best article I've read on on aids in a long time

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

V Nura

Refugee
Joined
Jun 14, 2001
Messages
1,760
December 1, 2002
NY Times Op-Ed


AIDS Is Not a Death Sentence
By WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON


Historians will look back on our time and see that our civilization spends many millions of dollars educating people about the scourge of H.I.V. and AIDS, which has already taken 25 million lives and could infect 100 million people over the next eight years. But what they will find not so civilized is our failure to treat 95 percent of people with the disease.

Given that medicine can turn AIDS from a death sentence into a chronic illness and reduce mother-to-child transmission, our withholding of treatment will appear to future historians as medieval, like bloodletting.

Consider that there are close to six million people in the developing world with AIDS who should be getting treatment but are not. That does not account for the 36 million people around the world whose infections will need treatment in the next few years. Worldwide, 14,000 people are becoming infected with H.I.V. each day, and the number of people with H.I.V. or AIDS will more than double by 2010. To compound the horror, millions of children are born into the world carrying H.I.V. Without treatment, they, too, will sicken and die ? but not before watching their parents die, leaving them orphaned.

Confronted with these awful facts, we can offer the historians of the future our excuses: too many countries are still in denial about the scope of the problem and what has to be done about it; many countries lack the nationwide health infrastructure to treat such a disease; most countries don't have enough health-care personnel to run a complicated treatment program; the necessary drugs are expensive and unavailable to people in the poorest, hardest-hit countries.

But those facts only serve to outline the extent of the problem. They do not justify our failure to recognize the moral and practical imperatives to mount a full-throttle treatment program in conjunction with ongoing education and prevention efforts.

Some people argue that treatment is less important than prevention; a dollar spent on prevention, they say, goes further in slowing the spread of the disease than a dollar spent on treating someone who already has it. But this is a false choice. Prevention doesn't work unless large numbers of people agree to be tested. They won't agree to be tested if all they will learn is that they are going to die.

They should be tested, of course, to save others. But they want to save their own lives, too. If we focus on treatment in addition to prevention, several good things would result.

More people will stop suffering in silence and be willing to get tested for H.I.V. if we offer treatment that will prolong their lives and spare the lives of others. People who have the disease will live longer, healthier lives. This will make a big difference not only to them, but to businesses that will keep productive workers, governments that will spend less on caring for those with illnesses brought on by AIDS and children who won't become orphans.

Perhaps the greatest beneficiaries of testing would be pregnant or new mothers, who can transmit H.I.V. to their babies in utero or through breast-feeding. If they test positive, they can receive new drugs that can reduce the chances of such transmissions by 50 percent and give life to a generation of children now in jeopardy. I know women will willingly undergo testing if it is accompanied by treatment. When I visited an AIDS clinic in Kigali, Rwanda in September, young women, many carrying infants, were literally lined up around the building waiting to be tested and, if necessary, treated with antiretroviral drugs.

And as more people are inspired to be tested, more will receive potentially life-saving education about AIDS transmission, regardless of their current health. With a new generation coming of age every few years, the need for AIDS education remains high, and no amount of mass marketing can match the power of one-on-one advice ? the kind that can be provided by the trained professionals at clinics where AIDS testing and treatment occur. These professionals can tell patients how not to spread the disease, if they have it, and how not to get the disease, if they don't.

Through testing, we can also help end discrimination against people who acquire AIDS. This is in keeping with the theme of the 15th annual World AIDS Day, which is today: "Live and Let Live: Ending Stigma and Discrimination." The more that people understand that AIDS is not only a preventable disease but a treatable one, the less they will shun those who have it. And as more and more people are able to live with AIDS, their presence in families, workplaces and neighborhoods will help to reduce fears and misconceptions about the disease.

