Harper Skip AIDs Conference

[jdobbin]

The bottom line is that as a public policy, who are you going to tell to use condoms? only promiscuous people.

Who better than a social conservative to press the message then.

[Rovik]

Here's how I see it.

It's the biggest AIDS conference in the world this year and it's been hosted in Canada, yet the ELECTED leader of Canada doens't think it important enough to attend. Yet, there are many powerful people and ex-politicians that believe it is importnat enouigh to attend and that means going to another country to attend it. We are talking people like Bill Gates, Bill Clinton and the ex president of Ireland (can't remember her name.)

Let's face it, people from around the world will get the impression that Canada doesn't think that Canada considers the AIDS dilema a big deal when its own leader doesn't even show up.

And remember, this is a international conference so we are looking at the international impact of AIDS, not just the impact on Canada. So we are talking about all AIDS victims, from the hemophiac in Toronto who contacted AIDS through a blood infusion to the sex worker in Nigeria who contracted it from unprotected sex.

Harper's trip of north to avoid the conference is a mistake and will hit him especially in urban areas.

In fact with this and his staunch support of Isreal in Lebanon, people will see that he is in fact not the centrist that he was pretending to be in the last election

[cybercoma]

Does anyone actually care whether or not he was there? I mean, who gives a crap if he hangs out and listens to a bunch of speeches anyway? Stephen Harper is not going to cure AIDS, give him a break.

[g_bambino]

Let's face it, people from around the world will get the impression that Canada doesn't think that Canada considers the AIDS dilema a big deal when its own leader doesn't even show up.

Well, no, the Queen didn't show up. But the Governor General did go in her stead.

[Canuck E Stan]

Does anyone actually care whether or not he was there? I mean, who gives a crap if he hangs out and listens to a bunch of speeches anyway? Stephen Harper is not going to cure AIDS, give him a break.

The Liberal media is just pissed that Harper didn't give them a story.

That's why the two willies became front page news.

[g_bambino]

Does anyone actually care whether or not he was there? I mean, who gives a crap if he hangs out and listens to a bunch of speeches anyway? Stephen Harper is not going to cure AIDS, give him a break.

Evidently some people care. Mostly those who have the ability to make nothing into something just so they'll have a something to whine and bitch about.

[WestViking]

AIDS Conference organizers have shown themselves up as the incapable spoiled brats they are. These malcontents have shown their true colours by attacking our Prime Minister for not allowing them to hijack our political agenda and put the nation’s business on hold for their benefit.

With many others, I had hoped that the 2006 AIDS Conference would turn out to be something more than the usual group-hug of political lobbyists and vacuous celebrities. Any conference more intent on attracting a cheering section than getting actual work done is unworthy of support. I would be very surprised if over 10% of the 24,000 delegates had the expertise or influence to have any effect on combating AIDS.

The AIDS Conference is an expensive showpiece of what is wrong with the efforts to combat the ailment. If organizers intend to attract $$$ millions in donations to their cause, they should consider that the enormous wasted expense of their cheering section is not lost on us.

[cybercoma]

No seriously...

does anyone honestly care that he didn't attend?

Don't be ridiculous.

Oh and if this was a "scientific conference," you know...with all those scientists and researchers, was there anyone there with opposing viewpoints? That whole sticking point about science being 'tested' and all. Or was this just a cheerleading session for more funding/financial handouts?

In which case....I'd really like to know.

Does anyone seriously care that Harper didn't attend? I mean seriously....

seriously?

[jdobbin]

Does anyone seriously care that Harper didn't attend? I mean seriously....

seriously?

Thet certainly cared more than Harper's back page announcement made in the north.

[geoffrey]

Clinton took the heckling this morning and turned it around and earned the crowd's respect. A leader can do that.

So Harper should just say, along the lines Clinton said this morning, ok I agree, we'll toss some money at your cause?

I think Harper has a little more backbone than Clinton does. I can much more likely see him call the protesters little children and walk away from the podium.

It'd win points with me, but probably not the media.

[jdobbin]

So Harper should just say, along the lines Clinton said this morning, ok I agree, we'll toss some money at your cause?

I think Harper has a little more backbone than Clinton does. I can much more likely see him call the protesters little children and walk away from the podium.

It'd win points with me, but probably not the media.

Harper has already said Canada needs more nurses. What's the big deal?

[Hicksey]

You missed my point. Behavioral change has proven not to be a front under which AIDS can be beaten. The cost to defeat AIDS will be much higher than just that.

Remember leper colonies?

