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

reply to post by Nutter


Here you go.. since you will keep denying that it is in FACT TRUE.
CDC Says - Gay men 50x More Aids Infected Than Rest Population

From the article

ATLANTA, Georgia, August 24, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An official with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced the CDC's estimate Monday that in the United States AIDS is fifty times more prevalent among men who have sex with men ('MSM') than the rest of the population. Dr. Amy Lansky revealed this statistic during a plenary session at the 2009 HIV Prevention Conference in Atlanta.

The CDC had already revealed last year that approximately 53% of the estimated 56,300 new HIV cases in 2006 were in homosexual men, with the African American population being particularly affected.

Which kind of disproves your 47% percent of heterosexuals. I guess unless you are including heterosexual intravenous drug users as part of regular heterosexuals.

Think you sum up much sentiment, although I'm relpying to posts collectively. HIV/Aids is unique in that it has captured together so many varying metaphors of historic viruses, as well as our group thinking about blame, stigma and sin. How strange to still be devoting so much time on certain sex acts. Shouldn't the question be: is it safe? Whatever happened to condoms? Some very convincing texts say they stopped a Western hetero epidemic in the late 1980s, and slowed the gay infection rate in the 1990s. Only a sex-act outside a "monoganous" relationship that deliberately avoids a condom is shocking. Wear a condom - who cares for which orifice!

I don't see why we can't agree that it is important to do whatever we can to help stop the spread of AIDS to everyone, no matter what race, sexual orientation, etc.....

You have my vote.

2nd line

reply to post by StinkyFeet


That's an interesting article. Can you pull it as a quote from the CDC from say, a plain ole source instead of needed to link that to a radically conservative Christian news site that boasts such headlines as:

• Mexican "Human Rights" Group Funded by Canadian Bishops' Organization Pressures State to Provide Abortion Services [Published by LifeSiteNews.com]
  
• American Pro-Lifers to Greet Spain's Prime Minister at White House [Published by LifeSiteNews.com]
  
• Deluge of Pro-Life Protest after Chicago Bubble Zone Law Passes [Published by LifeSiteNews.com]
  
• Pro-Life Leaders Shocked at Vatican Spokesman "Appreciating" Obama Peace Prize [Published by LifeSiteNews.com]
  
• Deluge of Pro-Life Protest after Chicago Bubble Zone Law Passes [Published by LifeSiteNews.com]
  

No agenda at that site!

Try getting facts from not such a biased source.

Originally posted by StinkyFeet
reply to post by Nutter

 

Here you go.. since you will keep denying that it is in FACT TRUE.
CDC Says - Gay men 50x More Aids Infected Than Rest Population

Since you are having a hard time with this word.....estimate....I'll break it down for you. IT IS A FREAKING ESTIMATE.

Now that I typed it in all caps, does it start to sink in?

Also from your same article.

Because of the difficulty of determining the homosexual population, the CDC had to estimate.

Based on a variety of national surveys, they based their statistics on the median estimate that homosexual men constitute 4 percent of the overall male population, reports RH Reality Check.

Let's break that second part down because that is where they are getting their numbers from. Kinsey estimated that it was more likely 10%. Bump that number up to 10 and I'd bet their outcome numbers would fall.

Plus, that link is NOT from the CDC itself.

Here's one though from the CDC.

Black/African American men and women were also strongly affected and were estimated to have an incidence rate than was 7 times as high as the incidence rate among whites.

Uh, Oh. Blacks are 7 times as high as whites. Better ban blacks from giving blood too.

And your own link, links me to the actual CDC page with real statics. Funny how the gay men constituted 22,500 while the heteros constituted 13,500. Hardly 50x more.

www.cdc.gov...





[edit on 12-10-2009 by Nutter]

Agreed on that. However, just reading the heading again (as a newbie), and the focus of the site should be conspiracy theory. I cannot deny that HIV causes Aids. What I could say is that the groups it affected were stigmatized before Aids became apparent. So part of the denialist and defensive reactions are tied to a sense that the high-risk groups were already pariahs and scapegoats. Another hurtful finger then points back at "fundamentalists", who were generalized as right-wing gleeful vultures. Anyway, I believe that innoculation programs and in the US had a targeted impact on gay/black populations.

reply to post by niteboy82


Sure.. I will look before the specific stats that map to the article but here is some corroborating evidence straight from the CDC.

