CDC, FDA, CBC, and WHO consider homosexuality a health risk

page: 1
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+5 more 
posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
I donated blood yesterday. (All conspiracy aside, go out and donate). Of course I was asked a barrage of questions. Do I have any diseases, do I feel healthy, do I use drugs or share needles? Have I had a tattoo within the last year? Have I paid for sexual acts? Have I had any sexual contact with another man?

Apparently if you've had any homosexual activity, even once since 1977, you're not eligible to donate blood. I guess this is a serious health risk. So risky that even one brief encounter bars you for life from donating. I thought this might just be a local Red Cross restriction, but it turns out to be a government mandated policy.



the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reworded the donor-deferral recommendations to state that any man who has had sex with another man since 1977 should not donate blood or plasma. This applies even to men who may have had only a single contact and who do not consider themselves homosexual or bisexual. Reported by Center for Drugs and Biologics, US Food and Drug Administration; AIDS Br, Div of Viral Diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases, CDC.

www.cdc.gov...


If homosexuality is safe then why does the Center for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration consider this risky? It looks as if this behavior is a serious health hazard.

This has been voted on again since 1985. In 2000 the FDA reexamined this policy since it was receiving sharp criticism. The decision was made to keep the lifetime ban in place.



An advisory panel of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has narrowly voted to maintain the ban on blood donations from homosexual men. The vote was 7-6 to maintain the ban. Under the FDA's rules, men cannot give blood if they have had sex with another man at least once since 1977.

www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...


This isn't just a United States restriction. It's illegal for Canadians to donate as well if they're homosexual. The Canadian Blood Services (CBS) was recently in the news over a lawsuit that stemmed from a homosexual man lying about his sexual status on his blood donation questionnaire.



CBS is suing Kyle Freeman, 36, for lying about having sex with men so he could give blood. Freeman is counter-suing, arguing a lifetime ban on donations by men who've had sex with a man even once since 1977 violates his constitutional rights.

www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com...


Australia’s Red Cross doesn't have a lifetime ban but prohibits donations if you had homosexual activity within the last 12 months. Also note World Health Organisation (WHO) director Kevin M. De Cock, MD had stated just this last year that outside of Africa there was no risk of AIDS spreading in the heterosexual community. The homosexual community however was still seeing increased infection in some areas.



Dr De Cock, an epidemiologist who has spent much of his career leading the battle against the disease, said understanding of the threat posed by the virus had changed. Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognised that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, it was confined to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients.

Dr De Cock said: "It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in other countries."

One of the danger areas for the Aids strategy was among men who had sex with men. He said: " We face a bit of a crisis [in this area]. In the industrialised world transmission of HIV among men who have sex with men is not declining and in some places has increased."

www.independent.co.uk



Here we see the same reaction again. Even the WHO has homosexuality grouped with injecting drug users, sex workers, and their clients. We're not talking about some fringe Bible-thumping redneck. Dr. De Cock hardly fits that category.


A native of Belgium, Dr De Cock received Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery (M.B.Ch.B.) and M.D. degrees from the University of Bristol and a Diploma in Tropical Medicine and Hygiene from the Liverpool University School of Tropical Medicine. He is currently a Visiting Professor of Medicine and International Health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

www.who.int...


Someone is lying to you. Is homosexuality something we're born with or a life style choice? Is homosexuality safe or dangerous? Apparently all the leading health organizations see it as a health risk.


[edit on 12-10-2009 by dbates]




posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   
I can't donate anymore because I lived in the U.K.. Mad cow and all that. . .

Just curious, this has been going on for years. Why no protests? No actions?

Interesting thread.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by mikerussellus]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Look at the date. 1977. The supposed introduction of AIDS into the main population. Homosexual Men as well as IV Drug users are still considered high risk groups and are barred from donating for that reason.

[edit on 10-12-2009 by rogerstigers]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
Someone is lying to you. Is homosexuality something we're born with or a life style choice? Is homosexuality safe or dangerous?


What does homosexuality being dangerous as regards blood donations have to do with the question of it being something we're born with or a life style choice? Those are two totally unrelated issues. Pretty sneaky. Someone's lying to us, all right.

The medication I'm on for a seizure condition prevents me from donating blood because of the possible danger to recipients. Is epilepsy something we're born with or a lifestyle choice? That question is as absurd as yours.


There is danger in childbirth. There's danger just about everything. It has nothing to do with whether it's something we're born with.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


Sorry to bring this to you my friend but my son can neither donate blood because he is a tattoo artist in his spare time and have enough tattoos in his body to be considered unsafe for donation.

And he is not homosexual.


See my point.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What does homosexuality being dangerous as regards blood donations have to do with the question of it being something we're born with or a life style choice? Those are two totally unrelated issues.


