Bush to sign bill to help fight AIDS

[codeorama]

Bush to sign bill to help fight AIDS

WASHINGTON (AP) — Signing a $15 billion authorization to fight AIDS abroad gives President Bush more leverage to press other wealthy nations to work harder against the killer disease as he prepares for a European summit.

In a ceremony Tuesday at the State Department, Bush was to sign a five-year plan designed to help prevent and treat AIDS, especially in more than a dozen African and Caribbean nations.

If fully implemented, the legislation is supposed to prevent 7 million new infections, care for 10 million HIV-infected people and AIDS orphans and provide anti-retroviral therapy for 2 million.

The president had urged Congress to get the bill to his desk before he traveled to the June 1-3 "Group of Eight" summit in Evian, France, where he is expected to use it to solicit other countries to contribute more to the cause.

The G-8 comprises the leaders of the world's seven richest countries — the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Britain, Italy and Canada — plus Russia.

Dr. Peter Piot, who directs a joint United Nations program on HIV/AIDS, praised the legislation, saying resources directed to scientifically proven interventions can dramatically reduce deaths, even where the epidemic is most severe.

"For the first time there is a concerted global effort to close the treatment gap that denies life-saving HIV medicines to 95% of the people living with AIDS around the world," Piot said.

But he said that even with the new U.S. money, spending is shy of the resources needed to address the problem.

"There is still a long way to go," Piot said. "AIDS will be defeated when responsibility for addressing it is fully shared — with every nation working to meet the financial and leadership challenges presented by this global epidemic."

Said Jose Zuniga, president of the International Association of Physicians in AIDS Care: "Other wealthy nations — specifically G-8 member nations — must follow suit with similar funding increases."

The new AIDS package, which Congress completed last week, recommends that 55% of direct aid go to treatment programs, 20% to prevention, 15% to palliative care and 10% to children orphaned by the disease. It also would allow, but not require, the administration to contribute up to $1 billion in 2004 to the international Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

"This is a whole new day in the fight against this epidemic," said Mark Isaac, vice president of the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation. The foundation fights HIV and AIDS and other serious and life-threatening diseases affecting children.

To appease conservatives, the measure says one-third of the money going toward prevention be set aside for projects that promote abstinence — an issue that was prominent in the final congressional debate. The bill says religious groups will not lose funding because they oppose certain preventive methods, such as condom distribution.

Supporters of the legislation said Uganda has been successful in lowering infection rates with its "ABC" program of "Abstinence, Be Faithful and Condom use when appropriate." Others say it is a mistake to focus on any one strategy when local customs vary widely.

"We were speaking to the first lady of Uganda the day the bill was being considered in the Senate," Isaac said. "And she was quite firm in saying that people in the countries most affected are the most knowledgeable about what kind of prevention works best locally. We need to give them a full range of options."

While the legislation nearly triples current U.S. contributions to AIDS programs, Congress still must approve actual spending levels in its annual budget appropriations process. The bill calls for spending $3 billion a year, but the administration is seeking only $1.7 billion in fiscal 2004, $2 billion if related programs for malaria and tuberculosis are included.

"The president moved with great speed, but now Congress has to move with the same speed and dispatch," Isaac said.

[@DCGoldPants]

Kudos to the idea.

I'd like a lot more focus on AIDs in the U.S. though.

[Kilmer17]

I still dont like it. I'd rather focus on the problems with health in the US.

[gbear]

Props on this issue.

Who was it that posted on here that even a blind squirrel... just kidding.

Not making a serious effort to combat AIDS was always one of my biggest complaints about Clinton.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

I still dont like it. I'd rather focus on the problems with health in the US.

Totally agree with Kilmer here. We have problems here in the US that 15 BILLION dollars could address real well.:doh:

[Cskin]

Incredibly stupid idea. NO, I'm all for spending money and time on research that will one day eliminate the AIDS virus from the face of the earth, it's a terrible disease with enormous global impact, but this is the biggest waste of MY tax dollars. Add it to the list of other govt. waste programs.

