Stem Cells, Bush, and Nancy Reagan

[Admiral Valdemar]

I hear his wife is pushing for better stem cell research in the US. Something the Bush administration doesn't know shit about it seems as they either allow more R&D which is against their morals, or import treatments which costs US industry.

They can't deny the other millions of Alzheimer's sufferers treatment if it exists, regardless of which nation made it. So fundie anti-science logic fails again.

[Son of the Suns]

I hear his wife is pushing for better stem cell research in the US. Something the Bush administration doesn't know shit about it seems as they either allow more R&D which is against their morals, or import treatments which costs US industry.

They can't deny the other millions of Alzheimer's sufferers treatment if it exists, regardless of which nation made it. So fundie anti-science logic fails again.

Ahem. Perhaps this is not the appropriate thread for this discussion.

[Stormbringer]

It isn't really so it has been split.

[Vympel]

But .... but .... you can't PLAY GOD!!!!

[DPDarkPrimus]

But .... but .... you can't PLAY GOD!!!!

That's true. Okay everyone! Shut down the hospitals; burn the pharmacies!

[Vympel]

Hey, does anyone wonder what would've happened if Reagan had somehow gotten AIDS during is Presidency? (if you don't know what I'm talking about, you have been filled with conservative myth-making ideology).

[Joe]

What are you talking about?

[Son of the Suns]

Hey, does anyone wonder what would've happened if Reagan had somehow gotten AIDS during is Presidency? (if you don't know what I'm talking about, you have been filled with conservative myth-making ideology).

Huh? What the hell are you talking about?

[Bob McDob]

Google is your friend:

http://www.thebody.com/encyclo/presidency.html

When AIDS was first reported in 1981, Reagan had recently assumed office and had begun to address the conservative agenda by slashing social programs and cutting taxes and by embracing conservative moral principles. As a result, Reagan never mentioned AIDS publicly until 1987. Most observers contend that AIDS research and public education were not funded adequately in the early years of the epidemic, at a time when research and public education could have saved lives.

Back on topic, I'd be glad to see Nancy Reagan smack some sense into the Bush administration on this issue. God knows they need it.

[Vympel]

I think it's on topic- the point being that given the conservative credentials of the Reagan's, I lwouldn't be surprised that if Gipper hadn't been afflicted with Alzeihmers, Nancy wouldn't be urging the US govt to do jack.

Link

[Crown]

I think it's on topic- the point being that given the conservative credentials of the Reagan's, I lwouldn't be surprised that if Gipper hadn't been afflicted with Alzeihmers, Nancy wouldn't be urging the US govt to do jack.

Link

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?

[Son of the Suns]

Hey, does anyone wonder what would've happened if Reagan had somehow gotten AIDS during is Presidency? (if you don't know what I'm talking about, you have been filled with conservative myth-making ideology).

From the other thread:

Actually, he acknowledged it in 1985 - three years after it was identified, and again in his State of the Union address in 1986. Obviously, he should have said something about it sooner, however despite his non-acknowledgement he did not actively work against efforts to deal with the problem, either (funding for AIDS under Reagan increased 450 percent in 1983 and 134 percent the following year, and grew by a sizable percentage each year of his Presidency after that).

The only way Reagan could have contracted AIDS was if he was cheating on his wife with someone with AIDS, since the possibility of him using dirty needles for drugs or recieving contaminated blood was nil, especially during the early 80's. The idea that Reagan ignored AIDS is incorrect. He did acknowledge it and did fund it during his presidency. If you think he didn't give it the funding it deserved, then I disagree with you. AIDS is nothing compared to cancer or other diseases that are far more worthy of the massive funding that has been diverted to trying to find a cure for AIDS.

[Vympel]

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?

[Son of the Suns]

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?

Many right wing fundies support stem cell research. The problem occurs when the source is aborted fetuses. It opens the avenue to stop any anti abortion legistlation from getting past due to the need for stem cells from the fetuses. This whole debate may be mute if and when alternate sources for stem cells become available.

[Vympel]

snip Joe

It was still jack shit funding, and numerous sources dispute Joe's unsourced assertive account. His response was fragmented, ineffectual, and until I see proof otherwise, he didn't even identify it as an issue, publically, until 1987. He only made a federal policy about it in 1988, after close to a hundred thousand people had been diagnosed and died (figures vary, mostly in the tens of thousands died).

The only way Reagan could have contracted AIDS

It was a hypothetical ,we don't need to actually go into it.

If you think he didn't give it the funding it deserved, then I disagree with you. AIDS is nothing compared to cancer or other diseases that are far more worthy of the massive funding that has been diverted to trying to find a cure for AIDS.

