The Great AIDS Swindle

Okay, before everybody on the left starts jumping on my back for being a heartless homophobic racist, let me state that I lost my brother to AIDS way back when it first started breaking out. He engaged in risky behavior and paid the price before anybody knew there was a price to pay. That being said, I think we’ve gone a bit overboard on AIDS and HIV spending. I have no problems funding research to eradicate diseases of any type, but I think that the cost should be balanced against the severity and lethality of the diseases being cured.

I was going to write something about this the other day after a dinner at a friend’s house, but I never got around to it and then I saw the article quoted below. My friend’s wife is the head of pharmacy operations for a major local hospital and when the subject of AIDS came up (how it came up, I don’t remember) she glibly and bluntly said “well, hardly anybody dies of that anymore. I mean, I don’t think I’ve heard of anybody dying from that lately. We can control it with drugs and we do so at a 100% success rate as long the patient isn’t suffering from other ailments and they follow the pharmaceutical regimen.” I was kind of taken aback, but it was instantaneously clear to me that she was right. Deaths in America from HIV/AIDS have become more unique than lottery winners.

I then asked about children born with HIV. Her response this time was earth shattering. “Most if not all of them are treatable and the really strange thing is that a lot of them are testing HIV negative by the time they get to about 11 or 12 years old.” Huh. Interesting.

Now that you’ve read the intro, read the real meat of the post…

"AIDS is a terrible humanitarian tragedy, but it's just one of many terrible humanitarian tragedies," said Jeremy Shiffman, who studies health spending at Syracuse University.

Roger England of Health Systems Workshop, a think tank based in the Caribbean island of Grenada, goes further. He argues that UNAIDS, the U.N. agency leading the fight against the disease, has outlived its purpose and should be disbanded.

"The global HIV industry is too big and out of control. We have created a monster with too many vested interests and reputations at stake, ... too many relatively well paid HIV staff in affected countries, and too many rock stars with AIDS support as a fashion accessory," he wrote in the British Medical Journal in May.

Paul de Lay, a director at UNAIDS, disagrees. It's valid to question AIDS' place in the world's priorities, he says, but insists the turnaround is very recent and it would be wrong to think the epidemic is under control.

"We have an epidemic that has caused between 55 million and 60 million infections," de Lay said. "To suddenly pull the rug out from underneath that would be disastrous."

Of course Paul de Lay disagrees. Paul is the head UNAIDS and if UNAIDS doesn’t exist, then Paul’s job doesn’t exist. Even if they cut funding by half instead of in toto then he stands to lose a lot of international pull. Nobody wants to lose their job or take a cut in pay or responsibility, but when you’ve fattened the calf to the point that all it’s doing is eating and not moving forward, it’s time to slaughter it.

You also note that Mr. de Lay mentions how many people are getting infected, not how many people are dying from it. I’m sure this distinction is no accident as much as I’m certain that there would be a disparity between the two numbers.

England argues that closing UNAIDS would free up its $200 million annual budget for other health problems such as pneumonia, which kills more children every year than AIDS, malaria and measles combined.

"By putting more money into AIDS, we are implicitly saying it's OK for more kids to die of pneumonia," England said.

His comments touch on the bigger complaint: that AIDS hogs money and may damage other health programs.

So why doesn’t anyone stand up and take notice? Because rock stars, movie stars, and playwrights don’t get malaria or measles. Who ever heard of a movie star who died of pneumonia (I mean, who already didn’t have AIDS)?

In a 2006 report, Rwandan officials noted a "gross misallocation of resources" in health: $47 million went to HIV, $18 million went to malaria, the country's biggest killer, and $1 million went to childhood illnesses.

Wow. Just wow. In 2006, 80% of American aid for health and population issues went to AIDS. 80%. Just a quick glance at the numbers without any deep analysis would have even the basest simpleton scratching his head and mumbling “that don’t look right.” Five times as many children die from diarrhea than from AIDS, but you don’t see the funding flooding towards diarrhea, do you? No… and you never will.

