Harper Skip AIDs Conference

[Argus]

And it isn't necessarily a cure that they were looking for from his speech but a voice amongst the conservatives to speak up for condom use and family planning.

Realistically, what they wanted was Harper there so they could roundly boo him for not supporting gay marriage. The place is absolutely jammed with homosexual activists and their cheering sections from the media. Harper would have been booed off the stage. Besides, the problems of HIV being spread are due to sexual promiscuity in Africa, and among homosexuals in North America and Europe. I'm sure he wouldn't mind delivering a speech on the dangers of promiscuity but I doubt that audience wanted to hear it.

That left delivering mushy words which said and meant nothing, which he really doesn't much like.

That's why he didn't go.

As for Chretien, he didn't go because he couldn't be bothered.

[Argus]

And it isn't necessarily a cure that they were looking for from his speech but a voice amongst the conservatives to speak up for condom use and family planning.

You must be joking?

That is like telling a smoker that they should quit or to never sit on public toilet seats. We do not need to be told that anymore.

Homosexuals.

[jdobbin]

Realistically, what they wanted was Harper there so they could roundly boo him for not supporting gay marriage. The place is absolutely jammed with homosexual activists and their cheering sections from the media. Harper would have been booed off the stage. That's why he didn't go.

As for Chretien, he didn't go because he couldn't be bothered.

Clinton didn't support it either.

Harper could have faced his critics head on. Clinton did.

Chretien, as you say, couldn't be bothered. And he was vilified by the Conservatives for going fishing.

[Hicksey]

We could eradicate AIDS inside 5 years if we really wanted to. But nobody wants to pay the price to do so. I believe that AIDS will not be cured with research dollars. The cost to eradicate AIDS will be much higher than money.

But nobody wants to do that. Instead we perpetually spin our wheels trying to beat a disease we don't have near the technology or knowledge to beat.

[jdobbin]

We could eradicate AIDS inside 5 years if we really wanted to. But nobody wants to pay the price to do so. I believe that AIDS will not be cured with research dollars. The cost to eradicate AIDS will be much higher than money.

But nobody wants to do that. Instead we perpetually spin our wheels trying to beat a disease we don't have near the technology or knowledge to beat.

As some people have mentioned here though much of the disease can be defeated by behavioral changes. In many places, fear and ignorance are spreading the disease.

It takes leadership to help combat this.

[Hicksey]

We could eradicate AIDS inside 5 years if we really wanted to. But nobody wants to pay the price to do so. I believe that AIDS will not be cured with research dollars. The cost to eradicate AIDS will be much higher than money.

But nobody wants to do that. Instead we perpetually spin our wheels trying to beat a disease we don't have near the technology or knowledge to beat.

As some people have mentioned here though much of the disease can be defeated by behavioral changes. In many places, fear and ignorance are spreading the disease.

It takes leadership to help combat this.

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?

[jdobbin]

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?

[Charles Anthony]

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?

You can not.

Not all condom use is related to promiscuity. Condoms are used as a birth control. And I have to believe that Harper believes in birth control because I don't see 15 Harper children.

Would you tell Harper to use a condom to prevent getting AIDS? No, so long as he is not promiscuous.

Consider a guy who gets AIDS from his wife who got a blood transfusion from a guy who shared a needle with somebody else on the JerrySpringerShow who had illicit sex with two friends and told two friends and so on and so on and etc. Telling the first guy that he should have worn a condom to prevent catching AIDS makes no sense.

[betsy]

Just a while back they showed a news clip of women sitting on-stage giving their little speeches. One woman roundly spoke of th "hypocrisy of the church for not saving lives!" I guess they wanted the church to endorse condoms....and I assume they speak of the Catholic Church.

Suddenly the blame now is on the church. The irony is, IF PEOPLE FOLLOWED THE TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH in the first place....of not fooling around.....and of doing it only with your spouse ....we wouldn't be seeing this catastrophe at all!

You ever wonder why the liberal thinkers and the lefties do not preach about being responsible for one's actions? They grab at every possible solutions they can think of...and yet conveniently omit the most practical one.

Oh we're definitely in the blame-game these days! Jack blames Harper for more people being killed in the Middle East because Harper did not call for a ceasefire immediately! Yup. On Question Period. Must've been too much sugar on your cereals, Jack.

[Black Dog]

We spend more on AIDS research than on cancer researcher, even though the latter kills far, far more people.

Source?

[scribblet]

I don't have the link right now, but there was something yesterdaym, will try to find it.

Figures from Stats. Canada do show that in 1997, onlyt 626 Canadians died from HIV (or subsequent illness attributable to HIV) - 15th on a list of leading causes of death. Compare that with, 58,700 Canadians who died of Cancer, 57,400 heart disease, 8,600 of 'unintentional injuries' , 4,600 of psychosis, and 3,600 of suicide. Take that in context and we should be more concerned about dying of cancer or heart disease.

this is from the States.

http://www.ncpa.org/health/pdh39.html

Based on the number of deaths caused by various diseases, NIH funding seems skewed -- spending $111 per death from AIDS, compared to $10 per death from cancer, $3 for heart disease and $2 for stroke. Based on the number of people affected, NIH spends $1,069 for each person afflicted with HIV/AIDS, $296 for cancer, $158 for multiple sclerosis, $93 for heart disease, $54 for Alzheimer's and $26 for Parkinson's.

