Well, at least this movie did not propagate the lie that Reagan never mentioned AIDS until 1987 (something author Larry Kramer has stated on numerous occasions). But why did the movie have to give the impression that Reagan reduced AIDS spending in 1986? Why does the gay left keep trying to vilify this man? Notice at the end of the movie they CORRECTLY state that Reagan first mentioned AIDS in 1985 (most gay activists lie about this and say he never mentioned it until 1987--a Dartmouth professor still insists that this is the case) but then the movie states that Reagan's proposed 1986 budget cut AIDS spending by 11 percent. Yet they neglect to point out that Reagan's ACTUAL budget (not "proposed") INCREASED spending on AIDS every year he was in office. In 1985 federal AIDS spending was $205 million. In 1986 it was $508 million. That is more than DOUBLE the previous year's. So WHY did this movie end telling us about PROPOSED AIDS spending under Reagan? Why didn't it just tell us what the ACTUAL SPENDING was in 1986? Why must they rely on playing with the facts?? Here are the FACTS about Reagan and AIDS:
As part of his policy of supposed inaction, Ronald Reagan signed $5.73 billion in U.S.-government anti-AIDS outlays. That’s $10.6 billion in today’s dollars. Indeed, Reagan’s signature inaugurated federal action on AIDS research and treatment.
Federal anti-AIDS spending grew dramatically throughout Reagan’s term. The $8 million that Reagan approved in 1982 rocketed to $2.3 billion in 1989. The average annual increase in federal expenditures on HIV/AIDS under Reagan was 128.92 percent. If he had been happy to watch gays succumb to AIDS, he surely could have kept that growth rate somewhere south of 125 percent.
My criticism is that [the gay movement] isn’t just asking for civil rights; it’s asking for recognition and acceptance of an alternative lifestyle which I do not believe society can condone, nor can I.
Reagan also slammed the University of California as being full of nothing but communists and homosexuals.
He was a class act that one. He opposed the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act of the 1960s. The only president worse than Reagan was George W. Bush. Reagan was a habitual liar. He even lied about having 'served' during WWII. He was too busy clowning around in Hollywood's studio warehouses at the time. He was safe and sound. He even went as far as to claim that he liberated Auschwitz.
Reagan was a traitor to his country, and his administration sent the country into a ditch. The country was broke. The amount of debt he raked up and how many people went under thanks to his bs trickle down economics (voodoo economics) was astronomical. He played up the "I lost my marbles, so I can't be liable" routine when it came to Iran-Contra.
The Right in the US still overwhelmingly believes that homosexuality is a mental illness, and that AIDS is god's way of punishing homosexuals. They've swung so far to the Right that their hero Ronald Reagan wouldn't even stand a chance of being elected by them.
reply share
All this and so much more. I have been researching Reagan for almost 4 years for a project and what he did for America in the name of America is sickening and still at work today. Still I can't vilify him completely because he sold that s#it to the back-row of the public and those who weren't informed ate it up and gave the country a wrong (but needed) sense of hope and pride.
Reagan was a freaking scoundrel. If they ever put his face on a dime, we all need to collect every one of them dimes and donate them to AIDS research. F*&% him.
Quite frankly, I don't think Ronald Reagan was intelligent enough to be as evil as some are suggesting. He had been a liberal Democrat until he married Nancy. Her stepfather was a right-wing nut who basically told him what to think and by being a sell-out, the washed up B actor got a tv hosting gig with GE. Nancy describes the whole thing in her autobiography. It was poolside at her stepfather's home in Palm Springs, I believe, where he was converted to the dark side by her stepfather. She's rather blunt about it.
Reagan was just an actor who delivered the right wing propaganda and trickle down schemes that, as other have noted, did not work and bankrupt the nation. He and Nancy knew LGBT people in Hollywood (she was besties with Billy Haines, Ron Fletcher, and Merv Griffin) but neither of them ever stuck their neck out for or probably cared a hoot about LGBT people. They were just opportunists who happened to be sucking up to and manipulated by the side that was clearly on the wrong side of history, as conservativism always appeals to prejudice, resentment, and boogieman politics, a lot of which can be blamed on their coalition embracing evangelicals, but not all of it.
