Image 01 Image 03

Trump dumps entire White House HIV/AIDS council

Trump dumps entire White House HIV/AIDS council

Social justice warriors say, “This Man is a Monster”. True, because Trump is a regulation-slashing Godzilla.

President Donald Trump’s White House ends 2017 with a move that inspired more outrageous outrage from social justice warriors across the nation.

His team fired all of the remaining members of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS without an explanation.

Months after a half-dozen members resigned in protest of the Trump administration’s position on health policies, the White House dismissed the rest through a form letter.

The notice “thanked me for my past service and said that my appointment was terminated, effective immediately,” said Patrick Sullivan, an epidemiologist at Emory University who works on HIV testing programs. He was appointed to a four-year term in May 2016.

The council, known by the acronym PACHA, has advised the White House on HIV/AIDS policies since its founding in 1995. Members, who are not paid, offer recommendations on the National HIV/AIDS Strategy, a five-year plan responding to the epidemic.

Actually, there are several, extremely rational explanations for this move. For example, it is often the case that an administration replaces council members with its own picks.

…Changing the makeup of federal advisory committee members is a common occurrence during administration changes. The Obama administration dismissed the George W. Bush administration appointees to PACHA in order to bring in new voices. All PACHA members are eligible to apply to serve on the new council that will be convened in 2018. Information on how to apply to serve on PACHA is available here.”

Gabriel Maldonado, founder and CEO of TruEvolution, an HIV/AIDS and LGBT advocacy organization based in California who was appointed to the council by the Obama administration in 2015, told CBS News that the dismissal was not unusual.

Furthermore, the cases of HIV have been rapidly declining in this country and new treatments have become readily available. In line with Trump’s inclinations to rework policies to meet today’s needs, his team may have decided that instead it expending time and manpower on this council, perhaps the time has come to dealing with other infectious diseases (e.g., Hepatitis A).

However, it is important to note that six of PACHA’s members resigned in June, in a move that seemingly basked in the glory being the #Resistance.

…In a joint resignation letter, the group wrote that they had dedicated their lives to fighting HIV and AIDS, but felt that the Trump administration was preventing them from doing this successfully.

[Scott] Schoettes wrote: “As advocates for people living with HIV, we have dedicated our lives to combating this disease and no longer feel we can do so effectively within the confines of an advisory body to a president who simply does not care.”

They went on to write that the current state of the advisory board, which is also known as PACHA, was “concerning”.

“The Trump Administration has no strategy to address the on-going HIV/AIDS epidemic, seeks zero input from experts to formulate HIV policy, and—most concerning—pushes legislation that will harm people living with HIV and halt or reverse important gains made in the fight against this disease.”

Perhaps this move inspired Trump’s team to clear the deck entirely? If so, it would be a savory unintended consequence.

A quick glace at social media shows that this development is being met with the usual level of thoughtful analysis by big government believers.

It seems that the FedEx firing was a wonderful, Trumpian touch.

And, perhaps, my favorite Tweet on this subject:

ANALYSIS = TRUE: If by “monster” you mean that Trump is a regulation-slashing Godzilla.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


One small step for America.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Rick. | December 31, 2017 at 5:46 pm

    It’s a Very Good Thing.

    LBTG niche leadership and their orgs insist on living like it’s 200 year ago – back in their dark ages……….

The best thing that could happen is that President Trump makes HIV/AIDS a federal issue, and then treats the carriers like they do people who have active TB.

BEST news of all, California just passed a law saying that if a person knowingly transmitted HIV to another person via sexual contact no laws were broken. No foul, no error.

The Liberals love Jerry Brown, Americans not so much….

