Stem Cells, Bush, and Nancy Reagan

[Son of the Suns]

AIDS Timeline. Fascinating stuff.

Oh hell well that's a lot easier to read, though not quite as informative.

[Son of the Suns]

Hmmm I noticed that the timeline emphasizes when Reagan actually used the word "AIDS." It didn't even have that name until late 1982/ early 1983, and among the public it was still known by GRIDS and other such names. Sometimes simply as the "gay cancer."



Edit: I would also like to say that I'm not saying that AIDS could not have been curbed sooner if we had spent massive amounts of money on it, but hindsight is 20/20. From the perspective of someone in the early 80's there was simply no reason to devote those resources to AIDS research. Not because most of the people that were infected were gay, but due to the new and unknown nature of the virus. For a long time it was simply thought that a new group of more aggresive cancers was showing up. Also, even if those resources had been moved to AIDS research, I doubt that the research would have progressed signifigantly faster than it did. Throwing more money at the problem of diseases does not necessarily result in, well, results. We've been throwing money at the problem of AIDS for 25 years, and we still don't have a cure, or even a vaccine.

[LordShaithis]

For a little perspective, realize that twenty-thousand Americans die of the flu every year. Any disease being diagnosed only a couple thousand times per year isn't going to look like a big deal.

[Son of the Suns]

For a little perspective, realize that twenty-thousand Americans die of the flu every year. Any disease being diagnosed only a couple thousand times per year isn't going to look like a big deal.

Yeah, the so called orphan diseases. The government now gives massive incentives to pharmacuitical companies to devote the money to finding cures for these diseases.

[kojikun]

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/aidstimeline1.html

Another HIV/AIDS timeline.

[tharkûn]

Give me a break, if you give a serious damn about saving people's lives from disease I can tell you what some of the best procedures would be:

1. Ban doorknobs.
2. Require all hospital rooms to be single occupancy.
3. Require all sinks to be operated by motion detectors.
4. Treet handshakes like sex.

etc.

The honest truth is the majority of people who die from disease do so from something mundane. Hundreds of thousands of people could be saved if we removed the most common sources of infections and that may well be money well spent. A massive funding effort for what appeared to be a small outbreak (and yes it was a small outbreak at the time compared to any classic epidemic) isn't going to change a helluvalot (particularly because most modern AIDS "breakthroughs" use technology that didn't exist in the 80's). If we want to seriously save lives the common cold, traffic accidents, and cancer are all FAR superior targets if we just count lives saved per million dollars spent.

The researchers asked for more money? So? I do biotech research we always ask for more money. If you can name for me a single researcher who beleives his field is adequately funded I'd be surprised. If you can find one who will say that to the guy controlling the purse strings, I'd be amazed. We could literally double the working budgets for every medical lab in the world and all of the money would be well spent (particularly if we just care about how many lives we save). No researcher in the 1980's was going to tell anyone in the US federal government that "Yes we are well funded and don't need more money" because at that time you may as well just ask for your budget to be cut. If Smith says we need more money and Johnson just wants to maintain the status quo and one of em has to be cut to fit the budget ... guess who gets cut?

[Admiral Valdemar]

We wouldn't even have food poisoning if proper hygiene was in place all the time. The ads used by the HPA here to highlight bacteria spreading in a kitchen is always a good pointer.

Fact is, people get lazy. Hell, today I saw a lecturer in the biology dept. toilets not wash his hands! I dare not touch the door's handle because, as with any fomite, it is ideal for transmitting disease.

HIV was something most people didn't think about back then because STDs were ignored with all the free love around from the '60s and so on. Then when people started dropping dead from sex, the gov't got interested and thus, AIDS was made public. Like SotS said, hindsight is 20/20.

[Crown]

Isn't this sort of like claiming that if Christopher Reeve wasn't in a wheelhcair, they he wouldn't be lobbying for stem cell research either?

Is it an unreasonable proposition? Unless Reeve is a fundie right-winger, he's got the benefit of the doubt, but for the Reagans to do it, doesn't it strike you as suspicious?