Can treatment work? It has in Brazil, where virtually all AIDS patients are given access to life-saving, generic drugs manufactured in that country. According to a Ford Foundation report, by integrating its treatment and prevention programs, Brazil has saved $422 million a year, in part because the number of people hospitalized with H.I.V. or AIDS has fallen 75 percent over the past five years. Brazil's death rate from AIDS and related illnesses is down 50 percent, and the infection rate is low and getting lower.

This success can be replicated across the globe. To promote the development of AIDS treatment programs in places where they are most needed, my foundation has begun signing agreements with developing nations, including Rwanda, Mozambique and the 15 states in the Caribbean Community. We are putting teams of expert volunteers in these countries to help governments and health-care institutions develop strategies to establish large-scale testing and treatment programs for their citizens.

These are small, grass-roots efforts. But if they succeed, they will save many lives and provide a model to the rest of the world. And the International AIDS Trust, which I lead with Nelson Mandela, is helping to mobilize the resources and leadership needed to focus on treatment and wage a real war on AIDS.

More must be done by governments, too, especially in answering the call of Kofi Annan, secretary general of the United Nations, for $10 billion to fight AIDS worldwide. Governments must also push pharmaceutical companies to make good on their commitments to provide drugs at discount prices or to stop trying to block the purchase of generic drugs by poor countries. Finally, they should also help developing countries to increase the supply of qualified health workers, because without them a treatment program is impossible.

A lot is at stake. AIDS kills people in their most productive years. As a result, businesses in places where workers are sick and dying are losing a lot of money. And countries with large populations of people suffering with AIDS risk becoming unstable and susceptible to the forces of lawlessness, famine, terror and the demagogic appeals of dictators. Once the disease reaches epidemic proportions, it is much more difficult for a poor country to stabilize its democracy, grow its economy or emerge as a responsible partner in the global community.

For all these reasons, we can and must do more to stop the spread of AIDS by doing more to treat people who already have it. Now that we have the medical capacity to save and improve the lives of millions of people, there is no other moral or practical choice.

William Jefferson Clinton was the 42nd president.
 
Bubba is a gifted writer.
He has a good heart.

I only wished that he couldnt disciplined his passions while in office ....:|
If he woulda did this...his words would have more clout today.

DB9
 
diamond said:


I only wished that he couldnt disciplined his passions while in office ....:|
If he woulda did this...his words would have more clout today.

DB9


David couldn't curb his passions "while in office" - though he was punished for it.

"Can treatment work? It has in Brazil, where virtually all AIDS patients are given access to life-saving, generic drugs manufactured in that country. According to a Ford Foundation report, by integrating its treatment and prevention programs, Brazil has saved $422 million a year, in part because the number of people hospitalized with H.I.V. or AIDS has fallen 75 percent over the past five years. Brazil's death rate from AIDS and related illnesses is down 50 percent, and the infection rate is low and getting lower."

That's real interesting, and encouraging. Our government needs to take this to heart!
 
Agree with you DebbieSG.

Bono mentioned my country as an example on fighting AIDS a couple of months ago...a radio interview in Ireland, if I?m not wrong. Now Mr.Clinton does the same. I feel so glad about that. It?s true that we have saved both, lives and money. I learnt last Sunday that we already produce 7 of the 15 drugs usually applied to AIDS treatment, all generics, with same quality but much more cheaper, so that avaiable to poor people, the ones who need the most.

Also the prevention programmes are doing good in these lands. Teenagers have had information about AIDS and safe sex while in school, my 14 years old son told me so and we talked about that. There are also campaigns on TV and radio to educate people and there have been a lot more going on since early 90s. As Mr.Clinton said, it?s the integration of treatment and prevention programmes that really works and I feel we?re doing things the right way, although we still have so many problems to face.
 
"If he woulda did this...his words would have more clout today."

I don't see how his personal life discredits his views, his very realistic views, on the prevention of the spreading of HIV.

Ant.
 