We've sent millions and millions (if not billions) of dollars to Africa to fight the spread of AIDS, and it has had no effect if not a detrimental one. The corrupt govts. and agencies take the money and then quickly disperse it to every backdoor slush fund and "hidden" bank account they can find. Little if any of the money goes to actually help the common people, the ones who's villages have been decimated by the lack of medicine and prevention methods. Then... when it's all gone.... they'll be back with their hand out for another $15billion to try again. Might as well pile up the $15billion in a big mountain and burn it.... then call the bonfire a moral step aimed at bringing the AIDS epidemic to the forefront of international conscienceness. Senseless and Ridiculous.

Finally, anyone else believe that the ForeFathers intended the govt. to take your hard earned dollars and give them to the elite of Africa in the name of "AIDS Research and Prevention"? How about giving that money to the medical research teams and universities right here in the US..... where a vaccine and subsequent cure can be found.... and then go save the people of Africa.

[Riggo-toni]

Sadly, I must concur with CSkin on this one.

Besides, dysentary is still the biggest killer in Africa, affects primarily children, and can be cured with sugar water. I guess we just don't see a lot of Hollywood starlets and Black activists campaigning to stop it. Hmmmmmm., wonder why ...

[codeorama]

cskin... excellent post.

[gbear]

Hate to actually inject reality into the discussion:

Aids is the #1 killer in Africa right now according to what I have read. It has been since 2001.

Here are some numbers: 3.5 million

http://www.avert.org/subaadults.htm

Dysentary: 3 million

http://www.delta.tudelft.nl/jaargangen/32/33/p4bafrica.html

"treat dysentary with sugar water":rolleyes: um no. Try antibiotics, and unfortunately many of the out breaks gain resistances to it rather quickly.

http://www.medguide.org.zm/whodocs/dysent.htm

now think for a second what happens in a country where 20 to 30% of the adult population has a fatal disease. Think governments may fall? Think if you were trying to set up a terrorist camp a country without functioning government maight appeal to you?

What if you were watching your countrymen, daughters, brothers, ect die you might do what ever it would take to get medicine? Is this conductive for a lawful society?

I think the part what makes AIDS so much more dangerous to social order over there is that it's killing so many adults. That by it's nature destabilizes societies more than infants.

Of course that ignores the potential market implications of losing 20-30% of a workforce and 20-30% of a consumer market.

I am not saying that fighting dysentary is an unworthy goal, but I think African societies falling apart is a greater threat with AIDS.

As for corruption in how the money is spent, UNAIDs money is spent by sponsoring countries before it reaches Africa (atleast according to the setup they mention). So if it's stolen, it would seem logical that it is probably stolen here.

[Kilmer17]

But isn't it a more effective way to deal with by spending the money on research and dev. and finding a cure, rather than lining the pockets of the terrorists themselves?

I dont think any of us opposing this policy dont want to help Africa fight Aids. I just have a problem with the way we've decided to do it.

[Cskin]

Let me be clear.....I'm terribly bothered by the plight of the African nations as a whole. If it isn't AIDS....than it's drought...famine... and god knows what else. The thing is..... solving the problem shouldn't be as simple as throwing money at it and hoping that helps. Organizations that claim to be helping the situation should be held accountable for the money given to them.... and tangible evidence needs to be recorded that validates the money spent. As it stands.... the organizations and their corrupt officers continue to take the money and squander it..... then come back to the international community and claim that the problem is far bigger than the money received so more needs to be given. All the while, millions of our African brothers and sisters are dying. Nonsense!!!!

If the UN has been rendered irrelevant in terms of international security, than why can't their primary focus be humanitarian aid which would include AIDS prevention and care. Then....those officers and representatives in charge of the money given to the UN for specific programs and regions should be held directly responsible for the correct distribution of funds and subsequent success of the programs. Audits should be performed by independent entities to insure the money is going where it is supposed to go. Paramaters and expectations should be set forth by the UN "Humanitarian" council, and those in charge should be held accountable for both the distribution of funds to crucial areas of importance.... and those in charge should be evaluated as to their effectiveness in facilitating the ending of such dire situations. If corruption is found, than those found guilty of such should be brought before the international tribune in Hague. Aids isn't going to be cured overnight, but a decrease in the contraction of the disease should be seen as tangible evidence that the program is working.

