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.

 

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

page: 11
20
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by StinkyFeet
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.


If you would include heterosexuals into that statement I could agree.

MSM 22,472
IVU (intervenous drug users) 4,939
heterosexuals 13,627

www.cdc.gov...

According to the CDC, heterosexuals are nearly 4 times more likely to get infected than IV drug users. Going by your logic that is.




posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Alethea
 


Oh for Christ's sake, don't make it a religious issue. It is a health issue and you just make the rest of us look like a bunch of gay hating religious people, when all we are trying to do is promote common sense in protecting the blood supply from AIDS.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Please do us both a favor and take a statistics class. There are way more heterosexuals than intravenous drug users so the percentage of heterosexuals vs the percentage of idu's is way lower.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by StinkyFeet
 


Actually, again, you are wrong. Those are high risk heterosexuals. Therefore, the population benchmark would be far lower.

Again, it really helps with a debate when the person you are debating actually takes the time to look at what you present.

Have a good day. I refuse to debate you anymore.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by Nutter]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Well how do you tell a high risk hetero from a low risk one, just add them all together and divide by the infected. You bust me up. You are making me tired so I think I will take a break.

What is wrong with being careful so you don't spread AIDS to people getting surgery or those who got hurt and didn't engage in any high risk behavior? Are you all really that desperate to feel equal or accepted or whatever it is?

If that is the case, I just want you to know that I accept you as my equal.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by StinkyFeet]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
"If you would include heterosexuals into that statement I could agree."

I suppose you wouldn't look outside the US and come here to South Africa for a random blood transfusion from a heterosexual then?



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


That's fair enough.

I imagine the gay guys don't really care if it's a health risk. Not a choice in my opinion. They are what they are.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by StinkyFeet
What is wrong with being careful so you don't spread AIDS to people getting surgery or got hurt and didn't engage in any high risk behavior?


There is nothing wrong at all. Just don't be biased about it. Yes, homosexuals have a high risk factor for HIV. But, then again so does nearly anyone else. Unless you can honestly say that your "spouse" is with you 24/7 and you know exactly what they are doing at all times, then go ahead.


Are you all really that desperate to feel equal or accepted or whatever it is?


I couldn't care any less what your opinions of me are.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
"If you would include heterosexuals into that statement I could agree."

I suppose you wouldn't look outside the US and come here to South Africa for a random blood transfusion from a heterosexual then?


That is not the point. The point is the CDC has demonized gay men for aquiring HIV and banned them from giving blood while the heterosexuals who are doing god knows what are allowed to.

And why don't you agree that ALL blood should be treated as if it might be infected and not just the "ew, gay" blood?



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Some gay folk scream Homophobe more than Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton scream racist. They aren't demomizing, they are just trying to keep people safe FROM A DEADLY DISEASE.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   
I DO agree. Just here in SA it was a major fracas about a year or so ago (following the issue of black blood). Our blood banks no longer use that terminology. But it was a huge issue that (I think) ended in our constitutional court. So perhaps I'm being a bit blase, because we already have that. The US needs a major overhaul of much of its policies and info on HIV in any case. It is one of the few countries that still bars entrance for HIV-positive people (without a special visa - good luck getting it). It is no longer considered a main leader in research and policy, and the abstinance Prepfar plans have compounded corrupt, or at least misguided charity. On the other hand I saw what went on in gay clubs run on liberated international lines - and I am not impressed with many of my gay people. Yes, that terminology should not be there, although in SA blood donations are never rewarded for money and intravenous drug use is limited (although there is a significant drug problem). Although legal (even same-sex marriages), homosexuality is still socially frowned upon in many areas. I was just trying to tell some posters who attempt to write hetero sex out of HIV/Aids risk that this situation is local for them, and not global. There are proven ways of screening blood donors without homophobia, or alarmist and offensive terminology. Stay well.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


Not all people involved in the sex industry are high risk. For example, people in porn (the active participants in the sexual acts) have a much lower than average STD rate.
Maybe because the industry requires that all performers arrive on a set with an AIM test no older than 30 days with negative results for HIV,chlamydia , and gonorrhoea. Another words their pay checks depend on it,

Even at the height of an HIV outbreak in 2004, only four performers were infected.
AIM (aim-med.org) tests about 2,000 people each month, and only 2.8 percent test positive for an STD. That's well below comparable national rates: In the U.S., about 22 percent of people ages 15 to 24 get an STD each year. (The CDC groups 15- to 19-year-olds and 20- to 24-year-olds. The majority of porn stars are 18 to 24, which overlaps the two age categories.)

In my experience most dancers have less partners than the average person.