With all due respect Mr Bias..
Here is the issue at hand.
Its the credibility of the messenger, not the message..:)

For example-
Would you put more emphasis on the same biblical story told by-
Billy Graham-sp
as you would say...-
Jimmy Swaggart?:huh:

or

the same emphasis on a post by-
me
or

Spanish Eyes..??



You see its not that difficult of a concept.:)

Peace
Out-

Diamond
 
Well said, Diamond. Adhering to such logic, anything that ex-coke head President Bush says isn't in the least bit credible.

Glad to see my original instincts were right.

Ant.
 
Last edited:
Anthony said:
Well said, Diamond. Adhering to such logic, anything that ex-coke head President Bush says isn't in the least bit credible.

Glad to see my original instincts were right.

Ant.
On the contrary.
If his addictions come into play DURING his presidency there would be an issue to his credibility.

If he keeps his addictions under control DURING his presidency- it adds to the weight of his character/credibility..

If he cannot master himself during his presidency his credibility/character are out the window.

Addictions such as-

-Sexual addictions

-Cocaine

-Alcohol

should be kept in check to be the leader of the free world..


Peace
Out

Diamond
 
Last edited:
Yes, but it still doesn't absolve him, or anyone, from the fact that he made a big mistake, a mistake that makes him inherently flaud. Clinton made a mistake, just because the timing of the mistake worked against him does not mean everything he says will always be wrong. In the eyes of the public? Yes. The 'public' is partial to rash generalizations and gross exaggerations, but we as individuals should see the other elements.

But on your point that Bush's mistake hasn't been committed during his presidency, he IS guilty of not 'being the brightest guy' as you yourself have proclaimed. No, I have nothing against lack of intelligence, but I can hardly find a man who manages to destroy the English language with every speech (ie - 'they misunderestimated me') as credible. And we're not talking about the slip of the tongue once in a while, we're talking about countless of quotes that volumes are being written and sold as 'joke books'. Given that this man is leading the world into war, I find that just a tad disturbing.

You find Clinton lacking credibility when writing about the prevention of AIDS, and yet support a man who, as you yourself have admitted, has rather low intelligence leading the world into war.

I do not see the consistency.

Maybe actions and things said and done in the present have a part to play as well. A person is more than the sum of their parts, and is better than their worst mistake. I say Clinton is right about his views judging from what he has written, not what he has been or is. I say Bush is wrong about his views judging from what he has done and will continue to do, not what he has been or is.

Ant.
 
Anthony said:


You find Clinton lacking credibility when writing about the prevention of AIDS, and yet support a man who, as you yourself have admitted, has rather low intelligence leading the world into war.

I do not see the consistency.



Ant.
Let me clarify a few things.-
The most eloquent speakers havnt made the best US Presidents.
Truman was great but spoke like a dork.
FDR same thing, great leader but not articulate..

We live in a different age..EVERYTHING is heard.

You can have a hi IQ but lousy speaking skills and still be a great leader.

I do think that someone who is sexually promiscus-sp while being the leader of the free world is NOT the best spokesmodel for the prevention of Aids.

Give me an AIDS article by Lloyd Bensen or John F Kerry first..

Hope u understand the point.
Great article.
Wrong author.

DB9
 
diamond said:



Give me an AIDS article by Lloyd Bensen or John F Kerry first..


DB9


Have they written one? Are they leading a foundation to help solve the problem?

Sorry to be snide, but I agree with Anthony here. Does someone have to have an exemplary record in order to do something to help people? Efforts and insight don't really count because of one mistake in the past?

What Clinton is doing now is important, and for the sake of the people who are dying and humanity in general, deserve to be listened to. Our present government isn't doing enough. That says something about their character.
 
DebbieSG said:





---because of one mistake in the past?

What Clinton is doing now is important, and for the sake of the people who are dying and humanity in general, deserve to be listened to. .

one mistake?:huh::

Again the article had merit.
It would have more merit written by someone w better character.

