Here's a terribly dispiriting piece (registration required) by James Pinkerton about the prospects for further progress - specifically, the lack of such - in the fight against AIDS. The factors he cites are ones I hadn't thought of before, but they unfortunately seem accurate:
Activists say the drug companies have underfunded R&D. But the truth is that the drug makers have spent tens of billions of dollars on fighting AIDS. Now, however, they are quietly pulling back. Why? Because they no longer see profits ahead. The drug companies are being pressured into basically giving away their existing anti-AIDS meds in Third World countries, home to 95% of the 38 million people infected with the virus.
Even so, they are routinely vilified; the chief of Pfizer, Hank McKinnell, was booed off the stage in Bangkok. If a pharmaceutical company were to come up with an AIDS-smiting "silver bullet," Magic Johnson would gladly pay the sticker price, while everyone else would demand it free. If you're Pfizer, it's hard to make money that way.
...But now there's a new twist: The creation of a permanent, self-perpetuating AIDS bureaucracy that has a vested interest in maintaining the disease but little interest in curing it. For every case of AIDS today, somebody — usually a middleman of the type well represented in Bangkok — gets money.
The world now spends about $4.7 billion a year on AIDS. About two-thirds of that comes from the U.S. And both governments and nongovernmental organizations have figured out that if they make enough noise, they can get even more for AIDS treatment. President Bush has pledged to spend an additional $15 billion over five years, and John Kerry has pledged to double that.
And of course, any number of big-name foundations — Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, Elton John — are writing checks too. Thus has "Big AIDS" — the network of caregivers, consciousness-raisers and, of course, condom distributors — become a big business. Five million people contracted HIV last year — and as for the next 5 million, they're worth billions too, according to a grim dollars-for-dying formula.
In this new environment, when funding streams correlate with victim streams, the vision of a cure as a goal yields instead to perpetuation as a goal.
Read the whole thing, and weep. (Thanks to Mickey Kaus for the pointer.)
Comments
My former landlord used to work for Catholic charities and God's Love We Deliver. This was years ago, but I remember him saying that GMHC had become a too much about the organization and not about the patients.
Sad to say, it doesn't surprise me coming from the people who are only doing that because, in the words of the South Park kids, "caring sells".
Posted by: Frank | August 10, 2004 12:39 AM
This blogs hits on two points that I have realized recently, that make me despise the Left even more than I used to.
#1 This is a CAPITALIST country. The Democrats and libs cannot get this through their heads! If you want people to do things, you need to give them financial incentive. A coporation such as a drug company exists for one reason..TO MAKE MONEY!!! If you take that away.. surprise.. they will stop making things such as AIDS drugs which are not money makers. As a physician I see this happening more and more as the government makes it harder and harder for doctors to make money. Guess what... Do you honestly think people will endure the hell of medical school and residency just to be good citizens? Or maybe they should dodge lawyers everyday of their careers(Sorry Dr M. ;) ) out of the goodness of their own heart. Don't believe me? Ask anyone who has recently tried to schedule a Mammogram.
#2 The ribbon wearing "limosine liberals" are all about their causes. What would they do if you took their causes away? They would have nothing which which to berate the rest of us non-beautiful people with. And so it has come to pass. The Cause has eclipsed those it supposedly benefits.This is the culmination of the satanic bargain that those fighting AIDS struck in the 1980's when they allowed the disease to become political. In the end politics supercedes all ...even human life.
Posted by: Dave P | August 10, 2004 8:36 PM
Well I'm a Democrat, and a Liberal, and happen to be a doctor too -- yet I do understand that this is a capitalist country, and that financial motivations are important. But to quote Bill Gates (about as successful a capitalist I can think of), "Capitalism is the best system -- but it's not perfect." It is irrational to believe that financial motivations alone will take care of the dying poor, regardless of the disease.
Do I have an easy solution? Of course not. But neither do I think that a market economy is the answer for the global devestation of AIDS or other diseases that target predominantly the poor. Thoughtfully guided philanthropy is most welcome -- and I would argue essential -- in this context.
Posted by: nyy1939 | August 19, 2004 7:54 AM
The world is currently suffering a series of pandemics caused by viruses that thrive in people who are selenium deficient. The diseases involved include AIDS,Hepatitis B and C and myocardial infarction (Coxsackie B virus).In total over 2 billion people are infected and about 7 million people are dying annually.This total is rapidly increasing. We are so susceptible today to these viruses because acid rain and fertilizers have altered the chemistry of most soils,causing a significant drop in selenium bioavailability.It is easy to slow the spread of these viruses by adding selenium to fertilizers,animal feed and table salt. Remenmber goiter and iodine? Scurvy and lime juice? Patients with HIV/AIDS also benefit greatly from selenium but also need the other three nutrients that these viruses remove from the human body:cysteine,tryptophan and glutamine.My book, "What really causes AIDS" is free at my web site www.hdfoster.com.
Posted by: Dr Harold D foster | October 5, 2004 1:49 PM