USA to blame, as always. We are EVIL!!!!
- Thread starter pbm
- Start date
- Status
No objectivity whatsoever in attacks from France and their cronies.
Our country has put more money, and as much donated and subisidized medicine, into the AIDS effort as the rest of the world combined. It's not just federal spending; the pharmaceutical industry, donates a lot, to UNICEF, World Relief and others. Americans as private citizens also contribute hundreds of millions of dollars each year through the work of World Vision and other private not-for-profits.
America-haters abound. They hate our values, hate that millions of us go to church and believe in the Bible. They ridicule us for supporting abstinence outside of marriage and faithfulness in marriage, despite the outstanding proof from Uganda that teaching that message works to reduce the spread of AIDS dramatically. The French want anyone to be able to sleep with anyone else they want, just use a condom, and demand free medicine from the U.S. if you get sick. Great strategy. Ask the millions of orphans in Africa if they think the French are helping them.
Our country has put more money, and as much donated and subisidized medicine, into the AIDS effort as the rest of the world combined. It's not just federal spending; the pharmaceutical industry, donates a lot, to UNICEF, World Relief and others. Americans as private citizens also contribute hundreds of millions of dollars each year through the work of World Vision and other private not-for-profits.
America-haters abound. They hate our values, hate that millions of us go to church and believe in the Bible. They ridicule us for supporting abstinence outside of marriage and faithfulness in marriage, despite the outstanding proof from Uganda that teaching that message works to reduce the spread of AIDS dramatically. The French want anyone to be able to sleep with anyone else they want, just use a condom, and demand free medicine from the U.S. if you get sick. Great strategy. Ask the millions of orphans in Africa if they think the French are helping them.
Why every countries like to blame on USA. ugh they are dumb and why dont they make one their own. USA worked so hard with **** everything problem around.
The drug industry are real angels huh? Why is that drugs cost the most vulnerable the most money, our elderly and poor uninsured? Its a very powerful lobby and influencer in our government and there is no motive to help people just to make many $$$$.
Sorry to say that businesses exist to make money. Drug companies aren't supposed to be "angels", nor do they claim to be charities.
If drug companies gave drugs away, they would soon cease to function. Well maybe that would work.....but that is a whole different topic......(I'm not a pop-a-pill kinda guy)
If drug companies gave drugs away, they would soon cease to function. Well maybe that would work.....but that is a whole different topic......(I'm not a pop-a-pill kinda guy)
harper,
you think research and development is cheap for pharm. companies? There are MANY drugs that never get passed or need a lot more R&D. They can't just write all that off for grins. They pass it off to the consumer, just like every other company in any other industry.
you think research and development is cheap for pharm. companies? There are MANY drugs that never get passed or need a lot more R&D. They can't just write all that off for grins. They pass it off to the consumer, just like every other company in any other industry.
Most of the people's and countries that hate the US cant even get along with each other.Why should we expect them to like us? They hate one another because they are of a different sect in the same religion(Muslim).They hate each other because they are of a different ethnic background.They hate others because they are of a different religion(Christian)and want to destroy them for being infidels.
They hate Israel just because they exist and they hate the US just because we exist.
These hate filled people will hate the US regardless of what we do or don't do.They will continue to hate us just because they can.
Many will continue to hate us and want us destroyed because we are 'infidels.
With this kind of mind set,there is little that can be done to stop the hate.
I know for a fact that drug companies spend oodles of money when testing a new drug.My Mom has heart trouble.She was 1 of 100 that took an experimental drug at the hospital involved in the testing for a year.This hospital was 1 of several hospitals around the world that was participating in the study.She had to go back and forth to her doctor many times for evaluations and testing to keep track of her and how she was doing with the drug.She had to keep a small device that recorded her hearts function,ever so often she had to use it and call in the results.The testing alone that she had to have probably ran into thousands and thousands of dollars,and this was just for her.Think about the hundreds of other people etc. that were involved.
Then,there was the expense of keeping track of which patient got the real drug and which one got the placebo.
There is also the expense of paying the doctor and staff for during the study.
When you add up all of the things that must be done to get a new drug to market,it really adds up.
The drug she tested has of yet,not come to market.It is a very long process to get a new drug approved.This process is what helps assure the drugs safety.
[ July 14, 2004, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: motorguy222 ]
They hate Israel just because they exist and they hate the US just because we exist.
These hate filled people will hate the US regardless of what we do or don't do.They will continue to hate us just because they can.
Many will continue to hate us and want us destroyed because we are 'infidels.
With this kind of mind set,there is little that can be done to stop the hate.
Then,there was the expense of keeping track of which patient got the real drug and which one got the placebo.