Diarrhea isn’t a sexy cause. Celebrities won’t be holding diarrhea galas or diarrhea concerts. You’ll never see George Clooney or Elton John wearing a brown “Diarrhea Awareness” ribbon. 200 million dollars could build a lot of wells. 200 million dollars could help build a lot of sewer systems and combat bugs that cause diarrhea. But you won’t be seeing that happen anytime soon because the heads of the various UN departments love their little fiefdoms and giving up 200 million dollars for the common good is inconsistent with retaining your power at the UN if you’re the head of UNAIDS.

Diarrhea isn’t a cause célèbre, but it is killing children at a rate five times higher than AIDS… and it will continue to do so. It will continue to do so because celebrities don’t get diarrhea unless it’s the run-off from them getting HIV in the first place. It will continue to do so because the UN throws around money without forethought. It will continue to do so because nobody really cares who dies unless Sean Penn tells them to anymore.

As I said before, my brother died of AIDS… and I still think we should cut spending on it and concentrate on other, more vital areas. We don’t pour that much money into malaria anymore, why should we bother with a disease that affects a much smaller demographic? Am I a racist? No. Am I a homohpobe? No? But I am a realist... and the reality is that we're pouring money into a hole when others need in it much more desperately.

 

Cross posted at The Sniper

Comments

[salvage]

>“well, hardly anybody dies of that anymore. I mean, I don’t think I’ve heard of anybody dying from that lately.

1.8-2.3 million AIDS deaths in 2007 in addition to 2 million Child deaths.

>We don’t pour that much money into malaria anymore,

Between 1 and 1.5 million people die from malaria every year.

A mosquito net does a great deal to prevent malaria, the treatment of those infected is much cheaper than the treatment for AIDS.

The reality is that AIDS research is far more pressing than malaria, it kills more, it costs more and is understood less.

[Mike]

1. Should we spend more on cancer or hiv?
2. Does Pres. Bush get credit for the incr. in spending on aids in Africa?
3. A libertarian case would be why must federal tax dollars be spent anyway. Can states spend tax dollars instead? How about the private sector do the research? Is the federal gov't responsible for everything in life from cradle to grave?

[salvage]

1. Should we spend more on cancer or hiv?

Yes.

2. Does Pres. Bush get credit for the incr. in spending on aids in Africa?

Yes.

3. A libertarian case would be why must federal tax dollars be spent anyway.

Because curing or at least controlling diseases is very much in society's interest. Libertarians actually do get sick so its in their interest as well.

>Can states spend tax dollars instead?

Yes but it would be better if they spent as well.

>How about the private sector do the research?

The private sector is doing the research but the state has an interest in ensuring that the fruits of the research benefit everyone. Having a monopoly on the cure to cancer would be unacceptable.

>Is the federal gov't responsible for everything in life from cradle to grave?

No, not everything which is why there is no government responsible for everything. However a government for the people by the people most certainly has an obligation to take responsibility for certain things, health care is one.

[Mike]

Salvage posts some very good points.

Gov't and private companies can, and do,collaborate to cure diseases and improve public health. I would pose that it is best to minimize the federal gov't role. State and local control for most roles is better [ read the 10th Amendment ].

Take Soc.Sec. and Medicare and Medicaid. They are built on a Ponzi scheme where now fewer workers pay for more seniors.

Take welfare and the Great Society. One could say it helps some, but it becomes an albatross. Hillary C. writes It Takes a Village, but to paraphrase Edmund Burke, a loving family will care for you more then strangers, or any gov't.

Welfare replaced the role of the father in most homes. Look at most ghettoes in the US. Gov't programs usually have the consequence of replacing the traditional role of the family. We ship seniors off to nursing homes, we ship 6 month olds off to day care with strangers. Are we narcissists?

Be careful to discard the roles of a loving family for the hollow security of gov't. Families must work together through the rough times.

Finally, if gov't takeovers and bailouts are so needed, then pass const. amendments and see if a supermajority of people really want it. Maybe they will.

Thanks, Mike.