|
Valley Voice: AIDS hogging much-needed research funds
(Note: The above title was inserted by the newspaper. The original title
submitted by Ms. Wit was "AIDS Popularity Leads to Unfair Disease Funding"
By Phyllis
J. Wit
Special to The Desert Sun
November 17th, 2004
 One heath care crisis
that desperately requires attention is the biased manner in which disease
research funds are being allocated by our government’s National Institutes
of Health (NIH). Are you aware that AIDS is receiving the lion’s share of
government research dollars, yet it doesn’t even come close to killing as
many Americans as diseases like each of the following: cardiovascular
disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and diabetes?
In fact, there are 16 diseases that are killing millions more people in
this country than AIDS. The fact that AIDS is receiving such a
ridiculously high percentage of research dollars from the NIH in
comparison to these other diseases is the reason I am bringing this to
your attention today.
I am a proud member of The FAIR Foundation – FAIR stands for "Fair
Allocations in Research" and I am submitting this Op-ed to you on behalf
of our organization. This may be the first time you have heard of our
organization, but it is far from the last. Along with myself, there are
thousands of others from Maine to Hawaii who are coming together through
the FAIR Foundation to alert America on the need for change in the funding
policies of our government for disease research.
The FAIR Foundation believes a disease’s mortality rate should be given
emphasis in determining allocations, and other secondary factors should be
utilized to ensure diseases that cause great suffering but have low
mortality rates will also receive significantly increased funding. Funds
should not be allocated based on Hollywood popularity or political
correctness.
Our government has budgeted close to 20 billion dollars for HIV/AIDS in
2005. The numbers are especially disturbing considering deaths from AIDS
have plummeted 96 percent in California’s newly infected patients and well
over 80 percent in the entire country. Indeed, AIDS deaths have plummeted
to 16,371 (2002) while cardiovascular disease kills almost a million
annually and diabetes kills more Americans than AIDS and breast cancer
combined, yet our government is spending only $40 and $80 per patient on
these diseases, respectively, compared to $3,084 on each AIDS patient.
That’s why it is time to redirect funding to diseases that are more
deserving and currently receiving billions less than AIDS.
Please endorse The FAIR Foundation’s efforts to put an end to AIDS
favoritism and recommend that all citizens join them in demanding
governmental research funding that is fair and equitable for all diseases.
Phyllis Wit is a resident of DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY in Palm Desert, CA. She
conducts a Stroke Survivors Support group and volunteers her services as a
professional Speech Pathologist to fellow residents. At 80 years of age,
Phyllis is clear evidence that advocacy for fair and equitable research
distributions transcends all ages.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Willful
ignorance on display
11/25/04
What Ms.
Phyllis Wit (“AIDS
hogging much-needed research funds,” Nov. 17) ignores is the fact that
AIDS research was not funded by our government for many years whereas the
other 16 diseases mentioned were. She also does not take into account that
the reason AIDS is not the number one killer in America is because of the
very research she wants to stop funding. The research has helped. She also
ignores the world-wide impact of the AIDS crisis.
Ms. Wit’s organization, FAIR, is certainly far from it. And I believe it
may be a thinly veiled anti-gay group. She is already blatantly
politically incorrect and anti-Hollywood in her editorial.
G. Raleigh Hanbury
Palm Springs
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fuzzy logic
11/26/04
Yes, AIDS
research is receiving a lot of money. Yes, it is out of proportion to
other diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, etc., as Ms. Phyllis Wit
observes (“AIDS
hogging much-needed research funds,” Nov. 17). But do we want to
create yet another wedge issue in this country by saying “Our disease is
more important than your disease because it kills more”?
AIDS research dollars are as vital as those of other diseases. AIDS
dollars shouldn’t be decreased because other research monies are
inadequate; rather, more research money should be spent on those diseases.
Does this country value its people? If so, spending priorities need to be
changed.
Instead of creating a wedge issue, Ms. Wit and her organization would be
better served by learning from AIDS activists on how to get more money for
their causes. This country already has enough division -- do we need more?
I think not, and I hope that the overwhelming majority of the the public
agrees.
Lastly, I hope that people don’t stop giving to organizations such as The
Desert AIDS Project or the AIDS Assistance Program, which provide support
and resources to people with HIV/AIDS, because of columns like Ms. Wit’s.