Take the case where Kyle Freeman is suing the CBC. He claims that this is discrimination because it violates his constitutional rights. Same sex marriage is legal in Canada yet they can turn around and state that it's not healthy? These issues are interlocked.

What you're missing is that the ailments you've described are not related to an activity but most likely uncontrollable health scenarios you had no choice in. Sure childbirth is optional, but so is drinking water and eating. If you want to discuss childbirth as a choice I'd be more than happy hear your argument. Childbirth is as necessary for life as air, water, and food. Humans would be extinct in 100 years without it. You can't group a critical human experience with disease and sickness.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 

Correct. Because tattoos are considered risky, optional behavior that's linked to the spread of disease. Just like homosexuality. You're agreeing with me even though you don't realize it.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers
Look at the date. 1977. The supposed introduction of AIDS into the main population.

Exactly why is it that there's a hard date for homosexuality to be a determinate for if you can donate blood? Why not ever. Do you have any information on the sudden rise of AIDS and this year?


+8 more 
posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


You're asking a relevant question in a completely incorrect way.

Stop implying that gay people are a health hazard and start asking why it is considered inappropriate for gay people to give blood!

Could it be that such ideas are a remnant of the AIDS hype of the 1980's?
Could it be that a vast majority of organisations and charities dealing with blood donation are Christian?
Could it simply be that having anal sex, protected or not, heterosexual or not, has a higher risk of disease transmission? Could it therefore be suggested that this should be another question added to the list, even if you are heterosexual?

If a person is going to be a homophobic bigot, at least have the balls to do it openly, instead of hiding it behind accusatory sentences.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
Same sex marriage is legal in Canada yet they can turn around and state that it's not healthy?


They're not stating that "it's not healthy". Those are your words. Being healthy does not necessarily equate to safe blood donations. I'm healthy. Marg's son is healthy, but neither can donate blood.

Homosexuals are more likely to test positive for HTLV-III. That has nothing to do with the question of it being something we're born with or a life style choice.

Carry on with your anti-homosexual thread. I've made my point and I'm not interested in arguing further.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
Take the case where Kyle Freeman is suing the CBC. He claims that this is discrimination because it violates his constitutional rights. Same sex marriage is legal in Canada yet they can turn around and state that it's not healthy? These issues are interlocked.


No, YOU are stating homosexuality is not healthy, and YOU are doing it for nefarious reasons.

The fact is, anal intercourse, homosexual couple or not, holds a higher risk of transmission of disease.
The problem here is that those making such determinations are not considering that not all gay men engage in this activity, and a lot of heterosexual couples do.

The ban should be upon the act itself, not on the sexual identity of the person.

YOU are implying that this is some sort of "evidence" for something wholly bigoted and homophobic. You have a clear agenda here and instead of asking the right questions and coming to reasonable conclusions, you are using this as a platform to spread your dubious opinion.




posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


Is not that I am agreeing with you "per say" but beside homoxeuality is many "other reasons" why certain people can not donate blood.

But saying that homosexuals are been targeted as "a health Risk" is a littler bit to strong, because my son could also be considered a health risk also and he is not homoxesual.

People that can not donate blood either because of medical problem

•Addison's Disease
•Adrenal Disorders
•Sinus or respiratory infections, colds or flu symptoms
•Rheumatoid Arthritis, if you're on steroids or immunosuppressive drugws
•Lupus, unless asymptomatic, and off all medication for at least a month
•Multiple sclerosis
•Are a hemophiliac
•Have had hepatitis any time after your eleventh birthday
•Have had cancer (except localized skin cancer)
•Have had a heart attack or stroke
•Have taken Tegison for psoriasis

See my point now.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual
Could it be that such ideas are a remnant of the AIDS hype of the 1980's?

If a person is going to be a homophobic bigot, at least have the balls to do it openly, instead of hiding it behind accusatory sentences.



You obviously didn't read the original post and missed the details of the WHO's statements on homosexuality and AIDS from 2008.


it (AIDS) was confined to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients.


Am I a bigot if I state that I dislike intravenous drug use and prostitution? That's okay, but if I dislike homosexuality I'm a bigot? Why is it that we fight so hard to protect one group of people who partake in unhealthy acts, but not another? I think this in itself could be classified as a conspiracy.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I believe this has to do with the many instances of tainted blood after the discovering and spreading of the HIV since the 70s.

In other words the testing and elimination of tainted blood from the blood banks supplies is too much of a hazard and expenditure that nobody wants to deal with, so the best thing is just eliminate the entire group altogether regardless of the fact hat many homosexuals does have healthy blood



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual
The fact is, anal intercourse, homosexual couple or not, holds a higher risk of transmission of disease.
The problem here is that those making such determinations are not considering that not all gay men engage in this activity, and a lot of heterosexual couples do.