In this quote.. MSM stands for Men having sex with men.

t MSM account for nearly half of the more than one million people living with HIV in the U.S. (48%, or an estimated
532,000 total persons).
t MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year (53%, or an estimated 28,700 infections).
t MSM is the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have
declined among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among MSM
has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.

Source - CDC

[edit on 12-10-2009 by StinkyFeet]

Originally posted by StinkyFeet
In this quote.. MSM stands for Men having sex with men.

t MSM account for nearly half of the more than one million people living with HIV in the U.S. (48%, or an estimated
532,000 total persons).
t MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year (53%, or an estimated 28,700 infections).
t MSM is the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have
declined among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among MSM
has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.

*my emphasis*


If you don't know how many gays there are, and you don't know how many of each subgroup are also IV drug users. How can you use such an estimate as proof of anything?

I don't see why we can't agree that it is important to do whatever we can to help stop the spread of AIDS to everyone, no matter what race, sexual orientation, etc.....

Well, just in case that is one of your favorite sites that you sourced earlier, you do realize that they are anti-birth control, right?

reply to post by Nutter


Its because you are lumping intravenous drug users into the stats for heterosexuals, and its total people infected not just new infections.

The reason they don't know how many gays there are is because they don't all identify themselves as the poster a few pages back indicated...that he lied when he went to give blood for a relative. Therefore it is an estimate.

reply to post by niteboy82


The last one I sourced was from the CDC. I guess they are wrong beacause you don't want to face the FACTS.

Here is one from CBS about the trends in younger men having sex with men (MSM).

CBS

I am not contributing this to say anything negative about MSM. Just to show the wiseness of the CDC for not accepting blood from high risk groups like men having sex with men, or intravenous drug users.

I don't here anyone defending intravenous drug users right to give blood. How are they going to get money for more drugs if they cannot sell their blood.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by StinkyFeet]

I don't see how the CDC can make these statements and people take them as fact.

Following is the distribution of the estimated number of cases of HIV/AIDS diagnosed among adults and adolescents in the 34 states with confidential name-based HIV infection reporting, by transmission category.

www.cdc.gov...

Bolding by me.

First of all, there are 16 states missing from this ESTIMATE. Second of all, I know that my state DOESN'T report to the CDC and I can say without a doubt that there are just as many black and hispanic heterosexual women that have HIV as gay men here do.

www.cdc.gov...

Originally posted by StinkyFeet
reply to post by Nutter

 

Its because you are lumping intravenous drug users into the stats for heterosexuals, and its total people infected not just new infections.

Obviously you didn't even take the time to look at the link?

If you had, you would have seen the special category for intervenous drug users.

I'm not going to debate with someone who only will do half the research.

reply to post by Nutter


Well then maybe they should only let white and asian women, who don't do intravenous drugs, give blood.

I will gladly give up my place in the blood giving line.

reply to post by Nutter


LMAO, me only do half the research? I am the only one of the two of us doing any. Your just reading my links and complaining.

reply to post by dbates


This could be because of the statistic that homosexual men have higher STD rates then heterosexual men, I have nothing against homosexuals...just expressing fact over opinion.

People are overreacting to this. It is the simple logical process of denying a group of people more likely to have a disease from giving blood. If it was forbidden for ONLY homosexuals then that would be suspicious. Please try and remove emotion from this debate because it is a no-brainier when you take the PC-gone-mad factor away.

Technically speaking it is a health risk for those in need of blood transfusions if the only blood available comes from a population where people take part in risky behaviour. The safety of the average person who needs blood after an incident - whether hetero/homo/bi/trans - counts on the supply being healthy and risk free. Prevention is by far the most important factor in this issue.

We are entering an age of Christian Dominionism. Once those who are exposing the truth are removed, those left will face the "Age of Judgements."

If you have not followed god's laws (read that as church rules and dictates by preachers who claim to represent god) then you are going to get kicked to the curb in many more ways.

If you have done anything to "deliberately defile your body temple" you will not receive any health care.

If you can't give blood...then you can't receive it either.

Red Cross....think about the symbolism.