Rob Rubright
Palm Springs
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Opinion Editorial
Valley Voice: AIDS research, treatment not ‘hogging’ fed funds
By Warner Engdahl
Special to The Desert Sun
November 28th, 2004
I
would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight on the
funding by the federal government for AIDS research and AIDS-related care;
which of course are two different entities. In terms of AIDS research, the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) has proposed $4,000,384,861 for the
2005 fiscal year budget. For AIDS-related prevention, treatment, care,
housing and all social-related issues, there is a proposed budget of
$8,276,140,060. Additionally, there is a global allocation proposed of $3
billion.
The threat of AIDS is as decimating and tragic as any other threat to our
national and global security. Although it is indicated in Phyllis Wit’s
Valley Voice article (“AIDS
hogging much-needed research funds,” Nov. 17) that deaths attributed
to HIV/AIDS have declined, infections are actually increasing by 42,000
per year. On a national basis, perhaps the most notable impact of what is
considered to be inadequate AIDS funding can be seen in the AIDS Drug
Assistance Program (ADAP). ADAP is a program designed to provide
under-insured and uninsured, low-income persons living with HIV/AIDS
access to life-saving medications. Last year alone, ADAP served more than
90,000 people throughout the United States, District of Columbia and U.S.
territories.
As a result of the insufficient funding since 2002, 15 states -- soon to
perhaps include California -- have a waiting list for those who are in
need of access to the ADAP program. Because of those waiting lists, many
have died as a result of not receiving medication.
When you look at the funding from this perspective, with the addition of
42,000 new infections per year, we are naturally alarmed. AIDS funding is
not “hogging much needed research funds”; in fact, most AIDS funding on a
federal and state level is allocated to care and treatment of persons
living with HIV and/or AIDS. Additionally, programs are targeted for the
prevention of the spread of this life-threatening disease. It is not
necessarily a fair comparison to equate HIV/AIDS with cardiovascular
disease or diabetes. Those diseases have been receiving funding on a
federal level much longer than AIDS has been receiving such funding.
AIDS funding began on a federal level in 1991 through the Ryan White CARE
Act, so there has been by its very nature additional funding needed to
speed up the research process to develop medications that can help deter
the debilitating effects and death of people living with HIV/AIDS.
Agencies such as the Desert AIDS Project can and do account for each and
every dollar that is allocated from the federal government for the
programs we supply to our clients and the community.
It is not as simple as looking at the number of people infected. One must
also look at the cost of treating the infected individuals and keeping
them in life-saving situations. It is the belief of the HIV/AIDS community
that funding is necessary and appropriate for the depth and breadth of the
tragedy of this disease. It is our contention that AIDS is not, nor has it
ever, shown favoritism in funding whether you look at the research or
treatment funding that is allocated at the federal level.
In my estimation, it is inappropriate to consider that one disease is more
deserving than another. It has never been the intention of the HIV/AIDS
community (infected or affected) that funding be taken away from other
programs. In fact, if you will note, since 1991, the funding that has been
allocated towards the treatment and research of HIV and AIDS has been
additional government funding and has not been a reallocation of the
funding from other health-related programs.
It is my hope that this accurate delineation of proposed funding for the
year 2005 indicates to all who read this article that AIDS funding is not
inappropriate nor as indicated, “hogging funds,” especially not research
funds. Each individual, regardless of his or her disease, be it HIV, AIDS,
cardiovascular disease or diabetes, deserves the respect and opportunity
to be treated and cared for in a humane and dignified fashion.
Warner Engdahl is chief operating officer of Desert AIDS Project in
Palm Springs.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
‘Move to right’ loses subscriber
11/29/04
It has become obvious to me that The Desert Sun has made a major about
face in its effort to be socially liberal and economically conservative.
What I am seeing is a definite move to the right in its social attitude.
First the supporting of a president that invaded a country for no valid
reason and therefore the establishment for the first time of a preemptive
war policy.
Second in this week’s and last week’s events pictorial the newspaper
failed to highlight the Pride Parade which is a major display of a
significant minority (majority in Palm Springs) in the valley.
And then the final nail was the printing of the opinion with totally silly
logic that would reduce funding for AIDS rather than increase funding for
other diseases.
Phyllis Witt failed to mention one fact that completely destroys her
argument about funding for AIDS. And that is that AIDS is a communicable
disease that at one time was the major cause of death for young American
males.
Does she understand that cardiovascular disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s and
diabetes aren’t communicable?
As a result of this unacceptable Desert Sun change in direction I’m hereby
requesting that my subscription be canceled and remaining unused fees be
refunded.
I don’t watch Fox News and will not support a newspaper with the same
biases.
Ron Siegel
Palm Springs
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The email below was emailed directly to The FAIR Foundation.
