Did Bush Save 10 Million Lives?

[Wowbagger]

CNN.com has a report by Bill Frist that makes this claim:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/15/frist.bush/index.html

Mostly through funding AIDS treatments in Africa, according to the article. But, I wonder how many he killed through pushing "Abstinence Only".

Discuss.

 

[Upchurch]

But, I wonder how many he killed through pushing "Abstinence Only".

Not following you here.

 

[Wowbagger]

Not following you here.

killed indirectly, of course.

The idea is that "Abstinence Only" does not provide a comprehensive reproduction education, which results in more unsafe sex, which results in greater spread of AIDS.

 

[Upchurch]

oh. Surely those numbers exist somewhere?

 

[Wowbagger]

I suppose a slightly better title for this thread would have been "Should Bush Be Praised for Saving 10 Million Lives?" Though, before you can answer that, you have to answer "Did he actually save 10 million lives?", first.

I tried to do a quick Google search for the World Health Organization's data on this, but could not find it, in the short time I had to do so.

The author of the article also seems to think that Bush's No Child Left Behind act will be seen as the first major step towards improving science education in America. Though, somehow I doubt such a high reliance on standardized testing is really going to achieve that. (That could be a subject for a different thread, though since it was in the same article, I suppose there is nothing wrong with commenting on that part, here, either. Especially if just crickets are going to chirp in the "Saves Lives" discussion.)

 

[Darth Rotor]

If he didn't save ten million lives, why did the US taxpayer spend over ten billion over the past eight years for AIDS in Africa assistance?

What was all that money for, I wonder?

 

[Wowbagger]

If he didn't save ten million lives, why did the US taxpayer spend over ten billion over the past eight years for AIDS in Africa assistance?

What was all that money for, I wonder?

Did he indirectly kill more than 10 million, by pushing "abstinence only"?
I don't know the answer to that, yet.

Could he have saved more lives and more money, by putting policies in place that would have reduced the spread of AIDS, in the first place, such a comprehensive reproduction education (like the one they had, before Bush)?

Here's an analogy:

Suppose someone introduces a fatal design flaw in a vehicle, which would not have been introduced if that person listened to readily-available warnings of experts; and lots of people got killed from it.
If he then spends tons more money on a recall: saving many more lives from getting killed by it.... should that designer be remembered as someone who "saved lives"?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Did he indirectly kill more than 10 million, by pushing "abstinence only"?
I don't know the answer to that, yet.

Could he have saved more lives and more money, by putting policies in place that would have reduced the spread of AIDS, in the first place, such a comprehensive reproduction education (like the one they had, before Bush)?

Here's an analogy:

Suppose someone introduces a fatal design flaw in a vehicle, which would not have been introduced if that person listened to readily-available warnings of experts; and lots of people got killed from it.
If he then spends tons more money on a recall: saving many more lives from getting killed by it.... should that designer be remembered as someone who "saved lives"?

When someone claims "saved lives" or "cost avoidance" the skeptical antennae and BS flag should both go up. Claims like that typically have projections embedded in them.

Brother Wow, I am not convinced you have researched the whole of the anti AIDS effort that Bush funded beyond a sound byte. This curious little word game being played is why I say this.

About two years ago, I linked in the SMMT forum some excerpts of what DoD was doing in Uganda, the Navy in that case, distributing condoms to members of the forces in the interests of curbing the spread of AIDS. This was on Bush's watch. Not gonna give him credit for thinking it up, more practical people on the ground did that.

But please excuse me for the angle your working here. (Frist, on the other hand, has me rolling my eyes.)

Considering how the 'abstinence only' meme propagates, and its dismal failure here in Texas by any objective measure (due to a number of easily understood factors) I wonder if you aren't mixing stories here by pretending that all of the anti-AIDS efforts were abstinence only.

ETA: My bad, I see that you are playing off another's emphasis on that. Sorry.

I already pointed out a program that I was aware of that wasn't.

Did you do any research on this, or are you playing off of a meme? I'd like to know either way. As I noted above, what in the hell was all that money spent on?

The world taxpayer wonders.

DR

 

[Greg44]

It's not George Bush's responsibility to protect anyone in the world from AIDS through education. There are things that will kill you in the world, AIDS is one of them, thats all anyone needs to know. How people protect themselves from AIDS is their own responsibility.

 

[Wowbagger]

When someone claims "saved lives" or "cost avoidance" the skeptical antennae and BS flag should both go up. Claims like that typically have projections embedded in them.

