It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 13
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 06:55 PM
Yes, I believe you are correct.
However, I believe their experiment was a bit of a failure.
Some energy (which we fail to truly explain) means that every war is followed by an even greater baby boom. Why would they want to wipe out homosexuals, apart from the fact that they were fair game? Well, whatever the initial point was, we now try and deal with that reality. I suppose people on meds will never bite the hand that feeds them life-extending meds.

posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:57 PM
reply to post by dbates

I can't find the source (I think it is off line), but the reason for the date of 1977 was to settle a number of lawsuits against the big 8 blood agencies. More then a few high powered people were infected in the late 70's-early 80's with blood that was traced back to homosexuals.

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 02:59 AM
reply to post by dbates

1. You went to give blood and encountered previously unknown information, this is apparent in the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph.

2. Once learning this information, you then did a bit of research into the "who's and why's" of it, which is once again apparent via the references.

3. After reading all you had found, you gathered it up and posted it here to share with us. must have asbestos shielding.

4. You provided verifiable references, which seem to have stirred up a few people here in defense of homosexuality. Even though this thread is in no way “against” homosexuals, it is merely stating the information found regarding blood donations from certain peoples.

5. Yes, from the information given, the leading health organizations do see it as a risk and are fairly clear on the types of people they consider to be the highest risk.

Your question;
"If homosexuality is safe then why does the Center for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration consider this risky?"

You are correct to question the contradictory rules and regulations with which we find ourselves living today. For every position there is equal opposition, we see and hear it every day. Too bad a bit of opposing information didn’t show up from some of your opposition in this thread, it would have made an interesting read.
Thank you, dbates, for I too did not know this I do

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 03:47 AM

Originally posted by jayjayson
reply to [url=
"More then a few high powered people were infected in the late 70's-early 80's with blood that was traced back to homosexuals.

Perhaps in the US they were traced back to bisexual and gay men. But this point ignores the whole continent of Africa. The first provable HIV-positive blood sample came from stored blood (which was stored for other purposes) from an African heterosexual in 1958. So whatever your point, ANY HOMOSEXUAL WAS INFECTED BY A HETEROSEXUAL FROM AFRICA in a chain of infection. Unless one subscribes to conspiracies that blame targeted infection amongst certain groups on (amongst US gays) Hepatitis B inoculations. Well, the newly invented injections were used pretty irresponsibly at first in the 1950s. In the Congo sometimes more that a thousand people were vaccinated agnainst Polio with only two needles!

posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:45 PM
reply to post by halfoldman

It appears that HIV evolution is still ongoing. In a August 2009 a woman from cameroon showed viral evidence of a gorilla strain. Until then, all HIV was traced backed to Green Monkey and Chimp viruses that somehow concentrated to infect humans. Well, the medical establishment is always slow to admit any boo-boos. I still think the West should export vegetarianism, rather than abstinence. For what it's worth, check out

posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 10:55 PM
We should ban African-Americans from donating blood as well since they have even higher rates than gay men for HIV.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by ooomonkeys]

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 12:54 AM
This is insane, a friend told me a similar story a few days ago an I was shocked. He had gone to donate blood and was asked to fill out a a sheet of paper and one of the questions was about whether he'd participated in "homosexual activities" and he andswered yes. Apparently they went over the answers when it was his turn and he was asked if he had made a mistake with his answer on the question and he said no and he wasn't allowed to give blood. He said he was in shock and then began to reason with the woman, whom actually agreed and sympathized, but he couldn't give blood. This type of discrimination is alarming, not only because it is so blatent, but also because it is turning away indiviuals offering their blood in donation, and there is always a need for blood donations. Some have argued that people with tattoes and people who use drugs through a syringe also can't give blood so tough luck, but the difference is that HIV has been shown to pass through shared needles which happens often in the drug community as well as the amateur tattoo community. Homosexuals, however, are not more likely than heterosexuals to contract or carry HIV. Most people who have taken a basic biology course know this and yet somehow the rumor exists. It seems that many laws are written and many writes deprived all because a somewhat small group of undereducated people distribut misinformationa and create fear in the minds of the preoccupied masses. Maybe that's the real conspiracy.

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 01:10 AM
Forget about donating blood jack,

driving is where the true danger is at...

