Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

iggygrey t1_jbqp4o0 wrote

Buy them if you you can then give them back to Greg to sell again. Keep doing that! Greg keeps his medals and the AIDS center gets cash flow.

110

LukeMayeshothand t1_jbrbrly wrote

As a kid I was fascinated watching him dive. Really wanted to jump off the platform and I wanted to swim in that pool so bad. As a kid I was obsessed with how deep the water was and exploring

32

redittjoe t1_jbrs0t5 wrote

I hope he gets to keep as the person who highest bids decides it is a charity cause!

8

potatthrowaway t1_jbrs52v wrote

This is wholesome as fuck, but could you imagine living in a system where this doesn't have to happen?

Like, fuck. We wiped out Smallpox. We've damn near eradicated Polio. Cholera is essentially nonexistent in many places in the world and the path to eradication is clear.

Why the fuck can't we stand together like we used to in order to wipe out another disease? Are we more stupid now? Are we suddenly somehow incapable? Did we somehow get a mutation that makes it harder for us to survive?

The mailroom at the White House was once literally overwhelmed with letters containing dimes in order to combat Polio. Why the fuck are we incapable of replicating what we did less than a century ago?

9

ritchie70 t1_jbru2ik wrote

Him being that old is really fucking with me.

13

Dudicus445 t1_jbrulx0 wrote

Replying to potatthrowaway (#2,206,680)

We were able to eradicate those diseases because we created vaccines for them to prevent their spread. We don’t currently have an HIV or AIDS vaccine. We can treat HIV to the point that someone with it can’t spread it, but they would still have it and would be on medication for life

9

potatthrowaway t1_jbrvtkg wrote

Replying to Dudicus445 (#2,206,777)

My point is we did it before with far worse technology than we have now, far worse a grasp on epidemics than we have now. The tools we used to eradicate those diseases still exist, the methodologies still exist and have been monumentally improved upon. We work with technologies people of only a decade ago would deem impossible. These problems are indeed complicated, but we've banded together to solve complicated problems before.

If we were to throw ourselves entirely at eradicating AIDS, it'd be done in many parts of the world in a matter of years, I'd say. Not decades, hears. Just like we did with smallpox, just like we did with polio, and just like we did with cholera.

It's like we're in a daze and can't just pick something to focus on.

1

jemidiah t1_jbs32ux wrote

Replying to potatthrowaway (#2,206,840)

Basically eradicating polio took near-universal childhood injections. That's really doable outside of extraordinarily remote places like mountain villages in Afghanistan, which coincidentally is where polio remains endemic.

Basically eradicating HIV with the tools we have available instead requires most every infected person to (1) know they're infected, and (2) stay on treatment for the rest of their life. These are especially difficult requirements in places with poor medical infrastructure, like sub-Saharan Africa.

Comparing the two is really comparing apples and oranges at a technical level. HIV is just vastly harder to knock out, despite immense advances in technology.

That said, MSM communities in advanced countries have experienced consistently lower transmission over the last few years, probably due to the prevalence of PreP. There's a chance that HIV in those communities will be very rare in the coming decades. Hopefully the rest of the world will follow.

Or who knows? Maybe an HIV vaccine will finally prove effective some year? It's not as if they've stopped trying, they just always get halted early because they don't work. It's very disheartening.

4

GamerGirlBarbiex t1_jbsbsmz wrote

Sometimes I think I’m attractive and then I see people like this.

3

_DragonBlade_ t1_jbscdbd wrote

My brother was a diver as a kid, he went to dive camp during the summers, apparently Greg was there and my brother forgot his lunch or something along those lines and Greg split his with him, fucking love that guy.

9

ringobob t1_jbsts2c wrote

Replying to iggygrey (#2,204,829)

Starting bid looked like $750k. This is pretty rarefied territory, at that point, if I had that kind of money and wanted to use it in this way, I'd probably just donate it.

7

Good_nuff t1_jbszz6k wrote

Replying to potatthrowaway (#2,206,680)

Because ‘small, innocent children’ become victims of smallpox, polio, and cholera.

Only ‘sinful, disgusting, adult gays’ fall victim to HIV (this is not true obviously, but bigots gonna bigot)

Of all the adults that wrote those letters to the White House, how many of them would have been perfectly fine with a couple gay dudes moving in next door?

2

bettinafairchild t1_jbt99v0 wrote

Replying to potatthrowaway (#2,206,680)

HIV used to 100% be a death sentence. But within 15 years of its discovery, a drug cocktail was discovered that keep almost 100% of HIV patients alive so they’ll die of something else at an old age. They have PReP, to prevent transmission. They’re currently testing an HIV vaccine. Miracles all. From 100% fatal to almost 0% fatal to vaccine.

2

-little-dorrit- t1_jbtk4ej wrote

Replying to potatthrowaway (#2,206,840)

Your comment is making an erroneous assumption that all viruses are treated equally, when this couldn’t be further from the truth.

People are working hard on the finding a vaccine or other treatments for the HIV virus (and don’t forget we already have antiretrovirals and PrEP), and we are getting closer every day to a vaccine. There are many other diseases that are epidemic-scale that also do not yet have a cure (Alzheimer’s for example). HIV is an incredibly complex virus. Only ten years ago a friend of mine who is a biologist working in virology told me that a cure is impossible because of how it works, how it invades immune cells, how it mutates and how it can evade detection and lie dormant in ‘sleeper’ immune cells. However attitudes and forecasts have changed because biotech has come so far. Now the general feeling is that we will crack it, sooner or later.

4

dbx999 t1_jbvqbct wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#2,211,400)

That’s certainly about the most cynical and twisted way to interpret a rather wholesome philanthropic gesture.

Greg Louganis earned a great spot in athletic history. His gold medals are a symbol of those achievements. Gifting those are significant and something he absolutely never had to do. He could have held on to the medals. But he found a way to bring greater value to his fellow humans by using them so that resources can be allocated toward a good cause to help others.

So in assessing this whole process, I really think that you have to be demented to take the perspective that this is something to belittle in the way you do.

2

EricBaronDonJr t1_jc0hy57 wrote

Replying to The_Lost_Pharaoh (#2,207,297)

Yeah. Shutters If you're into that kind of thing more power to you. I know that's not a subculture I'll ever get into. Seems kind of sad. But I don't know, everybody needs money. My great uncle fought in world war II and in the Korean war, he stayed in the army until the Vietnam era. When he finally came home back to his mama's house My dad said he remembers him as not willing to say one word about the about the army or a few combat medals the family heard that he had been awarded. To this day theyve never been found and we think he just left them at the base are at a train station or through them in the trash. One of them was a bronze star he got in Korea. Some people don't give a damn for some reason. It's just too his own life is tuff sometimes.

2