There is also the expense of paying the doctor and staff for during the study.
When you add up all of the things that must be done to get a new drug to market,it really adds up.
The drug she tested has of yet,not come to market.It is a very long process to get a new drug approved.This process is what helps assure the drugs safety.
[ July 14, 2004, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: motorguy222 ]
They're not blaming the U.S. for Aids, just the tactics used by trade officials in negotiations and with the overall government policy (religious) that is quoted in the article,
"The Bush administration maintains that emphasizing condoms promotes promiscuity among the youth, and pushes a policy known as ABC -- Abstinence, Being Faithful and Condoms, in that order of priority."
So is this policy working, NO, but that be ****ed, we push the policy anyway and further expand the aids problem.
As for the Thailand example, I listened to the Thai scientist who developed and improved the original drugs to generic ones. She was threatened with legal action by 1/2 dozen drug companies, when she refused to stop manufacturing the generics and showed up in court, guess what, no drug companies showed because she had proof that the U.S. government had actually done the developing. Here's some info from the Pfizer web site,
"Government and Pharmaceutical Company Scientists
Collaborate to Produce Tomorrow's Medicines
A vital and collaborative partnership among the National Institutes of Health (NIH), academic and industry scientists has been enormously productive in discovering and developing effective and safe medicines. This division of labor is a system that allows participants to focus attention on their special strengths.
Who Pays?
America's research-based pharmaceutical industry now spends $24 billion in research every year, up more than 50% since 1990. Private industry develops more than 90% of all new medicines approved by the FDA and most of the world's breakthrough medicines. The federal government's National Institutes of Health (NIH) spends $14 billion a year on biomedical research and is responsible for 2% of medicines. Universities contribute the remaining 7% of them.
NIH promotes innovation primarily by conducting and funding basic research about the biological underpinnings and mechanisms of disease, as well as which molecular compounds or biologic processes might start or slow disease. Knowledge from NIH-sponsored research is shared widely among scientists, including those employed by drug companies, through conferences, personal contacts and peer-reviewed journals.
It is then industry's role to take these scientific theories and translate them into chemical compounds that become the medicines that treat and cure diseases. The compounds must be extensively tested for doses that are safe and effective in humans, convenient to take and have acceptable side effects.
An example of this collaboration is the many years of both private and public sector research that it took for scientists to identify the critical role of one neurotransmitter, serotonin, in clinical depression. After scientists working in many different settings determined that insufficient levels of serotonin were present in the brains of people with clinical depression, industry scientists successfully created chemical compounds that increased levels of serotonin, were effective taken by mouth and, at the same time, had acceptable side effects.
Following many years of basic research, as well as expensive clinical trials funded by industry, several of these compounds were eventually approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a new class of prescription medicines for clinical depression - the Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors (SSRIs).
CRADAs
NIH's Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) with industry are designed to facilitate the transfer of basic research knowledge to patients through public-private scientific collaborations. One goal of these programs is to speed the transition from laboratory "bench" to our medicine cabinets. NIH has credited these agreements with promoting the exchange and use of experimental compounds, scientific advice and discussion, and spurring increased government and industry funding for biomedical and clinical research.
NIH recently determined that most CRADAs have resulted in new scientific knowledge, and not new products that can be patented or licensed for commercial profit. Further, under NIH rules, the government may be compensated through royalty payments from drug manufacturers for its early research of a CRADA product. The amount of the royalty is determined by many factors, including the stage in the discovery process where the scientific knowledge was applied and the degree of risk that was assumed by the pharmaceutical company.
New Molecules
The drug companies use their unique expertise in pharmaceutical discovery and development to translate knowledge into safe and effective medicines. To get it right, industry scientists have to do the following:
Accurately identify and target the basic causes of human disease;
Achieve the desired effect with appropriate clinical safety;
Achieve and maintain proper medicine levels in the body with an acceptable dosage form and schedule; and
Develop medicines that metabolize in and excrete from the body without toxic side effects.
Industry scientists must also figure out how to deliver the medicine most effectively - by pill, capsule, injection or patch. Packaging and information must then be developed by the drug company and approved by the FDA to ensure that physicians, as well as patients, understand the medicine's proper use, appropriate dosage and potential side effects.
Once approved by the FDA for use in the general patient population, a new medicine must still be monitored by the company for continued safety and efficacy in post-marketing surveillance.
Patent Protection
Who gets to claim ownership of the theories and concepts that result in a new medicine? Who may profit from them? The constitutionally protected American patent system is designed to provide legal protection for the "intellectual property" that results from a person's or institution's discovery. This intellectual property receives a patent for 20 years from the date of filing of the application if it is a truly novel, non-obvious and useful discovery. The patent may be comprehensive and protect the "composition of matter," i.e., any application of the new molecule, or protect only its "use" for which exclusive marketing rights are given."