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 08:22 AM

Originally posted by illuminationproclomation
It seems that many laws are written and many writes deprived all because a somewhat small group of undereducated people distribut misinformationa and create fear in the minds of the preoccupied masses.

Are you including Dr Kevin De Cock in the group of "undereducated people"? He was the Director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Kenya for 6 years and has now been promoted as the director of all of the World Health Orgainization's (WHO) work related to HIV/AIDS. You need to go back and read the initial post as Dr De Cock is one of the main sources I quoted. He's one of the world's leading experts on the subject.

You can read his credentials at his page on the WHO's website.

posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 09:49 AM
My brother is very good friends with a lady named Kathy and she inspects Plasma Centers for CDC compliance and precautions. Here is what she has told me.

1. The tests for venereal disease are not perfect with some being better indicators than others.

2. Part of the measures against gay donations came about both through observation that a higher percentage of gay men had transient sexual partners and homophobia as many religious people didn't want "gay" blood.

3. People would be offended if they had to answer stringent details about their sexual past. One of the questions on the form is an open ended question which I don't think many understand and that is "Have you or your partner ever done anything that puts you at risk for donating blood?" The standard response is no...I'm not gay!"

4. Fairly often blood products are still recalled. One of the biggest was Serologicals (out of business) in the late 90's had shipped 100,000 units of plasma from a hepatitis infected woman as well as many recalls from blood infected with Aids and other venereal disease. Their primary donors were women.

5. The reason these statistics are so high (Linda's Words (Coworker) is because the majority of gay men that happened to come in to donate are honest and say yes, I have done this. The problem she sees is that there is no way for the (supposedly) straight man that has had male partners to say yes. There is also the stereotype that multiple partners is ok in the heterosexual community (donating standards) so that is almost completely overlooked because the donor doesn't see it as risky.

Her thoughts were that in a perfect world that people would be merited on donation individually but, that doesn't supply enough and there are no ways to check. She would rather receive blood from a gay guy that had one or few partners than the football jock that scores with a different lady every weekend. Until better testing procedures are invented there will always be a ban on groups that are considered high risk.

My opinion is that gays are used as a scapegoat to some extent so that people continue to donate and to quell fears about the blood supply. A hospital selling blood and products is good business. You can ask my dad on that. (transfusions during heart surgery). Some gays are high risk, I know them and it is true but, I also know many more heterosexuals that should be considered high risk that donate like clockwork.

These problems are a direct result though of people not being able to talk about sex and sexuality openly and honest. If you were to ask many people about intimate details of their life for screening many would get offended and leave.

[edit on 22/10/09 by toochaos4u]

posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 09:35 PM

Originally posted by StinkyFeet
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.

In the future it will very much be a religious issue. It is gently sneaking in under the guise of "health issue" right the future people will be "cut off" because of their "ecclesiastical sins". This issue is just getting a foot in the door with it.

Singling out homosexuals as "all likely to have bad blood" is gay bashing.

posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 04:50 PM
I'm fairly tired of all the "those homos are suffering, so let's punish them more" weird backwards logic. As someone else so put it, It's like purposefully running someone down with a car and then claiming that the streets are too dangerous to walk on. As for the blood policy, I think they should be talking about behaviours (anal sex, promiscuity, etc) not relative gender.

A previous little list I made:

1) Half of homosexuals, lesbians, have even better rates than their hetero counterparts … so MORE healthy / moral?

2) Promescuity, not gender, is the problem … and trying to discourage or even criminalise open/public commitment / responsibility, not to mention push sex underground, doesn’t help anyone (hint: including homosexuals). People deamonize what gay kids need most, stable gay couples for role models, and then try and wipe their hands clean when any dream or expectation of settling down doesnt exist in them as adults.

3) Straight women have sex with guy(s) as well. If a male does the same thing and gets an STD, and you blame it on homosexuality and not promiscuity, then what of the straight “black women” ‘lifestyle’ of various urban and other areas? Some of the statistics are just as bad or worse … but somehow I doubt your going to put the blame on race or gender relative to their orientation towards men (and rightfully so, of course … the error is in people making that same absurd leap with gay men, or even lesbians).

4) A monogamous gay couple has no worse STD risk than a monogamous straight couple. It’s obvious, but people still don’t seem to grasp it.
edit on 14-10-2010 by MrgSprtr because: Incomplete

top topics

<< 10  11  12   >>

log in