Exposures, if they are mild, in the sense of barely just a small concentration, it's mostly an irritant, particularly the peroxides, that in that smoke would irritate the skin or even irritate the lungs. So, for the most time, it could be either just a little bit of a nuisance irritant, or if you get a really big whiff of it, particularly people who have, for example, reversible airways disease, like asthma or different types of hypersensitivity diseases, you could get a serious problem.

What has happened over the years is that scientists have now developed AIDS therapeutic capabilities, as well as prevention, and we've linked prevention and treatment in a way that if you fast-forward 30 years form '88 to now, we can say without hyperbole that we have the tools, if implemented the way they could be implemented, to theoretically, essentially end the epidemic as we know it now.

You help someone's health, and you prevent them from infecting others.

Certainly the support for research in HIV/AIDS was good in the Clinton administration, good in the Bush administrations. It just was.

There cannot be any impediment to science that will ultimately be good to the general public.

Science is telling us that we can do phenomenal things if we put our minds and our resources to it.

Previous efforts to eradicate malaria failed for several reasons, including political instability and technical challenges in delivering resources, especially in certain countries in Africa.