Ronald Wilson Reagan may be the very definition of a cipher and that doesn't require any intelligence at all. But I will not fully hate on Reagan, because as a young black kid my mother took me out of school to go see him when he came to my town for a speech and parade, and behind the tinted window he saw me, pointed and waved. That moment has stayed with me some 20+ years later and the man had good intentions, like all presidents, before he actually sat in the Oval Office.
BRAVO! I believe Reagan was not a good president and yet Republicans glorify him. Because of his inability to acknowledge AIDS and AIDS Prevention, unnecessary deaths took place. It is good to read the reviews which bring the truth to light. There were many other things he did that were dishonest, as others have mentioned. I wish the film gave more details on the rejection process. I am happy to read someone mentioning Ryan White. He put a different face on the AIDS epidemic. This motivated Congress towards more funding.
Is there a thread on the AIDS quilt? Another eye opening experience for most that view it.
I believe Reagan was not a good president and yet Republicans glorify him. Because of his inability to acknowledge AIDS and AIDS Prevention, unnecessary deaths took place. ___________________
How do you know that Reagan loathed homosexuals? Did he inform you personally, or make a public announcement about his personal views on what he thought on homosexuality? He was making films in hollywoood before he was president, an industry that is rife with gay activity. It is a narrow minded and prejudiced assumption of yours, because his administration didn't act quick enough or in the manner that you thought he should have.
As president, he was a figure head puppet and the mouthpiece for his minions, that he was surrounded by. Don't assume what he loathed. Homosexuality wasn't being acknowledged or accepted by millions of other ignorant beings in society. If Reagan said that he "loved" homosexual people, do you think that would have changed the mindset of million of other Americans, (or anyone else around the globe), who did have genuine disdain for homosexuality? Reagan is no more responsible for the spread of the AIDS epidemic, than what many gay men were, for engaging in dangerous "unprotected" anal sex and other "unprotected" gay sexual activities, with partners that were whoring themselves around.
This is all too funny. I believe that sometime in the 60s (maybe 1964?), Reagan (who lived in Hollywood at the time) was quoted as saying "Some of my best friends are homosexuals."
or make a public announcement about his personal views on what he thought on homosexuality?
Actually, he did make it clear. Upon being elected President (but prior to being inaugurated) he was asked point blank by a reporter about the gay rumors attached to his ballet-dancer son, Ron. Reagan quipped, "Don't worry about that! We had him checked. He's all-man." The implications of that response could not be misconstrued, even in 1980. Even in Nebraska.
Shortly after that question was asked, Ron Reagan (not Jr. but thought of as Jr.) stopped dancing professionally (despite being good enough to dance with the famous Joffrey Ballet) and married a woman to whom he is still married. Regardless of his actual sexuality, it was clear that the elder Reagan ascribed to the stereotype that all male ballet dancers are likely gay and must, therefore, be "proven" to be "all-man." And it was also well known that, until right before he stopped dancing professionally, Ron and Nancy Reagan had not attended One. Single. Performance. Ever. given by their son, the ballet dancer. Which is very telling for a family whose both parents had been performers for most of the their professional lives.
Thank you, thank you--you're most kind. In fact you're every kind. reply share
Reagan quipped, "Don't worry about that! We had him checked. He's all-man." The implications of that response could not be misconstrued, even in 1980.......
....it was clear that the elder Reagan ascribed to the stereotype that all male ballet dancers are likely gay and must, therefore, be "proven" to be "all-man." ___________________ Thanks for the info. Because of Reagan's status and the climate at the time, this would have more than likely been for PR. It doesn't necessarily mean, that Reagan himself, personally "loathed" homosexuality. Since when can one really take what a politician says as truth or gospel? They hide and mask it, in an attempt to conceal what they really mean, for their self serving agendas.
