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.

 

Gay blood ban is homophobic!

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Yes, this thread has to do with human health, but also psychology since the ban put in place was not based on medical data but homophobia.

This is the reason we were given for upholding the ban:


The US Food and Drug Administration has decided to retain current rules on gay and bisexual men donating blood.

They said there was still a tiny but "unacceptable" increased risk of HIV transmission to blood recipients.


Source

Why do I think it's homophobic? Because African-American's and Hispanics are also high-risk groups:


The HIV/AIDS epidemic in African American communities is a continuing public health crisis for the United States. At the end of 2006 there were an estimated 1.1 million people living with HIV infection, of which almost half (46%) were black/African American [1]. While blacks represent approximately 12 percent of the U.S. population, they continue to account for a higher proportion of cases at all stages of HIV/AIDS—from infection with HIV to death with AIDS—compared with members of other races and ethnicities [2, 3].

The Numbers

HIV/AIDS in 2007

Blacks accounted for 51% of the 42, 655 (including children) new HIV/AIDS diagnoses in 34 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting.

Blacks accounted for 48% of the 551,932 persons* (including children) living with HIV/AIDS in 34 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting.

For black women living with HIV/AIDS, the most common methods of transmission were high-risk heterosexual contact** and injection drug use.

For black men living with HIV/AIDS, the most common methods of HIV transmission were (in order):

sexual contact with other men.
injection drug use.
high-risk heterosexual contact.


Source


The HIV/AIDS epidemic is a serious threat to the Hispanic/Latino community. Hispanics/Latinos* comprise 15% of the U.S. population but accounted for 17% of all new HIV infections occurring in the United States in 2006 [1, 2]. During the same year, the rate of new HIV infections among Hispanics/Latinos was 2.5 times that of whites. In 2006, HIV/AIDS was the fourth leading cause of death among Hispanic/Latino men and women aged 35–44.

The Numbers

HIV/AIDS in 2007

Hispanics/Latinos accounted for 18% of the 42,655 (including children) new HIV/AIDS diagnoses in the 34 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting.

Hispanics/Latinos accounted for 17% of the 551,932 persons (including children) living with HIV/AIDS in the 34 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting.

For Hispanic/Latina females living with HIV/AIDS, the most common methods of transmission were high-risk heterosexual contact** and injection drug use.

For U.S. Hispanic/Latino males living with HIV/AIDS, the most common methods of HIV transmission were (in descending order):

sexual contact with other males .
injection drug use .
high-risk heterosexual contact.


Source

To say the FDA's decision was scientific and had anything to do with concern of the publics health is embracing ignorance. African Americans make up HALF of HIV and AIDS cases and make up only 13 percent of the US population! But they can give blood and I can't, why is this?

This decision was completely homophobic and not about concern for the publics health at all.




[edit on 6/19/2010 by Uniceft17]

[edit on 6/19/2010 by Uniceft17]




posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   
African American and Hispanic gay men are high risk groups, and the same high risk groups that began dying of AIDS more than 30 years ago are the same high risk groups dying today, Africa not withstanding, and the question of how many people in Africa who are actually HIV positive remains debatable to this day. Here's the problem, the gay movement has been in full support of the HIV theory since it was first announced by Robert Gallo in 1984, and has used their political capital to sell the threat of HIV to the entire world, as being an equal opportunity infection. One of the high risk groups is hemophiliacs because of their dependency on blood transfusions.

If HIV is in fact the source of AIDS, and to be sure, the vast majority of gay organizations support this theory, and since it is still to this day advocated that HIV can take up to several years to make its presence known, then the ban on gay blood donors is a prudent move. There have been several scientists and researchers who have vigorously challenged the HIV=AIDS theory, but for the most part the gay movement has willingly joined the political lynchings of these scientists and gladly referred to those who challenge the HIV=AIDS theory as being "AIDS dissidents" or "AIDS denialists". As far as conventional wisdom is concerned, challenging the HIV=AIDS paradigm is taboo, and dangerous. Thus, if this is how conventional wisdom is to be, it should have been easily predicted by the gay movement that the banning of gay blood donors would at some point follow. The gay movement, if it is to be treated like everyone else, should come to understand that just like everyone else, they can't eat their cake and have it too.