So the next time you or your relatives try to purchase inexpensive drugs, generic or not, through medicare think about the Bush law that says Medicare CANNOT negotiate lower drug prices for U.S. citizens. And think about why drug prices have out paced any savings that might have been achieved through the so called "Bush Discount Plan". Then come to me and try to claim these companies and the Bush Administration have any conscience.
"The Bush administration maintains that emphasizing condoms promotes promiscuity among the youth, and pushes a policy known as ABC -- Abstinence, Being Faithful and Condoms, in that order of priority."
So is this policy working, NO, but that be ****ed, we push the policy anyway and further expand the aids problem.
As for the Thailand example, I listened to the Thai scientist who developed and improved the original drugs to generic ones. She was threatened with legal action by 1/2 dozen drug companies, when she refused to stop manufacturing the generics and showed up in court, guess what, no drug companies showed because she had proof that the U.S. government had actually done the developing. Here's some info from the Pfizer web site,
"Government and Pharmaceutical Company Scientists
Collaborate to Produce Tomorrow's Medicines
A vital and collaborative partnership among the National Institutes of Health (NIH), academic and industry scientists has been enormously productive in discovering and developing effective and safe medicines. This division of labor is a system that allows participants to focus attention on their special strengths.
Who Pays?
America's research-based pharmaceutical industry now spends $24 billion in research every year, up more than 50% since 1990. Private industry develops more than 90% of all new medicines approved by the FDA and most of the world's breakthrough medicines. The federal government's National Institutes of Health (NIH) spends $14 billion a year on biomedical research and is responsible for 2% of medicines. Universities contribute the remaining 7% of them.
NIH promotes innovation primarily by conducting and funding basic research about the biological underpinnings and mechanisms of disease, as well as which molecular compounds or biologic processes might start or slow disease. Knowledge from NIH-sponsored research is shared widely among scientists, including those employed by drug companies, through conferences, personal contacts and peer-reviewed journals.
It is then industry's role to take these scientific theories and translate them into chemical compounds that become the medicines that treat and cure diseases. The compounds must be extensively tested for doses that are safe and effective in humans, convenient to take and have acceptable side effects.
An example of this collaboration is the many years of both private and public sector research that it took for scientists to identify the critical role of one neurotransmitter, serotonin, in clinical depression. After scientists working in many different settings determined that insufficient levels of serotonin were present in the brains of people with clinical depression, industry scientists successfully created chemical compounds that increased levels of serotonin, were effective taken by mouth and, at the same time, had acceptable side effects.
Following many years of basic research, as well as expensive clinical trials funded by industry, several of these compounds were eventually approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a new class of prescription medicines for clinical depression - the Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors (SSRIs).
CRADAs
NIH's Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) with industry are designed to facilitate the transfer of basic research knowledge to patients through public-private scientific collaborations. One goal of these programs is to speed the transition from laboratory "bench" to our medicine cabinets. NIH has credited these agreements with promoting the exchange and use of experimental compounds, scientific advice and discussion, and spurring increased government and industry funding for biomedical and clinical research.
NIH recently determined that most CRADAs have resulted in new scientific knowledge, and not new products that can be patented or licensed for commercial profit. Further, under NIH rules, the government may be compensated through royalty payments from drug manufacturers for its early research of a CRADA product. The amount of the royalty is determined by many factors, including the stage in the discovery process where the scientific knowledge was applied and the degree of risk that was assumed by the pharmaceutical company.
New Molecules
The drug companies use their unique expertise in pharmaceutical discovery and development to translate knowledge into safe and effective medicines. To get it right, industry scientists have to do the following:
Accurately identify and target the basic causes of human disease;
Achieve the desired effect with appropriate clinical safety;
Achieve and maintain proper medicine levels in the body with an acceptable dosage form and schedule; and
Develop medicines that metabolize in and excrete from the body without toxic side effects.
Industry scientists must also figure out how to deliver the medicine most effectively - by pill, capsule, injection or patch. Packaging and information must then be developed by the drug company and approved by the FDA to ensure that physicians, as well as patients, understand the medicine's proper use, appropriate dosage and potential side effects.
Once approved by the FDA for use in the general patient population, a new medicine must still be monitored by the company for continued safety and efficacy in post-marketing surveillance.
