AIDS? - come to Britian.

[daozen]

I think we should build 'quarantine camps' to house these disease terrorists (people who have contracted AIDS and the like, invariably through drug abuse, sodomy, fornication, and a hatred of Jesus; who then go on and infect others), both foreign and domestic.
This way they can all receive their free treatment quickly, efficiently and on one site. Treatment items would include, 1 shovel, one ditch, one bullet, and a bucket of quicklime.

Best non-sense post I've seen in a while. Keep up the comedy, made my morning especially the jesus bit. Very funny!

 

[namsag]

Joe so you do agree then to treat HIV so that they don`t end up running around with AIDS. Glad you got there

 

[joe-90]

No. I said send them back where they come from.

 

[^woody^]

It really is a joke. What more can I say

 

[joe-90]

Tell them to fook off Woody.

 

[joinerjohn]

The only reasonable way to stop the spread of AIDS by foreigners in this country is by refusing them entry in the first instance. Anyone coming here from a high risk country, should be quarantined until a test shows that they don't have the HIV infection. If they do, then ship em out.

 

[joe-90]

A test only takes a few minutes. They should test for TB too.

 

[anobium]

Why not treat others, even from other countries, after all it is a British company who test their HIV drugs in other countries, even on children!!!!

"Jacklyn Hoerger's job was to treat children with HIV at a New York children's home.

But nobody had told her that the drugs she was administering were experimental and highly toxic. "

Glaxo are SCUM!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/4038375.stm


Companies like Glaxo move into third world countries and flout the law to produce drugs at inflated prices that are out of the reach of people who need them most!!

SCUM.

You really should have quoted that the article was from 2004 and that a complaint about it was upheld in 2006 and the BBC issued an apology. See this

Law and Policy, supported by several academics and other agencies involved in HIV research
and treatment, complained that the programme unfairly claimed that New York City’s
Administration for Children’s Services, together with a number of medical and child care
institutions, “effectively conspired to force helpless children of colour into inappropriate and
sinister ‘experiments’ when in fact they made life saving drugs already approved for adults
available to children living with HIV/AIDS who were in the foster care system”, that it gave a
misleading impression of the effects of anti-HIV medication, and that it falsely claimed that
“denying medication to children with AIDS will improve their health while appropriate treatment will kill them”.
Ruling
The programme explored legitimate concerns about a research project involving the testing of anti-HIV drugs on children in the care system, where (it had emerged) there had been a failure in some cases to provide independent advocacy as required by the research protocols. However, the programme portrayed this failure as being the more serious because the drugs being trialled were, it claimed, both “lethal” and ineffective. In support of these claims, the programme interviewed an expert witness who was, though the audience was not told, a leading advocate of the propositions that HIV is unconnected with AIDS, that anti-retroviral drugs do not work in the treatment of AIDS and that they are, in fact, responsible for deaths attributed to AIDS. The audience was not told that his was a minority and controversial view which would be challenged by mainstream medical opinion. No other medical opinion was heard on this subject.
The programme also gave the false impression that parents or carers who objected to their children being placed in the trials risked losing custody of their children. In fact, the three case studies which created this impression did not involve children connected with the trials. Though there was no explicit claim that “denying medication to children with AIDS will improve their health while appropriate treatment will kill them”, the treatment of case studies in the programme contributed to that impression.
Party upheld
Further action
A correction will be published on bbc.co.uk, as part of the pages on which the material complained of appears, with a link to this summary. In addition, the ECU will contact other websites featuring the material in order to draw their attention to its ruling. The management of BBC News is addressing the issues arising from the ruling for the commissioning and supervision of independent productions of this kind.
News (10.00pm), BBC1, 18 April 2006

 

[peaps]

Why not treat others, even from other countries, after all it is a British company who test their HIV drugs in other countries, even on children!!!!

"Jacklyn Hoerger's job was to treat children with HIV at a New York children's home.

But nobody had told her that the drugs she was administering were experimental and highly toxic. "

Glaxo are SCUM!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/4038375.stm


Companies like Glaxo move into third world countries and flout the law to produce drugs at inflated prices that are out of the reach of people who need them most!!

SCUM.