    C. Lashown in reply to C. Lashown. | December 31, 2017 at 5:51 pm

    AND FURTHERMORE…. Just why, in the name of a holy hell, should the federal government be responsible for how people run their sex lives? AIDS research? I thought the liberals loved the all natural approach to humanity & survival of the fittest. Allow this virus long enough to mutate, like syphilis did, and AIDS will no longer be a problem. ALSO, why should the federal govt. be supplying birth control to adults or even juveniles? If they’re old enough to hump, then they’re old enough to accept the consequences….unless they’re liberals. At which they’re NEVER old enough to be responsible. The same thing holds true with abortion, if they’re old enough to murder their baby then they’re old enough to accept the consequences – unless they liberals, which means they will never be old enough.

    alaskabob in reply to C. Lashown. | December 31, 2017 at 6:46 pm

    Well, actually a low grade misdemeanor since AIDS is treatable… NOT curable! Yep… you give a person a life long illness that could mutate to lethal and Jerry and friends want to make it common place infection. How many people died needlessly when AIDs could have be quarantined? California is a sanctuary state for AIDs.

      Milhouse in reply to alaskabob. | December 31, 2017 at 7:57 pm

      The new law treats knowingly exposing someone to HIV exactly the same as it does knowingly exposing someone to any other serious infectious disease. If you think that’s inappropriate the onus is on you to justify why you think this one disease should be treated differently from all others.

        Milhouse, what is wrong with you? You live too much in your head. People fear HIV/AIDS as we do cancer. Yes, intellectually we know that they aren’t the death sentence they were a mere few decades ago, but that doesn’t change our sense of the diseases being life-ending. And in the case of HIV/AIDS, there is still a stigma attached to this diagnosis. We may not like it, we may not agree with it, we may dismiss and belittle it, but nothing we say or do is going to change the fact that an HIV/AIDS diagnosis is terrifying on numerous levels.

        This is always what’s missing from your posts. Develop some empathy, attempt to connect with real people and their emotions. In doing so, you will be a much more effective thinker.

    Milhouse in reply to C. Lashown. | December 31, 2017 at 7:04 pm

    BEST news of all, California just passed a law saying that if a person knowingly transmitted HIV to another person via sexual contact no laws were broken. No foul, no error.

    You liar. No such law has been passed or has even been proposed.

    PS: Fuzzy, any objection to this? Do you have any defense for this liar?

      Why should Fuzzy have any objection to the comment? She’s not the nitpicking moral-outrage police. That’s your job, apparently.

      p.s. There’s this cool figure of speech called hyperbole, you should check it out.

        Milhouse in reply to Paul. | December 31, 2017 at 7:25 pm

        Fuzzy has of late taken to criticizing my comments, and claiming that I’m one of those lowering this joint’s tone, by heaping unwarranted abuse on people. I have yet to see her cite an example of this.

          Barry in reply to Milhouse. | December 31, 2017 at 8:32 pm

          Probably because she reads the same way the rest of us do. Someone reacts to a significant change in the law with a bit of hyperbole and you call them a liar.

          Two problems: One, it’s only a lie if the person purposely writes something untrue, mistakes aren’t lies. Two, hyperbole doesn’t count.

          Doesn’t bother me. I’ve been called a liar for stating plain truth so many times it’s the same as being called a racist for being born white. The word has little meaning any more.

          You want examples of your heaping unwarranted abuse on others, Milhouse? No problem at all. In fact, that’s an easy one.

          Here are a few:

          You’ve got no answer, and don’t even recognize the source. You made a crackpot indefensible statement, contrary to every authority that exists, and you pretend it’s the default position. On a legal blog, no less. Go to Hell.

          So sweet, that “go to Hell” part is particularly endearing.

          Who doesn’t love being called a “crackpot“? Especially for the rebellious act of not agreeing with the person who resorts to calling you a “crackpot”?

          And really, who doesn’t cherish being called a liar?

          Good lord. In what universe is that load of garbage true? In this one, the role of judges is and has always been to say what the law is. That’s what they’re for. Whenever there is a dispute as to what the law is, a judge decides. Determining whether the agreed-upon law has been complied with is not a judicial function at all; it’s either a fact-finding function, which belongs to juries, or a purely ministerial function, which belongs to the executive

          >You are lying. The text of the law is quoted in the post, and it says exactly what this panel has says it does, and not what you claim. “Whenever the President finds […] he may […].” That is the exact opposite of what you claim. He may not do so at his discretion, but only if he honestly made the finding.

