Latest news with #StateoftheUnion
Boston Globe
6 hours ago
- Health
- Boston Globe
Getting HIV is no longer a death sentence — but the fight is not over
In the next few weeks, Congress will vote on what may be the most important question lawmakers have had to decide about HIV this century: whether to continue on the path toward the elimination of the disease or to allow the country to slip back into the 1980s-era nightmare of an uncontrolled surge of the virus. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up HIV remains a threat in the United States. One in 300 Americans is already infected, and more than 30,000 new infections and 4,000 deaths occur annually. But 40 years ago, HIV was more than a threat — it was a death sentence. It was the Advertisement But an epidemic that started as a public health debacle turned into one of the field's greatest achievements: New drugs have been developed that are capable of cutting HIV Advertisement However, obstacles remain: Access to HIV care is not always easy. In order for patients to keep the virus in check, they must adhere to sometimes complex drug regimens over their lifetimes. What's more, people who get HIV are often unaware that they've been infected and can unknowingly spread the virus to others. As a result, as many as Still, policymakers remain hopeful that new cases of HIV in the United States can be eliminated entirely going forward. In his 2019 State of the Union address, President Trump announced the launch of an ambitious program he called ' However, these costs pale in comparison to the expense of managing a rise in cases that could result from funding cuts to prevention programs. It is much less expensive to prevent a case of HIV than it is to treat one. Advertisement The average American, thankfully, hears very little about HIV these days. That is a good thing — but it also means there is more opportunity for political will to keep the virus in check to wane. Or even for the basic tenets of what makes HIV deadly to be questioned. Enter Robert F. Kennedy Jr. In 2021, before he was made secretary of health and human services, he wrote in his book 'The Real Anthony Fauci' that he ' In a videotaped This past April, not long after Kennedy was confirmed as HHS secretary, Before long, Advertisement Then Kennedy took his most dramatic action. In his HIV is the most exhaustively studied virus in human history, and the vast body of evidence clearly indicates that it is an infectious cause of disease. It is deeply worrying that RJK Jr. would reclassify efforts to contain and treat HIV under an agency not responsible for infectious disease. RFK Jr.'s proposed reorganization is now before Congress. If his plan goes ahead, the consequences may not be immediately visible. HIV doesn't explode into outbreaks as soon as prevention lags. Initially, the spread of HIV infection will be invisible, particularly if our monitoring systems are shuttered. But we may wake up one day to discover that an HIV epidemic is once again raging — a scourge we worked so long and so hard to escape.
Powys County Times
a day ago
- Politics
- Powys County Times
George Bush was determined to ‘rid world of evil-doer Saddam Hussein'
In January 2003 – two months before US and UK forces launched their fateful invasion – Tony Blair to flew to Camp David to urge the president to allow more time for diplomacy to work. However, files released to the National Archives at Kew, west London, show that Britain's ambassador to the US, Sir Christopher Meyer, warned it had become 'politically impossible' to draw back from war unless Hussein surrendered. British officials were still hoping that the the United Nations Security Council would agree a new resolution specifically authorising the use of military force against Iraq. Mr Blair's foreign policy adviser, Sir David Manning, said that when he met the president he should make the point that a new resolution was 'politically essential for the UK, and almost certainly legally essential as well'. However, the Americans were becoming increasingly impatient with the unwillingness of France and Russia – which both had a veto on the council – to agree a resolution so long as UN inspectors were unable to find any evidence of Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, the supposed justification for war. Following Mr Bush's annual State of the Union address to Congress, shortly before Mr Blair's visit, he warned that the options for a peaceful solution had effectively run out. Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's ambassador to the United States (Kirsty Wigglesworth/PA) 'It is politically impossible for Bush to back down from going to war in Iraq this spring, absent Saddam's surrender or disappearance from the scene' he wrote. 'If Bush had any room for manoeuvre beforehand this was closed off by his State of the Union speech. 'In the high-flown prose to which Bush is drawn on these set-piece occasions, he said in effect that destroying Saddam is a crusade against evil to be undertaken by God's chosen people.' In a cable sent the previous month, Sir Christopher said that much of the impulse for deposing Hussein was coming from the president, a born-again Christian, who was scornful of what he saw as the 'self-serving' reservations of the Europeans. 'His view of the world is Manichean. He sees his mission as ridding it of evil-doers. He believes American values should be universal values,' Sir Christopher wrote. 'He is strongly allergic to Europeans collectively. Anyone who has sat round a dinner table with low-church Southerners will find these sentiments instantly recognisable.' In the event, the US and UK abandoned their efforts to get agreement on a new Security Council resolution, claiming French president Jacques Chirac had made it clear he would never agree.