[edit on 19-6-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 12:23 AM
link   
I understand your position, but the truth is that discrimination against gay people is more accepted than discrimination against people of a different race or country of birth. As bad as this seems, it is better to deny one high-risk group than none at all. At the end of the day, those in need of blood are less at risk of receiving unhealthy blood.

[edit on 19/6/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Uniceft17
 


The gay movement, if it is to be treated like everyone else, should come to understand that just like everyone else, they can't eat their cake and have it too.


I'm going to have to agree with that statement. There is obviously a risk involved with letting gays donate blood...and I think it's better to be safe than sorry...why is it so important to give away your blood anyway, I'm not gay, yet I'd never give away blood unless I really had to...the thought of losing blood just makes me squirm...

But I had a question...how the hell do they determine who's gay...?




posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


Actually, I would be surprised to discover that while gay blood donors were banned, prostitutes and intravenous drug users were accepted as donors. I suspect prostitutes and intravenous drug users are barred from donating blood as well.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uniceft17
Yes, this thread has to do with human health, but also psychology since the ban put in place was not based on medical data but homophobia.


Try telling that to all the donor receipients who died in the 80's & 90's.

If you want to talk conspiracy, I guess this would be a good way for population reduction. What better way to kill people than give them infected blood?

But seriously, what has changed? Why should high-risk groups be allowed in the blood pool?


[edit on 19-6-2010 by SpeedBump]



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
African American and Hispanic gay men are high risk groups


Yes, I know this, but African Americans and Hispanics and general are high risk groups, from the way you worded it it sounds like you are saying only gay African Americans and Gay Hispanics are at high risk.

I'll say it again, almost 50% of new hiv/aids cases are African American, African Americans make up 13% us the US population, and a MUCH MUCH smaller part of the gay community, so to say most of those cases are from gay African Americans is a little far fetched when you look at the numbers.


the same high risk groups that began dying of AIDS more than 30 years ago are the same high risk groups dying today, Africa not withstanding, and the question of how many people in Africa who are actually HIV positive remains debatable to this day.


We aren't talking about Africans, We are talking about African Americans.


Sell the threat of HIV to the entire world, as being an equal opportunity infection.


As far as I know it is an 'equal opportunity infection' I don't know if I would word it that way though, but everyone is capable of getting Aids.


If HIV is in fact the source of AIDS, and to be sure, the vast majority of gay organizations support this theory, and since it is still to this day advocated that HIV can take up to several years to make its presence known, then the ban on gay blood donors is a prudent move.


I would agree if they done the same to all high risk groups.


There have been several scientists and researchers who have vigorously challenged the HIV=AIDS theory, but for the most part the gay movement has willingly joined the political lynchings of these scientists and gladly referred to those who challenge the HIV=AIDS theory as being "AIDS dissidents" or "AIDS denialists".


'The Gay Community' doesn't speak for me, I don't remember ever electing anyone there to represent me, and to be honest 'the gay community' seems alien to me, and an embarrassment to most of us gays that don't run around waving rainbow flags and screaming we are gay at the top of our lungs in the streets and dancing and acting deviant in they're pride parades, I'm not a part of that community and don't really know much about the HIV AIDS connection. All I know is that if your going to ban high risk groups, be fair about it.




[edit on 6/19/2010 by Uniceft17]

[edit on 6/19/2010 by Uniceft17]



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeedBump

Try telling that to all the donor receipients who died in the 80's & 90's.


What other reason could you give me then? Because if African Americans are allowed to donate then the reason the CDC gives falls flat on its face.


If you want to talk conspiracy, I guess this would be a good way for population reduction. What better way to kill people than give them infected blood?

But seriously, what has changed? Why should high-risk groups be allowed in the blood pool?


If this were the case then why would the bar gay's from giving blood?



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
As bad as this seems, it is better to deny one high-risk group than none at all.


As bad as it seems? It doesn't seem bad it is bad. If the CDC want's to ban blood from high risk groups then do it for all high risk groups. It's kind of pointless to ban one and not ban the others.

So you would rather be politically correct than look at the facts?


At the end of the day, those in need of blood are less at risk of receiving unhealthy blood.