Your organization
has been brought to my attention by an article about AIDS "hogs" in
today's Desert Sun newspaper.
You come across more
as a group of bigots than anybody searching for fairness, and you should
be ashamed of yourselves. Trying to create divisions among the sick is
itself a sick policy.
Ken Cady
Rancho Mirage, CA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wit lacking
12/02/04
The "Your Opinion" piece ("AIDS
hogging much-needed research funds") Nov. 17 just goes to show how far
the lack of real information combined with poor judgment and bias can go.
Is HIV/AIDS hogging research funds? Ms. Phyllis Wit is comparing apples to
celery.
Most HIV funding is for the care of people living with the disease and for
educating others so they don’t contract it.
And while Ms. Wit seems comfortable about others dealing with it just
imagine if one has HIV/AIDS and then has to deal with heart disease and/or
diabetes on top of it. Without an immune system any disease is much, much
worse.
And while other diseases have had lobbyists in place for decades, HIV has
had to play against the chaos and pandemic just within the last 20 years
or so.
Don’t blame AIDS for your lack of funds.
The people who demanded funding help with this disease were the people
first affected by it.
I think Ms. Wit has other, personal issues to deal with besides the thing
that is slowly killing me.
Mark Cohen
Cathedral City
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
AIDS still high on the
list
12/03/04
After
reading Phyllis J. Wit’s opinion regarding the National Institutes of
Health and its distribution of funding for AIDS, I had to respond (“AIDS
hogging much-needed research funds,” Nov. 17).
I was dumbfounded when she commented that it’s time to redirect funding to
diseases that are more deserving than AIDS. Not that the other diseases
she mentioned aren’t important, but AIDS is just as deserving and
significant. How can she believe that AIDS is less deserving?
She stated funds shouldn’t be allocated based on Hollywood popularity or
political correctness, nor should AIDS receive such a ridiculously high
percentage of research dollars from the NIH in comparison to other
diseases. Shame on her. I’m certain those aren’t the criteria for
distribution of research funds.
This disease has been with us for some 20-plus years, and despite her
statistics, AIDS still kills. At this time, there is no known cure… people
are still dying of this horrific disease in the United States.
One must wonder if one of her children or grandchildren were infected with
HIV, would her opinion be the same? Has she lost any friends or family to
this dreaded disease? I’ve lost several friends to AIDS and it isn’t any
less important than the 16 diseases she mentions that are killing millions
more than AIDS.
C. Brian Walter
Cathedral City
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
‘Hogging’ was beyond my
intent
12/5/04
When I submitted my Valley Voice article, the headline I wrote was
“AIDS popularity leads to unfair disease funding.” (Nov. 17). The
headline The Desert Sun wrote was: “AIDS hogging much-needed research
funds.”
My intent was quite different. I am not of the opinion that all AIDS
victims are “hogs” as one reader put it. I am of the opinion that there
needs to be a change in the funding policies of our government for disease
research. “Bigotry” had nothing to do with it.
I agree that we should all share fairly if not equally. I have no subtle
bias against one particular disease and made no such statement. What I did
say was that there should be a more balanced way of distributing the
funds.
Since I am a professional who deals with stroke patients on a volunteer
basis, I would like to see fair federal support for research to assist
them as well as the victims of many other diseases.
I in no way referred to AIDS support as “hogging” the dollars. That
headline was not mine. Please read what I wrote and not what you read into
it.
Thank you.
Phyllis J. Wit
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
AIDS sufferers’ lives not valuable?
12/6/04
The title of Phyllis J. Wit’s opinion piece was offensive and
inflammatory, since “hogging” implies that AIDS sufferers and researchers
are attempting to hoard money that belongs to someone else (“AIDS
hogging much-needed research funds,” Nov. 17).
Wit seems to believe that the problem is AIDS researchers’ portion of the
pie, when the real problem may be the size of the pie itself. She also
assumes that the amount of money spent on research per patient with a
particular disease is more important than the total amount spent on each
disease or the quality of the research, which is illogical.
Spending $3,084 per patient on diabetes may be wasteful and unnecessary,
while spending $40 per AIDS patient may be insufficient to do any good.
The amount spent on AIDS research has succeeded in keeping people alive
who would certainly have died otherwise, so the underlying message appears
to be that these lives are not as valuable as the lives that might be
saved by reallocating the money to other diseases.
Steven Glogger
Palm Springs
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A study of evasiveness
12/9/04
Phyllis D. Wit’s letter in the opinion page (“
‘Hogging’ was beyond my intent”) is a study in evasiveness. She claims
a misquote in the headline, “AIDS hogging much-needed research funds.”
