Would someone please attempt a well-organized, logically written REBUTTAL to
my argument (singular - not a collection of arguments)? Rather than a lazy,
sophomoric picking apart of individual sentences, and individual hot buttons
such as the relatively small # of children involved, and lung cancer?
To wit, that:
AIDS #'s are down, dramtically down. It is not the killer it used to
be.
Education of its potential victims must be the reason as medical science
has made little progress in cures & preventions that would account for this
phenomenum.
AIDS research is already funded disproportionatrly to other health
needs, & now we are allocating HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS MORE? - Bubba, the
other day. (This is what got my dander up. Not Viagara)
Future AIDS victims, most of them, have no one to blame but themselves
for contacting the disease.
The UNITED STATES PD commnunity should point this out to its pols &
openly complain about it
with the intent of further increasing the meager $ which comes our way.
Would someone like to take a crack at that as a whole argument and make me
eat my keyboard?
-----Original Message-----
From: Janet Paterson <[log in to unmask]>
To: Multiple recipients of list PARKINSN <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, October 29, 1998 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: PD & AIDS / "us" versus "them"? / it ain't so simple
>hi bruce
>
>you wrote in part:
>>Robin of PDF - i do not think you can call AIDS communicable,
>>not like polio was or tyhoid or measles or TB. Anyone who knows
>>about AIDs, no matter how low their IQ, and who gives a damn,
>>can avoid getting it (except for those extraordinary instances of
>>accidental sticking by hiddden needles, etc - a true handful.).
>
>not true
>
>aids has been around and spreading for longer than we knew
>
>the image of aids needs to be changed/updated
>just as much as the image of pd needs to be changed/updated
>
>aids is running rampant in third world countries
>the incidence of aids in new born children in africa is so massive
>that projections of the entire world's population have had to be lowered
>
>>...Are not the only one we are protecting now are those
>>who DON'T give a damn? Are we spending our money
>>on people who don't deserve it? Yeah, i think we might be...
>
>people who don't "deserve" it?
>we are all children created from the same power
>
>not one of us is more deserving than another
>even if we do something stupid
>
>to be human is to do both stupid and brilliant things
>to be human is to learn and grow and change
>
>>The AIDS numbers are WAY down - education has been successful.
>
>only in our wealthy spoiled tiny portion of the planet
>
>>Put a condom on it before you stick it in.
>
>condoms aren't a 100% successful method of birth-control
>they cannot be a 100% successful method of stopping aids
>
>>Why are WE, not the "Federal Government" or Congress,
>>spending ANY more money, much less hundreds of millions
>>of MORE dollars, on it?
>
>because we
>the wealthy spoiled tiny portion of this planet's population
>have the bucks
>
>as well as the human desire to end the suffering of other humans
>[i hope]
>
>>...i didn't think we should be bad-mouthing other people's causes
>>in our fight for PD $. But i think it is time. $100,00,000.00 is NOT
>>enough, and since there is clearly a limited number of dollars
>>available i think we have to look around for it.
>
>research is an art as much as a science
>it is work being done by humans like you and me
>
>there are no guarantees that any amount of money will cure pd
>someone may already have the cure now but can't see it
>
>how many people looked at apples fallling from trees
>before newton made the gravity connection?
>
>how many apples had newton himself seen falling from trees
>before newton made the gravity connection?
>
>>...It Is A Matter of Fairness & Equity!
>
>life is not 'fair' as we understand the term
>never has been and never will be
>that's one of the tests
>like it or lump it
>
>so, bruce, my dear cyber-sibling,
>what else are you going to do with your anger and your frustration?
>
>janet