If you would have read the OT then you wouldn't have said that, because high risk groups are still donating every day.


[edit on 6/19/2010 by Uniceft17]



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Uniceft17
 





'The Gay Community' doesn't speak for me, I don't remember ever electing anyone there to represent me, and to be honest 'the gay community' seems alien to me, and an embarrassment to most of us gays that don't run around waving rainbow flags and screaming we are gay at the top of our lungs in the streets and dancing and acting deviant in they're pride parades, I'm not a part of that community and don't really know much about the HIV AIDS connection. All I know is that if your going to ban high risk groups, be fair about it.


Before you made this comment posted above, I made no assumptions as to your sexuality what-so-ever, and merely assumed you were being "politically correct" by calling this ban a homophobic one. However, there is now reason to assume you are gay, and while you claim to want to distance yourself from the "gay community" you sound a lot like that "community" and are as in your face as any pride parade can be. Screaming that this move is not a medical decision and simply one rooted in homophobia ignores the very good chance that prostitutes and intravenous drug users are more than likely barred from donating blood as well. The only difference is there don't seem to be too many prostitute and heroin addict parades permeating the main streets of America.

As to your concerns about how I worded African-American gay men and Hispanic gay men being high risk groups, African-American and Hispanic prostitutes and intravenous drug users are high risk as well just as you posted in your O.P., but that original post had no concerns for how prostitutes and intravenous drug users were viewed, simply how gays were viewed, and the O.P. clearly wants to demonize this ban as being "homophobic".

The reality is that the fear is HIV period. Another reality is that the gay movement has embraced HIV because otherwise AIDS would still be called GRIDS, and the concern would not be a virus but the promiscuity and dangerous sexual activities of gay men. The gay movement wants the general public to believe there is nothing unnatural at all about anal sex, and even that passive anal sex is perfectly healthy. The gay movement desperately wanted the general public to believe that AIDS was just as much a threat to them as it was to gay men. That public now believes that and would like to avoid contracting HIV. Further, as I stated above, HIV has remained so mysterious and so pervasively elusive that it is a no brainer that people are in fear of contracting HIV through blood transfusions, and given the fact that HIV is advocated as the source of AIDS, but no one can reasonably predict when HIV will make its presence known, and given the statistical reality of who tests positive for HIV the most, it is indeed very prudent to ban all high risk groups from donating blood.

[edit on 19-6-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uniceft17
As bad as it seems? It doesn't seem bad it is bad. If the CDC want's to ban blood from high risk groups then do it for all high risk groups. It's kind of pointless to ban one and not ban the others.

It is hypocritical, but it is not pointless. Like I said I can understand why you feel frustrated because one form of discrimination is allowed and others aren't, but it's still better for those that need blood to have one less high-risk group donating.


So you would rather be politically correct than look at the facts?

Sorry to sound cold, but it is because of political correctness that ANY high-risk group be allowed to donate blood. People in need of blood should not have to fear contracting a disease when they receive blood from another person.


If you would have read the OT then you wouldn't have said that, because high risk groups are still donating every day.

Do you agree that the gay community is a high risk group when it comes to donating healthy blood? If so, then why are you claiming it is homophobia to deny that group from donating blood?

[edit on 19/6/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 01:13 AM
link   
I am one that fully endorse the ban on ALL these high risk groups. Infact I think that we should set up separate blood banks for those who are in high risk groups and provide only those in High risk groups that blood when needed. I think they too would be slightly hesitant.

Homosexuals are proven to spread the HIV virus like crazy. They cause more infections per capita than Heterosexual people!


In 2005, over half of new HIV infections diagnosed in the US were among gay men, and up to one in five gay men living in cities is thought to be HIV positive. Yet two large population surveys showed that most gay men had similar numbers of unprotected sexual partners per year as straight men and women.