It is sad to hear that Reagan jr got the short end of the stick here, due to his fathers position and influence. I doubt that Reagan's comments and attitude over his son's dancing career would be accepted today; but Reagan jr, would have likely been pressured into playing along with these soul destroying and corrupt games and that is something that Ronald and Nancy would have had to take universal implications for.
rascal67, I did not use the word loathed. It's not in my vocabulary. ______________
This thread has had changed subject headings. My initial response was to a comment in your post and that it had this particular subject heading. I realized after I posted it, that you didn't make the header— yours' was the 1st post on page 2. My opinion was based around a comment you made and that doesn't change.
I found a lot of wiki- type sources-- including the IMDB bio-- that seem to indicate that Griffin was closeted, but also known among Hollywood socialites to be gay.
Superficially the causes and intent may be different but seriously, start tracing money and you'll see Obama's true legacy will be a darker shade of Reagan Economics. Maybe because Left is so Right in these days Right can only go Stupid, but beyond my hyperbole, Obama's doing some damage people aren't willing to acknowledge because he could never let us down, right?
Im not sure if any President would have come out before three or four years to publicly address this issue. Mkst Presidents tend to do what is politically feasible for them. Hell even Obama(who is quickly becoming the Reagan "do no wrong" guy for Liberals) danced around gay marriage during his first term until it was deemed poltically valuable.
Also i wonder what the reaction would have been if Reagan made an adress in 1983 and said "this virus appears to be sexually transmitted"...the gay community might have even disregarded the whole thing as an attempt to scare them into not having sex.
"the gay community might have even disregarded the whole thing as an attempt to scare them into not having sex."
Indeed, when cities like SF closed down gay bathhouses in an attempt to curb the spread of the disease, they were attacked by the gay community as being homophobes.
'Because Reagan Could of been the President of everyone. Because he catered to the CHRISTIAN BIGOTS he did nothing to help fight this deadly epidemic.' ------------------- You're the BIGOT towards anybody who doesn't "cater" to you. And of course, it must be "Christians". People who have never read the Bible or been to Church feel the same way. Nobody owes you anything.
Fight the epidemic yourself by keeping your legs closed and resist your spoiled self-entitled desire to engage in unsafe homosexual activity. Try having a disease you could not prevent nor control. (make sure our tax money is not spent on abortions for the same reason; pay your own way for your mistakes, then learn from it) The exception are the poor wives who have gay husbands who cheat on them, and become infected.
I do not like certain people for certain reasons that not's being a bigot that's learning from past experiences.
I saw a mother poor scolding hot water on her son because he was gay. (She went jail) He was 17. 3rd degree burns all over his face. I was a witness to the crime I wasn't the victim.
I saw another friend thrown out of his home. His dad was the pastor of a church. My sister took both of these young kids in. To this day she considers them "HER SONS". To this day neither one speaks to their parents. AND WHY SHOULD THEY?
I get where you're coming from, but how many diseases are there "you could not prevent nor control"? Just as an example, obesity, heart disease, cancer, are all diseases related to one's behavior.
'I get where you're coming from, but how many diseases are there "you could not prevent nor control"? Just as an example, obesity, heart disease, cancer, are all diseases related to one's behavior'. ------------------------ That is insulting. Sounds more like you're ratonalizing so people have an excuse to perform whatever self-entitled, deliberate impulsive act they choose, and claim they had no self-control. There are babies who die of cancer (other diseases) and that is due to their behavior? Heart disease/cancer occur while living a healthy lifestyle just as often as an unhealthy one.
Wasn't meant to be insulting nor a rationalization for impulsive behavior. Most all human diseases have their roots in behavior of one kind or another. Babies born with cancer have their environments and/or genes altered by way of their ancestor's behaviors and environments. Was meant more to appeal to your better (Christian) nature. My-bad if I assumed too much.
But when a person gets cancer because they chose to smoke even knowing it could kill them, do we judge them when they get sick? Do we hesitate to contribute to cancer research or tell them it's their own fault? When a person has cancer, is our first instinct to lecture him/her on being irresponsible or is our first instinct compassion and support?
