the overly colorful way of describing and the focus on male anal sex.

I make no apologies for my manner of speech. Sorry, I like the term 'butt pirate' and find it humorous. Would you prefer 'bone-smuggler'?

As to the focus on male anal sex - that's what the statistics say. I'm frankly pretty icked out by the thought, but that's just me.

 

[JourneymanDave]

JadecloudAlchemist, you find some of the coolest articles, you're like a human Digg