No matter what Republicans do I dont ever think it will be enough for some.
We will always be labeled as selfish bastards because our methods of addressing problems are not the same as Democrats, long story short..

DB9
 
diamond said:
Again the article had merit.
It would have more merit written by someone w better character.

My God, you have beat this with a dead horse, to be quite honest, and, quite honestly, no one really has given a shit about Clinton's "character" except the tabloid media (and, unfortunately, this includes our tabloid-like television media) and Republicans.

A side anecdote: One of the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq is also a leader in the sadomasochism/leader/fetish arena. So what happens? The inspector offers to resign when the Post makes a big deal about it, but Hans Blix refuses, stating that he is a highly qualified weapons inspector, and that whatever he does in his private life has no bearing on the job at hand. America needs to get their head out of the sand, and wake up to the fact that life isn't rosy and perfect like some idyllic 1950s sitcom. Face it! It's fiction! Where were these issues of "character" when Newt Gingrich cheated on his wives?

It's a complete partisan ploy on Clinton--it always has been--and, for God's sake, get over it! If all Bush did was cheat on his wife with an intern, and was otherwise a good president, I would say the same thing. It is about time that we start criticizing on the issues that matter the most--and, for the president, that is on his policies, not who he chooses to have sex with.

Melon
 
melon said:
no one really has given a shit about Clinton's "character"

And you wonder why politicians are influenced by campaign contributions. Excellence in leadership starts on a personal level.

This applies to all leadership. From President to cub scout troop leader. Unfortunately, this turns into a "your leader has flaws, so my leader's flaws don't matter".
 
melon said:


, this includes our tabloid-like television media) and Republicans.

A side anecdote: One of the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq is also a leader in the sadomasochism/leader/fetish arena. So what happens? The inspector offers to resign when the Post makes a big deal about it, but Hans Blix refuses, stating that he is a highly qualified weapons inspector, and that whatever he does in his private life has no bearing on the job at hand. America needs to get their head out of the sand, and wake up to the fact that life isn't rosy and perfect like some idyllic 1950s sitcom. Face it! It's fiction!

Where were these issues of "character" when Newt Gingrich cheated on his wives?


If all Bush did was cheat on his wife with an intern, and was otherwise a good president, I would say the same thing.

Melon

I forgot Melon, you see us Republicans as inferior to you..our morality inferior to yours..;)
With it being close to Christmas, can u pul-leeez forgive us?:huh:
Please?;)

That inspector would never make a good US President..:)

If Newt wrote an AIDS article my reaction would be the same.:yes:
I think Newt knows better..Bill doesnt.:wave:

Bush would resign first if he was caught harrassing subordinates and getting hummers in the Oval Office, sparing our country the embarrassment. Its a character issue.

Lastly we Republicans are ppl too, learn to live w us..:)

thank u
Peace
Out-

Diamond
:dance:
 
Last edited:
I do understand, Diamond, but I do not agree.

In your response to Melon, you mentioned how he should perk up on his 'forgiveness' for the Christmas spirit, though it seems you haven't forgiven, or forgotten.

Its been said before more eloquently, but what a person does behind closed doors is their own affair. We have no mirror into a person's soul or character, and we have no right to judge either. Time and time again, Diamond, you have used Winston Churchill as an example of fine leadership, did the fact that he was a shameless and fanatically sexist alcoholic deprive him of the quality of leadership? It did not. Cheating on your wife is cheating on your wife, and being an alcoholic is being an alcoholic - neither grant credibility to a country's leader. But that is not within, I believe, our jurisdiction to judge.

Ant.
 
Forgive yes.
:)
Forget no...that wold make us foolish, if the perpertrator doesnt curtail his addictions..

case in point-

Gennifer Flowers
Paula Jones
Kathleen Wiley
Monica..

nameless others..

Winston wouldnt perjured himself..nor write an article on the virtues of...fidelity towards your spouse, now would he?:huh:

Out-

dB9
 
Last edited:
"Winston wouldnt perjured himself.."