          And who can resist your charm when you call them a “real piece of excrement.”

          That’s going back all the way back to the distant past of December 23rd. Do you want me to go back further? I’m more than happy to, but I think my point is made.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | December 31, 2017 at 9:51 pm

          Fuzzy, what but a crackpot can one call someone who, on a legal blog no less, declares that it is not the judiciary’s role to decide what the law is, and who when confronted with a citation from the most impeccable source imaginable on the subject reacts by ignoring it and calling the person citing it “a moron progressive” who is “tired of the intellectual challenges”? Do you really think telling that person to go to Hell is unwarranted abuse?

          Next, what but a liar can one call someone who claims the law says the exact opposite of what it actually says, when the text of that law has already been posted on the thread, and who on having his misstatement pointed out repeats it, with the claim “So reads the law […] If you don’t like the law, change it thru the legislative process”?

          Next, “piece of excrement”, I don’t think is an unwarranted reaction to calling a respected judge (not to mention one of ours) a sexual pervert, especially when nothing that judge was accused of, even if true, would merit such an epithet.

          Milhouse, seriously? Your defense of name-calling and childish crap is that they deserved it? Maybe so, maybe not. What makes me giggle is your hysterical call for someone from LI to ban someone who called you names. Names, I’m quite sure, they could defend just as you have here.

          Your horrific accusatory, dismissive, and just plain nasty comments made your call for someone else to be banned a freaking laugh riot. I literally laughed when I read it. I was amazed that you had the audacity to demand that someone be banned for far less rude behavior than you display on a continual basis.

          In fact, I think someone came back with “Yeah, we’ll get right on that.” I laughed at that, too. You have zero standing to demand someone be banned for being rude or horrible to you because you are rude and horrible to pretty much everyone on a daily basis. Literally daily.

          If you really think that calling someone a “piece of excrement” is a good persuasive device, here’s a hint: it’s not. In fact, calling people stupid, liars, crackpots, and pieces of poop makes YOU look bad, not your target. Your target, more often than not, is contributing to a discussion that you leap into and stamp out with your name-calling and condescension.

          Here’s a free hint: when people stop arguing with you, it doesn’t mean you’ve won. It means that you’ve succeeded in being so obnoxious and toxic that no one wants to interact with you. You probably see this all the time in your real life, and it’s true here, too. You don’t win when we go silent, you’ve just been dismissed.

          Now THATis the first funny thing you ever said.
          Keep the comimg!

      No objection at all, Milhouse. 🙂 But it should be noted that California did indeed pass a bill, signed into law by Brown, that reclassified knowingly infecting someone with HIV/AIDS from a felony to a misdemeanor. It’s now a misdemeanor in Cali to knowingly infect another person with HIV/AIDS.

      My guess is that treatments for HIV/AIDS have so advanced that it’s no longer the death sentence it once was and is now being treated as any other sexually-transmitted or communicable disease.

      I do wish we could all (myself included) get past screeching “liar” and other such name-calling, but at this point, that falls on deaf ears as we all shrug and try to figure out what the other person is saying underneath all the vitriol. In this case, C. Lashown is a bit off-the-mark, but not far. And you are not out-of-line in noting that the law said to exist does not, in fact, exist.

        This is not some picayune nit-picking distinction; Lawshown is not “a bit off the mark”. On the contrary, the distinction between a felony and a misdemeanor is relatively small, while the distinction between a crime and a perfectly lawful act is huge, enormous. There is an unbridgeable difference between moving a crime from one category to another and legalizing it, or, in C.Lashown’s words, “saying no laws were broken, no foul, no error”.

