PC Diseases

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
PC diseases are diseases afflicting mostly groups that are PC, in my definition, those mass groups that are the support and clients of the lib establishment.

Funding by the federal government for research is much more favorable if the disease is PC.

Same with companies contributions - do you notice how often you see on TV some advertiser announces his support for AIDS/HIV research or breast cancer? It's as if they think those are the only two diseases. I watched an NFL game last fall, and the announcer called attention to the NFL's support for breast cancer. I was watching the Dodgers the other day, and they had breast cancer day and talked about their financial support. (There are no other dodger disease "days".)

Let's look at some mortality rates, the clear indicator of how deadly a disease is. Here are stats for 2005, the latest I could find, and probably substantially unchanged in relative ratio now (deaths per hundred thousand population of relevent gender group):

breast cancer (women) 24.1

prostate cancer (men) 24.5

heart disease (women) 172.3

HIV (men/women) 4.2

http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/A...113 selected causes by race and sex 2005.html

Look at those numbers: you can see that in terms of deadliness, prostate cancer is the men's "breast cancer", yet when did you ever hear an advertiser talk about his support for prostate cancer? And look how heart disease kills SEVEN times as many women as breast cancer (they ARE starting to talk about that, but only re women, naturally). Look now at how relatively few people are killed by AIDS/HIV (mostly homosexuals).

Now, let's look at the NIH funding, the major funding source from the federal government (in millions of dollars, estimated 2009):

breast cancer 703

prostate cancer 344

heart disease 379

hiv 2,913

http://www.nih.gov/news/fundingresearchareas.htm

Notice the BC funding is twice the Prostate cancer. I've tracked this ratio for years, and it used to FAR more lopsided, in fact provoked a congressional investigation (when the REPUBLICANS were in charge, of course).

Now, look at the AIDS/HIV funding - NINE times that of prostate cancer, even though it is one sixth of its incidence. You can see for yourself other outrageous ratios in the numbers.

Moral of the story? If you're going to get a deadly disease, get a PC disease, the diseases of the democrat party's clients - women and homosexuals.
 
Werbung:

vyo476

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
2,401
Location
Massachusetts
Notice the BC funding is twice the Prostate cancer. I've tracked this ratio for years, and it used to FAR more lopsided, in fact provoked a congressional investigation (when the REPUBLICANS were in charge, of course).

Now, look at the AIDS/HIV funding - NINE times that of prostate cancer, even though it is one sixth of its incidence. You can see for yourself other outrageous ratios in the numbers.

Moral of the story? If you're going to get a deadly disease, get a PC disease, the diseases of the democrat party's clients - women and homosexuals.

No, the moral of this story is that if you think the current funding figures for certain diseases are too low, donate some of your own money or start a campaign to get others to do so.

Instead of whining.
 

ilikeboobs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
289
Location
Up your butt, Jobu.
No, the moral of this story is that if you think the current funding figures for certain diseases are too low, donate some of your own money or start a campaign to get others to do so.

Instead of whining.

Why is the federal government funding any disease research in the first place? Does it say it's the federal government's job to do that somewhere...maybe in the 69th amendment?

Look - those who scream loudest get the most cash. Gays scream abundantly loud, as do women. Thus, they get the money that the gubment steals from my paycheck.
 

The Scotsman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
3,025
Location
South of the Haggis Munching Line
No, the moral of this story is that if you think the current funding figures for certain diseases are too low, donate some of your own money or start a campaign to get others to do so.

Instead of whining.

I think you are missing the point these are stats from the NIH...

Pie-Chartforweb720-2.jpg


Chartforweb800-2.jpg


Would you agree that they are disproportionate?

It is estimated that 186,320 men will be diagnosed with and 28,660 men will die of cancer of the prostate in 2008, whilst from 2002 to 2006 the cumulative deaths for AIDS from 50 States are 14,393.