[jdobbin]

Would you tell Harper to use a condom to prevent getting AIDS? No, so long as he is not promiscuous.

No, but I'd tell his kids to be careful even if they are not promiscuous. They can still have a relationship with someone who has had a previous relationship and caught the virus.

Unless the argument is everyone are virgins until marriage...

Is that how it is for everyone that you know in your life?

[jdobbin]

I don't have the link right now, but there was something yesterdaym, will try to find it.

Figures from Stats. Canada do show that in 1997, onlyt 626 Canadians died from HIV (or subsequent illness attributable to HIV) - 15th on a list of leading causes of death. Compare that with, 58,700 Canadians who died of Cancer, 57,400 heart disease, 8,600 of 'unintentional injuries' , 4,600 of psychosis, and 3,600 of suicide. Take that in context and we should be more concerned about dying of cancer or heart disease.

this is from the States.

http://www.ncpa.org/health/pdh39.html

Based on the number of deaths caused by various diseases, NIH funding seems skewed -- spending $111 per death from AIDS, compared to $10 per death from cancer, $3 for heart disease and $2 for stroke. Based on the number of people affected, NIH spends $1,069 for each person afflicted with HIV/AIDS, $296 for cancer, $158 for multiple sclerosis, $93 for heart disease, $54 for Alzheimer's and $26 for Parkinson's.

HIV is one of a number of auto-immune diseases.

When research is done on HIV, it also has applicable material for other viruses, cancer, etc.

Scientists say that any money spent on research on the immune system benefits us all.

[scribblet]

I don't have the link right now, but there was something yesterdaym, will try to find it.

HIV is one of a number of auto-immune diseases.

When research is done on HIV, it also has applicable material for other viruses, cancer, etc.

Scientists say that any money spent on research on the immune system benefits us all.

True, but funding for AIDS does seem to be higher proportionatly to other killer diseases.

BTW, I don't think Paul Martin ever attended an aids conference. this is really a non issue; simply a venue to use as a political weapon.

[jdobbin]

True, but funding for AIDS does seem to be higher proportionatly to other killer diseases.

BTW, I don't think Paul Martin ever attended an aids conference. this is really a non issue; simply a venue to use as a political weapon.

Do you know what the proportions are for diseases such as cancer and heart disease are?

Paul Martin accepted as prime minister of Canada to attend this conference. Once, he was defeated, an invitation was extended to Stephen Harper on the day he was sworn in. I don't believe he had his agenda booked for this day at the time.

And when Jean Chretien didn't attend in Vancouver, the Conservatives hammered him on it. Are you saying they were just being petty or did they have a point?

[Shakeyhands]

I don't have the link right now, but there was something yesterdaym, will try to find it.

Figures from Stats. Canada do show that in 1997, onlyt 626 Canadians died from HIV (or subsequent illness attributable to HIV) - 15th on a list of leading causes of death. Compare that with, 58,700 Canadians who died of Cancer, 57,400 heart disease, 8,600 of 'unintentional injuries' , 4,600 of psychosis, and 3,600 of suicide. Take that in context and we should be more concerned about dying of cancer or heart disease.

.

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/aids-s...1205/index.html

[geoffrey]

Canada has hosted the conference three times. Mulroney spoke at the one in Montreal as prime minister.

Chretien didn't appear at the one in Vancouver in 1996 and was criticized by the Conservatives. He was attending a fishing vacation on that day and couldn't miss it. Understandably, the Conservatives pounced on that.

Fishing vacation and a re-affirmation of our long neglected northern soverignty are two different things. Nevertheless, I personally don't care whether Chretien went or not, it's his choice. You don't have to sit down with every special interest group that thinks they are important.

Anyways, you say Mulroney appeared... but do you remember what the gay lobby... opps sorry... the AIDS lobby did, sat there and boed, didn't listen to a word. What's the point in Harper going, it's not like any of them are going to stop having unprotected casual sex with several partners just because he tells them to.

The solution to AIDS is free, it's called having some values.

I wouldn't go into such a building, packed with people ready to boo and hurl insults at me. Why would I waste my time? Why should Harper waste his?

I don't feel any inclination of donating or supporting this endeavor. They showed that they couldn't even put political agendas aside for the sake of charity and quest for cure. I have no wish of supporting liberal or leftist ideals.

Anyway, they've got Bill Gates.

Isn't it conservative ideals in the States that tell people not to use condoms and that won't support family?

Maybe in the States. My conservative ideals say don't have sex with every person you meet and if you do after getting to know the person for more than an evening, use protection. Pretty simple value, pretty failsafe against AIDS infection.