I guess we'll never know. But it still does not answer my question, does his alcoholism deprive him of his credibility?

I suppose your next point will be that its one thing to make a mistake, another to lie about it, however - would it have made any difference in the eyes of the general public, or yours for that matter? I think not, the fact that he lied (allegedly, the entire ordeal, I think, was a tad bit shady, and I fail to see how anyone could jeopardise their own presidency over such an unattractive woman) about his mistake was mere gravy.

No, Winston Churchill did not lie about his alcoholism, but then again it was never brought up, the British public never made a big deal about it, and I fail to see why the media made such a big deal out of Clinton.

And although he never wrote articles about HIV while being unfaithful to his wife, he did write authoratitive articles about Workers and their rights, as represented by their Unions. This was a tad incredible, as Churchill was extemely hostile towards workers, particularly miners, and their rights. He was politically hostile against the suffragettes, and yet wrote in his later life how he thought women should in fact get the vote. He was a raving alcoholic, and yet wrote about the 'pillars of virtue'. Oh, he was a fine pillar of strength during the war, but the Prime Minister was a complete horror when it came to domestic policy. Still, politics is another question entirely - he still contradicted himself and his values.

Does it deny him of credibility?


Ant.
 
Last edited:
Ant-
Lets end this silly little dance..
Please:rolleyes:

Did GW deny his alcolholic addiction, when it was brought up by th media 3 days before the general election?
A.)-No.

let me some it up this way-
Bill C. has about as much credibility lecturing on a STD- such as(AIDS)..
as..
GW would have on being a "proficient speech therapist"..

Hope this makes sense..

This dance is officially now over..:angry:

thank u-

Diamond
:dance:
 
nbcrusader said:
And you wonder why politicians are influenced by campaign contributions. Excellence in leadership starts on a personal level.

And the "personal level" is all the Republican Party appears to care about. Sure, your politicians may make the appearance of being perfect Protestant heterosexuals with their trophy wife and 2.5 children, but when it comes down to some of the crap they pull in office, where is the outrage? That's right...it doesn't exist! Campaign contributions should be something of outrage, but where is the press coverage? That's right...it doesn't exist!

There is seriously something wrong with this country if we cannot tell the difference between a consensual extramarital affair and getting bribed by special interests! Let me give you a hint: the latter is illegal, while the former is not. :|

Melon
 
"let me some it up this way-
Bill C. has about as much credibility lecturing on a STD- such as(AIDS)..
as..
GW would have on being a "proficient speech therapist"."

Well, no, I still don't buy it. Its not as if Bill Clinton was ever found to actually get a STD. Who knows? He may have used protection during his wretched activities. Fidelity, and the virtues derived of such are entirely different things. And of course, my question concerning Churchill goes unanswered.

I've been wanting to end this silly dance since it began, but I was so inspired by your enthusiasm, I asked myself 'why not?'.

Ant.
 
diamond said:




Bush would resign first if he was caught harrassing subordinates and getting hummers in the Oval Office, sparing our country the embarrassment. Its a character issue.


Well i can see melon is doing a great job putting you in your place but i thought thisd quote was funny. You obviuosly never got a hummer. You cant really drive a vehicle around the oval office. Only maybe if you had one of those little kiddie jeeps, but i think Monica is a bit to heavy.\

Peace...
Dance...
 
diamond said:
Hope u understand the point.
Great article.
Wrong author.

That's just absurd.

Had a different author written it, it would have been a different (and possibly not great) article.

Do you think a starving HIV+ orphan in Africa gives two shits about Monica Lewinsky? Hell no. But he does care about, oh, I don't know, people like Clinton writing letters supporting his desire to live another day.
 
Be quiet all of you..
The world already knoooows I won this dance on style points alone..:angry:

thank u-
DB9
:dance:
 
Back
Top Bottom