Its not politically correct, or even a nice thing to do. But if you remove it from society, put it in its own and prevent reproduction within that new one, AIDS dies with those people.

I know it sounds harsh. It is. But it will work. And much faster than our current course. Many less people will die from AIDS because many less new cases will happen.

People that insist we drive little death trap cars do so knowing that people driving such cars are 5 times more likely to die in a collision at more than 30 mph. They are willing to sacrific lives for the environment. More people will die in collisions to save the environment.

Why then will people not make such sacrifices to eradicate AIDS?

Many people don't even know they have HIV because they can't afford to be tested. How do you isolate them? And how do you isolate someone who shows no symptoms?

I think an HIV test should be a free test provided by our government. IMO, no government can say they are serious about doing something about the spread of AIDS until we have it.

To go even further, I think that we should have a national AIDS testing initiative to make sure everyone gets tested once per year. Isolation would be based on those results, obviously requiring a subsequent test to erase the possibility of a false positive.

I am not talking about putting people in some desolate area, isolated from proper health care, to die a painful death. I just think that we should have a place where we can send people who test positive to remove them from the general population and remove the possibility that they can reproduce or infect others. I think that such an initiative would cost far less than to leave it to science. Less money, less new infections, less lives.

Bill Gates has already donated $600 million that the cause has burned through, and I have no doubt that his most recent $500 million will be gone long before any more significant gains are made.

Like I said before it is not politically correct, it is not a really nice thing to do to people already dealing with a life sentence, but it will save lives. If we are serious about AIDS we cannot wait around for scientists to burn through research dollars like there's no tomorrow, or wait for people to change their behavior. Many more people will be infected and die.

[yam]

Even testing once a year for aids will not stop it. As a virus it can live in the body for eight years without showing any symptom. Thus seclusion on something like a lepar colony will not solve the problem.

Now the fact that it can sit dormant or be slow to act for so long is the reason we need science. For all we know we maybe sitting here with it ourselves. It does not only take sex to contract it.

Hence much MORE money needs to be pumped into it. Worse; i think we and many other nations should pay for it through taxation. That means we would have the say about unecessary wastage of money. For example we could cut down on the bureaucracy, media and so fourth here and just get on with solid research. Perhaps we may even find the real cause!! Still nobody actually can say. Though there is a myriad hypotheseis flying around. . . .(including genocide of targeted poor nations - which got slightly out of hand and spread through tourism back to the first world!!! - forget the gay hypothesis).

crazy hypothesises or otherwise are not going to solve the problem, scientific research may be able to - the chances of increasing the probabilities of cure goes hand in hand with the economy.

Remember science NEARLY found a cure for Malaria - Funding was cut off right in the crux of this research because it exceeded the time span allotted. it needed another year or so for it to be gone completely. Hence, the "nearly" wiped out turned out to be a reversal due to the bacteria becoming immune to the remedy and it is now stronger and far more rampant.

[betsy]

deleted. Double posting.

[betsy]

Not only that....they're wasting air time by continuously lambasting Harper over it (with celebs now participating in the lambasting. Three days after. The latest being yesterday with Sandra Oh who said she's quite "disappointed with Harper.")

I say, who cares you hypocritical starlet! Use the air time promoting the conference, if it's that important to you!

So they're all upset....and they've booed and vented. Now move on. Time to get back on track and do what they've come to do. Enough of these negative whinings!

Geez, how can they think to tackle a monstrous disease if they can't even manage the simple task of getting a grip on themselves to move past this petty thing. They are a disappointment!

They're tarnishing their own event! Wonder what Gates and Clinton must be thinking now seeing how it all veered....and deteriorated.... from promoting understanding and support for AIDS to bashing Harper. Suddenly they've been bunched up with a group of tabloid "harpies"...no pun intended. Quite demeaning for someone of their calibre.

One could say "Harper stole the show."

But really, this sorry lot seem to easily get un-hinged, don't they.

[Charles Anthony]

The bottom line is that as a public policy, who are you going to tell to use condoms? only promiscuous people.

Who better than a social conservative to press the message then.

Do you know anybody who does NOT know that they should be using condoms????

It does not only take sex to contract it.

Correct.

However in all other instances, it only takes very simple or cheap precautions to prevent it today. We know how to prevent AIDS today. The science is past all of the prevention now.

Hence much MORE money needs to be pumped into it. Worse; i think we and many other nations should pay for it through taxation. That means we would have the say about unecessary wastage of money.

Heavens! That is the best justification I have ever heard for taxation!

