PBS program on global health starts Nov. 1

[Roland98]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Bush threw $15 billion down a rathole - AIDS prevention in Africa. AIDS prevention there is run by an international elite, you could call it the politicized AIDS industry. They have pushed condom use, the PC antidote to AIDS, and it's been a spectacular failure. (The reason is for cultural reasons African men won't use condoms.) An exception is Uganda which has a national program called "ABC" - Abstinence, Be faithful, and Condoms. The condom part is in common with the programs pushed in the rest of africa by the international AIDS elite. The abstinence/be faithful part is reponsible for the plummeting of the AIDS rate in Uganda. The AIDS elite sucks up U.S. tax money, has international conferences where they give each other awards and eat pate and drink champagne, and their polices are consigning tens of millions of africans to death.

I assume you can back up your assertions that it was the "A,B" rather than the "C" that led to a decline in AIDS in Uganda with peer-reviewed research. Or did the "AIDS elite" block its publication?

Additionally, you are twisting the AIDS program in Africa beyond recognition. Those same "AIDS elite" that are pushing condoms are also pushing abstinence and monogamy--it's not an either/or situation. They're working on increasing sexual education, and breaking down barriers many African men have traditionally seen when it comes to using condoms. They work on educating all citizens about the untruths that have been spread about AIDS treatments--such as the myth that sleeping with virgins will cure a man of AIDS. They work on increasing screening for other STDs in the population, so that they can be treated, with the end result being that the population is less vulnterable to infection with HIV. They work on educating HIV+ mothers about the risk of breastfeeding their infants, and work to distribute anti-retroviral treatments to women during childbirth, in order to reduce their baby's chance of becoming infected.

And I think it's hilarious that you're so critical of Bush's AIDS policy, since even those leftists you hate so much also find it sorely lacking. Fully 30% of the funds go to faith-based organizations, which are able to refuse to promote condom use (or worse, actively denigrate condom use, spreading dangerous rumors that "condoms cause AIDS" or similar nonsense).

And I've never had pate or champagne at a conference. Last meeting I attended I even had to pay for my own soda at a cash bar. I guess that "AIDS elite" group has it better than we ordinary microbiologists.

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by Roland98

I guess that "AIDS elite" group has it better than we ordinary microbiologists.

Well, things have evened out a bit lately, but when HIV research was the "Big Thing", NIH was giving out plenty of money to researchers who probably had no business receiving it ... merely because they proposed to work on HIV and AIDS related research. At least that's what I was told from two of my ex-committee members. Same thing happened (is happening) with bioterrorism and on a smaller scale it happened with genomics, though TIGR managed to practically monopolize that corner of funding, at least for bacterial genomes. I doubt any of us can say that NIH funding isn't, at least in part, granted with a "you help me, I'll help you" attitude because academic buddies/friends are often on grant review committees and it's not a blind/unbiased process. There is plenty of politics in science. Unfortunately.

Overall, I would say that if you're working with one of the "hot topics" there are more opportunities for funding. Doubt that translates into pate and champagne at meetings though.

In summary, at least in US research efforts, some money has been wasted by sub-par researchers, but in the long run I do not think it has made a significantly detrimental impact on the way HIV and AIDS treatment has occured worldwide.

[Roland98]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

Well, things have evened out a bit lately, but when HIV research was the "Big Thing", NIH was giving out plenty of money to researchers who probably had no business receiving it ... merely because they proposed to work on HIV and AIDS related research. At least that's what I was told from two of my ex-committee members. Same thing happened (is happening) with bioterrorism and on a smaller scale it happened with genomics, though TIGR managed to practically monopolize that corner of funding, at least for bacterial genomes. I doubt any of us can say that NIH funding isn't, at least in part, granted with a "you help me, I'll help you" attitude because academic buddies/friends are often on grant review committees and it's not a blind/unbiased process. There is plenty of politics in science. Unfortunately.

Overall, I would say that if you're working with one of the "hot topics" there are more opportunities for funding. Doubt that translates into pate and champagne at meetings though.

In summary, at least in US research efforts, some money has been wasted by sub-par researchers, but in the long run I do not think it has made a significantly detrimental impact on the way HIV and AIDS treatment has occured worldwide.

Oh, I definitely agree. Right now I have a grant in on influenza, which has a much better chance of getting funded than it would have, say, 5 years ago, just because there's $$$ for influenza. (Still, with the paylines being so ridiculous, it's unlikely to get funded this round). And certainly, funding isn't equitably distributed: a disease that kills 4,000 a year may get significantly less funding than one that kills 5000. But to suggest that researchers are livin' the high life or something just because they work in an area that happens to currently be well-funded is simply absurd.