US researchers applied a series of carefully calculated equations in different scenarios to study the rate at which HIV infection has spread among gay men and straight men and women. They used figures taken from two national surveys to estimate how many sex partners gay men and straight men and women have, and what proportion of gay men have insertive or receptive anal sex, or both. They then set these figures against accepted estimates of how easily HIV is transmitted by vaginal and anal sex to calculate the size of the HIV epidemic in gay men and straight men and women. The results showed that for the straight US population to experience an epidemic of HIV infection as great as that of gay men, they would need to average almost five unprotected sexual partners every year. This is a rate almost three times that of gay men. But to end the HIV epidemic, gay men would need to have rates of unprotected sex several times lower than those currently evident among the straight population. This is because transmission rates are higher for anal sex than they are for vaginal sex, say the authors. But "role versatility," whereby people adopt both “insertive” and “receptive roles,” also plays a part, they add. A gay man can be easily infected through unprotected receptive sex, and then infect someone else through insertive sex. Gay men are therefore far more susceptible to the spread of the virus through the population, even with the same numbers of unprotected sexual partners.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 01:17 AM
link   
Instead of just assuming, I decided to do a little research, and while the American Red Cross has nothing to say about prostitutes donating blood, here is what they say about intravenous drug users:


Those who have ever used IV drugs that were not prescribed by a physician are not eligible to donate. This requirement is related to concerns about hepatitis and HIV.


This site here doesn't seem to make any claims of whether or not prostitutes can donate blood, but claims that people who have sex with prostitutes, "safe sex" even, are not allowed to donate blood.

While CBS News, reporting on the ban on gay blood donors also reports that men who have had sex with women who are HIV positive or prostitutes are only banned for one year, but also say's this about the ban on gay blood donors:


Since 1985, FDA officials have had a different view. They point out that the prevalence of HIV infection among men who have had sex with other men is 60 times that of the general population.

And they say, right or wrong, the current ban has worked. The risk of getting HIV from a pint of blood is now only one per 2 million units transfused, the officials told MSNBC.


60 time that of the general population is no small number to be cavalierly dismissed as "homophobic", and only supports the entire history of AIDS, which was originally called GRIDS, (Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome), and that is that gay men are still the group that have the highest risk of dying of AIDS. As to the whole "homophobic" crap, I don't know very many people at all who give junkies a whole lot of respect. In fact, I know far more people that respect gay people than I do who respect junkies.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Before you made this comment posted above, I made no assumptions as to your sexuality what-so-ever, and merely assumed you were being "politically correct" by calling this ban a homophobic one.


Have you not been reading this thread? I wasn't being 'politically correct' my posts is based on the facts, and the fact is that African Americans Are at high risk for Aids, and yes 'gays' are too, But for some reason gay's are banned from giving blood and African Americans are still allowed, can you give me a logical reason as to why only gay's are banned.

And I do concede, it might not be homophobia, but you can't sit here and defend the decision of the CDC and say it was a medical one when they are still letting high risk groups donate.


However, there is now reason to assume you are gay, and while you claim to want to distance yourself from the "gay community" you sound a lot like that "community" and are as in your face as any pride parade can be.


Why, because I pointed out that there is an obvious injustice with this ban? And there obviously is.


Screaming that this move is not a medical decision and simply one rooted in homophobia ignores the very good chance that prostitutes and intravenous drug users are more than likely barred from donating blood as well.


Look, I'm going to say this as clearly as possible. African Americans make up almost 50% of new aids cases, and only make up 13% of the US population, Obviously they are a high risk group. But still get to donate, explain that to me.


and given the statistical reality of how tests positive for HIV the most, it is indeed very prudent to ban all high risk groups from donating blood.


I would be ok with that, I just want some equality here. If the CDC says they are going to bar gays from donating blood then they should do the same with other high risk groups, And they haven't. Why?


[edit on 6/19/2010 by Uniceft17]

[edit on 6/19/2010 by Uniceft17]

[edit on 6/19/2010 by Uniceft17]



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 01:42 AM
link   
You know, I am gay and I find that gay men suffer far more health problems than the general populace. Just a fact.

However, If blood is screened on a unversal basis, there is no need to discriminate.

It's a shame that healthy gay men can not contribute to the life of others. I agree.

However, many gay men engage in behavior that would compromise the blood supply.

I'm gay and I see this. Go to Craigslist and say you would want their blood. I wouldn't!

Gay men don't worry about pregnancy. They are far more promiscuous. Another fact. As a gay man, I would not want a blood transfusion from another gay man.