I think the other poster was trying to point out that it's hypocritical to rush to judgment on the causes of one disease regarding personal behavior if we're not going to do the same with all preventable diseases.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could simply refrain from judgment of our fellow human beings in general and instead try to find ways to help each other; educate, care for and learn from? I can't see any down side to that approach.
Perhaps my over-simplification was a bit too vague, but my intent was to make the point of: why judge it? Our mere existence in a carbon-based environment puts us at risk of cancer. Therefore many of our exposures due to behavior are pretty much unavoidable. And the behavior, exposures, and actions of our ancestors definitely put us at risk of developing such diseases as well. Irresponsible behavior is another thing altogether. Obesity, heart disease, and yes some cancers as well as other conditions are avoidable or at the very least can be mitigated by one's behavior. Thanks for your efforts to enlighten me though.
"Perhaps my over-simplification was a bit too vague, but the emphasis of my intent was to make the point of: why judge it? ==================== Because there is nothing over-simplified about it; that is why it can be judged. Have you been taught to not be judged for some reason?
"Therefore many of our exposures due to behavior are pretty much unavoidable" ----------------------- That's just a rationalization to justify your irresponsible behavior. Therefore, that is why you don't indulge in certain things due to your self-entitlement behavior
"Irresponsible behavior is another thing altogether. Obesity, heart disease, and yes some cancers as well as other conditions are avoidable or at the very least can be mitigated by one's behavior." -------------------- That's just an excuse to engage in impulsive acts, then feel deprived later when the the whole world doesn't come to your aid, giving you the opportunity to blame others(the President)for your actions. That makes you and your fellow posters sound less humane than Regan.
"Thanks for your efforts to enlighten me though." ----------------------- Have you been enlightened? Or should I string more words together in sentences to sound pompous and verbose in order to help enlighten you? The "emphasis of my intent" .
You're hilarious dude. And for the record, my behavior doesn't need any justification...I don't act irresponsible. I've never blamed (the President) in here or elsewhere for my actions. You must have me confused with some other poster.
Everyone: Why are you bothering to reply to this OP? The exact same thing happened on the Philomena board...In fact, it sounds like the same poster--same stats, phrasing, etc--with a different SN. Just ignore these people...they think Reagan walked on water. If you answer them with documented facts about his (more accurately, his administration's) record on AIDS, they call you names ("liberal liar" is one of their favorites). They're best ignored.
You're also the only one trying to rehabilitate Reagan with your documented facts by using the old ALL CAPS Fox News drone stand-by posting style and trying to equate human life with some numbers. I'm sure I speak for most in this thread, except the simpleminded, when I say that you've "proven" your opinion. Move on, there are no more points to earn here.
You don't prove "opinions"; you can only prove "facts". Fact and opinion is a third grade skill. Perhaps you need a refresher?
In support of my fellow posters here, Perhaps..you do too.
No one doubts that Reagan was surrounded by an Administration of right-wing conservatives-zealots and complete idiots (as many Presidents were/are and will be) but he was not as much of a leader as he could have been to rise above it be that "great communicator" that was needed to lead not just the USA but the World on this matter. He dropped the ball -- and when he could have done, he stepped aside; when he could have spoke, he remained silent. If he was so decent and strong, he could have shunned his far right supporters who backed him and got him elected for the good of the World. He didn't. It WAS his responsibility on his watch.
Let's clarify WHY it is said that Reagan didn't "mention" AIDS until 1987. Until that time, AIDS was "in the Presidential closet" -- whispers and pointers but nothing that garnered the media attention, acknowledgement, cameras rolling, 'the whole world is watching' moment such as a "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" on June 12, 1987, something former President Reagan could DO. THAT'S what was needed in as early as 1982/3/4/5 (when Rock Hudson died and he called him to "get well" or even 1986! but NEVER happened on that scale, the scale that was NEEDED until May 31, 1987, his second term, near its end and 20 thousand plus DOCUMENTED deaths of AIDS later (and yes Virginia, there are probably thousands more of undocumented deaths from 1981-1988). Reagan could have jumped on this and saved thousands way before May 31, 1987, is what is being implied. He could have saved countless innocent women and children too from 1981, people who had gotten the disease through blood transfusions and needed the research and help into this new disease.