Any writer knows the responsibility for clarity lies neither with headline
editors or readers. It lies directly upon the person or the writer
herself. She admonishes us to read what she wrote. We did and her
intentions were clear.
Wit further claims she meant no bigotry.
Yet, she used catch-phrases such as “Hollywood liberalism” and “political
correctness” that are often found in the lexicons of Rush Limbaugh, Pat
Robertson, Ann Coulter and Jerry Falwell.
Frankly, honestly standing by one’s beliefs is preferable to mealy excuses
and evasions.
The stroke of a pen is often as deadly as a stroke of the brain. The
brain, however, is not biased. That’s a questionable pleasure reserved for
the mind.
Larry Gibson
Palm Springs
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Valley Voice:
Foundation chief clears up misconceptions prompted by AIDS
article
[Internet
Editor note: The title submitted by Dr. Darling was “Call for Fair Funding
Stirs Harsh, Unfair Response.”]
By Richard Darling
Special to The Desert Sun
December 13th, 2004
On behalf of The FAIR
Foundation, Phyllis Wit submitted a Valley Voice article calling for
fairer and more equitable governmental research allocations (“AIDS
hogging much-needed research funds,” Nov. 17).
Members of our foundation range widely in age, and they include Phyllis,
who is 80 years young and a retired speech pathologist. She generously
volunteers her time to conduct a stroke survivors’ support group in Palm
Desert’s Del Webb Sun City.
Phyllis correctly brought to the public’s attention that $40 is spent on
each of these cardiovascular disease (CVD) patients, versus $3,081 on each
AIDS patient. When one is made aware of the fact that CVD affects 61
million Americans, compared to 950,000 with AIDS, and that CVD kills
almost one million annually, compared to 16,371 for AIDS, her concern is
understandable.
Since her Valley Voice was published, AIDS advocates have repeatedly
attacked Phyllis as if she lacked merit in her commentary. I write today
to clarify many erroneous statements and impressions.
The headline in question, “AIDS hogging much-needed research funds,” was
not submitted by Phyllis. It was written by a copy editor at the
newspaper. Phyllis’ original title was “AIDS popularity leads to unfair
disease funding.”
G. Raleigh Hanbury (“Willful
ignorance on display,” Nov. 25) wrote and acknowledged the success of
AIDS research, but then he accused us of wanting to stop AIDS funding, of
ignoring global AIDS and of being an anti-gay group.
The FAIR Foundation does not want to stop AIDS funding; we want the
success of the AIDS activists and researchers recognized, and thus, AIDS
allocations adjusted appropriately.
It must be acknowledged that AIDS deaths in newly infected California and
New York patients have plummeted 97 percent and 95 percent respectively,
yet 10 percent of the entire research budget goes to this one disease when
there are 16 others that kill well over a million more than AIDS annually.
What is needed to correct global AIDS -- is it more research? No, the
solution is to institute the same policies that have resulted in the
plummeting U.S. death rates -- namely, providing existing drug treatments,
preventive education and harm-reduction policies (clean syringes).
The FAIR Foundation’s 27-member board of directors consists of eminent
physicians and disease advocates, and two of them are gay.
Indeed, one of these gentlemen, Ray Hill, was one of the most vocal and
successful AIDS activists in this country’s history.
Ron Siegel wrote that AIDS deserves more funding because it is
communicable (“‘Move
to right’ loses subscriber,” Nov. 29). We don’t believe it is fair to
say that diabetics, Alzheimer’s patients, etc., should suffer inadequate
funding because their diseases are not communicable. Furthermore, if one
uses the “communicable” argument, they must acknowledge that the flu
(influenza) is also communicable and it kills twice as many as AIDS
annually.
Research funding for the flu totals $50 million, while $3 billion is spent
on AIDS research.
Warner Engdahl brought AIDS “assistance” funding into the discussion
(“AIDS research, treatment not ‘hogging’ fed funds,” Nov. 28). The FAIR
Foundation is addressing the need for change in research, not assistance
funding.
However, since he brought it up, it cannot go unnoticed that at the
present rate of funding for all AIDS programs, in two more years the total
funding for AIDS will be one-fifth of a trillion dollars, as evidenced in
the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation March 2004 report.
Engdahl’s statement regarding AIDS infections should be clarified.
According to Dr. Ronald Valdiserri, the director of the CDC HIV and AIDS
prevention program, AIDS infections have stabilized in the United States
at approximately 40,000 new HIV infections annually.