          I hear you, Milhouse, but here’s what really happens in the courts. Some guy or gal alleges defendant X knowing infected him or her with TB, crabs, syphilis, or now HIV/AIDS. What happens? Barring a hefty rap sheet, the willful communicable disease-spreading defendant is ROR in minutes, ultimately fined (maybe), slapped with 40 hours of community service (maybe), and it’s over (without a doubt, no maybe here).

          C.Lashown’s hyperbole is forgivable, no? Goodness knows we all, including you, engage in that from time to time, no?

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | December 31, 2017 at 8:05 pm

          The max sentence is still six months. Your prediction of what sort of penalty will actually be imposed remains to be seen. More importantly, it’s now exactly the same as it is for any other serious disease. The law no longer singles out this one disease for special treatment, because there’s no rational argument for doing so. Does anyone know what sort of penalties are typically imposed for knowingly exposing someone to other diseases?

          Wrong. Felonies carry a stiffer sentence, in Cali, the minimum/maximum sentencing guidelines for knowingly infecting someone with HIV/AIDS changed dramatically. A max of ten years vs. community service and a wrist slap. As a misdemeanor, the perp can conceivably walk (as I detailed earlier).

          Give it up, Milhouse, you lost this one.

          It’s a misdemeanor now, Milhouse. You do know that felonies carry heftier jail terms than misdemeanors, right? Since you may not know this, let’s look at the actual text of the bill (now law):

          (1) Existing law makes it a felony punishable by imprisonment for 3, 5, or 8 years in the state prison to expose another person to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) by engaging in unprotected sexual activity when the infected person knows at the time of the unprotected sex that he or she is infected with HIV, has not disclosed his or her HIV-positive status, and acts with the specific intent to infect the other person with HIV. Existing law makes it a felony punishable by imprisonment for 2, 4, or 6 years for any person to donate blood, tissue, or, under specified circumstances, semen or breast milk, if the person knows that he or she has acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), or that he or she has tested reactive to HIV. Existing law provides that a person who is afflicted with a contagious, infectious, or communicable disease who willfully exposes himself or herself to another person, or any person who willfully exposes another person afflicted with the disease to someone else, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

          This bill would repeal those provisions. The bill would instead make the intentional transmission of an infectious or communicable disease, as defined, a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than 6 months.. . .

          So, let’s think, is a six months max sentence really the same as a 6- or 8-year max?

          Barry in reply to Milhouse. | December 31, 2017 at 8:34 pm

          6 months, 6 years, what’s the difference? They can still get there taxpayer funded sex change operations while in the lockup.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | December 31, 2017 at 10:01 pm

          Wrong. Felonies carry a stiffer sentence,

          I’m not sure what this is addressing; especially when nesting has maxed out, it’s helpful to quote the text ones comment is addressing.

          What is wrong? I never suggested that felonies don’t carry stiffer sentences than misdemeanors, or that the max penalty for this offense had not been reduced, so I don’t see how your pointing this out is relevant. But you predicted that under the new regime the penalty would be trivial, and I pointed out that the max is still six months, which is far from trivial.

          I also pointed out that it is now treated exactly the same as exposing people to other serious diseases, and therefore asked whether anyone knows what the typical range of penalties is for that. If someone does know this then we can have a good idea whether your prediction is valid.

          So, let’s think, is a six months max sentence really the same as a 6- or 8-year max?

          When did I ever suggest they were the same?

          The distinction between a felony and a misdemeanor is GIGANTIC.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2018 at 12:31 am

          No, it isn’t. They’re both crimes. How a state classifies its crimes is an administrative matter. Some misdemeanors can have serious consequences. The difference between a crime and a lawful act, however, is undeniably huge.

        Anonamom in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | January 1, 2018 at 4:53 pm

        No, Milhouse, you are wrong. The difference between a felony and a misdemeanor is great and very significant. There are good reasons that CA defense attorneys would frequently offer to plead their clients to a “bullet,” i.e. full year in jail, the max possible, on a misdemeanor charge in preference to facing a felony (even if promised probation with little to no jail time on the felony.)

