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: 8
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Uniceft17
 


Don't worry, believes, tempers, feelings and the sense of self righteousness can blind peoples minds, including mine, I accept all human beings around me for the only fact they are my fellow human beings.

If you are comfortable doing what you do is not reason why stop doing it.

After all is your choice to donate blood or not, look at me I never have, so I applaud you for helping others in need, perhaps one day it could be your blood the one that will save my life.




posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Uniceft17
 


Apparently you misread my response to your giving blood. Perhaps you should go back and re-read.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by idle_rocker
Payton was also overweight (another health risk) while Magic is a lean, mean running machine. I'm just sayin...


Could you provide some documentation on this? I couldn't find any. Seriously I doubt it. He had cancer, not a great weight amasser. I'm beginning to think FOS.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by idle_rocker
 


Sorry about that, I got you and stinkyfeet mixed up for a minute.

not a one liner.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Uniceft17
 


No problem, kiddo. wink

I_R



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


en.wikipedia.org...

In February 1999, Payton announced that he had a rare autoimmune liver disease known as primary sclerosing cholangitis.

And I apologize, I guess I was thinking about someone else with the weight thing.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by idle_rocker
Whatever the reasons, in 2005, MSM still accounted for about 53% of all new HIV/AIDS cases


But it's ok for those 47% to give blood because they are hetero?


and 71% of cases in male adults and adolescents.


And the other 29% got it from anal intercourse with a woman. Again, I guess it's ok for these 29% to give blood since they are heteros?



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by idle_rocker
All information I have found indicates it was spread from the african monkey to Haitians, who ate it for food,


So, why aren't Haitians banned from giving blood?



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Ask the CDC. I don't make the rules.

I_R



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by idle_rocker
Ask the CDC. I don't make the rules.


No, but I would like your opinion on the other 47% of new HIV/AIDS cases each year. Are they A-OK to give blood just because they are hetero?



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
No, they are not. If you have aids you cannot give blood. Some cases are however, found through screening of donated blood and the donor is notified of the findings. The blood is not integrated into the blood supply.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by idle_rocker
No, they are not. If you have aids you cannot give blood. Some cases are however, found through screening of donated blood and the donor is notified of the findings. The blood is not integrated into the blood supply.


Yep, that is actually one other piece that has not been mentioned.. The one time I did give blood since I was an adult, I distinctly remember there being a question about differant diseases including AIDS.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


That is correct. The reasons for the questions are to eliminate unnecessary, expensive testing of blood that may be diseased.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Depending on the reason for the ban, it might be good medicine. If the ban is based on some notion that, "eew, homosexuals are dirty", then it's stupid and should be changed. I seriously doubt that this is the case, but I agree that it's not impossible. Sometimes idiotic attitudes prevail for a long time.

However, my guess is that this ban is based on experience, that for some reason, blood taken from active gay people is more likely to be contaminated. If that risk is significant - if the percentage of contaminated blood is greatly increased above average - then it makes complete sense to ban donations from active homosexual.

Despite what we would like, reality is not always politically correct. Certain traits, illnesses, and conditions do target one group more than other groups. While it may be disagreeable to have to tell a group that they can't donate blood, the alternative is criminally reckless.

What is needed, then, is to find out exactly what the logic is behind the ban. If it's based on the notion that gay people are sick, without evidence, then it should be removed. If it is based on well-conducted studies that demonstrate a higher percentage of contaminated blood among gay people, then it the ban reasonable and should not be removed.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by detachedindividual
Could it be that such ideas are a remnant of the AIDS hype of the 1980's?

If a person is going to be a homophobic bigot, at least have the balls to do it openly, instead of hiding it behind accusatory sentences.



You obviously didn't read the original post and missed the details of the WHO's statements on homosexuality and AIDS from 2008.


it (AIDS) was confined to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients.


Am I a bigot if I state that I dislike intravenous drug use and prostitution? That's okay, but if I dislike homosexuality I'm a bigot? Why is it that we fight so hard to protect one group of people who partake in unhealthy acts, but not another? I think this in itself could be classified as a conspiracy.


