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.

Originally posted by jayjayson
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread509659/pg1#pid731587
"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!

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.

Forget about donating blood jack,

driving is where the true danger is at...

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]

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.