People like Larry, Randy Shilts, (gotta also mention William M. Hoffman here), and MANY others were screaming from the medical, advocacy and entertainment/arts industries: "fire right here, Mr. President!" to try to bring attention to, and focus on the needless deaths that kept piling up year after year. How can one ignore this and put it on a bigger scale as it was coming to ones face and DOORSTEP minute by minute -- 1987 to make "the big acknowledgement announcement" was too long for many who've lost loved ones. I think too -- the former President was forced to publicly acknowledge because of many people including Martin Gaffney who sued the Federal Government and won because of the heartache he faced by his wife and son dying of AIDS of no fault of their own (you should read up on this, it is one of those additional heartbreaking stories that are just one of many during that time). It's HISTORY and FACTS like THIS that is important -- that we do/need to remember.
I could lists hundreds of more names and stories but they are all there. It's writers/playwrights people like Larry, Randy, William, Terrance McNally, etc., who put the stories out there at that time, and to get them made into film to make people know or remember the what that time was really like. And as I said in a previous post, its important to remember these stories and not the amended documents to make Reagan seem like he did good. He COULD have done so much more and looked good a LONG TIME BEFORE. He didn't, and your "facts" do not make up for what we LIVED.
Here's a few other quotes from around that time that made people shape their (well, my) views of the President at that time that affected this issue:
Society has always regarded marital love as a sacred expression of the bond between a man and a woman. It is the means by which families are created and society itself is extended into the future. In the Judeo-Christian tradition it is the means by which husband and wife participate with God in the creation of a new human life. It is for these reasons, among others, that our society has always sought to protect this unique relationship. In part the erosion of these values has given way to a celebration of forms of expression most reject. We will resist the efforts of some to obtain government endorsement of homosexuality. — Ronald Reagan, July 12, 1984.
It is surprising that the president could remain silent as 6,000 Americans died, that he could fail to acknowledge the epidemic's existence. Perhaps his staff felt he had to, since many of his New Right supporters have raised money by campaigning against homosexuals. Washington Post,1985, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles
Mr. Reagan is dead and cannot confirm or deny any of this. And no, I did not personally know Mr. Reagan. I can only tell you what I did know, try to convey my pain of those who left my life way before their time (those close to me, friends, families and YES, those I did not know who suffered too), whom I was around and people I had worked with back then. I'm still living, lived through this time and it hurts to be put back through it. But "never forget". It brings up so much sadness and questions still on how could someone with so much power who was presented an opportunity to save so many if they could have brought attention to it early on, didn't. Why indeed.
Thank you Ruben. You are correct, but know this: I know others are reading too and if I can help educate them to research, it's worth it to add a voice of reason over insanity.
I see this same pro-Reagan mentality on some of the posts on the IMDb Philomena board - Philomena Lee's son, Michael Hess/Anthony Lee worked as a top lawyer in the Reagan administration and personally saw the indifference. Unfortunately, Michael Hess was closeted and could do nothing to influence the powers that be. Sadly, he died of AIDS.
I did not know that. How sad. How difficult for him, and how sad. Thank you for sharing.
lambiepie-2, what an excellent post - probably the best on this thread! I still cannot believe those who "worship" Ronald Reagan. No, I didn't know Reagan personally; how many here did? It brings up so much sadness and questions still on how could someone with so much power who was presented an opportunity to save so many if they could have brought attention to it early on, didn't. Why indeed.
there is nothing more overrated than the argument that Reagan didn't do enough for HIV/AIDS.
Nothing he could have done in 1981 - 1988 could have saved one life of an HIV patient. Slow the spread? Maybe, but no cure and no prevention. He has been out of office for 25 years and still there is no cure and no prevention.