This may answer some questions Re: homosexuals, AIDS numbers and the CDC, maybe it isn't so much just the anal sex issue. Not giving an opinion on this angle because I've not formulated one, just found the info and throwing it out there.




CDC reports that 87 percent of all American AIDS patients are males. This number is the sum of the following constituents: First, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics report that more than 75 percent of hard, recreational drugs are consumed intravenously by males. Second, CDC and independent investigators report that nearly all male homosexuals with AIDS and at risk for AIDS are long-term users of oral drugs such as nitrite inhalants, ethylchloride inhalants, amphetamines, coc aine, and others to facilitate sexual contacts, particularly anal intercourse (A.R. Lifson et al., American Journal of Epidemiology, 131:221-31, 1990; M.S. Ascher et al., Nature, 362:103-4, 1993).


[edit on 12-10-2009 by Sundancer]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Sundancer
 


Well I see your point and I think we should only let women give blood, we men will go out and have beers and check out chicks while we wait for you to finish. It's tough being a man these days.


[edit on 12-10-2009 by StinkyFeet]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
I agree, there were and are sporadic alarming epidemics amongst sex workers. However, UNAIDS and others have pretty successfully minimized those risks. Due to such intervention eg. the "Asian" epidemic never really happened. The issue in SA and concurrent relationships is that they have a transactional componant, but the partners (and their parners, and their partners etc) also have a long-term involvement, they often have extended families. Therefore they often do not use a condom. Sleeping with a commercial sex worker in SA is actually quite safe - they mostly demand condom use. Rural women with a bread-winning male partner(s)often do not.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
"Well I see your point and I think we should only let women give blood, we men will go out and have beers and check out chicks while we wait for you to finish. It's tough being a man these days.
"

Mmm...sounds good men without chicks...beers...don't forget the condoms! Ha, ha...oh no here comes the statistic brigade telling us that exclusively female blood is probably not even safer in the US right now! Great post, even if light-hearted it highlights the greater gender issue. In a "romantic sense' it sounds almost vamp-iric!



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by StinkyFeet
 


You can't do that because we woman may be cheating on you guys, having unprotected anal sex while you're not looking


Really it's a subject I wish we didn't even have to talk about. There should be a cure, but the cost of drugs per month is big money for big pharma



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sundancer
reply to post by StinkyFeet
 


You can't do that because we woman may be cheating on you guys, having unprotected anal sex while you're not looking


Really it's a subject I wish we didn't even have to talk about. There should be a cure, but the cost of drugs per month is big money for big pharma


Well that is true. We all know how women are.


Maybe we can watch you cheat, while you are giving blood, and we are drinking beers, and checking out the nurses. A win-win.


It is a very sad topic and I do hope they find a cure soon. I watched a good friend die from this years ago, and my favorite singer on Earth, Freddie Mercury, also died from AIDS. It has taken a terrible toll on humanity.



[edit on 12-10-2009 by StinkyFeet]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual
[...]

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.


I think you need to look in the mirror. You get so defensive when there exist stipulations to prevent the average person from receiving tainted blood from stock at the blood banks. But you condone the boycotting of a WHOLE nation of people because you condemn the actions of a minority (army) within that country? The irony of the situation is that there is a large homosexual community in that country and society as a whole is probably more accepting of gays than the country in which you currently reside.

Another thing: don't give people the "just come out and say you hate gave people!" card - even if people genuinely did dislike somebody purely because of their sexuality, coming out and saying it would result in a warning/ban.

[edit on 12/10/2009 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
post by StinkyFeet[/url]
 


"You can't do that because we woman may be cheating on you guys, having unprotected anal sex while you're not looking


Really it's a subject I wish we didn't even have to talk about. There should be a cure, but the cost of drugs per month is big money for big pharma
"

If all the men are drinking beer and having M2M "bonding" fun, then who are ya gals gonna have anal sex with? Interesting point though (minus the anal part, but hey, perhaps there are things we men don't know), the infection rate for woman-to-woman/lesbian sex is relatively low. Perhaps this is what irks patriarchy so much (the same patriarchy that dominates women and despises gay men). Without the penetrating male organ HIV could not spread very far in a society of women. The same organ used for religious fertility is the organ of contamination. Hence hetero HIV in sub-Saharan Africa is sidelined for a tired debate about a minority of US gay men.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
the infection rate for woman-to-woman/lesbian sex is relatively low.


But still exists. Which is the point of my diatribe about statistics and such. Sorry I wasn't able to inform you of all people. I thought you said you were POZ?

To all of you who say that the CDC isn't discriminating against gay men and others, then go ahead and have a transfusion from an untested batch of blood.

Oh, that's right, they DO test the blood. Then why are we having this discussion in the first place if not that the CDC is discriminating against a select few?



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join