It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A New 'Gay Disease'?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   

A New 'Gay Disease'?


www.newsweek.com

The headlines this week about a new "gay" infection were dramatic. FLESH-EATING BUG SPREADS AMONG GAYS, said one Australian newspaper, referring to a study about an antibiotic-resistant bacterial infection affecting homosexual men in San Francisco and other American cities. EPIDEMIC FEARED--GAYS MAY SPREAD DEADLY STAPH INFECTION TO GENERAL POPULATION, shouted a press release from the Concerned Women for America, a conservative public-policy group.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Articles:
www.nytimes.com
www2.tbo.com


Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Drug-resistant staph found to be passed in gay sex

[edit on 1/20/2008 by JacKatMtn]




posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   
This Newsweek article tackles many of the concerns that members here at ATS brought up recently when the stories first broke days ago.

A very good article concerning the stories, the study, and the disease, which has been around since 2002, and whether this superbug story was misrepresented by the media.

www.newsweek.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   
This is absolute propaganda. This type of staph has been around for ages and it actually lives in everyone's body. It's when it becomes systemic is when the problem occurs.
Lots of schools have had to close down because of children dying from this. Gay Disease? I think not.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by forestlady
 


Did you even read the article? Or you just responding to the articles' title?

This article goes over the misleading headlines from the past couple of weeks concerning the "bug".


ed:sp

[edit on 1/20/2008 by JacKatMtn]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


Yes, I did read it. I was referring to the propaganda in my first sentence, not the article.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


Hey Jack,

I posted a related news article a few days ago:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It seems this staph infection is for real and is being called the new 'gay plague' as it is passed through anal sex for some reason.

This is not exclusive to homosexuals, but definitely much easier spread this way.

Pretty scary stuff.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   
From the above article:


Stackhouse believes that no one benefits if USA300 gets labeled as a "gay disease." When that happens, he says, "people who aren't gay don't see themselves at risk, and there is a risk out there," he adds. "This kind of stigma presents a challenge. 'I'm not gay, so I'm not at risk,' whether it's about HIV, whether it's about MRSA. That's the big downside to this kind of reporting."


That is indeed the biggest challenge and the biggest danger about reporting such things as a "gay disease." The media while working for ratings and trying to be as alarmist as possible to get more views for their advertisers are treading in unfortunately familiar ground after the AIDS epidemic of the last decades of the 20th century. Marketing any such thing as a "gay disease" is irresponsible beyond words. To say that gay people are more at risk, that's one thing. But to provide that false blanket of safety to the heterosexual community is potentially disastrous.

Thank you for posting this article Jack, especially on ATS I think more of the readers are familiar at least with the basics of MRSA than the general population would be. There are so many ways to encounter this, I would hope people would be wise enough not to believe themselves immune due to sexual orientation. Especially since I know many heterosexual people that have encountered MRSA, I can personally guarantee that this is not a strictly "gay disease."

And above all else, for the life of me I can't understand why people don't do this, if you are going to take on the responsibility of having sexual relations with someone, use a condom. I know so many people that believe since we're past the stage of AIDS being a definitive death sentence, condoms are no longer necessary. :shk:

*Edit to add: Flagged and Starred Jack.


[edit on 1/20/08 by niteboy82]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by biggie smalls
 


I linked to your piece in the OP, it is important for everyone to understand what this disease acutally is since it can affect everyone and is not just associated with homosexuals as was somewhat misrepresented in the previous articles.

While there could be a higher risk for gays, it is completely unfair to label this as a gay disease and the Newsweek piece helps to get the truth out.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I agree, Jack. Thanks for posting this!



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Great!
My HealthCare just went up because the company I work for began allowing live in partners of gays to be covered by the same plan.
Now I guess I'll be paying for this research too.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 


Did you even read this article?


This is not a "gay disease." :shk:

Live in partners are not entirely exclusive to homosexuals either. I know people that are heterosexual and have been together 20+ years without being legally married and they are just as eligible.

The bottom line of all of is that your healthcare is going up because your healthcare providers were dishing out antibiotics at such a speedy pace when they weren't necessary, and bacteria learned how to become resistant to it and more problematic for us humans. You also have an infinitely greedy insurance group that is in it for the money, not your health. MRSA has been around for quite some time, in fact, I'm surprised there isn't more talk on VRSA than this. That's where things start getting really scary. Of course, I'm sure that will be a "gay disease" too.

I worry for the next minority group, but at least they'll know there are others who know how they feel.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
If this is not a gay disease then why include the word "Gay" in the subject?

Pretty misleading, don't cha think?



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 


If you read the topic you would see it said 'gay disease?'

This new staph virus does not only affect homosexuals.

It may be easier spread through anal sex as there is blood involved typically (I would imagine not that I'd like to) and vaginal intercourse doesn't usually have blood (unless aunty flow is around).

Read the article. Do yourself a favor.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Yes I read the article and I know this does not just affect gays, but if gays are 13 times more likely to get this infection than heteros' and are still able to infect the general public, then gays are somewhat guilty of helping spread the disease. The article is written in such a PC way so as to not place any blame on gays, but I'm sorry, they are responsible.

Take Global Warming for example and how we keep hearing that Man is fully responsible, but the truth is it's more a result of natural occurences. Sure public awareness should be raised because Man does contribute to some degree, but Man is not 100% responsible, and surely not 13 times greater in contributing to climate change than nature itself.
Interesting how Man continues to get the lion's share of the blame for GloballWarming yet ALL blame will be directed away from gays for speeding up the spreading of this disease. What a PC world we live in.

BTW, I tried to get my live in gf/fiancee of 9 years added to my HealthCare plan and I was rejected, yet gays are able to add their partners without any problem whatsoever.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Hey man, I agree with you. I just thought you misread the article.

Its pretty messed up that a 'civil partnership' can land you healthcare coverage, but when you date someone for a long time you cannot. Well, you can either marry her or share bank accounts; problem solved.

I don't like blaming anyone for the spread of diseases, but the gay community did have a huge part to play in the AIDS epidemic (and still do).

The AIDS transmission to Europe and the US can be linked to one homosexual flight attendant who made frequent trips to Africa. Its sad, but sometimes the truth is hard.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Staph Aureous is not a gay disease its been around for centuries and thrives in wounds on the skin and in the mucous membranes virtually every person will have some of the bacteria on their body so its a none issue unless its the flesh eating type. It can be spread by any type of physical contact or aerosol.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   
So have gay people been getting it more than straight people? i know that gays are very, very sexually active. So it could be right? Also, why do so many gays act feminine? Can't they just be a guy that likes other guys and still act masculine?



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Jack gays/lesbians are no more sexually active than anyone else and both take the male and female role and its not an act. My daughter is a lesbian but has the male tendency if I could describe it like that.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   
AIDS started out the same way.
AIDS is not JUST a gay disease.
It kills inocent women and children too.
It also kills the family that suffers along with them.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by magicmushroom
 


I don't think the OP said it was a gay disease: the article decided that for him.

Thank you for the knowledge of how its spread, I thought it was only through sexual contact. I guess I was wrong.

MagicalRose,

I agree. Everyone is affected when a person contracts a deadly disease. We all pay for it in some way or another.

P.S. What happened to those AIDS vaccines? Nothing I assume as usual. Probably suppressed by the pharmaceutical companies who make too much cash off the AIDS wasting drugs.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join