Indeed it could, and in fact is. Clearly, all these health organizations are not all run by "Bigots" or "homophobes", and clearly, they understand that there are health risks associated with the behavior. In fact, homosexual men have a host of health issues other than an increased risk of AIDS, and it isn't bigoted or homophobic to state such a fact. It is simply stating a fact. The people that attack you for this simply prove your point.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Interesing thread, and I haven't read all posts yet, but would like to keep my train of thought to reply firstly so long. You speak of "Africa' and "sub-sub-Saharan Africa" almost as seperate "continents". Here in SA we have 5.5 million people that are HIV-positive (including myself). It is largely a heterosexual virus over here (so the Western ideas of "high-risk" groups are turned topsy-turvy). The stigma around this problem has led the government to deny the extent of HIV/Aids for a long time and to follow discredited pseudo-science. There was a huge debate around HIV and race a while back (when ex-Pres. Mbeki's blood was destroyed). Despite seemingly sound argument from doctors, the blood-bank had to relent, and race is now no longer a criteria for giving blood. To placate medical fears, more sensitive testing equipment was apparently introduced. Even more recently, sexual orientation was removed as a criterion. Now the questions are more neutral, like sexual partners in general. It's always strange for me going on US HIV sites, because they do consider male-to male sex risky to the point of saying so. Here, this would be politically incorrect. It would also be unacceptable to say: "You are a black heterosexual and therefore an HIV-risk". Ultimately those are screening tests built up on general knowledge. Being gay does not make blood unsafe, multiple partners and unsafe sex, especially anal sex are risk-factors. Although I am gay, I would relent on that point, and I feel that public health supercedes my right to live without discrimination. Well, here the "problem" is pre-resolved with other questions (from what I hear, I obviously don't attempt to donate blood). But I hear they also ask questions in Western countries about which parts of Africa you visited, and isn't that racism? Perhaps it reminds me that gay people do have something in common that defines them as an "ethnic group", even if that definition is stereotyped and imposed. Stay safe, and play safe whosoever you are, because HIV/Aids is not confined to any group, no matter if you slightly decrease the odds.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   
For people with such open minds to be on this site in the first place I find it strange that when it comes too being gay your minds shut down.

The homophobia on here is unreal , Sexuality isn't black and white.

Just because gay people can't give blood doesn't mean you can use that as fuel for your hate. Many straight people can't give blood either.

I really feel sorry for you being so full of hate for something so trivial.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Just an afterthought. The official story of HIV/Aids goes back to the first stored blood from the late 1950s which tested positive in Africa (it was probably not a homosexual). Seemingly, it spread from monkeys and apes to humans via the bush-meat trade (with intermitant viruses that may have altered HIV). So HIV is just one in an endless list of viruses that stem from animals and the meat industry. Can we morally hold people to account for supporting the meat industry (especially factory farming)? This will become a bigger issue. Almost all our infectious diseases come from animals and the way we as a species have abused them. So before evangelical moralists selectively abuse Leviticus, they should first read Genesis 1:29.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


You won't get an argument from me on that. We treat our food animals horrible. But I won't get started and derail the thread.

And you are right about the virus coming from monkeys as far as I understand it also.

Please accept my condolences that you are sick and may God bless you to find you well in the future.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by northof8
Outside Africa homosexuals are by an large the transmitters of this dreadful disease. We are supposed to embrace them. Now a PC Troll Patrol member is trying to derail the conversation with the comparison that masturbation and the female sex drive were once considered a mental illness?

Maybe they were but now we know that masturbation and the female sex drive are not mental illnesses. Homosexuality is debatable but that is another thread but the PC Troll Patrol will turn this on into just that which, makes me believe they are mental cases more and more.

The fact still remains that homosexuals by and large are a greater danger to the blood supply than heterosexual people.

It seems here that agenda is to deny the facts and embrace ignorance... True to the theme of the homosexuals and their radical twisted view on health...


On the topic of AIDS in Africa, I saw a very interesting video on the subject. It was stated that the AIDS cases in Africa might not be as clear cut as some would think. Basically, what this person said was that there did not appear to be any more people dying in Africa as a result of AIDS than did before AIDS. It went on to state that when someone died of any disease, and that person didn't have HIV, they were stated to have died of the disease. However, if the person died of the SAME disease, and did have HIV, they were stated to have died of AIDS. Same numbers dying from the same diseases, with the only difference being that those with HIV are now called AIDS cases. Same diseases that have been killing people in undeveloped countries forever, now labeled as something new. The video went on to question whether HIV actually has anything to do with AIDS. Much of the talk was about certain high risk behaviors among the homosexual community, including the use of certain "recreational" drugs apparently for the purpose of enhancing sexual encounters.

Now, I am no expert, and cannot say how accurate this video is, but the person had some impressive credentials, and seemed quite informed on the topic. It's possible that such behaviors could be another reason for the restrictions on donating blood.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join