        You like to pontificate, but I’m just wondering for how many years you have practiced criminal law in California?

The AIDS advocates need a Wounded Warrior project. It’s sad vets need a Wounded Warriors project. Since the VA is an inherited, by many administrations, embarrassment to health care. Vets deserve better.

    C. Lashown in reply to gbear. | December 31, 2017 at 6:01 pm

    @gbear Hilariously great idea! I can see the advertisement now on TV. “Hi, my name is Jim. Last weekend my friend Bob stuck his knob up my anus, and now I have AIDS. I am a Wounded Warrior, can you help me? Please send me as much money as you can spare. Thanks” ….the scene fades, showing two people in a horizontal position in silhouette, with a voice over saying, “This could be you…”

    Yeah, right, when hell freezes over! ROFL

My liberal friends tell me Trump has literally killed off all the lesbians, gays and bisexuals. So who who is still using the LGBT acronym? Because maybe we missed one.

Agreed Gbear. I remembering watching a commercial, along the lines of “for $19 a month you can feed and clothe an African orphan.”

Except they were talking about Airmen Sailors and Marines.

That’s the day I stopped telling kids to serve their countrymen. Wounded Warriors is a good thing, but the fact that it needs to exist at all it’s sad and pathetic.

    PersonFromPorlock in reply to Fen. | January 1, 2018 at 8:51 am

    Famous saying in the military: “What they mean when they say “nothing is too good for the troops” is “nothing is too good for the troops”.

The Obama administration did the same thing only ate it so a year faster. But of course the progs tell us
“it’s different when we do it”

Health care reform begins with education reform, and self-moderating, responsible behavior.

If the US is pumping $800 million+ a year into HIV/AIDS research, then why are the drug companies allowed to charge such exorbitant prices for the drugs that We The People pay to develop?

    Excellent point concerning drug costs. If the tax payer funds the basic research, then the patient expense should reflect the cost of production only.

    Another possible reason for the cuts could be that there are duplicate programs in the Administration and he is just cutting out the waste. The program should be under the Health Department, if at all.

    When Trump signed the various EOs calling for review of programs and policies, most had specific dates for reports and then for terminating the study group. The decrease in the funding and the advisory council could be the result of the department review.

    Milhouse in reply to Granny. | December 31, 2017 at 7:13 pm

    If the US is pumping $800 million+ a year into HIV/AIDS research, then why are the drug companies allowed to charge such exorbitant prices for the drugs that We The People pay to develop?

    First of all, we did not pay to develop the drugs. We pay for basic research, just as we do for all diseases that impact the public on this scale; developing drugs that arise out of that research is left to the private sector.

    But much more importantly, drug companies are not “allowed” to charge what they do. They don’t need anyone’s permission. That’s what it means to be a free country. There is no such thing as price control, and everyone is free to sell whatever they produce for whatever the market will bear. We have no moral or legal right to dictate otherwise.

      Barry in reply to Milhouse. | December 31, 2017 at 8:40 pm

      “There is no such thing as price control..”

      A minor quibble. With patents, prices may be out of proportion to reality, thus the patent constitutes a price control.

      I’m not arguing against patent ability however. OTOH, many of those patents in the medical field did have a substantial portion of their research paid by the taxpayer. I have no idea how one can unwind that.

        Milhouse in reply to Barry. | December 31, 2017 at 10:07 pm

        Um, no, patents are the exact opposite of a price control. They deliberately protect the patent holder from competition, thus freeing it not only from direct government price control but also from the ordinary controls imposed by a free market.

        Taxpayer-funded basic research is available equally to all. All potential inventors of a cure start out with the same knowledge, and the patent system gives them an incentive to find a cure. Furthermore, it’s not a straight race where the winner takes all, because there may be more than one cure to be found, and if a second cure is found then they both get patents and can compete with each other, thus keeping each other’s price down.

          “…but also from the ordinary controls imposed by a free market. ”

          My point, even if poorly stated. It allows the patent holder to charge a very high price, which many do.