The regulation from the CDC doesn't specify anal intercourse and I never mentioned any specific acts. If this is the risk factor then why don't they just ask if you've had anal intercourse since 1977? Because there's more to this than just anal intercourse.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Is not that I am agreeing with you "per say" but beside homoxeuality is many "other reasons" why certain people can not donate blood.

Then there lies the impasse. If homosexuality is but one of many things being singled out as being unhealthy then why do we have large groups of people defending this behavior. Where are the pro-heart attack and pro-cancer rallies? This is the only negative item on the check list I reviewed before donating blood yesterday that I see pro-rallies for.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
Am I a bigot if I state that I dislike intravenous drug use and prostitution? That's okay, but if I dislike homosexuality I'm a bigot? Why is it that we fight so hard to protect one group of people who partake in unhealthy acts, but not another? I think this in itself could be classified as a conspiracy.


Yes, you are.

Personally, I believe that prostitution is the choice others make. Drug use/abuse is a choice people make. It has no bearing on me and so I have no right to tell these people how to live!

Aside from my personal view...
Drug abuse and prostitution are considered crimes.
They often affect society, and especially the people around such things, negatively.

You cannot compare criminal activity to a man sleeping with another man, because it HAS NO BEARING ON YOUR LIFE!

Why do YOU think that YOU SPECIFICALLY have any claims on how another person chooses to live? Why is it any of your business, and why do you even consider it an issue for you? Why do you care so much? (I think I know exactly why, but I won't go into that, I'll save that tasty little treat for later if the thread goes in that direction)

That is precisely why your view is bigoted. You are focusing on one non-issue to support your homophobic stance. And you do so while completely ignoring the facts and the responses that would force you into thinking differently or questioning your original assertion. It's not so easy now you have relevant arguments to consider is it?

It didn't go unnoticed that you failed to respond to the other more relevant aspects of mine and others posts. This little line was easier to combat no doubt, and yet you still completely failed to do so adequately.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


Whoa! I thought this thread interesting because it descibes a life style choice as being a negative if you decide to donate blood.

Why all the anger?

I too, don't subscribe to a homosexual life style. Does that make me a bigot as well?

Your allegations are as imflamatory as those you rail against.

Suggestion?

Try decaf.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by detachedindividual
The fact is, anal intercourse, homosexual couple or not, holds a higher risk of transmission of disease.
The problem here is that those making such determinations are not considering that not all gay men engage in this activity, and a lot of heterosexual couples do.

The regulation from the CDC doesn't specify anal intercourse and I never mentioned any specific acts. If this is the risk factor then why don't they just ask if you've had anal intercourse since 1977? Because there's more to this than just anal intercourse.


No, again YOU are the one suggesting that there is more to this.

The medical profession has always associated "homosexual" with "anal intercourse". That's a fact, there's no room for debate on this, it is as plain as the sun in the sky. It's a traditional view that has no actual relevance in modern gay society, because not all gay men do this!
It's a relic of a confused and judgemental society, because the medical and social discussion about this started and ended with the creation and destruction of homosexuality laws.

The research and discussion of sexuality is sparse and limited (mostly to Kinsey, and before that the creation of laws allowing Hitler to kill people). That is why such misguided beliefs of sexual acts still stands in the medical world.

If there was more relevant research into sexuality today, the term "anal intercourse" would be on that list instead of "homosexual men". It wouldn't be limited to sexual lifestyle, it would be limited to sexual acts.

That's the problem, and that is what you are completely failing to see, in a direct effort to prove a bigoted view and justify your wider opinion.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


Whoa! I thought this thread interesting because it descibes a life style choice as being a negative if you decide to donate blood.

Why all the anger?

I too, don't subscribe to a homosexual life style. Does that make me a bigot as well?

Your allegations are as imflamatory as those you rail against.

Suggestion?

Try decaf.



Read the original post again.

I am argumentative because the post is misinformed and the poster is deliberately "translating" the facts to suit a homophobic view.

It's obvious what the intention is, because the poster repeatedly implies that homosexuality is "wrong" and "unhealthy". He's not discussing the actual facts and instead repeats that there is something unhealthy about being gay.

Yes, it makes me angry to see such homophobia, but it makes me more angry when people try to dress their opinion up as something else.

Either way, as another poster has said, we know the intention here, and it isn't to discuss WHY these rules are in place, it's to support the idea that gay = wrong.

I'll leave you guys to the discussion, because you clearly have no intention of discussing the relevance of these rules and the reasons behind them, you're just looking to prove to each other that gay people are somehow sub-human.





new topics
top topics
 
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join