Somehow, I knew that.

Brother Wow, I am not convinced you have researched the whole of the anti AIDS effort that Bush funded beyond a sound byte. This curious little word game being played is why I say this.

I admit this is not a subject matter that I have researched very much. That is why I posted this. I was skeptical of the claim that "Bush Saved 10 Million Lives", when he has a reputation (accurate or not) for ruining so many lives.

You could say I was playing off the memes. So, how accurate are the memes?

(Frist, on the other hand, has me rolling my eyes.)

What, specifically, can be said, from your skeptical angle, about what he wrote?

Considering how the 'abstinence only' meme propagates, and its dismal failure here in Texas by any objective measure (due to a number of easily understood factors) I wonder if you aren't mixing stories here by pretending that all of the anti-AIDS efforts were abstinence only.

No, I do not think all of his anti-AIDS efforts were abstinence-only. The article makes that clear.

My angle is that his world-spanning education policies might have killed more people, than his direct anti-AIDS efforts saved.

When I have more time, I will see if I can find concrete numbers. In the meantime, if anyone is well informed on this subject, already, they can contribute what they know.

It's not George Bush's responsibility to protect anyone in the world from AIDS through education.

It becomes his responsibility if he is offering education funds, and mandates "abstinence only" be taught with them.

I seem to recall a TAM speaker from the World Health Organization that got into this. I don't recall his name, offhand, nor can I even remember exactly which TAM is was. But, it was argued that Bush's administration was responsible for the increase in AIDS, in Africa, because of mandates like that.

How people protect themselves from AIDS is their own responsibility.

Do you think a comprehensive reproduction education is an important part of that?

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

If he didn't save ten million lives, why did the US taxpayer spend over ten billion over the past eight years for AIDS in Africa assistance?

What was all that money for, I wonder?

Dunno but it must have spent 500 Billion on killing people in Iraq by now. And well over 30 Billion helping Israel persecute Palestinians.

And how much did the Car Industry want?

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

My angle is that his world-spanning education policies might have killed more people, than his direct anti-AIDS efforts saved.

If abstinence-only education replaced more comprehensive education, that may be true. However, if his policies simply brought abstinence-only education to a place where there wasn't previously any sexual education of any sort (in regards to safety/birth control anyway), that would be a tough argument to make.

Abstinence-only education may be ineffective, but I don't think by itself it can actually be linked to killing anyone, unless it was forced into a place where more effective education was already in place.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's not George Bush's responsibility to protect anyone in the world from AIDS through education. There are things that will kill you in the world, AIDS is one of them, thats all anyone needs to know.

Plenty of people in Africa know that AIDS can kill them. A great many of them think that if they rape a virgin, they can be cured.
ETA: A great many others thought that herbal remedies were better than expensive drugs with proven effectiveness.

Are you SURE all they need to know is that AIDS is a fatal disease?

How people protect themselves from AIDS is their own responsibility.

He tied a great deal of OUR money (not his own!) to a gag order on information about contraceptives. I think he also kept the money out of the hands of existing AIDS relief organizations, effectively ruining them and bringing control of most of the NGOs under the gag order.

I grant you that his intentions were probably not malicious. He probably thought that the condition of their souls was more important than the demise of their bodies, and that's why it was more important to suppress condoms (which, I suspect in his thinking, encourage sinful behavior) than to save lives.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If abstinence-only education replaced more comprehensive education, that may be true. However, if his policies simply brought abstinence-only education to a place where there wasn't previously any sexual education of any sort (in regards to safety/birth control anyway), that would be a tough argument to make.

Abstinence-only education may be ineffective, but I don't think by itself it can actually be linked to killing anyone, unless it was forced into a place where more effective education was already in place.

Yes--at least that's my understanding of what happened. ("Comprehensive education" means distributing condoms and explaining their utility rather than the misinformation that was circulated about them.)

The money effectively destroyed existing efforts by placing them under the gag order. If they refused, they got no money and other organizations (churches) got it.

I understand plenty of people were faced with the tough decision of continuing to do the work of trying to save lives under the gag order or to close up shop.

 

[Greg44]

Abstinence as a preventive measure against AIDS is 100% effective, so I think it is good advice, especially for a continent with thousands starving every day. I don't see why George W is responsible for educating an entire continent anyway, just like I don't think he should be responsible for liberating the Iraqi people from a torturous tyrant.