(source - http://fairfoundation.org/CDC_AIDS_death_estimates_2002-2006.pdf

Masher has a point which you cannot just sweep aside with such a quick glib remark along the lines of "so...like huh dude...donate"!

:rolleyes:
 

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
No, the moral of this story is that if you think the current funding figures for certain diseases are too low, donate some of your own money or start a campaign to get others to do so.

Instead of whining.

For libs, whimpering about their client groups is like breathing, and you DARE to allege "whining". People with heart disease and prostate cancer and diabetes and lung cancer and many other major dieseases clearly are dying because of disparate funding that comes from the Pee See mentality, and complaining about that is whining??

And it's not simply an issue of "donations". The PC imbalanced funding by the government is actually yet another abrogation of the Equal Protection Clause - someone with standing should file a lawsuit, but that could only be someone already having to deal a deadly disease.

This is a sickening miscarriage of justice.
 

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
Masher has a point which you cannot just sweep aside with such a quick glib remark along the lines of "so...like huh dude...donate"!

Thanks for the great graphics. Notice also that AIDS is a disease for which the cause is entirely understood as well as the methods to prevent it, with either a very high probability (condoms) or a certainty
(celebacy/monogamy and no intravenous drug use.) People with major diseases are dropping dead by the millions, because gays don't want to use condoms, so all the research money has to find a cure for that.
 

SW85

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
528
Location
Maryland
The disproportionately huge funding of AIDS research has less to do, I think, with catering to favored constituencies (gays aren't that Democratic a constituency; IIRC they vote Democratic only by a 3-2 margin) then with the knowledge that an AIDS epidemic would be destructive to sexual liberalism, which creates most of the social problems to which, naturally, leftists claim to have the answers.

Casual premarital sex with strangers absolves people of the need for marriage, at least as long as they know they can have lots of sex risk-free. If sex carries with it an unacceptably high risk of contracting a debilitating disease, then more people will hold out longer -- possibly until marriage. This would mean families; it means men who don't wide up shiftless and in prison and women who don't end up relying on the state as surrogate husbands (married women vote Republican almost as much as men do). It means fewer abortions, less welfare, lower crime, an overall higher quality of life. Thus they combat AIDS, a relatively minor disease, because by its nature it might provoke a return to sexual conservatism, and all the other forms of conservatism attendant to it.
 

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
The disproportionately huge funding of AIDS research has less to do, I think, with catering to favored constituencies (gays aren't that Democratic a constituency; IIRC they vote Democratic only by a 3-2 margin) then with the knowledge that an AIDS epidemic would be destructive to sexual liberalism, which creates most of the social problems to which, naturally, leftists claim to have the answers.

Casual premarital sex with strangers absolves people of the need for marriage, at least as long as they know they can have lots of sex risk-free. If sex carries with it an unacceptably high risk of contracting a debilitating disease, then more people will hold out longer -- possibly until marriage. This would mean families; it means men who don't wide up shiftless and in prison and women who don't end up relying on the state as surrogate husbands (married women vote Republican almost as much as men do). It means fewer abortions, less welfare, lower crime, an overall higher quality of life. Thus they combat AIDS, a relatively minor disease, because by its nature it might provoke a return to sexual conservatism, and all the other forms of conservatism attendant to it.

Excellent points, but it is homosexual activists working with the democrat party that drive the homosexual privilege agenda:

- company benefits for shacked up gays
- lopsided disease funding
- hate crime legislation
- etc
 

ilikeboobs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
289
Location
Up your butt, Jobu.
I guarantee you that if diabetes were a mostly gay-affecting condition, there would be billions of dollars thrown at it by the gubment.

Pretty sad, actually. AIDS is completely preventable. Don't exchange fluids with someone who has it and you'll NEVER catch it. Just that easy. AIDS is not a genetic disease; you're not born with it (unless your mommy has it when you're born). And you'll never develop it - you can only catch it.