Public Health officials had known/suspected it was sexually transmitted almost from the beginning - gay groups didn't want to hear that or have anything to do with that.
What he should have done was use his influence to push for screening in blood donors so that the Ryan Whites and Arthur Ashes of this world never happened.
15000 AIDS patients die every year, but 50,000 people die of the flu or pneumonia every year. If the president should have been talking about anything it should have been the flu/pneumonia which are also more easily transmitted.
He could have stopped diverting healthcare funds every time the budget was drawn up. He's on video saying it-- "You'll notice we've cut health care; we need all that money for defense..."
To be fair, though, the hallmark of this period was the abundance of delusional idiots from all walks of life. The heroes were not all liberal, the scoundrels were not all Republican. (Bath house owners? Scoundrels. C Everett Koop, staunch Republican and ultra-conservative? Absolute, unquestionable hero. Look up what he did behind Reagan's back.)
reply share
He should have done that, in hindsight it wouldn't have made a difference. Raegan has been out of office for over 25 years and there is no practical prevention or cure in sight. This wasn't just an American disease either, no other western country has done anything since Raegan that indicates he could have done anything then to slow, stop, and fight the disease.
I am rejecting the notion that HIV was at any point the biggest threat to humanity as it gets made out to be. It was a novel disease that we knew absolutely nothing about and that made it frightening.
However more people have, more people do, and more people will die of easily preventable diseases such as influenza or pneumonia each year and instead of fussing over tropical diseases and sexually transmitted diseases more should be done to combat our number 1 killers.
You already answered your own question. Or, actually, refuted your own statement. True, in the early 80s, there was no real treatment for HIV. There also were no good, fast tests for blood, organ donations and the like. Pouring money on the problem a few years before the government would most likely have sped up the identification of the virus and testing for it. That, as you say, would have saved some lives of the "innocent" infected.
I use the phrase "innocent" because that's how I remember it from the 80s and early 90s. IV drug users and gay men who contracted HIV through blood via dirty needles and anal sex were "guilty" victims. They did something that they theoretically could have chosen not to do and got sick. The Ryan Whites and Arthur Ashes of the world, they got it through the medical system. They were "innocent".
I do agree with you that, as far as bang for the buck, you can save more lives around the world by working on malaria, TB, diseases like that. Cancer research, heart disease research, etc. Where I disagree is that HIV/AIDS was viewed by many at the time, and by many today, as a pestilence for the wicked. That is why the government was so slow to react to it, and it took some famous, closeted gays to drop dead and some "innocent" victims who became infected by blood transfusion, transplants, accidental needle pricks and the like. As long as it was gay guys and black junkies who were getting infected and dying, a lot of people didn't give a crap. Some actually welcomed it as a way to "take care of" a part of the citizenry they didn't like.
The truth of the matter is, in the US in this time, HIV wasn't as widespread as nostalgia makes it out to be.
His presidency was halfway over before scientists even ID and named the source of AIDS.
It is very ethnocentric to assume that America would have somehow came up with anything a few years earlier than it did when equally as qualified research laboratories such as the Pasteur Institute weren't coming up with anything either.
'However more people have, more people do, and more people will die of easily preventable diseases such as influenza or pneumonia each year and instead of fussing over tropical diseases and sexually transmitted diseases more should be done to combat our number 1 killers.' -------------------------- Exactly, But those diseases can't be played up by any type of discrimination-card. It's interesting that many of the posters were not even around on the 70's -80's yet know it all about the numbers, ans social climate. It's too simple to conclude that funding should be divided based on which diseases are in proportion to the death rate.
it was not just President Reagan that ignored the crisis although as President it was his place to bring public attention to it. However, it was a different time, and looking back from our perspective is mostly a futile exercise. There are many different diseases and small breakouts all around the world and our President doesn't go on Television to talk about them now. It is deplorable that Reagan waited as long as he did. It is also horrible how Doctors fought each other over the right to be the first to announce findings. It's horrible how the Gay community choose to ignore the first wave of information. It's horrible how hospitals turned away dying people. it goes on and on - I'm saddened by many of the reactions but the one thing to come out of it was that Gay people became a focus of attention and through that attention changes came in many ways, ways that may have happened much later if that disgusting disease had not forced people to take notice. Since this all began people have at the very least learned to not just ignore things and go with a misguided status-quot
Well, at least this movie did not propagate the lie that Reagan never mentioned AIDS until 1987..