[jdobbin]

Fishing vacation and a re-affirmation of our long neglected northern soverignty are two different things. Nevertheless, I personally don't care whether Chretien went or not, it's his choice. You don't have to sit down with every special interest group that thinks they are important.

Anyways, you say Mulroney appeared... but do you remember what the gay lobby... opps sorry... the AIDS lobby did, sat there and boed, didn't listen to a word. What's the point in Harper going, it's not like any of them are going to stop having unprotected casual sex with several partners just because he tells them to.

The solution to AIDS is free, it's called having some values.

I wouldn't go into such a building, packed with people ready to boo and hurl insults at me. Why would I waste my time? Why should Harper waste his?

Maybe in the States. My conservative ideals say don't have sex with every person you meet and if you do after getting to know the person for more than an evening, use protection. Pretty simple value, pretty failsafe against AIDS infection.

Harper going north was planned as way of bypassing the "gone fishin'" criticism. And as a separate issue, he is making a lot of claims on climate that even some of his own departments don't agree with. And if those claims are true, you wonder why he is in oppositon to Kyoto.

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

And this still brings up the question of why the Conservatives would think that Chretien should have gone to Vancouver and not think that Harper should have gone to Toronto?

[FTA Lawyer]

I can't believe the keyboards we're wearing out on this one!

Want the bottom line?

Is Harper being up North an excuse to miss the conference? You bet it is. Is it a better excuse than Cretien had being on a fishing trip? You bet it is.

Does it look good for a leader to personally attend something like this? Probably. Does it actually serve any useful purpose? Not really.

Does Harper deserve some bad press for not going? Probably. Would Harper have got any good press if he came? Nope.

Best political move he could have made is exactly what he's doing. Stay away from the hostile environment, but actually be doing legitimate work.

Really, no one, not even the NDP will bring this up in the next election campaign. It's a tempest in a teapot.

FTA

[jdobbin]

Really, no one, not even the NDP will bring this up in the next election campaign. It's a tempest in a teapot.

Probably not. But it could be a combination of his social conservative stands on issues that will have an impact in places where he needs to win seats.

[scribblet]

I can't believe the keyboards we're wearing out on this one!

Want the bottom line?

Is Harper being up North an excuse to miss the conference? You bet it is. Is it a better excuse than Cretien had being on a fishing trip? You bet it is.

Does it look good for a leader to personally attend something like this? Probably. Does it actually serve any useful purpose? Not really.

Does Harper deserve some bad press for not going? Probably. Would Harper have got any good press if he came? Nope.

Best political move he could have made is exactly what he's doing. Stay away from the hostile environment, but actually be doing legitimate work.

Really, no one, not even the NDP will bring this up in the next election campaign. It's a tempest in a teapot.

FTA

Good point. Got this link still havn't found anything on Canada

The United States invests approximately $16,700 to find a cure for each life lost to prostate cancer; more than $21,800 for each life lost to breast cancer, and about $160,000 for each life lost to AIDS. We know this disease is contagious, and we know how to avoid getting it. Life style changes would accomplish what no amount of funding will.

http://underscorebleach.net/jotsheet/2004/...-cancer-funding

[jdobbin]

Good point. Got this link still havn't found anything on Canada

The United States invests approximately $16,700 to find a cure for each life lost to prostate cancer; more than $21,800 for each life lost to breast cancer, and about $160,000 for each life lost to AIDS. We know this disease is contagious, and we know how to avoid getting it. Life style changes would accomplish what no amount of funding will.

http://underscorebleach.net/jotsheet/2004/...-cancer-funding

What are the overall numbers for cancer research?

[scribblet]

Good point. Got this link still havn't found anything on Canada

The United States invests approximately $16,700 to find a cure for each life lost to prostate cancer; more than $21,800 for each life lost to breast cancer, and about $160,000 for each life lost to AIDS. We know this disease is contagious, and we know how to avoid getting it. Life style changes would accomplish what no amount of funding will.

http://underscorebleach.net/jotsheet/2004/...-cancer-funding

What are the overall numbers for cancer research?

Don't know, havn't looked it up. The point is there is only so much money to go around and everyone wants a piece of the action. If we give more to one, we take away from another.

Maybe the issue should be more about education and prevention of aids; because after all, it is preventable.

[jdobbin]

Maybe the issue should be more about education and prevention of aids; because after all, it is preventable.

I totaly agree. And that falls into the political category.

[Charles Anthony]

Would you tell Harper to use a condom to prevent getting AIDS? No, so long as he is not promiscuous.

No, but I'd tell his kids to be careful even if they are not promiscuous. They can still have a relationship with someone who has had a previous relationship and caught the virus.

Sorry to burst your bubble but that would make them promiscuous.

Unless the argument is everyone are virgins until marriage...

You are letting your own concept of promiscuity confuse yourself with your own argument.

Is that how it is for everyone that you know in your life?

No. I know a lot of people who are promiscuous. Guess what? They use condoms.

Guess why? They are not stupid. [i will also add that they are not coerced, either.]

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