While in third grade, my teacher told me that I could get AIDS from chalk dust. I remember it quite clearly, but that does not mean it actually happened. If the comment about AIDS and chalk dust was said is out of the question. My point is about the WHO.
AIDS programs in developing countries put too little emphasis on treatment, the World Health Organization said Tuesday, urging for more small community-based clinics to be opened to treat HIV-infected people.
When you have limited funds to devote to a problem, you tackle the problems you can solve. In the case of AIDS, it is still an incurable disease that can be prevented. It seems to me if you put most of you money in prevention, you will have less to treat. Which means that less money is needed, and that money can go to economic development.
"By tackling it decisively we will also be building health systems that can meet the health needs of today and tomorrow. This is a historic opportunity we cannot afford to miss," he added.
This is a very good point, and I have never thought of it that way. Of course it also fails to point out the fact that with out international funds those health care systems are not self sufficient.
In March 2003, Jeune was emaciated and his parents had already bought his coffin. Six months later, thanks to antiretroviral drugs provided by an AIDS treatment program in a hometown clinic, Jeune had gained 44 pounds and is pictured smiling in the report.
Of course, he is still going to die.
When the money that went to extend a persons life can be used to save another, it seems like a waste. I am not saying that people who have AIDS should not receive drugs to ease their pain, but expensive drugs that extend and not save lives are a waste. If people stopped having sex except with clean, known partners, we could stop the AIDS virus in it tracks.
Then again no one really wants to preach self-control. The world wants us to spend large amounts of cash making people live longer, not preventing the disease.