          I have no cure for that. Any cure would be worse than the disease, to keep this in a medical context 🙂

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2018 at 12:25 am

          The thing is, that’s not a bug, it’s a feature. It’s the whole point of the patent system in the first place. The framers decided that manipulating the free market in this temporary and limited way was a good idea, and history seems to have vindicated them.

          Barry in reply to Milhouse. | January 2, 2018 at 5:49 pm

          No argument from me. As I said, “Any cure would be worse than the disease, to keep this in a medical context”.

          I wasn’t suggesting patents are not a good thing, only that they do have a downside, particularly in the medical field.

HIV is Dawinism in action.

Next: All Federal equal rights commissions please.

DouglasJBender | December 31, 2017 at 7:44 pm

“Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” (Romans 1:27 [NKJV])

    US policy is not allowed to pay more attention to the book you cite than to Heather has Two Mommies.

      C. Lashown in reply to Milhouse. | December 31, 2017 at 8:53 pm

      Really? That’s strange, my “Vote” spends an enormous amount of attention on that book you allude to. Likewise, so I’ve been told, do many other’s vote pay’s attention to ‘that book’. The same vote that denies people like HRC places of power.

      Then do you know what happens Mr.Perpetually Offended? We all kneel and say, “Thank you Lord!” and giggle at the lie of Allahu Akbar being screamed in the distance. Foolish pagans never learn do they?

        Milhouse in reply to C. Lashown. | December 31, 2017 at 10:12 pm

        You’re babbling. What exactly is your “Vote”? How can a vote pay attention to anything? But the constitution specifically prohibits anyone from giving the work of fiction you cited a higher legal status than the work of fiction I named. Even if a clear majority of voters want to do so, they have no right to it.

    So, why do people who are not gay get sick and die of disease?

The HIV/AIDS establishment came about in very different circumstances than prevail now.

1. HIV/AIDS was a much bigger crisis

2. It was believed, rightly or wrongly, that the federal government was ignoring it because it didn’t consider the people it affected to be important enough

3. It was naïvely believed that the reason no cure had been found was that nobody was seriously looking, and one would be found if only enough money were thrown at the problem.

Nowadays HIV/AIDS is a serious problem but not a crisis. It is being taken as seriously as similar diseases, or more so. Progress is being made incrementally, but it’s apparent that curing it is a task on the same order as curing cancer. So the committees and apparatuses that were thought necessary or appropriate twenty years ago may no longer be so today. There’s nothing wrong with evaluating the whole system de novo and deciding what is needed to handle it now.

    Barry in reply to Milhouse. | December 31, 2017 at 8:44 pm

    Agreed entirely.

    There was also a fear that it would make the leap from the “wrong” people to the right people, which may have spurred the seriousness with which it was later taken.

      Milhouse in reply to Barry. | December 31, 2017 at 10:35 pm

      Indeed, there was a well-meaning but less than honest deliberate attempt to convince people that this was about to happen, in order to scare them into taking it seriously. See Michael Fumento’s The Myth of the Heterosexual AIDS Epidemic, in which he showed that under the conditions prevailing in the West the female-to-male transmission rate is too low for it ever to become epidemic in the “straight” population.

    I think your concerns could be applied to any illness – flu, Ebola, Zika, or the next new thing.

    We don’t know what we have until it reaches a certain point and then we start looking for it. And then we start reacting to it. And then we start protecting against it.

    In many cases, it is because we do not know the transmission method – airborne, water, sex, multiple, or whatever.

      Milhouse in reply to Liz. | December 31, 2017 at 11:55 pm

      I’m not sure how that addresses what I wrote. In any event, in all these cases it probably makes sense that 20-25 years after the original establishment is created, it be reevaluated to see whether it’s still useful.

Not too long ago, researchers for Glaxo Smith Kline were saying they expected to be out of the HIV/AIDS research business within a decade, as treatments were advancing so fast.


