Posted on 06/14/2016 7:37:23 PM PDT by Faith Presses On
This is an often-repeated quote or paraphrase in these stories (published in the Columbia Medical Review):
“MSM who practice safe sex in consensual and monogamous relationships are considered as high risk for HIV transmission as intravenous drug users, while heterosexual donors who engage in un-protected sex with multiple partners are not. Currently, a straight man who has sex with a prostitute is only deferred for twelve months, while a gay man who engages in healthy, monogamous sex is banned for life.4 Under the FDA’s proposed policy change, MSM who remain celibate for twelve months may be eligible to donate. Although a step in the right direction, this proposal is still based in bias and ideology, conflating gay and risky sex, rather than focusing exclusively on transmission risk factors...”
http://medicalreview.columbia.edu/article/ban-the-ban/
The idea is that it is unfair that risky behavior by heterosexual men and women isn’t similarly disqualifying.
But the numbers just aren’t consistent with that claim, including the rates of disease infection for the different groups.
For all those who absolutely, positively insist on mainlining their HIV...
Of course it's a bad idea. When was the last time the government had a good idea?
Agreed, but when the government controls virtually every aspect of the economy, especially the medical sector, political considerations by the Leftists are going to trump facts, logistics, costs, safety, anything other than the desired political outcome which is to keep Leftists in control of the relevant institutions.
That’s because aids not only started in a poor region it preys on people who may not be thinking clearly about diseases. In Africa there are men who think having sex with virgins has medicinal value for their diseased bodies. Such superstition makes things worse.
It took the extra special stupidity and licentiousness of the homosexual community to spread aids to the extent it has spread. The odd licentious heterosexual who screwed everything that moved (Wilt Chamerlin being one example) seems to have been too outside the norm, at least after the 70s.
Same thing is happening here. There are good medical/scientific reasons to exclude homosexuals from donating blood, but the militant homosexuals are agitating to have the ban removed.
Medical/Scientific reasons? You do know they believe that a man can transform into a woman and vice versa?
"Science" is not even on these people's horizon.
Study Torah. In the Torah you will find the blueprint for building a pure, clean, holy, kosher and independent community with the integrity to sustain itself in hostile surroundings, even in exiles of thousands of years. “For the Law of the L-rd is perfect, converting the soul.” Find others who do not want to lose their children or their own souls, and come home to Torah.
Under the circumstances, shouldn’t LGBT’s be able to donate blood which would be specifically earmarked to go only to those injured in Orlando? The recipient(s) should, of course, be told about the source of the donation.
Most likely the people collecting the blood also don’t want to see a major increase in the likelihood of donors being HIV-positive.
What sane and normal people consider bad ideas due to risk, failure, cost, etc., are completely different priorities from bureaucracies and government agencies from an economic incentive standpoint.
The more a government agency fails in its promises, endangers the public, throws people out of work in the private-sector, the more these government agencies will see their budgets increase the following fiscal year, regardless of political party in power.
Another article glossing over too many facts and issues to count.
From Salon:
“There was a time when such extreme caution around a particular population of potential blood donors made a degree of sense. In the very earliest days of the AIDS crisis, the ways in which HIV could be transmitted were still being explored. By 1983, according to a history of “HIV and the Blood Supply,” “AIDS was occurring in transfusion recipients who did not belong to any known high-risk group.” That year, the FDA issued a lifetime ban on blood donation from any man who’d had intercourse with a another man since 1977. At the time, there was not yet even a working test to identity HIV in the blood and plasma.
“A lot has changed since then. And understandably, over the past few years there’s been a growing demand for the FDA to come join the rest of us here in the 21st century...”
(snip)
“There was a time when such extreme caution around a particular population of potential blood donors made a degree of sense. In the very earliest days of the AIDS crisis, the ways in which HIV could be transmitted were still being explored. By 1983, according to a history of “HIV and the Blood Supply,” “AIDS was occurring in transfusion recipients who did not belong to any known high-risk group.” That year, the FDA issued a lifetime ban on blood donation from any man who’d had intercourse with a another man since 1977. At the time, there was not yet even a working test to identity HIV in the blood and plasma.
“A lot has changed since then. And understandably, over the past few years there’s been a growing demand for the FDA to come join the rest of us here in the 21st century...”
From Salon as well:
“Again, let me remind you — there’s a test for HIV. We’ve had it since the EIGHTIES. It’s true that the test can’t detect a very recent infection of HIV, and it’s also true that if someone really wants to lie, he can — in 2008, a “repeat blood donor” Missouri man tested positive for HIV — and was found to have been the cause of HIV infection in a kidney transplant patient.
But none of that makes the FDA’s near capricious limits any more sensible...”
Undoubtedly the prospect of getting HIV/AIDS doesn’t seem like such a terrible threat to many if not most gay men, so they are likely less concerned about others getting it.
I saw something similar in a woman I knew who was a heroine addict and living on the streets at the time with a group of people who drank and used drugs continually. She had a form of hepatitis and said everyone in her group did, and she was very unconcerned about it, even almost to the opposite end, appearing nearly glad to have it.
I'm not a particularly religious guy especially after being proselytized by my Jehovah's Witnesses family members, but I hold no ill will either to reading and learning from religious texts.
Can't say as I've ever been evangelized by a Jew before but I'm not unwilling to read what you have to say.
I thought this battle was fought and won 30 years ago. I guess the new generation will have to learn this bitter lesson all over again. The very people pushing this idea will also pay a very heavy price if they ever need a transfusion. This is a very bad idea. And it isn’t just because if HIV. Hepatitis is also a serious problem.
I think the reason is to spread “gay” diseases into the general population to create additional demand for govt services and research in hopes of finding cures.
The best solution if this is allowed AGAIN is donate your own blood to yourself if you are planning to undergo surgery. Unless they (again) decide to ban this as well, so its Russian roulette if you should ever need a blood transfusion.
The outcry against this will eventually put a stop to it, if they decide to institute this policy again, just as did 30 years ago.
Once again, the lesson of this history is that mankind just does not learn from the lessons of history.
The poor woman addicted to heroin in the shooting gallery can become an accepted member of that group of people by acquiring a disease common among people who do what they do.
Without going into any detail, the homosexuals have a similar practice, "bug chasing", a form of Russian Roulette and you'll have to look up the rest if you can stomach it, but the general reason behind this behavior is to show solidarity with the group, much like initiation into gangs, frat houses, or the like.
It's not surprising in the least that the government wants the so-called "free market" blood and plasma supplies run by private corporations to become compromised and driven out of business.
How many trillions of dollars could a Federal bloodsucker agency suck up, handing out tainted blood products so as to increase their funding exponentially.
The more government fails, the more money allocated, it's no more complicated than that.
Excellent post, spot on firing on all cylinders.
Bookmark
Never thought of it from that perspective. Could certainly present an additional risk for those drawing and processing the blood.
Yeah, what’s the problem? It’s still giving back to the community if you don’t need anybody else’s blood.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.