Rhyl Journal
2 days ago
- Politics
- Rhyl Journal
George Bush was determined to ‘rid world of evil-doer Saddam Hussein'
In January 2003 – two months before US and UK forces launched their fateful invasion – Tony Blair to flew to Camp David to urge the president to allow more time for diplomacy to work. However, files released to the National Archives at Kew, west London, show that Britain's ambassador to the US, Sir Christopher Meyer, warned it had become 'politically impossible' to draw back from war unless Hussein surrendered. British officials were still hoping that the the United Nations Security Council would agree a new resolution specifically authorising the use of military force against Iraq. Mr Blair's foreign policy adviser, Sir David Manning, said that when he met the president he should make the point that a new resolution was 'politically essential for the UK, and almost certainly legally essential as well'. However, the Americans were becoming increasingly impatient with the unwillingness of France and Russia – which both had a veto on the council – to agree a resolution so long as UN inspectors were unable to find any evidence of Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, the supposed justification for war. Following Mr Bush's annual State of the Union address to Congress, shortly before Mr Blair's visit, he warned that the options for a peaceful solution had effectively run out. 'It is politically impossible for Bush to back down from going to war in Iraq this spring, absent Saddam's surrender or disappearance from the scene' he wrote. 'If Bush had any room for manoeuvre beforehand this was closed off by his State of the Union speech. 'In the high-flown prose to which Bush is drawn on these set-piece occasions, he said in effect that destroying Saddam is a crusade against evil to be undertaken by God's chosen people.' In a cable sent the previous month, Sir Christopher said that much of the impulse for deposing Hussein was coming from the president, a born-again Christian, who was scornful of what he saw as the 'self-serving' reservations of the Europeans. 'His view of the world is Manichean. He sees his mission as ridding it of evil-doers. He believes American values should be universal values,' Sir Christopher wrote. 'He is strongly allergic to Europeans collectively. Anyone who has sat round a dinner table with low-church Southerners will find these sentiments instantly recognisable.' In the event, the US and UK abandoned their efforts to get agreement on a new Security Council resolution, claiming French president Jacques Chirac had made it clear he would never agree.
South Wales Argus
2 days ago
- Politics
- South Wales Argus
George Bush was determined to ‘rid world of evil-doer Saddam Hussein'
In January 2003 – two months before US and UK forces launched their fateful invasion – Tony Blair to flew to Camp David to urge the president to allow more time for diplomacy to work. However, files released to the National Archives at Kew, west London, show that Britain's ambassador to the US, Sir Christopher Meyer, warned it had become 'politically impossible' to draw back from war unless Hussein surrendered. British officials were still hoping that the the United Nations Security Council would agree a new resolution specifically authorising the use of military force against Iraq. Mr Blair's foreign policy adviser, Sir David Manning, said that when he met the president he should make the point that a new resolution was 'politically essential for the UK, and almost certainly legally essential as well'. However, the Americans were becoming increasingly impatient with the unwillingness of France and Russia – which both had a veto on the council – to agree a resolution so long as UN inspectors were unable to find any evidence of Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, the supposed justification for war. Following Mr Bush's annual State of the Union address to Congress, shortly before Mr Blair's visit, he warned that the options for a peaceful solution had effectively run out. Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's ambassador to the United States (Kirsty Wigglesworth/PA) 'It is politically impossible for Bush to back down from going to war in Iraq this spring, absent Saddam's surrender or disappearance from the scene' he wrote. 'If Bush had any room for manoeuvre beforehand this was closed off by his State of the Union speech. 'In the high-flown prose to which Bush is drawn on these set-piece occasions, he said in effect that destroying Saddam is a crusade against evil to be undertaken by God's chosen people.' In a cable sent the previous month, Sir Christopher said that much of the impulse for deposing Hussein was coming from the president, a born-again Christian, who was scornful of what he saw as the 'self-serving' reservations of the Europeans. 'His view of the world is Manichean. He sees his mission as ridding it of evil-doers. He believes American values should be universal values,' Sir Christopher wrote. 'He is strongly allergic to Europeans collectively. Anyone who has sat round a dinner table with low-church Southerners will find these sentiments instantly recognisable.' In the event, the US and UK abandoned their efforts to get agreement on a new Security Council resolution, claiming French president Jacques Chirac had made it clear he would never agree.
Leader Live
2 days ago
- Politics
- Leader Live
George Bush was determined to ‘rid world of evil-doer Saddam Hussein'
In January 2003 – two months before US and UK forces launched their fateful invasion – Tony Blair to flew to Camp David to urge the president to allow more time for diplomacy to work. However, files released to the National Archives at Kew, west London, show that Britain's ambassador to the US, Sir Christopher Meyer, warned it had become 'politically impossible' to draw back from war unless Hussein surrendered. British officials were still hoping that the the United Nations Security Council would agree a new resolution specifically authorising the use of military force against Iraq. Mr Blair's foreign policy adviser, Sir David Manning, said that when he met the president he should make the point that a new resolution was 'politically essential for the UK, and almost certainly legally essential as well'. However, the Americans were becoming increasingly impatient with the unwillingness of France and Russia – which both had a veto on the council – to agree a resolution so long as UN inspectors were unable to find any evidence of Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, the supposed justification for war. Following Mr Bush's annual State of the Union address to Congress, shortly before Mr Blair's visit, he warned that the options for a peaceful solution had effectively run out. 'It is politically impossible for Bush to back down from going to war in Iraq this spring, absent Saddam's surrender or disappearance from the scene' he wrote. 'If Bush had any room for manoeuvre beforehand this was closed off by his State of the Union speech. 'In the high-flown prose to which Bush is drawn on these set-piece occasions, he said in effect that destroying Saddam is a crusade against evil to be undertaken by God's chosen people.' In a cable sent the previous month, Sir Christopher said that much of the impulse for deposing Hussein was coming from the president, a born-again Christian, who was scornful of what he saw as the 'self-serving' reservations of the Europeans. 'His view of the world is Manichean. He sees his mission as ridding it of evil-doers. He believes American values should be universal values,' Sir Christopher wrote. 'He is strongly allergic to Europeans collectively. Anyone who has sat round a dinner table with low-church Southerners will find these sentiments instantly recognisable.' In the event, the US and UK abandoned their efforts to get agreement on a new Security Council resolution, claiming French president Jacques Chirac had made it clear he would never agree.