Education programs have not directly or indirectly killed anyone, this is the James Randi EDUCATIONAL Foundation forum, that does not mean anyone on this forum giving you advice is responsible for your well being, and the people of Africa are free to take or leave W's 100% effective AIDS prevention advice. Or maybe they could try figuring things out for themselves.

 

[plumjam]

If he didn't save ten million lives, why did the US taxpayer spend over ten billion over the past eight years for AIDS in Africa assistance?

What was all that money for, I wonder?

I remember reading that all this aid had strings attached, involving IMF-type 'reforms'... in other words it was done to allow US corporations to further shaft (with or without protection) the nations in question.
No, I don't have any evidence, but it wouldn't surprise me if that were the case.

I think the last time Bush saved 10 million lives was during the period his right arm was in a sling.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Abstinence as a preventive measure against AIDS is 100% effective, so I think it is good advice, especially for a continent with thousands starving every day.

That's not the issue, and arguing it is committing a straw-man fallacy.

NOBODY is arguing that STD epidemics are a problem for people who don't have sex.

The problem is that abstinence-only programs (here and abroad) don't work.

Abstinence only programs include a gag-order on condom information. The problem is NOT about giving out information or medicines. The problem is willfully withholding information. (And in many cases, spreading outright falsehoods--that condoms are ineffective, for one thing.)

 

[Skeptic]

Such claims are, of course, impossible to verify, since they're all dealing with what-ifs scenarios.

But one thing's certain: if someone claimed Bush is responsible, not for saving 10,000,000 lives in Africa, but for 10,000,000 deaths in Africa, people here would have believed it instantly.

 

[Wowbagger]

If abstinence-only education replaced more comprehensive education, that may be true.

And that is exactly what happened!

There was an effective policy in place, referred to as "ABC":
1. Always try to Abstain, first, if you can.
2. If you can't abstain, then Be monogamous.
3. And, if you can't be monogamous, use a Condom

That three-tier system was effectively ripped out by the take-over of "AO!!".

A great many of them think that if they rape a virgin, they can be cured.

It is quite possible that "AO!!" includes a debunking of these sorts of things. Though, I imagine that, given how unscientific such policies are in general, they are probably not very effective.

I grant you that his intentions were probably not malicious. He probably thought that the condition of their souls was more important than the demise of their bodies, and that's why it was more important to suppress condoms (which, I suspect in his thinking, encourage sinful behavior) than to save lives.

I agree he was probably not malicious. He was incompetent, expert-averse, and zealot-embracing. But, not malicious.

Abstinence as a preventive measure against AIDS is 100% effective, so I think it is good advice, especially for a continent with thousands starving every day.

Good luck getting them to listen. You are going up against a formidable wall of evolutionary heritage, and inefficient human mental processes. That is why "ABC" was substantially more effective.
It ditched the impossible "ideals", and works with how humans actually will behave.

I don't see why George W is responsible for educating an entire continent anyway, just like I don't think he should be responsible for liberating the Iraqi people from a torturous tyrant.

You should have told him that, before he went sticking his nose into other people's business.

I think we both agree there are times and places the POTUS should and should not interact with other countries. My point is that when he does, his reputation (deserved or not) is one of incompetence, not saviorism. This Frist guy seems to disagree, though, and I would like to see how well both sides can defend themselves, here.

Education programs have not directly or indirectly killed anyone, this is the James Randi EDUCATIONAL Foundation forum, that does not mean anyone on this forum giving you advice is responsible for your well being, and the people of Africa are free to take or leave W's 100% effective AIDS prevention advice. Or maybe they could try figuring things out for themselves.

If critical thinking and world knowledge were instinctual and intuitive, I would agree. But, reality is far from it.

But one thing's certain: if someone claimed Bush is responsible, not for saving 10,000,000 lives in Africa, but for 10,000,000 deaths in Africa, people here would have believed it instantly.

I think this thread is evidence that that is not the case. There seems to be some mighty skepticism in my query about Bush being responsible for killing people.

 

[Bjorn]

Such claims are, of course, impossible to verify, since they're all dealing with what-ifs scenarios.

But one thing's certain: if someone claimed Bush is responsible, not for saving 10,000,000 lives in Africa, but for 10,000,000 deaths in Africa, people here would have believed it instantly.

Hi Skeptic,

Long time, and I see the dividing lines are the same.

However, for once I'll agree with your statement (above) -not for everyone on this forum, but for many of us (even if I think there's no way he saved those ten million lives).