AIDS Drugs: Silly Bill Clinton At It Again
In a talk regarding universal access to AIDS drugs, Bill Clinton once again decided to put the US second.
:Digression:
We already know Bill Clinton doesn't give a good god damn about women, in spite of getting a free pass for being the most public sexual predetor we've ever seen. The fact that Hillary Clinton does nothing about Bill Clintons sexual forays speaks highly of Hillary Clinton's self esteem and ability to stand up for what's right. For you Pro-Hillary Clinton types: this is sarcasm.
:End Digression:
The US is the largest funder of the worldwide fight against AIDS. This is undisputed. However, as part of it's anti-AIDS spending, the US purchases all anti-AIDS drugs from US companies, the ones who invented the drugs.
Bill Clinton decries the policy of purchasing from US companies. If the US were to purchase generic versions of the drugs from, say, Indian companies, more drugs could be purchased.
Is Bill Clinton high? I guess that needs no confirmation. The US companies invented the AIDS drugs. Many US companies competed to come up with a drug based solution to fight AIDS. Most failed, and the few who succeeded spent untold resources in inventing, testing, and getting these drugs past the FDA so they could actually be used. US businesses spent untold $1,000,000,000,000's (that's trillions) of dollars to make drugs that could fight AIDS.
Now, our former president Bill Clinton wants to take all that effort, and spend US dollars to buy anti AIDS drugs from companies that knocked off the work of the US companies. These knock off companies have nothing to lose - they just get the US drugs, reverse engineer them and voila - a highly tested, FDA approved, very effective AIDS drug at a minor fraction of the cost.
Looks like nothing's changed for Bill Clinton - he screwed us as our leader, and he continues to screw us as a leader in the UN. Somehow, this all seems so fitting.
On another note - AIDS is a terrible disease. A good friend of mine, Dan Covey (Dan's AIDS Quilt entry brings back a lot!), who changed my life died from it, and I continue to miss him. I'm well aware of its devastating effect, not only upon the victim, but those around them as well. This is not to somehow justifiy what I say above, but instead to show that I'm aware of both sides of the issue.
IMHO it boils down to this - we either agree that we sacrafice everything for the individual for a near term solution and forego giving motivation to create and innovate, or agree that a long term solution needs to be sought and be willing to sacrafice individuals along the way, and avoid sacraficing on larger issues.
I wouldn't want to go through watching another friend die of AIDS, but then again, I don't want Americans (or their companies) to lose their motivation to create and innovate, because we'll need that creativity when the next deadly disease comes along.
:Digression:
We already know Bill Clinton doesn't give a good god damn about women, in spite of getting a free pass for being the most public sexual predetor we've ever seen. The fact that Hillary Clinton does nothing about Bill Clintons sexual forays speaks highly of Hillary Clinton's self esteem and ability to stand up for what's right. For you Pro-Hillary Clinton types: this is sarcasm.
:End Digression:
The US is the largest funder of the worldwide fight against AIDS. This is undisputed. However, as part of it's anti-AIDS spending, the US purchases all anti-AIDS drugs from US companies, the ones who invented the drugs.
Bill Clinton decries the policy of purchasing from US companies. If the US were to purchase generic versions of the drugs from, say, Indian companies, more drugs could be purchased.
Is Bill Clinton high? I guess that needs no confirmation. The US companies invented the AIDS drugs. Many US companies competed to come up with a drug based solution to fight AIDS. Most failed, and the few who succeeded spent untold resources in inventing, testing, and getting these drugs past the FDA so they could actually be used. US businesses spent untold $1,000,000,000,000's (that's trillions) of dollars to make drugs that could fight AIDS.
Now, our former president Bill Clinton wants to take all that effort, and spend US dollars to buy anti AIDS drugs from companies that knocked off the work of the US companies. These knock off companies have nothing to lose - they just get the US drugs, reverse engineer them and voila - a highly tested, FDA approved, very effective AIDS drug at a minor fraction of the cost.
Looks like nothing's changed for Bill Clinton - he screwed us as our leader, and he continues to screw us as a leader in the UN. Somehow, this all seems so fitting.
On another note - AIDS is a terrible disease. A good friend of mine, Dan Covey (Dan's AIDS Quilt entry brings back a lot!), who changed my life died from it, and I continue to miss him. I'm well aware of its devastating effect, not only upon the victim, but those around them as well. This is not to somehow justifiy what I say above, but instead to show that I'm aware of both sides of the issue.
IMHO it boils down to this - we either agree that we sacrafice everything for the individual for a near term solution and forego giving motivation to create and innovate, or agree that a long term solution needs to be sought and be willing to sacrafice individuals along the way, and avoid sacraficing on larger issues.
I wouldn't want to go through watching another friend die of AIDS, but then again, I don't want Americans (or their companies) to lose their motivation to create and innovate, because we'll need that creativity when the next deadly disease comes along.
posted by cookies at 7:22 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home