Gay men are way, way to promiscuous. Of course a good blood check would allay my fears. But unfortunately, gay men are pigs. I would not want blood or organs from a gay man. Let me die.

Ohhhhh, and drugs...forget about it. I'll die first before getting a kidney transplant from another gay man.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Double post, sorry.

[edit on 19-6-2010 by brilab45]



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost

It is hypocritical, but it is not pointless. Like I said I can understand why you feel frustrated because one form of discrimination is allowed and others aren't, but it's still better for those that need blood to have one less high-risk group donating.



So it's ok to take the risk when it comes to African Americans, but not when it comes to gay's, what if we were to reverse it and allow gay's to donate and not African-Americans, would that be right? No, I'm no longer demanding that gays be allowed to give blood, i'm demanding to make it equal, and ban all high risk groups, reading over this thread has convinced me to change my opinion on that.

But to say we are going to allow African-Americans to give blood even though they are at high risk of hiv/aids and not allow gays at the same time may be politically correct but I also sense a bit of homophobia in that decision.

The point is that the CDC is giving a bull# excuse for why they are banning gays. If you are going to ban one then ban them all.


Do you agree that the gay community is a high risk group when it comes to donating healthy blood? If so, then why are you claiming it is homophobia to deny that group from donating blood?


Yes, I stated that in the OT I believe. I'm saying it's homophobia because they decided to single us out to lower the chances. Call it political correctness or homophobia, the point is that it is still an injustice.

This is what the CDC said on there decision and what made me to believe that it was homophobic.


The body held hearings last week on the issue and committee members voted nine to six against making any immediate changes.

They said there was still a tiny but "unacceptable" increased risk of HIV transmission to blood recipients.


Source

If the risk was unacceptable then it should be unacceptable for any high risk group, but it's not. There is still a HIGH RISK period.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Uniceft17
 


I don't see where you are being scientific about this at all, and are just being emotional and quite histrionic about those emotions. Further, you have gone from relying on the "homophobic" card to now relying on race baiting and to what purpose or cause I can not be sure. Let's try to keep emotions out of this and just look at the facts. Here are some facts from the CDC:


# For black men living with HIV/AIDS, the most common methods of HIV transmission were (in order) [3]:
* sexual contact with other men
* injection drug use
* high-risk heterosexual contact**.


Take note of the double stars behind the least of the high risk factors, that being high-risk heterosexual contact. That double asterik denotes further information and here is that further information:


**Heterosexual contact with a person known to have or to be at risk for HIV infection.


Now let's look at what one of the leading AIDS organizations Avert has to say about African Americans and HIV:


For both black men and women, having unprotected sex with a man is the leading cause of HIV infection. Among black men living with AIDS, 46% were infected through male-to-male sexual contact. Among this group, the young are particularly affected. In 2006, more black men who have sex with men (MSM) between 13 and 29 were infected with HIV than any other age group, including of other races.8 Furthermore, the HIV epidemic among this group is rapidly growing as between 2001 and 2006 annual HIV diagnoses among black MSM aged 13-24 grew by 93%. Among black MSM of all ages the figure was 12%.


Take note that whether it be a man or a woman who contracted HIV, the source was mainly from a man, and that 46% with HIV was from man on man sex. Avert continues with these statistics:


There are a myriad of social and economic factors that result in higher levels of sexual HIV transmission among black Americans. However, higher levels of STDs among African Americans, also shaped by social and economic factors, in turn facilitate sexual transmission of HIV. Black Americans have 8 times the level of chlamydia, and 18 times the level of gonorrhea compared to white Americans.12 An analysis by the U.S Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that 48% of black women and 39% of black men were infected by genital herpes in the U.S compared to 21% of women and 11.5% of men overall.


And continue with this:


Injecting drug use is the second most likely HIV transmission route for African Americans and by 2007 accounted for 27% of all African Americans living with AIDS. More black males and females living with AIDS were infected by injecting drug use compared to males and females of any other racial or ethnic group. African American injecting drug users (IDUs) have a high risk of acquiring HIV and for not surviving long after an AIDS diagnosis.14

A direct risk of transmission occurs when IDUs share needles with people of a different HIV status. Indirectly, drug users may also become involved in crime or prostitution to fund their habit. Sex workers who are desperate for a fix, or are high on drugs are less likely to insist their clients use a condom. Crack coc aine, along with drugs such as crystal methamphetamine, can also lower inhibitions and increase the likelihood that users will engage in high-risk sexual behaviour.