Your missing the point. As right wing conservatives I would expect them to not campaign for stem cell research. The fact they are shows that they don't mindlessly follow a dogmatic principal and are willing to change their minds. You are free to argue they are only changing their minds for selfish reasons, but at the end of the day we all act out of selfish reasons. It isn't any secret or anything, everything we do stems from our needs and wants, period.

As for the Christopher Reeve analogy think of it thusly; I have a greater disdain for social liberals who pay lip service to 'worthwile' causes, and yet do jack shit to support them, to right wing conservatives who oppose them (for their own twisted reasons), but are willing to change their minds.

Also consider that now Nancy is able to use the focus of a right wing religious zealot to campaign for stem cell research to the heart of the body that is most opposed to it, and they can't brush it away willy-nilly as a bleeding heart liberal communist athiest bastard heresy all because they are intimately aware of who she is, and what she stands for.

Simply put, I would trade 5 Christopher Reeves for 1 Nancy Reagan in terms of who has more sway with the right wingers. As for the public at large, that is another kettle of fish.

[Joe]

I have no problem whatsoever with stem cell research, what I don't understand is why it apparently is going to sink or swim based on federal funding. Is it illegal for a state, a corporation, or a charity to fund the research or something?

[Crown]

I have no problem whatsoever with stem cell research, what I don't understand is why it apparently is going to sink or swim based on federal funding. Is it illegal for a state, a corporation, or a charity to fund the research or something?

I think that it is tied up in a lot of ethics boards right now, and legislation kinda prohibits it, AFAIK. Although I could be wrong.

[Vympel]

ut at the end of the day we all act out of selfish reasons. It isn't any secret or anything, everything we do stems from our needs and wants, period.

No it doesn't- for example, what do you get out of sponsoring a child in Africa? Most charity is by definition not selfish.

As for the Christopher Reeve analogy think of it thusly; I have a greater disdain for social liberals who pay lip service to 'worthwile' causes, and yet do jack shit to support them, to right wing conservatives who oppose them (for their own twisted reasons), but are willing to change their minds.

Fair enough.

[Crown]

No it doesn't- for example, what do you get out of sponsoring a child in Africa? Most charity is by definition not selfish.

Rubbish. You derive emotional gratification from it. Just because our needs and wants aren't always tangible doesn't mean they aren't there, and don't start scemantic whoring -- you're better than that.

[Vympel]

Rubbish. You derive emotional gratification from it. Just because our needs and wants aren't always tangible doesn't mean they aren't there, and don't start scemantic whoring -- you're better than that.

Semantics are in this case *very* important, because you've redefined the concept of selfishness into oblivion- they're meaningless by your terms- you can't go and construct such a definition and then prohibit me from challenging it. Everyone's selfish because you assert that everything we do is driven by our own needs and wants? That's not what selfishness means at all:

Selfishness

The quality or state of being selfish; exclusive regard to one's own interest or happiness; that supreme self-love or self-preference which leads a person to direct his purposes to the advancement of his own interest, power, or happiness, without regarding those of others.

Now, I think it is selfish if it is in fact true (and it was a posit) that the only reason the Reagan's advocate stem cell research is because they were personally affected by it. Some good comes out of it all the same, yes, but they're still selfish.

With charity, even *if* you are getting some emotional gratification out of it, you are having regard to fellow human beings, hence, you are not selfish. Or as selfish, whatever you wish. It's ridiculous to posit there are entirely selfless human beings, and I never did, but to go to the other end and just declare the concept of selfishness meaningless is way too much.

[Crown]

<snippy>
With charity, even *if* you are getting some emotional gratification out of it, you are having regard to fellow human beings, hence, you are not selfish. Or as selfish. It's ridiculous to posit there are entirely selfless human beings, and I never did, but to go to the other end and just declare the concept of selfishness meaningless is way too much.

I am not 'declarig the concept of selfishness meaningless' by any strecth of the imagination. I am only pointing out, that as human being all our actions and decisions are based on inherently selfish motivations.

