Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 6
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by idle_rocker
 


It was at the request of a family member, no blood or bone marrow was donated to anonymous individuals. My blood was screened too, isn't that a requirment anyways? I'm perfectly healthy, besides the fact that I have a loving significant other in my life who is also a male.




posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Uniceft17
 


Well you could get it if your gay partner doesn't have the same moral standards that you have and goes out for a few nights of fun.

The truth is anal sex among even among heterosexuals is more dangerous because that orifice wasn't meant for sex. It is not self lubricating and the the tissues tear easier as well as it has things coming out of it, per its original design, that can also causes bleeding. This is why we try to avoid the exchange of blood. No offense, but when you are having anal sex with a group of people that have 50x the infection rate as the rest of the population, you are playing russian roulette.



[edit on 12-10-2009 by StinkyFeet]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by idle_rocker
 


Then you remember when the very first two case of what we call now HIV were found the US 1960 and 1969. Right?

Actually the first problem that was found in Africa was found as early as 1950.

NO study can prove that this disease was a homosexual disease and not study that had taken 20 years to be done can find who was the first person that actually cause the first transmission of HIV in the US.

The only reason HIV is been attributed to been a homosexual disease is as usual anti gay groups, because by the time the government decided to take it seriously it was wide spread in the homosexual community, but guess what it was also spread on the heterosexual community as well.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


What does it matter where it started. For the sake of everyones health it is important to realize that homosexual men are 50x more likely to have AIDS than the rest of the population. That is why the CDC wants to avoid putting their blood in the blood supply, because it just adds risk. It is not being homophobic, people can do as they please, it is just trying to keep the spread of the disease under control. Who would want to get AIDS just because they needed a little blood from surgery or an accident?

[edit on 12-10-2009 by StinkyFeet]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by StinkyFeet
reply to post by Uniceft17
 


Well you could get it if your gay partner doesn't have the same moral standards that you have and goes out for a few nights of fun.


The same could be said about heterosexuals, there is still a risk period. It doesn't matter how little or big, there is still a risk. And I trust my partner, I live out in the middle of no where in Alabama, not too many homosexuals to be found in these parts anyways.



The truth is anal sex among even heterosexuals is more dangerous because that orifice wasn't meant for sex. It is not self lubricating and the the tissues tear easier as well as it has things coming out of it, per its original design, that can also causes bleeding. This is what we try to avoid the exchange of blood. No offense, but when you are having anal sex with a group of people that have 50x the infection rate as the rest of the population, you are playing russian roulette.


Sorry bro but you are bring up a could of would of situation. I'm basing this on facts, I don't have aids or any other STD, I'm a perfectly healthy 20 year old male. Anal sex doesn't cause STD's, unprotected anal sex with an infected individual does. AIDS knows no orientation.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by StinkyFeet
 


As stated on the previous page.

That was a CDC ESTIMATE. There is no hard fact to back that up. They are just making up numbers based on statistics and controlled groups. Never has there been a study which targets everybody in any given population.

It's speculation, nothing more.

~Keeper



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Uniceft17
 


Once again, no offense, but even a condom is more likely to break during anal sex.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by StinkyFeet
 


Sadly is an everybody problem today including children so hey is not longer an "homosexual only issue anymore".



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by StinkyFeet
 


Yes, even with hetero sexuals. Your point?

This is an individual problem, not a homosexual problem.

And tothetenthpower caught something I didn't, Your study that you sourced to was an estimate.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by StinkyFeet
 


As stated on the previous page.

That was a CDC ESTIMATE. There is no hard fact to back that up. They are just making up numbers based on statistics and controlled groups. Never has there been a study which targets everybody in any given population.

It's speculation, nothing more.

~Keeper


Honestly would it make financial sense to base your report on a test of the entire population. They obviously base their estimate on the number of reported cases of AIDS over a period of time. So though not perfect it cannot be more than a few percent off in any direction. It is amazing how people will look to the CDC until it disagrees with their lifestyle choices. It is like a drug addict denying the fact that they are more likely to get AIDS or OD or die in an accident. Its just plain denial. Deny Ignorance!



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by northof8
 


Care to provide any links to back up your opinion?


Ahem, care to add to this? Seems to have been missed.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


I'm asking for links or references. Can you provide them?

No, I don't remember in aids in American in the 60's. The first instances of aids were in the 80's when it was first documented and was not even known as aids at the time, so please provide some (a) link about the 60's.

www.avert.org...

