Top doctor: 'Gay' blood will taint U.S. supply

wnd.com ^ | 12/03/2013 | CHELSEA SCHILLING

[massmike]

Should homosexual men – a group with the highest HIV-infection rates in the nation – be allowed to donate blood?

That’s the question the federal government is considering this week as it re-evaluates whether it should lift the 30-year ban on homosexual blood donation.

“CDC estimates that MSM represent approximated 4 percent of the male population in the United States, but male-to-male sex accounted for more than three-fourths (78 percent) of new HIV infections among men and nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of all new infections in 2010.”

The American Red Cross warns: “HIV antibodies may take a few weeks to develop after infection with the virus. If you were recently infected, you might have a negative test result, yet be able to infect the recipient of your donation. That is why you must not give blood if you are at risk of getting AIDS or other infectious diseases.”

Nonetheless, a petition a WhiteHouse.gov, created in November by students at the University of Michigan, claims the FDA policy is “discriminatory and inadequate.”

Dr. Jay Brooks, an expert in blood banking and transfusion at the University of Florida’s College of Medicine, told WND, “Yes, people need blood, but taking blood from men who’ve had sex from men since 1977 is not going to increase the blood supply substantially.”

[Mortrey]

And the federal government is going to be rationing our health”care”.

[count-your-change]

Or Arkansas prisons. Or drain cadavers and call it “supravital collection”.

[Understand the stimulus]

mixing bacteria, feces, virus, semen creates constantly mutating dna hiv that can never be defeated...what the pervert homosexual community wants is to infect normal hiv free citizens so funding for aids wont decline...

[GailA]

There are more diseases that preclude people from giving blood than just HIV/Aids.

My husband's brother contracted one of them, no one knows where it is like a rabid form of mad cow disease. In 8 months he was a veggie and died soon after with huge holes in his brain. All his relatives and their families are forbidden to donate blood.

In fact they no longer will do family member to family member, DIL is semi rare A- needed a transfusion, her bro offered to donate his blood, was told that it had to go through a month long RC processing procedure. Doc nick a vein when he did her Mascetomy, and had to go back in and repair it. Only thing she ended up with was some dumb iron pills instead of the transfusion she needed.

[POWERSBOOTHEFAN]

It isn’t just blood that is shed.

I envy men because they don’t have to deal with menstruation and all the misery that goes along with it.

[NetAddicted]

The TRUE solution! Can someone send that suggestion to ppl who want to allow gay men to donate blood? Plus, probably posted, but NY Times reported gay men having unprotected sex 20% of the time. Plus, I just read a gay man say unprotected sex happens 75% of the time! but can’t find the link.

[ottbmare]

I don’t think most people have that problem.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

the FDA policy is “discriminatory...

Good

and inadequate.”

...then strengthen it.

[grasshopper2]

There is absolutely no medical evidence that the human body is designed to lose blood or that this is good for us.

Dr Ronald Hoffman on WOR radio said that humans evolved over time to store iron because it was a competitive advantage to survival at a time when humans lost blood from parasites, cuts and injuries.

In modern days, people don't lose blood in daily life like in cave men days, and the iron can build up in the blood and the organs. Too much iron in the blood can cause harm especially to the liver. This is why it's a good idea for men and for post menopausal women to give blood regularly - to get rid of excess iron.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

funding for aids

Oh, you mean "those with pre-existing contidions" (ObamaCare)?

[TheCause]

Bump.

[Gay State Conservative]

A few years back the surgeon who replaced my hip *strongly* recommended that I bank my own blood beforehand rather than take blood from ordinary donors.He said that most patients need at least some blood during the procedure so I did it.Now that I'm getting ready to have the other hip done I'll do it again.Eastern Massachusetts,as many of you know,is one of the most notorious hotbeds of sexual perverts.

[Yosemitest]

Arkansas Prison Blood Scandal


BLOOD TRAIL

... Drawn from his real life experience in the Arkansas prison system,
this book is both a modern political thriller and an exposé of how the Arkansas prison management during the reign of Governor William Clinton took often-infected blood from inmates and sold it throughout the world.
The Canadian government has traced the deaths and infections of thousands of its citizens to this scheme.


Bloody awful, How money and politics contaminated Arkansas's prison plasma program.

Clinton & the killer blood, Articles from the Progressive Review

Clinton and the Killer Blood

Clinton blood scandal exposed in new film.


Kelly Duda, author of "Factor 8: The Arkansas Prison Blood Scandal"

[SunkenCiv]

Dr. Jay Brooks, an expert in blood banking and transfusion at the University of Florida’s College of Medicine, told WND, “Yes, people need blood, but taking blood from men who’ve had sex from men since 1977 is not going to increase the blood supply substantially.”

Anyone who uses their (temporary) authority to lift the ban should be killed, post haste, no joke. Same goes for the idiots who started and signed that idiotic petition. Best way to do it in the latter case would be to give them an injection of infected blood, see how they like that treatment. What ###holes! Thanks massmike.

[justiceseeker93]

Should homosexual men – a group with the highest HIV-infection rates in the nation – be allowed to donate blood?

That’s the question the federal government is considering this week as it re-evaluates whether it should lift the 30-year ban on homosexual blood donation.

The whole idea of Big Brother re-evaluating this issue at this point is what's scary. Nothing much has changed in the last thirty years with respect to scientific analysis regarding the increased risk of transmitting HIV (and other venereal diseases) through transfusions of blood donated by homosexual men. That's precisely the main reason male homosexuals, unless they are lying about their homosexuality, haven't been donating blood to blood banks for decades.

But what has changed is that the gay-pandering Obama Administration is in power. Let's hope that politics doesn't trump medical science here; if it does, it's another step toward tyranny.

BTW, I notice from the posted article that the Left has new term for homosexual men: MSM (men who have sex with men). So now "MSM" has two distinct meanings. Maybe they are trying to confuse us.

[Kaslin]

Absolutely not

[sickoflibs]

RE :”The whole idea of Big Brother re-evaluating this issue at this point is what's scary. Nothing much has changed in the last thirty years with respect to scientific analysis regarding the increased risk of transmitting HIV (and other venereal diseases) through transfusions of blood donated by homosexual men. That's precisely the main reason male homosexuals, unless they are lying about their homosexuality, haven't been donating blood to blood banks for decades.”

Alternatively if you think about it banning gay men from giving blood is one of the things that made it easier for progressives (and gays themselves) to convince Americans that gays are ‘just like us but born with different feelings’ and that giving them new rights like same sex marriage ‘hurts no-one’

Gays got married in a few states and no wave of horror stories came out.

[Stepan12]

I use men having sex with men as my terminology, too. I am not a Liberal either (I once was when I was young and very suggestible, but that is a different matter).

The fact is that a person who is very much hated by homosexuals, because he figured the younger mortality rates of men who have sex with men as opposed to normal people, said the men having sex with men is preferable to the term homosexual because homosexual and gay implies an identity where men having sex with men describes a series of acts (many of them entirely nauseating). If they are called homosexuals, the men having sex with men can say they are gay men and they are being persecuted for their identity (say... such as black people). The people who practice the deadly perversion will say they are persecuted by bigots against their identity -- just as black people are. How the cultural communists happened upon the more correct terminology for these practitioners of a deadly perversion is unknown to me, however.

[DeFault User]

I don't think it's a good idea.

[justiceseeker93]

I use men having sex with men as my terminology, too.

"Men having sex with men," as in the article posted in this thread, quickly morphs into "MSM." MSM has been used for at least a decade to stand for "mainstream media." So I'd prefer not to use the same abbreviation for two obnoxious, though different, groups.