You really should have quoted that the article was from 2004 and that a complaint about it was upheld in 2006 and the BBC issued an apology. See this

Law and Policy, supported by several academics and other agencies involved in HIV research
and treatment, complained that the programme unfairly claimed that New York City’s
Administration for Children’s Services, together with a number of medical and child care
institutions, “effectively conspired to force helpless children of colour into inappropriate and
sinister ‘experiments’ when in fact they made life saving drugs already approved for adults
available to children living with HIV/AIDS who were in the foster care system”, that it gave a
misleading impression of the effects of anti-HIV medication, and that it falsely claimed that
“denying medication to children with AIDS will improve their health while appropriate treatment will kill them”.
Ruling
The programme explored legitimate concerns about a research project involving the testing of anti-HIV drugs on children in the care system, where (it had emerged) there had been a failure in some cases to provide independent advocacy as required by the research protocols. However, the programme portrayed this failure as being the more serious because the drugs being trialled were, it claimed, both “lethal” and ineffective. In support of these claims, the programme interviewed an expert witness who was, though the audience was not told, a leading advocate of the propositions that HIV is unconnected with AIDS, that anti-retroviral drugs do not work in the treatment of AIDS and that they are, in fact, responsible for deaths attributed to AIDS. The audience was not told that his was a minority and controversial view which would be challenged by mainstream medical opinion. No other medical opinion was heard on this subject.
The programme also gave the false impression that parents or carers who objected to their children being placed in the trials risked losing custody of their children. In fact, the three case studies which created this impression did not involve children connected with the trials. Though there was no explicit claim that “denying medication to children with AIDS will improve their health while appropriate treatment will kill them”, the treatment of case studies in the programme contributed to that impression.
Party upheld
Further action
A correction will be published on bbc.co.uk, as part of the pages on which the material complained of appears, with a link to this summary. In addition, the ECU will contact other websites featuring the material in order to draw their attention to its ruling. The management of BBC News is addressing the issues arising from the ruling for the commissioning and supervision of independent productions of this kind.
News (10.00pm), BBC1, 18 April 2006

I will dig the full case out for you and then we can discuss why it happened rather than how it was published.

 

[ellal]

I vote to deport Joe to a lepper colony...

He should feel right at home...

 

[LargeWrench]

The same policy applies to every other infectious disease so what is the issue that they're now going to extend that to HIV? We don't have tuberculosis 'tourists' do we, so why are we suddenly going to get a load of HIV 'tourists'? It makes economic sense to treat them rather than not and risking them passing the virus on.

Nothing like a good story about foreigners to get everyone foaming at the mouth

 

[joe-90]

Treat them for life? Don't be such a tool.

Wouldn't you rather see these people looked after?


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...higher-than-government-estimates-7462426.html

 

[empip]

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhealth/252/25206.htm#n109

...Anti-retroviral drug therapy has revolutionised the treatment of HIV in recent years, but is expensive, costing between £10,000 and £14,000 per patient per year. Once a patient is started on drug therapy, it is likely they will need to take this for the rest of their lives. Life expectancy for HIV+ individuals is also increasing, which also adds to the cost burden...

...Regulations also stipulate that where a patient has begun a course of treatment free of charge, that course of treatment remains free until completed, even if their eligibility status changes, ...

Health Minister John Hutton
In 2004 ....
...Health Minister John Hutton has conceded that the government does not know how many people come to the UK to get free treatment on the NHS.
"I can't give you a figure for that. No one can," he told the BBC recently. "That is something we need to address."
There have been no substantive studies into this issue.
Figures from CCI legal services, a debt collection service, put the cost at anything between £50m and £200m each year...

Do those who ought to know how much, actually know now? No of course they do not !

Better listening to those at the coal face...
...Pauline Lewis, a manager at a major hospital in South London, backs up those claims.
"It's a big problem," she says.
"If you speak to the overseas managers throughout this country everyone will give you horror stories.
"Everyone will say they are seeing numerous patients every week. In the trust I work for, we saw 1,400 patients last year."
Gill Morgan of the NHS Confederation, which represents NHS management, shares that view.
"There are pockets of places where the extra burden on the services has been quite significant," she says...

If something of value is up for grabs - gratis - Human nature says it will be enthusiastically grasped !

 

[pred]

AIDS is a result of being infected with the HIV. I understand the most common means of infection are having unprotected sex with an infected person, or sharing needles that pierce the skin with an infected person. Babies born to infected mothers are often infected, though this can be prevented.

I hope that was the information you were asking for.

It initially started with monkeys, so the way i see it someone somewhere has been rogering a monkey.

Or is this the Americans, maybe it was developed for use on the battle field, as was LSD unfortunatly there were to many variants with LSD so the hippies had that, perhaps the CIA thought they could control the population explosion in Africa?

 

[pred]

Before we spend money that we dont have on jonny foriegner let us first treat our own and do away with the post code lottery.

And another thing, how many people give money to cancer research and when the time comes they are refused the drugs that they paid for to be developed by a charity??