[VietVet]

My first comment is, I haven't seen any published study which shows that this regemin of drugs actually extends the average life expectancy of someone diagnosed with HIV. Admittedly, I have only read the popular press, not being a doctor. The last thing I did read, some years ago, stated that while persons on the drugs stayed "healthy" and active longer, their life-expectancy was not significantly increased.

Secondly, Keeping an infected person alive and superficially healthy longer would seem, logically, to *increase* the spread of the disease, not decrease it. The motive to avoid contact through the vectors which transmit the infection would be diminished, and the amount of time the infected person would have to pass on the virus would be increased.

Thirdly, this particular disease is spread almost exclusively by careless and irresponsible personal behavior. Why then should I consider it to be my responsibility to fund treatment through my taxes?

Finally, the lack of medical facilities in those countries which report high instances of HIV infection also make it impossible that there has actually been wide-spread testing of the population to determine the actual rates of infection. Frankly, the reported rates of infection and death of AIDS in, say Africa, could be true only if every every death recorded or indicated in the census data for those countries were due to HIV. When it comes to AIDS in the Third World, neither Clinton, nor WHO, nor we, know what we are talking about. The facts just aren't there.

VietVet

[realpatriot71]

You're right about HIV being mostly spread by drug/homosexual behavior here in the US, but in Africa, HIV is spread mostly through heterosexual contact. Sadly many times this is when an infected man rapes a "virgin" to cure himself. I think behavioral education in Africa would go so much farther than handing out drugs to people who, honestly, are probably not sophisitcated enough to use the drugs right. But, that's the unPC version :-)