Patent Protection
Who gets to claim ownership of the theories and concepts that result in a new medicine? Who may profit from them? The constitutionally protected American patent system is designed to provide legal protection for the "intellectual property" that results from a person's or institution's discovery. This intellectual property receives a patent for 20 years from the date of filing of the application if it is a truly novel, non-obvious and useful discovery. The patent may be comprehensive and protect the "composition of matter," i.e., any application of the new molecule, or protect only its "use" for which exclusive marketing rights are given."
So the next time you or your relatives try to purchase inexpensive drugs, generic or not, through medicare think about the Bush law that says Medicare CANNOT negotiate lower drug prices for U.S. citizens. And think about why drug prices have out paced any savings that might have been achieved through the so called "Bush Discount Plan". Then come to me and try to claim these companies and the Bush Administration have any conscience.
Needtoknow - - with respect -- the ABC approach as been very succesful in Uganda. See the Wall Street Journal today, piece in the editorial section on the Ugandan presidents' speech at the AIDS conference about how changing behavior can work. AIDS infection rate there has dropped from 30+% to 6%. This has been known for some time.
Changing behavior has been a key driver in reducing the AIDS infection rate in the U.S. and other countries.
We need to apply all of our resources against AIDS. Changing behavior, using condoms; using all the medications in our medical toolkit. I do lay ministry work here with two groups of HIV/AIDS people. All understand that risky behavior was how they got the infection. They also understand how their behavior has to change to keep other people from suffering as they do.
Changing behavior has been a key driver in reducing the AIDS infection rate in the U.S. and other countries.
We need to apply all of our resources against AIDS. Changing behavior, using condoms; using all the medications in our medical toolkit. I do lay ministry work here with two groups of HIV/AIDS people. All understand that risky behavior was how they got the infection. They also understand how their behavior has to change to keep other people from suffering as they do.
STS,
No we don't need to focus all our efforts on AIDS. We need to focus it on Heart Disease and cancer treatment and other killers that are A LOT more prevalent then AIDS.
No we don't need to focus all our efforts on AIDS. We need to focus it on Heart Disease and cancer treatment and other killers that are A LOT more prevalent then AIDS.
Doug, you are quite right, we have many diseases we need to invest significant resources to treat. My posting was not as clear as I intended. We need to apply all of the HIV/AIDS tools we have available -- medication, ABC approach et al--against that disease. Not to the exclusion of or to weaken the effort on other diseases.
Remember when the liberals ridiculed Nancy Reagan for saying "just say no" to drugs? Then Clinton adopted the same policy and they could then support it, LOL. Obviously, Clinton didn't think much of the abstinence approach to STD prevention!
Keith.
Kieth,
Hit it on the head! People need to take responsibility for their actions.
Hit it on the head! People need to take responsibility for their actions.
STSinNYC, please give me a link to the Uganda story. I'm not saying responsibility is not a problem, of course it is, but how do you get people to act responsibly. Demonizing sex as the religious leaders like to do does not work. In African countries where aids is a problem much of the attitude change has to be directed at men who don't like to use condoms combined with many partners and who assume this is good sexual conduct with no link to Aids tranmission. So tell me how "abstinence" first has any hope of working? As for the "just say no" advice, just another example of a simplistic mind set trying to solve complex problems.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Absolutely!! ....but ...since we're intelligent creatures ..and KNOW that many are not...and also knowing that WE are going to deal with the consequences of those who are not....isn't in our own best interests to make sure that we come out of this in the best shape?
Criminals should be jailed, but if you see an environment THAT YOU KNOW is going to promote crime AND ONE YOU CAN MODIFY, who bears some associative responsibility for criminals via "acts of omission"??
Apply template as needed....
Personally I see AIDS as nature's global population control mechanism ..much like famine or plague. Those that can adapt will live ..those that do not will perish. Simple.
I'll make sure that I'm not a victim.
needtoknow,your comments are what would be expected from a liberal.It seems that from the liberals point of view that people are just completely unable to control themselves.Why are they unable?,I can only guess because you,along with other liberals,think people are just to uneducated and or just have no control over their actions.This is hogwash.
Needtoknow,you along with every other human being in this world "just say no" to things in our lives every day.It may be no to a jelly donut, a Big Mac or to alcohol.The no to alcohol may be from a 30 year alcoholic that is now sober,but it is still no.
If I apply the so called logic that you are using to justify your 'Liberal Psychobabble' to other problems,we would have cocaine being sold at Wal-Mart over the counter.We would have 8 year olds legally drinking.Why?,because of the way the liberal thought process works.They(Liberals)would say "Well,they are going to do it anyway,might as well make it legal and easy for them to do."The "just say no" advice is not simplistic,ask the ex-drunk or the ex drug addict,they have to say No to the drugs and alcohol every day.The "just say no" policy is a very to the point way of saying,Hey,you have control over what you do.Use that control and say NO.The "just say no policy" makes people aware and responsible for their decisions.