A little behavior modification is free. No need to spend billions on finding a cure for something that only morons get.
 

pocketfullofshells

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
12,009
Location
land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
breast cancer 703

prostate cancer 344

heart disease 379

hiv 2,913

First did you care to look at how much goes into Cancer Research overall? A lot of money goes into General practices and cancer treatment ideas that are not just for one type.

2nd you notice that only of of the 4 is Spread, and can be a pandemic?

3. You know what the best cure for Heart Disease is? Don't get it, dont smoke, exercise, and have a better diet. Also it helps if you don't age, but I don't think you can fund enough to get that to stop.

4. Aids gets funding because
A. It can spread fast.
B. Until recently there was very little that could be done to even slow it, let alone a cure for it. Breast Cancer, Prostate Cancer, and Heart Disease all have things than be done now to eliminate the problem if noticed at the right time, and a lot of treatments that can help. Aids does not.
C. oddly people care about people who live outside the US as well, Africa is decimated by Aids on massive scale, as well as its getting worse in other areas as well.

5. Also could it be that funding for Cancer and Heart issues are funded enough privately? while Aids funding is not, thus the government puts in more for it? Just a idea, I cant say its true, but its worth looking at.
 
Werbung:

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
breast cancer 703

prostate cancer 344

heart disease 379

hiv 2,913

First did you care to look at how much goes into Cancer Research overall? A lot of money goes into General practices and cancer treatment ideas that are not just for one type.

That still leaves disproportionate funding for breast cancer.

2nd you notice that only of of the 4 is Spread, and can be a pandemic?

This is the old, often punctured "pandemic" argument. Homosexual activists use this argument because they know it will conjure up in people's minds things like the pandemics of the past, like flu, or plague, or typhoid, when you can completely unknowingly get a disease through unavoidable actions such as merely breathing. But as I said, the cause and means of transsmission of AIDS is completely known and completely avoidable.

3. You know what the best cure for Heart Disease is? Don't get it, dont smoke, exercise, and have a better diet. Also it helps if you don't age, but I don't think you can fund enough to get that to stop

Those practices are only statistically correlated with the disease, not causally. Everyone has heard of the old guy who smoked for 70 years and didn't get lung cancer. Because of the statistical correlation, I think the time is coming when, eg, grossly overweight people should pay some kind of penalty. But there is nothing quite like AIDS - unlike those other diseases, it's cause is known for certain, as is it's method of certain prevention. I read somewhere that after they developed a lot of HIV amelioration drugs, that a lot of homosexual men in san francisco went back to unprotected sex. So americans are paying so they can do that, while serious diseases go underfunded.

4. Aids gets funding because
A. It can spread fast.

Dealt with above.

B. Until recently there was very little that could be done to even slow it, let alone a cure for it. Breast Cancer, Prostate Cancer, and Heart Disease all have things than be done now to eliminate the problem if noticed at the right time, and a lot of treatments that can help. Aids does not.

Nope, on balance they DON'T work, as proven by the relative mortality rates I cited in the OP.

C. oddly people care about people who live outside the US as well, Africa is decimated by Aids on massive scale, as well as its getting worse in other areas as well.

Those areas too, like the gay men in SF, have a problem who's origins are (1) the dictatorships which run their countries, and (2) their social practices regarding sex. The US public shouldn't have to write a blank check to support that, while dozens of major diseases in the US are undefunded. What do you want to do, find a cure for eg MS, or underwrite the condomless sex of africans and american gays?

5. Also could it be that funding for Cancer and Heart issues are funded enough privately?

Apparently not - once again, look at the mortality rates in the OP.

while Aids funding is not, thus the government puts in more for it? Just a idea, I cant say its true, but its worth looking at.

Your forgetting the OP. Not only is the government funding widely lopsided for PC diseases, so is the private funding - although, I think I've seen a drop off in the ads that say the company is helping AIDS research, but not that for breast cancer.
 
Top