Oh come on. You should know the kinds of ignorant shit that went around when AIDS became known in the 1980s (simply look at Eddie Murphy's Delirious for a popular expression of it). There was an utter failure in coordination and education, and Reagan didn't help for shit. We don't need to play 'disease favorites' here.

AIDS got less funding than damn Legionairre's disaese, for gods sake

[Son of the Suns]

It was still jack shit funding, and numerous sources dispute Joe's unsourced assertive account. His response was fragmented, ineffectual, and until I see proof otherwise, he didn't even identify it as an issue, publically, until 1987. He only made a federal policy about it in 1988, after close to a hundred thousand people had been diagnosed and died (figures vary, mostly in the tens of thousands died).

By the end of 1986 about 30,000 cases were diagnosed. Hell we didn't even know what exactly it was, or how it was transmitted till the mid-80's. What exactly did you expect the president to do? The scientists investigating HIV announced as soon as they had the virus isolated that they would have a vaccine inside 2 years. From those kinds of reports, and the number of infections, as the president I would assume that the CDC was getting the infection under control and the funding was adequate. It wasn't till the end of his presidency that they found out how wrong the were.

Oh come on. You should know the kinds of ignorant shit that went around when AIDS became known in the 1980s (simply look at Eddie Murphy's Delirious for a popular expression of it). There was an utter failure in coordination and education, and Reagan didn't help for shit. We don't need to play 'disease favorites' here.

Again what did you expect him to do about it? It was 3/4 of the way through his presidency before the mode of transmission and other factors were known.

[kojikun]

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?

http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=creeve

[kojikun]

SotS: Yeah, kay. Deliberate prevention of spreading knowledge about the disease makes everything you say invalid. He damn near let AIDS happen. Volitionally, despite his attorny generals attempts to warn the public. So don't spout this bullshit rhetoric about noone knowing how bad it was.

[Son of the Suns]

SotS: Yeah, kay. Deliberate prevention of spreading knowledge about the disease makes everything you say invalid. He damn near let AIDS happen. Volitionally, despite his attorny generals attempts to warn the public. So don't spout this bullshit rhetoric about noone knowing how bad it was.

Knowledge of the disease itself doesn't do anyone any good. The only thing that would have helped would have been him spreading knowledge of how to avoid or prevent the disease, which is information he didn't have till the mid 80's. By then AIDS had already spread outside the gay population through blood transfers and other means. How is him warning the public that there is a fatal disease which no one knows how it spreads or how it works beneficial? If nothing else it would have caused a panic, which was what was already happening on the west coast. He did not "let" AIDS happen.

[Vympel]

By the end of 1986 about 30,000 cases were diagnosed. Hell we didn't even know what exactly it was, or how it was transmitted till the mid-80's. What exactly did you expect the president to do? The scientists investigating HIV announced as soon as they had the virus isolated that they would have a vaccine inside 2 years. From those kinds of reports, and the number of infections, as the president I would assume that the CDC was getting the infection under control and the funding was adequate. It wasn't till the end of his presidency that they found out how wrong the were.

That's patently false:

What did this mean in practical terms? Most importantly, AIDS research was chronically under-funded. When doctors at the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health asked for more funding for their work on AIDS, they were routinely denied it. Between June 1981 and May 1982 the CDC spent less than $1 million on AIDS and $9 million on Legionnaire's Disease. At that point more than 1,000 of the 2,000 reported AIDS cases resulted in death; there were fewer than 50 deaths from Legionnaire's Disease. This drastic lack of funding would continue through the Reagan years.

They *asked* for funding and didn't get it.

Again what did you expect him to do about it? It was 3/4 of the way through his presidency before the mode of transmission and other factors were known.

How about giving the funding they were asked for, so it wasn't 3/4 of the way through his presidency before they knew what the hell was going on? Furthermore, source for when the mode of transmission was discovered?

[kojikun]

Knowledge of the disease itself doesn't do anyone any good. The only thing that would have helped would have been him spreading knowledge of how to avoid or prevent the disease, which is information he didn't have till the mid 80's. By then AIDS had already spread outside the gay population through blood transfers and other means. How is him warning the public that there is a fatal disease which no one knows how it spreads or how it works beneficial? If nothing else it would have caused a panic, which was what was already happening on the west coast. He did not "let" AIDS happen.

The CDC was knowledge in the fact that it spread through blood as early as 1983.

And in his formal appology for neglecting the problem, he said this: ""We can all grow and learn in our lives and I've learned all kinds of people can get AIDS, even children.""

Yeah, thanks alot asshole. Apparently it only matters when straight people and kids are dying, not faggots.

[kojikun]

Oh, sorry, my information was slightly off. 1982 was the date they figured blood and sex was how AIDS was transmitted.

[Frank Hipper]

AIDS Timeline. Fascinating stuff.

