<p>I listed it–read it over. And for people who fail to change their bad behavior–quarantine just as we do with other deadly diseases.</p>
<p>Per Wikipedia, Monckton’s statement on AIDS was from 1987. Wikipedia:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a huge amount of money and effort, which I suspect could be used in other ways to save more lives. Aside from TB, where we only screen the young and those who work with the young, is there any contagious disease that is screened by mandatory testing as opposed to self-reporting when symptoms emerge? The only examples I can think about are diseases where there’s a short onset between infection and symptoms, e.g. SARS or Ebola. </p>
<p>To tie this back in to the original post, there are people who insist that HIV does not cause AIDS. But that’s not the consensus for scientists working on AIDS. Mandatory screening for AIDS would be looking for HIV-positive individuals. Global warming version: there are people who insist that human activity does not cause global warming. But that’s not the consensus for scientists working on global warming. Finding ways to ameliorate global warming’s effects means we look for ways that human activity can be changed.</p>
<p>I was talking about what should have been done early on, not now. For many years in most states you needed a VD test before you got married for one.</p>
<p>Also to stop the Spanish Flu many cities took extreme measures.</p>
<p>[Open</a> Collections Program: Contagion, Spanish Influenza in North America, 1918–191](<a href=“Contagion: Historical Views of Diseases and Epidemics”>Contagion: Historical Views of Diseases and Epidemics)</p>
<p>But how many years intervened between AIDS first being identified as a disease that was especially hitting gay men and hemophiliacs, and HIV being identified as a way to tell who was a carrier? Without the ability to figure out who was a carrier, no point in mandatory testing, no way to isolate carriers.</p>
<p>My close friends of opposite political persuasion have said that it doesn’t really matter to them if people are responsible for global warming, that the “solutions” are good for us and the planet anyway. So the news re: dissent w/in the scientific community will fall upon deaf ears.</p>
<p>And aren’t the solutions good for us and the planet anyway?</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>They want there to be no use of coal or oil. If we had never used these two fuel sources we would still be traveling by horse-drawn carriage and ships with sails. We would have no indoor climate control. We would have no food that needed to travel long distances. </p>
<p>We’re not supposed to eat beef because cows increase methane emissions. </p>
<p>The environmentalist lobby would prefer the extermination of the human race over anyone doing anything that they don’t like, whether or not there’s any evidence that certain actions are in any way harmful.</p>
<p>636</p>
<p>^^ ha, ha. That’s a good one. LOL</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[AFP:</a> US activists praise Senate for lifting HIV travel ban](<a href=“http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iIhMPqDtUc33IcguVjOgN-ZyJRuA]AFP:”>http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iIhMPqDtUc33IcguVjOgN-ZyJRuA)</p>
<p>And now we will get many, many of the world’s HIV cases to come to American and enjoy free health care at the expense of hard working American taxpayers. Pathetic. This is just another horrible nightmare caused by having a Democrat controlled Senate</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>You certainly are correct about that. When it first broke out, instead of being regarded as the new and serious public health threat that it was, AIDS was widely hailed by conservatives as God’s just punishment on the gays. The AIDS epidemic first burst into the public consciousness during the Reagan years - with a Republican congress to boot. And for years AIDS research funding was blocked thanks to them. “AIDS is killing all the right people” was the conservative mantra of the day. So we missed our best chance to save millions of lives by dealing with it early.</p>
<p>There is a debate w/in the Environmentalist movement about the development and use of alternative energy resources. One faction doesn’t want to encourage the use of ANY energy!</p>
<p>I think the scariest clip in “The Great Global Warming Swindle” was one that showed someone on stage at a pep rally preaching that owners of energy plants need to be sent to re-education camps. Did anyone else see this?</p>
<p>courer may be half right. But the fact also was that the gay agenda was unfettered indiscriminate sex (see SF bathhouses), no accountability, and no testing or follow-up. It was a match made for disaster.</p>
<p>^^Oh, I agree with you there too. The gays were their own worst enemy in opposing prudent public health measures, such as closing the the bath houses, by crying “homophobia!” at every turn.</p>
<p>Gays also got in the way of the early research efforts by disrupting scientific conferences on AIDS with ridiculous ACT UP demonstrations and by trying to intimidate scientists into following fruitless and idiotic lines of research and quack cures. </p>
<p>And one conservative politician I will give credit to was Orrin Hatch. He correctly saw that AIDS was a public health issue and not a moral issue and tried to get the early research funded.</p>