Your arguement is that Nancy should for some god forsaken reason to called out on it -- and my point is, then shouldn't Christopher Reeve also be called on it? I don't remember him being involved in stem cell research prior to his own life being impacted by it (just like Nancy Reagan's).

Nancy Reagan has been involved with an entire plethora of charity work prior to stem cell research, why is it a crime and she becomes 'selfish' for starting to campaign for something that has impacted on her life?

Lets put it this way; was Diana a selfish bitch for her charity work? The answer is in the strictest terms; yes. When asked why she got involved in charity in the first place, she replied point blank; because I was bored and I couldn't do anything else. And yet, by this purely selfish desire to aliviate her bordem, she opened up the world to the truth about landmines in third world countries, and exposed miss-conceptions of people suffering with AIDS. So the overall answer must be that she did more 'good' with her selfish action, then she did harm.

Your problem, or the problem we are having in this thread, is that you see 'selfish' as a black/white fallacy; good/evil. I'm saying it isn't, selfish actions are what motivate all of us, all of the time. To a differing degree -- oh absolutely without question, but that doesn't necessarily negate the good we can still do, even when motivated by selfish actions.

What you are implying (if I understand correctly), is that Nancy is 'selfish' and only cares for stem cell research because of what happened to Ronald. And I ask you again; does this standard also apply to Christopher Reeve? Your only response to that was; unless Christopher Reeve was a fundie right winger, he gets the benefit of the doubt ...

My response to that is BULLSHIT. They are both acting out of selfish reasons, and I for one don't see why one gets lampooned for it, and the other gets 'the benefit of the doubt'. When the end result is the same; ie they are both accomplishing or fighting for something good.

[Vympel]

Your arguement is that Nancy should for some god forsaken reason to called out on it -- and my point is, then shouldn't Christopher Reeve also be called on it? I don't remember him being involved in stem cell research prior to his own life being impacted by it (just like Nancy Reagan's).

If he didn't give a toss before his accident, yes.

Nancy Reagan has been involved with an entire plethora of charity work prior to stem cell research, why is it a crime and she becomes 'selfish' for starting to campaign for something that has impacted on her life?

Strawman, I didn't say it was a crime, but I think there's a good chance it was entirely motivated by concern for her own happiness and her husband, in preference over her almost undoubtedly pre-existing conservative ideological leanings against stem cell research. Good for us, but I don't have to respect her for it.

Lets put it this way; was Diana a selfish bitch for her charity work? The answer is in the strictest terms; yes. When asked why she got involved in charity in the first place, she replied point blank; because I was bored and I couldn't do anything else. And yet, by this purely selfish desire to aliviate her bordem, she opened up the world to the truth about landmines in third world countries, and exposed miss-conceptions of people suffering with AIDS. So the overall answer must be that she did more 'good' with her selfish action, then she did harm.

When did I make it about good and harm?

Your problem, or the problem we are having in this thread, is that you see 'selfish' as a black/white fallacy; good/evil.

I never put forth the 'good/evil' implications, I implied, that I have more respect for someone who uses their influence to advance a cause when they're not personally affected by it, than someone who does.

I'm saying it isn't, selfish actions are what motivate all of us, all of the time. To a differing degree -- oh absolutely without question, but that doesn't necessarily negate the good we can still do, even when motivated by selfish actions.

Where did I say it negated good? I agreed with you earlier.

What you are implying (if I understand correctly), is that Nancy is 'selfish' and only cares for stem cell research because of what happened to Ronald. And I ask you again; does this standard also apply to Christopher Reeve? Your only response to that was; unless Christopher Reeve was a fundie right winger, he gets the benefit of the doubt ...

My response to that is BULLSHIT. They are both acting out of selfish reasons, and I for one don't see why one gets lampooned for it, and the other gets 'the benefit of the doubt'. When the end result is the same; ie they are both accomplishing or fighting for something good.[/

Yes, it does apply to Christopher Reeve, if indeed he only became an advocate of such research after his accident. What I'm saying is that I had more reason to suspect Nancy because of her right-wing credentials and all that it implies, not less.