The first official documentation of the condition was published by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on 5th June 1981.1 Entitled “Pneumocystis Pneumonia – Los Angeles”, the report detailed the cases of five young gay men hospitalised with serious PCP, cytomegalovirus, and disseminated candida infections.

And yes, it did spread to the heterosexual community but it is not as prevalent as the links in above posts indicate.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


I agree that it is not only a homosexual issue anymore. However, we must accept the fact that the rate of infection in the US is much higher in gay men. It wouldn't make sense to have everyone stop giving blood, but it does make sense to stop the populations with the most likelihood of having AIDS from giving blood. It is just simple statistics and risk/reward.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by northof8
So because I have a neck I am supposed to look the other way while a potential AIDS victim taints the blood supply? We have enough risks in this world without at least trying to minimize the damage the "gay community" has already done with this dreaded disease.

The CDC and WHO consider the homosexual community the largest threat to the blood supply and that is what this is about. Not some preacher and I doubt that preacher would want a homosexual donating blood for his family so don't confuse the two. Don't confuse tolerance with science.

The homosexual community would use their flawed logic to force the rest of us to allow their AIDS infected population to donate their blood all in the name of political correctness if we let them.

The homosexual community doesn't need anymore influence where logic, reason and science are concerned. They barley know how to use logic and reason as demonstrated in this thread. If it wasn't so laughable it would be absurd...


Uh huh:


When AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) began to appear in hemophiliacs and surgical patients in the early 1980s, it was determined that these patients had contracted the disease through donated blood. In 1985, a test was developed to detect HIV—the virus believed to cause AIDS—in blood. Donors are now carefully screened to eliminate any who may be at risk for carrying the AIDS virus. Although the risk of contracting HIV from blood transfusions is remote, some patients who are scheduled to undergo surgery may choose to donate their own blood beforehand, in case a transfusion is necessary.


www.scienceclarified.com...

Please not let science get in the way of homophobia.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by StinkyFeet
It is amazing how people will look to the CDC until it disagrees with their lifestyle choices. It is like a drug addict denying the fact that they are more likely to get AIDS or OD or die in an accident. Its just plain denial. Deny Ignorance!


Your comparing apples and oranges. Being gay is nothing like being a drug addict. If you want to believe homosexuality is a choice then by all means believe that, but i'm not going to debate that issue.

Like I said this is an individual problem.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Lets look at it this way. If heterosexual men were more likely to have AIDS and posed a risk to the blood supply, I would have no problem following the wishes of the CDC. I would feel awful if I thought that I threatened another persons life just because I refused to listen to the nations premiere orginization on such matters. It is not being homophobic, it is just common sense.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by StinkyFeet
 


I am not denying anything.

I stated in a previous post that I agree with the CDC in regards to not allowing homosexuals to donate blood based on the statistics not the homosexual aspect of it.

And you are right this is no longer a homosexual issue, so why are they the ones still targeted. According to the science, homosexual men are more likely because they take part in anal intercourse.

Should the CDC then be asking ALL donators if they participate in this activity since it is reason they give for blanket banning homosexuals?

This would be the reasonable outcome of such a study in my opinion. It may help curb the number of infected donors presenting themselves because of the statistical nature of HIV, however it does nothing to prevent any heterosexual men or woman who have had anal intercourse from "polluting" the blood supply as you put it.

~Keeper



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Uniceft17
 


I never said whether homosexuality is a choice or not. I only brought up drug addicts as another group with a higher incidence of AIDS and to point out the risks of denial.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
The origin of AIDS and HIV
and the first cases of AIDS


Incredible actually it was a case of HIV or what is now HIV as early as the 30s Africa

Interesting.

www.avert.org...



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Uniceft17
 


I'm just asking you to be careful. It is a statistical disadvantage to be gay when it comes to aids. Yes, heterosexuals get it, but usually from IV drug use with an infected needle from needle sharing, or from bi-sexuality spreading it to heterosexuals. There are other ways but they are much more statistically infrequent.

I wouldn't want you to give a disease to a family member either. I'm just looking out for everyone's well being, including your own. As a 20 year old, you have an entire life to look forward to. Please read up on it and educate yourself about prevention and don't lie next time blood is needed. Perhaps in the case of a family emergency they can test you beforehand or something.

Thanks,

I_R









 
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join