Your argument has more holes than a cheese grater.
Young people have strokes. Young adults in their thirties and forties have heart attacks and get cancer too. Young women die of breast cancer and ovarian cancer.
The truth is, that since 1981, AIDs has been the disease dujour, highlighted by the glitterati, and by now, should have been totally eradicated because it is so preventable.
Money spent for cures for cancer, for instance, would be more beneficial to more people and more families than HIV/AIDS, but doesn't have the media spotlight that HIV/AIDS has had bestowed upon it.
The article is dead on. For all of the money spent on AIDS in 25 years, no one on earth should be dying of it.
One of the biggest differences between HIV infection and the other disorders listed is that HIV is contagious. Look at countries who didn't spend that much on HIV early on. Swaziland has something like a 40-50% rate of HIV infection. Obviously, not all the money is spent efficiently, but Bush is working on that with some reforms on HIV spending here in the states.
Of course they do, but at a miniscule fraction of the rate of those in their 60's and 70's. Adjusting for expected years of life lost takes all of those factors into account.
I reiterate, I am not defending the homosexual lifestyle or agenda. I am simply pointing out that the NIH is on a sound actuarial footing when they fund AIDS research in the manner they do. We can debate whether this is a good thing, but not the underlying mathematics.
-ccm
It's worse in Africa - a very small percentage of the money given to AIDS care could save millions of people.
Liberals care about drug addicts and "people who have sex with anything that moves" more than any other medical group. It's obvious when you follow the money ...