[Posse81]

We should be fighting this but I agree with those saying that we are going about this the wrong way. The prevention money that goes to encourage abstinence is a joke. It just sets the plan up for failure. You can't preach abstinence to adults.

[StuckinIA]

One third of the NIH budget goes to AIDS research. One third to bioterrorism and the last third to everything else. HIV is extremely preventable through behavior modification. There are a lot of other diseases that are not. I personally think more focus should be directed towards potentially curable diseases such as cancer and heart disease.

[codeorama]

kilmer and cskin are correct, we should put the money into developing a cure, then help them with a cure. Giving them the cash is stupid. Are their doctors and scientists better than ours? Would they be able to find a cure easier?

I don't think so.

[Riggo-toni]

Originally posted by gbear

Hate to actually inject reality into the discussion:

Aids is the #1 killer in Africa right now according to what I have read. It has been since 2001.

Here are some numbers: 3.5 million

http://www.avert.org/subaadults.htm

Dysentary: 3 million

http://www.delta.tudelft.nl/jaargangen/32/33/p4bafrica.html

"treat dysentary with sugar water":rolleyes: um no. Try antibiotics, and unfortunately many of the out breaks gain resistances to it rather quickly.

http://www.medguide.org.zm/whodocs/dysent.htm

OK, so my stats on AIDS vs Dysentary are a couple years out of date, but the fact is most deaths from dysentary are actually preventable by keeping the afflicted properly hydrated with a water/sodium/sugar mixture (ie Gatorade). The fact that almost as many people are dying from a preventable condition as are dying from an incurable one ought to make you stop and think. If their governments can't even provide their people with sanitized drinking water, what the hell makes anyone think they will provide them with the education, condoms or expensive medicines they need just to put a dent in the spread of aids?

All the potential hazards you mention stemming from AIDS may not be quite as applicable to dysentary, but dysentary would be far easier to neutralize. Tragically, since noone in the US or Europe is likely to die from dysentary, it simply gets ignored. Why don't people like Barbra Streisand et al wear Brown ribbons to protest the needless and preventable deaths of millions of African children each year to dysentary? Could it be because no fashion designers are at risk? Ought to make you wonder....

[Storm]

If the UN has been rendered irrelevant in terms of international security, than why can't their primary focus be humanitarian aid which would include AIDS prevention and care.

They already do its called the World Health Organization (WHO), which is a brach of the UN and its primary focus is health issues. You have most recently seen them in articles about SARS.

kilmer and cskin are correct, we should put the money into developing a cure, then help them with a cure. Giving them the cash is stupid. Are their doctors and scientists better than ours? Would they be able to find a cure easier?

The money isnt to go to their scientists to do research. Its given to US and Euorpean agencies to spend on prevention projects and for medications (which our companies have developed) to treat the disease and its various manifestations.

[AJWatson3]

so the money isn't going to terrorists as kilmer suggested??

[phanatic]

We could not even get food to the Somali people without the warlords stealing it. Now we are going to dump 15 billion into a program that will undoubtably reek of coroptution? It's a fine gesture that will save "some" lives but will only end up increasing the strength of these warlords. Join us and get your meds! This whole situation sucks.

[Storm]

what warlords? what terrorists? We're spending money on HIV drugs to send down there. How can that be a bad thing?

[Kilmer17]

Cmon people.

The money we send is confiscated by the corrupt Govts of those countries and used to buy weapons, or simply build personal wealth.

[StuckinIA]

Originally posted by Storm

what warlords? what terrorists? We're spending money on HIV drugs to send down there. How can that be a bad thing?

Two problems with attempting to distribute the drugs:

1) Most probably will not reach the intended target and will be sold on the black market to fund gawd knows what

2) If the drugs are to be effective (HUGE if), they have to be administered properly. Chances of that happening are slim, thus the virus is given a better chance of developing resistance and in turn adding to the already unavoidable catastrophe.