This country’s HIV policy has been excruciatingly bad from the time it was recognized as a disease that had a link with homosexuality. AIDS “activists” have compiled a macabre record of policies that resulted in more infections (and more deaths). It is an ugly, sad, irresponsible story, and I frankly do not understand why homosexuals should argue that other homosexuals should have less protection than normal people.

So the liberal gay rights lobby is upset that the HIV/AIDS Council is now without Representatives? Why is it the Federal Governments responsibility to have a council?

I am a father of a gay teen son. He knows about the consequences of sex and drugs and the incidences of diseases amongst young gay men. It boggles my mind that these liberal gay rights activists think we as a nation must depend on some people on a council we never heard and we don’t even know what they are contributing to society.

Good for President Trump. Now defund this group and do it now!

This disease is a peculiar case. From its early days, the population most likely to be devastated by it has been the most reluctant to actually do anything to avoid or quarantine it. Instead, they demand that everyone else take it seriously, even if they themselves won’t.

This was apparent from the beginning, when some (gay) physicians in San Francisco noticed that some of their own patients were actively spreading the mysterious new contagion; but their proposals to regulate some aspects of San Fran “bathhouse culture” were opposed with astonishing vituperation. Apparently, the unrestricted right to cavort was considered more fundamental than elementary efforts to keep people alive.

A similar attitude of frivolity persists today. A physician recently told me that one of his patients, though an intelligent man, takes no precautions whatever to avoid infection. This is known because he’s managed to catch just about everything else in the medical literature, though—apparently by chance—not HIV or AIDS yet. Whenever this doctor mentions the problems to gay patients, all he hears is some mumbling about “Magic Johnson”, as if that means that the problems are all solved. Which they definitely are not. For one thing, the last time I looked at the medical literature, the correlation between HIV and AIDS was still uncertain … and more conjectural than real. (Things may have changed since then; I’m not a serous student of the problem.) And that means that treatment of one is not necessarily treatment of the other. And that in turn means looming disaster.

All of which leaves me wondering just what a Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS does. Recommend throwing money at one thing or another, I suppose, though that’s pretty much the Washington default position for everything, and no Advisory Council would seem necessary. Another thing it might do is “coordinate” with “community organizers”. And we know how useful they are.

For the readers of this blog seeking legal insight, forget Milhouse’s comic book analysis ofthe difference beteeen a felony and misdemeanor. The formeris punishable by a sentence in state prison. The latter is punishable by 6 months or less in county jail.

A felony on your record will ruin your life. A misdemeanor, less so.

Ask milhouse if he’s done time in state prison.

Trump believes he doesn’t need any advice on HIV/AIDS and this makes sense to me. This disease has been reduced to a chronic condition spread by irresponsible behavior. There are far bigger public health issues. It’s just that the affected populations don’t claim victim status.

buckeyeminuteman | January 1, 2018 at 12:22 pm

Abstinence-only sex ed is harmful??? As the only 100% effective way of avoiding most STDs, that statement is ludicrous.

    Yes, abstinence-only sex ed is extremely harmful, and is responsible for thousands of deaths, as should be obvious to anyone. It is exactly as harmful and irresponsible as fire safety education that confines itself to “don’t play with matches”.

      How is teaching “sex ed” better than teaching the basics: biology and morality (i.e. self-moderating behavior). Why force the focus to emphasize sex?

nordic_prince | January 1, 2018 at 1:39 pm

What often tends to get lost amongst all the hand-wringing over HIV/AIDS is the fact that the homosexual lifestyle itself is inherently self-destructive. Not only are there several diseases that are a direct result of “gay sex” practices, mental conditions like depression, suicidal ideation, and substance abuse are disproportionately present in the homosexual population.

Any way you slice it, the homosexual lifestyle is deeply and profoundly unhealthy.

I’m still pissed about the $1.11 billion of taxpayer money that GW Bush spent to fight AIDS in Africa. Does anyone think the Africans are grateful? Of course not…they still vote against the U.S. in the U.N.