It would appear that is certainly not race or genetics that has made African Americans such a high risk group, but rather behavior. Ironically, those who challenge the whole HIV=AIDS paradigm have been arguing for years that AIDS is a behavioral disease caused by high risk behavior and not a virus. But, conventional wisdom and a huge amount of gay advocacy groups keep insisting that those who challenge the HIV=AIDS paradigm are dangerous crackpots who should not be listened to, and the focus remains on HIV. Thus, regardless of what race a person is, when donating blood, high risk groups will be screened out. African American's will not be screened out for their genetic or racial makeup, but will be screened out for their behavior just the same as any other race. Stop race baiting, and accept that as long as HIV remains the conventional wisdom for the source of AIDS, that attempts at screening out high risk groups for donating blood will be made.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Uniceft17
 


I can barely deal with your avatar. Please rethink it and I will be more apt to read in depth your thoughts. Its offensive.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 02:32 AM
link   
The sad thing is that with public health everything counts in large amounts and averages. So a really responsible gay couple with a clean bill of health will be rejected, but a heterosexual who drinks, drugs and sleeps around every weekend may give blood. I suppose it all demands a lot of honesty in any case.

We had the same debate in South Africa around 2005/2006. At the time President Thabo Mbeki's administration took the dissident/denialist view that HIV did not cause Aids, and that ARVs were toxic. He felt that racist Western views on African sexuality informed the HIV debate. So it was a rather a big scandal when the then President donated blood, and it was allegedly destroyed because blacks were considered a high-risk group.
The blood bank immediately had to change policies, wordings, and turn to more sensitive tests. Next, a gay organization against defamation protested (GLAAD). It was decided that the wording would allow gays who had not had sex for 6 months to donate.
Of course what the blood-bank does behind the scenes remains a mystery, but at least public discrimination on questionaires was removed. At least superficially - I'm sure the questions still tease out high-risk groups (which for us would be the majority heterosexual population). Better equipment was introduced and from recent radio interviews blood is now safer (not a single proven infection this year) and more available.
Well, I have a married female friend who had the flu when the blood service came around at her work, and she was disqualified immediately.

More specifically to the posts by Jean Paul Zodeaux:
As for gays lynching anybody, or gays representing one monolithic view - I'm not convinced. Nobody minds the 2000 or so denialists/dissidents. It's that in SA we had their huge variety of dissident views imposed for a decade (1998-2008). There are straight and gay people who have supported these theories at various times (I did at a stage, and I'm gay and HIV-poz). Much of the "lynching" actually occurs by scientific peers, courts, and even amongst the dissidents themselves. Mbeki's Presidential Advisory Panel on Aids aimed to bring various dissidents and official scientists together for discussion. Towards the end the dissidents argued amongst themselves, broadly having 3 groups: the first doesn't believe HIV exists, the second views it as a harmless carrier virus, and the third is just anti-ARVs (and pro-over-priced herbal/nutritional concoctions).
None of them were qualified virologists and none of them worked in treating patients with HIV/Aids.
The leader of the dissident Perth Group, Papadopulous Eleopulus had her testimony on Aids denialsim revoked by an Australian court, after it turned out she had a BA in Nuclear Physics and was not qualified in the field of viruses or HIV/Aids whatsoever.
The next best qualified dissident was Peter Duesberg, whose theories - mostly that Aids is the result of drug abuse, poppers and AZT - have been slammed by his peers as well as an overwhelming convergence of evidence.
So it is not fair to blame the gays for the success or failure of any theory.
In fact everyone has capitalized on the gay community and their struggle against HIV, often in the face of massive stigma and bureaucratic indifference.
Were it not for Western gays HIV may have remained undiagnosed for much longer in immigrant and heroin addicts, with much greater harm to the general population. It is the gays who became the subjects of theories and studies, and who enabled both dissident and official careers, as well as safe-sex public health interventions.


[edit on 19-6-2010 by halfoldman]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join