> I find it odd that HIV is not a lifestyle disease. When I think of a "lifestyle disease", the first thing that comes to mind is type 2 diabetes. The actual

> I find it odd that HIV is not a lifestyle disease. When I think of a "lifestyle disease", the first thing that comes to mind is type 2 diabetes. The actual disease is part of a lifestyle of chronic behavior that is linked to this particular bad health outcome. Someone can contract it regardless of their lifestyle. Sure, there are potential lifestyle components to the way that the HIV virus is transmitted. Some people exposed to this pathogen will contract HIV. Of those, some will develop AIDS. But that doesn't mean that the lifestyle is the cause of the disease; the pathogen is the cause. As for the higher-level judgment: some people want to do drugs, and most people aren't in (and don't want to be in) monogamous relationships. The health of these populations is just as valuable as any other, no? It's perfectly possible to do both of these things and be healthy; the fact that some pathogens can be transmitted via these media makes it worth fighting these pathogens (while also of course educating people to engage in these activities more safely). > HIV seems to be getting an out sized share of research compared to other things that kill more people. Oh, yeah, if that's the point, I absolutely agree with that. An easy place to start is traffic fatalities. It's not difficult to reduce these, but it costs both money and willingness to change driving habits. And of course traffic accidents kill many, many more people than HIV. And heart disease. And opiod overdoses. And medical malpractice.