[Frank Hipper]

According to the above, Reagan issued an apology for his neglect of the AIDS problem in 1990, not behavior you'd expect out of someone who felt they did what was necessary, yes?

[Son of the Suns]

That's patently false:

What did this mean in practical terms? Most importantly, AIDS research was chronically under-funded. When doctors at the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health asked for more funding for their work on AIDS, they were routinely denied it. Between June 1981 and May 1982 the CDC spent less than $1 million on AIDS and $9 million on Legionnaire's Disease. At that point more than 1,000 of the 2,000 reported AIDS cases resulted in death; there were fewer than 50 deaths from Legionnaire's Disease. This drastic lack of funding would continue through the Reagan years.

According to AVERT.org in March of 1981 8 cases of Kaposi's Sarcoma was reported in young gay men and in June several deaths of young gay men dying of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia. These men shouldn't have died since KS occurs mostly in older people and PCP can normally be cured with drugs.I quote:

"Because there was so little known about the transmission of what seemed to be a new disease, there was concern about contagion, and whether the disease could by passed on by people who had no apparent signs or symptoms."

By July 1982 452 cases had been reported to the CDC.

"Very little was still known about transmission and public anxiety continued to grow."

It makes sense that little money was spent on it since it was a new disease.


From the The New York Times:

"It is frightening because no one knows what's causing it, said a 28-year old law student who went to the St. Mark's Clinic in Greenwich Village last week complaining of swollen glands, thought to be one early symptom of the disease. Every week a new theory comes out about how you' re going to spread it."

In May 1983 the virus that was believed to cause the infection was isolated in France, called lymphadenopathy-associated virus. At this point the police were equipping officers with masks and gloves to handle suspected AIDS patients. November of 1983 was the first time the WHO held meeting about AIDS.

"By the end of the year the number of AIDS cases in the USA had risen to 3,064 and of these 1292 had died."

In 1984 the CDC managed to finally identify the man they believed to be responsible for starting the epidemic in America.

"Just one day later, on April 23th, the United States Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler announced that Dr. Robert Gallo of the National Cancer Institute had isolated the virus which caused AIDS, that it was named HTLV-III, and that there would soon be a commercially available test for the virus. It was a dramatic and optimistic announcement that also included:

"We hope to have a vaccine [against AIDS] ready for testing in about two years."

and it concluded with:

"yet another terrible disease is about to yield to patience, persistence and outright genius"

hmmmmm sounds like they have it under control doesn't it? Also:

"By the end of 1984, there had been 7699 AIDS cases and 3665 AIDS deaths in the USA"

It was March 1985 before it was concluded that LAV and HTLV-III were the same virus. It was also the first time a blood test was developed for it. Then:

"On September 17th, President Reagan publicly mentioned AIDS for the first time, when he was asked about AIDS funding at a press conference. At the same press conference he was also asked a question whether he would send his children if they were younger to school with a child who has AIDS.

"It is true that some medical sources had said that this cannot be communicated in any way other than the ones we already know and which would not involve a child being in the school. And yet medicine has not come forth unequivocally and said, 'This we know for a fact, that it is safe.'' And until they do, I think we just have to do the best we can with this problem. I can understand both sides of it."

At the end of 1985 in the USA 15,948 cases of AIDS had been reported.

In 1986:

"In September there was dramatic progress in the provision of medical treatment for AIDS, when early results of clinical tests showed that a drug called azidothymidine (AZT) slowed down the attack of the AIDS virus. AZT was first synthesised in 1964 as a possible anticancer drug but it proved ineffective.

The AZT clinical trial divided patients into two groups: one received AZT and the other placebo, or dummy drugs. At the end of six months, only one patient in the AZT group was dead, whilst there were 19 deaths among the placebo group. The clinical trial was stopped early, because it was thought to be unethical to deny the patients of the placebo groups a better chance of survival."

This was the first time there was a drug that was know to affect AIDS ( 3/4 of the way through Reagan's administration I might add.)

At the end of the year 31741 cases of AIDS were reported in the United States.

How about giving the funding they were asked for, so it wasn't 3/4 of the way through his presidency before they knew what the hell was going on?

Legionnaries as you mentioned above is and was a well known and very fucking fatal disease. I hope to God it never breaks out again. It was and continues to be a focus in just about every microbiology course dealing with infectious disease as a model of how quickly a deadly disease can devistate a population, and the importance for finding cures to such diseases. AIDS was not well known and not the focus of research until it had already reached alarming proportions. There is no way that the CDC, the president, or the congress could have known it was as bad as it was.

And as for the disease transmission, as it says above 1984-1985 was when it was positively identified as LAV/HTLV-III. Even then it wasn't completely confirmed that the only way to spread it was through sexual contact or blood.