This,unlike the liberal view of;you cant help what you do,you cant control your actions,you aren't responsible for what you do etc. makes us ALL accountable for what we do.Liberals don't like this,they want to do what they want and they want everyone else to do the same.This way,No one is responsible for anything,therefore,they cant be held accountable.
The liberals would have every one think that people are just inept and unable able to control what they d
nce again,this is hogwash.The problem with liberals,is that they think that all of their social theories are the answer to mankind's problems.They are not.Does the free drug needles policy mean anything?
When people are told by liberals that they are unable to control what they do,the people in question will use that to do what they want.
The "just say no" policy is the common sense way of saying,you have a choice of what you do.Your choices have consequences and you are held accountable for your choices.
It is not a 'simplistic mind set' approach,it is the only TRUE approach that we have for the decisions we make each and every day.
Needetoknow,it is when people like you, tell society that they CAN'T control themselves,is when we have problems.When you and others say such garbage,people will use it as an excuse to do what they want,when they want and to whom they want.
After all,they just cant control themselves.
needtoknow - The piece was in the opinion section of the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, July 14. It was commentary on the global AIDS conference which just ended. I don't have a (paid) subscription to the WSJ web site so I can't give you the URL..It was referencing a speech at the conference by the president of Uganda. No doubt there are other media citations.
It is a widely known, widely published fact that the HIV infection rate has dropped in Uganda from 30% of adults to under 6% in just a few years. Unlike nearly all other subsaharan African governments, the government of Uganda has aggressively promoted the ABC approach, believing that abstinence and faithfulness are essential along with use of condoms. That government has worked cooperatively with religious and secular relief organizations, and with churches, to educate people and promote change. Evangelical Christianity is growing rapidly in subsaharan Africa, and the churches in Uganda have been very forward about teaching Biblical principles for relationships.
I'm sorry that you think Christian leaders want to demonize sex; the vast majority of churches I have been in present the Biblical teachings faithfully. The Bible does not teach that sex is bad. On the contrary: the Bible teaches that passionate, loving sex is an essential part of a God-centered marriage. The Bible also teaches that God has a love for us that is deeply passionate, and sexual language is used to describe the way He wants to love us! The Word also tells us that sex was created for covenant heterosexual marriage. The commands ensure that men's access to women for sex is such that women are protected, treated with equal respect, and that their sexuality is not used as a family's possession. The OT commands were revolutionary in the protections and respect given to women. Men especially are held accountable to God for their sexual behavior for these reasons.
I do lay ministry work with HIV/AIDS people here, have been for 7 years. I have seen first-hand how people's behavior will change when they are given positive, encouraging, helpful, compassionate education.
The secular humanist culture has pushed so aggressively on the issue of individual freedoms that we have long ago lost the balance we need between the community's obligation to the individual and the individual's responsibility to the community. Sexuality is a significant community issue because many lives can be effected in the current and future generations.
It is a widely known, widely published fact that the HIV infection rate has dropped in Uganda from 30% of adults to under 6% in just a few years. Unlike nearly all other subsaharan African governments, the government of Uganda has aggressively promoted the ABC approach, believing that abstinence and faithfulness are essential along with use of condoms. That government has worked cooperatively with religious and secular relief organizations, and with churches, to educate people and promote change. Evangelical Christianity is growing rapidly in subsaharan Africa, and the churches in Uganda have been very forward about teaching Biblical principles for relationships.
I'm sorry that you think Christian leaders want to demonize sex; the vast majority of churches I have been in present the Biblical teachings faithfully. The Bible does not teach that sex is bad. On the contrary: the Bible teaches that passionate, loving sex is an essential part of a God-centered marriage. The Bible also teaches that God has a love for us that is deeply passionate, and sexual language is used to describe the way He wants to love us! The Word also tells us that sex was created for covenant heterosexual marriage. The commands ensure that men's access to women for sex is such that women are protected, treated with equal respect, and that their sexuality is not used as a family's possession. The OT commands were revolutionary in the protections and respect given to women. Men especially are held accountable to God for their sexual behavior for these reasons.
I do lay ministry work with HIV/AIDS people here, have been for 7 years. I have seen first-hand how people's behavior will change when they are given positive, encouraging, helpful, compassionate education.
The secular humanist culture has pushed so aggressively on the issue of individual freedoms that we have long ago lost the balance we need between the community's obligation to the individual and the individual's responsibility to the community. Sexuality is a significant community issue because many lives can be effected in the current and future generations.
- Status