The FACTS regarding HIV and AIDS in the 1980s during the Reagan Administration are with those of us who actually lived through it, saw friends, co-workers and family die of it or become infected, waited for the tiniest of real education or funding in our towns, our neighborhoods, our schools -- for gays, hemophiliacs (and other who had blood transfusions and got the disease because there wasn't any testing methods),intravenous drug users - most of whom were poor in the era of greed and selfishness that Administration promoted. Not from those Reagan PR/media wizards who think 10 years is enough to bend history and blind future generations (Updated in 1998). What SHOULD scare you, is that anything can be updated to many anyone look good. If they did right in the first place, then there would be no need.
There are still many of us alive to keep the truth alive and the dialogue running. Those who "died" of AIDS are more than one thinks back then. One of the best comments I read a long time ago was that someone wrote, "there were many deaths of AIDS in the 80s and before, but their death certificates read liver disease, acute pneumonia and other causes. It's a shame." And that was due to the connotation behind the disease and having to be buried with dignity -- at a funeral home and with others. As Larry's film showed, not everyone got that chance to do so. And did you know...that also had the term "AIDS related complications/complex" enter the idiom and placed death certificates?
AIDS related spending is not what you think. General Cancer took the bulk of that 'related' spending, not AIDS as a singular. But even that budget was NOT enough as it lumped Cancer spending into AIDS spending to technically both lost out on needed funding. The lies, the ignorance and the bull of that time continues. You see, I'm still ticked at Reagan as he ignored his HIV/AIDS sick Hollywood friends and Nancy for LYING about famous make-up artist Way Bandy who did her make up in a portrait, and died of AIDS, and upon asking her word was something like, "..but he didn't touch me". Yes, that made it okay America. What compassion. Yes, the Reagans. I remember them well.
Larry's was one story in a big area -- but again I say -- don't miss the point, Larry's story is one of bureaucracy, and even in a City as big as New York was, he gave a glimpse into the bigger picture of bureaucracy and egos even when it had to do with the sick and dying, when all was needed was education, immediate action, less defense pending, and a helluva lot more compassion towards fellow human beings.
" I'm still ticked at Reagan as he ignored his HIV/AIDS sick Hollywood friends and Nancy for LYING about famous make-up artist Way Bandy who did her make up in a portrait, and died of AIDS, and upon asking her word was something like, "..but he didn't touch me". Yes, that made it okay America. What compassion. Yes, the Reagans. I remember them well. "
Not much in those disjointed group of sentences makes sense. Perhaps you would like to clarify?
The government addressed an incident of Tylenol tampering that happened in 1982. Seven people died. "Emma briefly references in in her speech-- the government threw a ton of money and people at the situation and nipped the death toll in the bud.
The impact on the delay of research, and especially the incredibly stupid Puritanical choice to restrict preventative health information to abstinence-- is immeasurable. Many still would have died, but if the public had had clear info on the method of transmission alone, who knows how much lower the death tool would have been?
I will sing it to the rooftops-- the only real hero in the Reagan administration was C. Everett Koop, and he had to do what he did (mass-mailing a whopping document about AIDS transmission to every damn American home ) by sneaking around behind Reagan's back. I would support a coin with his face on it any day.
the swine flu was not a novel virus. It was one that the US had experienced before and as such was prepared to speak about and handle.
HIV was completely new and something nobody was prepared to speak about or handle.
Also it has been 25 years since Raegan has been out of office and there have been no practical advances in prevention or curative treatment. Nothing RR could have done would have had any effect.