The FAIR Foundation addresses not only the disproportionate funding for
AIDS but other areas as well.
For example, the amount spent on the “health effects of climate change” is
greater than the funding for each of the following: brain cancer, cystic
fibrosis, cerebral palsy, cervical cancer, child leukemia, emphysema,
epilepsy, hepatitis B and C, Hodgkin’s Disease, multiple sclerosis,
muscular dystrophy, uterine cancer and many others.
That’s not fair either.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Don’t
harm system
12/16/04
In response
to the FAIR Foundation’s critique of AIDS funding, I believe a few facts
need to be made clear. First, unlike heart disease, diabetes, etc., AIDS
is an epidemic. Millions of people around the world are under attack by
one of the cleverest viruses known to man. Because this virus first
appeared among primarily gay men and is often transmitted via sexual
contact, discrimination not only by the public but also the government
during the 1980s forced activists to loudly demand research, care and
education.
The resulting Ryan White Care Act helped provide the funding needed to
begin dealing with the epidemic. Grass-roots organizations, such as the
Desert AIDS Project, developed across the nation, and the resulting
decline in death rates and improved quality of life for people living with
AIDS is a testament to the tireless efforts of staff, volunteers and
donors.
Rather than attacking AIDS funding, perhaps the FAIR Foundation’s
resources might be better spent advocating for increased funding following
the model set by the 1980s AIDS activists. Go ahead -- act up -- but not
at the expense of harming a system that helps so many with increasingly
diminishing resources.
Robert J. Kuehl
Palm Springs
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Give
her a break
Shame on The
Desert Sun op/ed page for printing a ton of letters attacking Phyllis Wit
(“AIDS
hogging much-needed research funds,” Nov. 17) and changing her
original title to something the editors should have known was
inflammatory.
Where are the letters attempting to consider or (gasp) support Ms. Wit’s
viewpoint?
Equally appalling are the automatic accusations of Ms. Wit being
“anti-gay” and the level of intolerance, rudeness, and outright meanness
in the letters.
Their campaign should take a lesson from John Kerry.
Wasn’t it his personal attacks (on Mary Cheney among them) that helped
cost him the election?
The AIDS community enjoys abundant love and support in this wonderful,
giving valley, and you’d think that would be enough.
You would think that people who have faced ugliness would be above
directing it at someone else.
You would think that the writers of the offensive letters would give Ms.
Wit and the FAIR Foundation common courtesy instead of what passes for
public debate and discourse these days.
Whatever the facts, the vitriol and personal attacks on Ms. Wit do no
honor or good to the AIDS cause.
Kristin Johnson
Palm Desert
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Think fairly about it
I don’t understand all the acrimony against Phyllis J. Wit’s column about
the unfair distribution of research funds with AIDS getting the lion’s
share probably due to the pressures from the gay lobby.
She is merely stating the obvious, that many other diseases cause more
suffering and death than AIDS and get little attention. For instance,
prostate cancer is the killer of more men than AIDS and it gets little or
no research funds. Further these diseases are not conduct-caused. Get off
her back and think fairness.
Paul R. Puma Sr.
La Quinta
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
January 6th, 2005
AIDS scares corporations
The debate touched off by Phyllis Wit’s Nov. 17 column is quite
fascinating ("AIDS
hogging much-needed research funds").
After reading the Dec. 29 letter from Paul R. Puma Sr. ("Think
fairly about it"), calling upon us to "get off her back and think
fairness," I went to the National Institutes of Health Web site to see
what the actual figures are for its various research budgets. It’s
apparently true that the NIH spends about 10 times as much on AIDS as it
does on prostate cancer.
But does this have anything to do with what Ms. Wit calls "Hollywood
popularity or political correctness"? Or with what Mr. Puma calls
"pressures from the gay lobby"? I doubt it. More likely the somewhat
generous funding for AIDS research is based on a shrewd calculation of
what would happen if HIV were to get out of hand in India, China, or one
of those other countries that manufacture merchandise for those big
discount stores that Americans can’t seem to live without. The NIH Office
of AIDS Research 2005 budget request calls these "countries of strategic
importance."
Unlike prostate cancer, which mainly kills old men, HIV could potentially
make a major dent in that Third-World labor force we’ve come to depend on
for our clothes and electronic gew-gaws. Then where would Wal-Mart be?
Robert Decker
Palm Springs
The above letters have
been taken off newspaper’s Internet site. We have been informed there more
letters that were printed in support of Phyllis Wit, but not all have been
included in the online version of the newspaper. We will include them as
they are brought to our attention. |