To go even further, I think that we should have a national AIDS testing initiative to make sure everyone gets tested once per year. Isolation would be based on those results, obviously requiring a subsequent test to erase the possibility of a false positive.

Isolation??? Why would you isolate people with AIDS??

I just think that we should have a place where we can send people who test positive to remove them from the general population and remove the possibility that they can reproduce or infect others.

That is ridiculous. You have no understanding at all about how AIDS is spread.

I think that such an initiative would cost far less than to leave it to science. Less money, less new infections, less lives.

A condom would be much cheaper. Find out how AIDS is spread.

[betsy]

Btw, what's AIDS got to do with 'empowering women?" Really.

Female-abusive societies will still dominate and force their women to succumb...condoms or not!

[betsy]

And it's only appropriate for hollywood celebrities to help wipe up the disease....after all, Hollywood is the number one promoter of PROMISCUITY!

On one hand they're doing their darndest to help spread it....and on the other, they're out to wipe it!

So there you go, y'all hypocritical spokespeople for this conference....dump on your celebrities!

[betsy]

But I gotta admit. Clinton is one of the most appropriate endorser for condoms....to give a sage advice from a pro...."never leave home without it."

[scribblet]

Some earthshaking news here:, I'm shocked I say:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...aa-e66236850666

Quote:

Teaching abstinence reduces teen sex

study: Condom use not affected

Sharon Kirkey, CanWest News Service

Published: Tuesday, August 15, 2006

TORONTO - Abstinence-only programs can reduce sexual activity among young teens and effectively delay their "sexual debut" without discouraging future condom use, according to a new study of the controversial HIV prevention strategy.

A study of 662 African-American Grade 6 and 7 students from inner-city middle schools in Philadelphia found those taught an abstinence-only approach to sex were less likely to have had sexual intercourse at 24 months' follow-up compared to those put through a "safer sex" intervention that emphasized condom use but made no mention of abstinence.

And while Bill Clinton, the former U.S. president, told delegates to the International AIDS Conference in Toronto yesterday that abstinence programs delay sexual activity but make teens less likely to use condoms when they do start having sex, the study found the opposite to be true.

"It did not reduce intentions to use condoms, it did not reduce beliefs about the efficacy of condoms, it did not decrease consistent condom use and it did not decrease condom use at last sexual [encounter]," lead author John Jemmott, of the University of Pennsylvania, said.

The youngsters in the study ranged in age from 10 to 15; half were girls. Twenty-three per cent said they had had sexual intercourse at least once before the study began.

[cybercoma]

Not only that....they're wasting air time by continuously lambasting Harper over it (with celebs now participating in the lambasting. Three days after. The latest being yesterday with Sandra Oh who said she's quite "disappointed with Harper.")

I say, who cares you hypocritical starlet! Use the air time promoting the conference, if it's that important to you!

So they're all upset....and they've booed and vented. Now move on. Time to get back on track and do what they've come to do. Enough of these negative whinings!

Geez, how can they think to tackle a monstrous disease if they can't even manage the simple task of getting a grip on themselves to move past this petty thing. They are a disappointment!

They're tarnishing their own event! Wonder what Gates and Clinton must be thinking now seeing how it all veered....and deteriorated.... from promoting understanding and support for AIDS to bashing Harper. Suddenly they've been bunched up with a group of tabloid "harpies"...no pun intended. Quite demeaning for someone of their calibre.

One could say "Harper stole the show."

But really, this sorry lot seem to easily get un-hinged, don't they.

Didn't Sandra Oh hate Harper before the conference anyway?

I really don't understand why people care about his attendance.

[jdobbin]

Do you know anybody who does NOT know that they should be using condoms????

The Catholic Church?

[scribblet]

One could say "Harper stole the show."

But really, this sorry lot seem to easily get un-hinged, don't they.

Didn't Sandra Oh hate Harper before the conference anyway?

I really don't understand why people care about his attendance.

Me neither, it would not have made any difference to the outcomes, or goals, these people are using his absence strictly as an anti Harper fest.

What counts is his leadership and results which is funding and working to get the Canadian plan to help send AIDS meds/ to Africa (remember the old Jean Chretien Pledge) back on track .

Mind you, all the meds in the world cannot help Africa as long as behaviours remain the same. The bigger question is how to educate them.

[jdobbin]

Go back and look at what the Conservative response was to Chretien not attending was.

It was pretty over the top. Was it just bashing?

[Charles Anthony]

Do you know anybody who does NOT know that they should be using condoms????

The Catholic Church?

If that is the only one you know then you proved my point and made your own point redundant.