Some "hot" disease stats

[Apoc]

Just woke up with really bad fever. Its h1n1 I think.

Based on what evidence... the news?

[Evan]

But as you posted on Facebook, all of those combined pale in comparison to AIDS [snip]

16,000 in 2002 (most recent data I found) so, no not at all. Good thing we are pumping all those billions into a "cure" (but thats another topic entirely)

my coworkers 7 month old daughter had h1n1 and is fine.

[Ken]

[quote="CaptainHenreh"

my coworkers 7 month old daughter had h1n1 and is fine.

Regardless of how strong it really is as a disease, that still has to be terrifying to deal with.

[Andy]

But as you posted on Facebook, all of those combined pale in comparison to AIDS [snip]

16,000 in 2002 (most recent data I found) so, no not at all. Good thing we are pumping all those billions into a "cure" (but thats another topic entirely)

That number seemed selective. Looked up CDC: Evan's right. Deaths in the US hovers in the 10-20K range since 2003 but persons living with AIDS/HIV in the US range from 370K to 455K. That's a shit ton and that's in the richest country in world. 1.8-2.3 million people have died globally in 2007 with 25 million dead in 1981 with another 30-36 million living with HIV/AIDS globally.

I'm going to have to say that AIDS isn't hype.

[Evan]

Your numbers prove my point. That many people living with it, and that few deaths mean its not nearly the pandemic that it is billed as.

80%+ of the population "live with" HPV, and it kills 4,000 women a year in the US, but isnt even a blip on the radar (well, until a vaccine was developed last year and the pharm wanted to scare people into getting it)
AIDS is a terrible disease and I hope for a cure, but there is absolutely no reason for the astronomical amount of money (esp on a per patient comparison) we are spending to try to find a cure.

We are talking about USA statistics. Global statistics are flawed and erroneous, The HIV virus has never been isolated, and 'normal' third world diseases such as malaryia, TB, typhoid, etc trigger the same HIV antibodies and thus show false positives. In fact in 1996 the 'definition' of having HIV was relaxed (WTF? you either have it or you dont) so that more AIDS funding could flow to third world countries.

[.RJ]

AIDS is a terrible disease and I hope for a cure, but there is absolutely no reason for the astronomical amount of money (esp on a per patient comparison) we are spending to try to find a cure.

So whats the alternative here?

My $.02 is any $$ that can be spent until a cure is found is well worth it :dunno:

[Evan]

RJ I know you dont subscribe to the barack obama theory of unlimited government money, so the alternative is to invest that money into medical research for a cure that will help save the lives of far more people. I dont have a problem with HIV research, just that the funding is incredibly out of proportion with other diseases that kill more people.

HIV isnt even a death sentence anymore, with modern treatments patients live for decades with full quality of life even after the onset of AIDS.

[JustinG]

are your sure??? or HIV POSITIVE???

[Evan]

didnt you know? everyone has aids!


<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yC7HwPh6Es">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yC7HwPh6Es</a><!-- m -->

[JustinG]

that movie was so damn funny, may have to break it out, havent watched it in a while

[Andy]

Your position is sort of interesting in that it's incongruent with everything I've ever heard about HIV/AIDS. Please elaborate but cite your sources.

My numbers don't prove your point. My numbers say millions of people have died and many more millions have it and will spread it.

[.RJ]

HIV isnt even a death sentence anymore, with modern treatments patients live for decades with full quality of life even after the onset of AIDS.

Would the treatments and life expectency exist without the disproportional amount of $$ being applied to research?

[HAULN-SS]

THIS JUST IN:

Natural Causes kills more people in the world than anything else put together! ~ 50 million people a year are dying and we NEED to find a cure! Dispatch more money, ASAP!

[Andy]

HIV isnt even a death sentence anymore, with modern treatments patients live for decades with full quality of life even after the onset of AIDS.

Would the treatments and life expectency exist without the disproportional amount of $$ being applied to research?

There's no way I could answer that. Maybe an economist can figure something out. I will say that "disproportional" already assumes certain values without proper data to back up that statement.

[CaptainHenreh]

HIV isnt even a death sentence anymore, with modern treatments patients live for decades with full quality of life even after the onset of AIDS.

Would the treatments and life expectency exist without the disproportional amount of $$ being applied to research?

There's no way I could answer that. Maybe an economist can figure something out. I will say that "disproportional" already assumes certain values without proper data to back up that statement.

Well you could compare $spent|cancer/lives saved to $spent|aids/lives saved and see what came out. Although I wouldn't, you know, set policy that way.

[Andy]

Googled yield NYTimes blog piece about cancer research per specific types/deaths.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06...it-add-up/

Found a site that lists funding according to diseases. Looks like Breast cancer received the most funding in 99, followed by Cancer Prevention/Control and then AIDS research.

http://www3.cancer.gov/public/factbk97/varican.htm

This passage was taken from Aids.org and I can't verify the validity of the statement but it's part of a response to a Times Magazine article titled "The AIDS Political Machine" back in Jan 09 that made a similar claim that cancer received less money compared to AIDS.

The comparison of the money spent for AIDS and cancer is misleading. According to a fact sheet prepared by the Human Rights Campaign Fund in Washington, D. C., the $1.5 billion for cancer only includes the spending of the National Cancer Institute, part of the National Institutes of Health (excluding spending for AIDS-related cancer research). But the $1.6 billion AIDS figure includes not only the entire National Institutes of Health but also the Centers for Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration, the Health Resources and Services Administration, and the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration If cancer spending in the National Cancer Institute alone is compared with AIDS spending in the entire National Institutes of Health then cancer receives twice as much money as AIDS, $1.5 billion vs. $750 million.

[Andy]

Tough question to answer. How does a society determine where to channel funding? Breast cancer ($13,452/death) gets a "disproportionate" amount of money as opposed to lung cancer ($1,630/death) which accounts for a 1/3 of all cancer deaths.

[HAULN-SS]

People don't have sympathy for smokers and miners

[Apoc]

Tough question to answer. How does a society determine where to channel funding? Breast cancer ($13,452/death) gets a "disproportionate" amount of money as opposed to lung cancer ($1,630/death) which accounts for a 1/3 of all cancer deaths.

...and how much went into making sure old guys could get hard ons?

Besides, who doesn't love tittays!?