PDA

View Full Version : The Battle Over Blood



PoliCon
06-09-2010, 04:56 PM
By Cliff Kincaid | June 9, 2010

Tragically, despite the life and death nature of this issue, news organizations are spreading deliberate lies.

With the public focused on the calamity of the Gulf oil spill, another disaster that could affect millions of lives is in the making. The federal Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability (ACBSA) is holding meetings on June 10 and June 11 to consider lifting the ban on gay blood.

In this battle, if the gays win, you lose.

Gay activists, who are expected to dominate the proceedings and intimidate federal policy makers, insist that the ban is discriminatory and homophobic and are demanding the “right” to donate blood. The lifting of the ban on gay blood is seen as a necessary prerequisite to lifting the ban on open gays in the military. After all, how can gays be on the battlefield, where they could be called upon to provide a blood transfusion to a fellow soldier, if they cannot legally donate blood?

What this means, if politics is played with the blood supply, is that that the five million Americans a year who receive blood transfusions, in addition to soldiers on the battlefield, could be exposed to the AIDS virus or other infections in the diseased blood of sexually active homosexuals.

Tragically, despite the life and death nature of this issue, news organizations are spreading deliberate lies.

For example, The Desert Sun of Palm Springs, California, reports that “Gay advocates in the Coachella Valley say now is the time to change the ban they consider discriminatory.” It then quoted David Brinkman, executive director of Desert AIDS Project in Palm Springs, as saying, “There is no scientific or medical evidence that supports the need for the ban anymore. All blood is tested twice and there’s 100 percent accuracy to insure no HIV gets into the blood supply.”

I informed Nicole Brambila, the author of the story, that the claim she featured in her story was absolutely false. But she refuses to correct the record.

In fact, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), with jurisdiction over the blood supply, says, “Blood donor testing using current advanced technologies has greatly reduced the risk of HIV transmission but cannot yet detect all infected donors or prevent all transmission by transfusions. While today’s highly sensitive tests fail to detect less than one in a million HIV infected donors, it is important to remember that in the US there are over 20 million transfusions of blood, red cell concentrates, plasma or platelets every year. Therefore, even a failure rate of 1 in a million can be significant if there is an increased risk of undetected HIV in the blood donor population.”

This is one reason why gay males, or men who have sex with men (MSM), are prohibited from donating blood.

The FDA also says, “Detection of HIV infection is particularly challenging when very low levels of virus are present in the blood for example during the so-called ‘window period.’ The ‘window period’ is the time between being infected with HIV and the ability of an HIV test to detect HIV in an infected person….FDA’s MSM policy reduces the likelihood that a person would unknowingly donate blood during the ‘window period’ of infection. This is important because the rate of new infections in MSM is higher than in the general population and current blood donors.”

These critical facts are being carefully omitted from media coverage of the pending change. And because the major media are influenced or intimidated by such groups as the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association and the gay-run Media Matters organization, reporters can find themselves targeted as “haters” and “homophobes” if they tell the truth about the gay lifestyle. As a result, many writers and commentators decide to avoid the topic.

The truth is so sensitive that when the Obama Administration tapped a Washington University professor by the name of Jonathan I. Katz to serve on a scientific panel to review the handling of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, he was immediately attacked because of his article, “In Defense of Homophobia,” on the dangers of homosexual behavior.

As a result of the outcry from the homosexual lobby, Katz was dropped from the panel, even though the article had nothing to do with the Gulf matter. This is how they operate—protest and intimidation. As we recently saw with George Will’s capitulation to the gay lobby, very few conservatives have the intestinal fortitude to go up against them.

Despite the controversial title, the Katz article is well-researched and touches on the gay blood problem, noting that the homosexual activists have been campaigning for a lifting of the ban for several years and that their position is that “In order to satisfy their demand for full acceptance by society, the homosexual movement demands to kill some transfusion recipients by infecting them with AIDS…”

Do you or your loved ones want to die in order to advance the gay rights agenda?

In advance of the Thursday and Friday meetings on blood safety, a federal notice has reiterated that male homosexuals “have an increased incidence and prevalence of several currently recognized transfusion-transmitted diseases”—Hepatitis B virus, HIV, syphilis, and cytomegalovirus.

It also says, “There is a theoretical concern that MSM populations may also be at increased risk for other unrecognized transfusion-transmitted agents.” That means another infectious agent could be lurking in the blood that they want to have the “right” to donate to the nation’s blood supply.

The move to lift the ban is being spearheaded by the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights lobby which contributes to the campaigns of liberal Congressional candidates. It reports “progress” in this effort, based on the fact that Senators John Kerry and Al Franken have done the organization’s bidding and pressured the federal government to hold the June 10 and 11 meetings to consider lifting the ban on gay blood. The FDA commissioner, Dr. Margaret Hamburg, is a political appointee of the Obama Administration.

The pressure campaign has already forced the American Red Cross and two other blood groups to previously argue for lifting the ban. But the FDA, after reviewing the policy in 2006, reiterated the prohibition, which has been in effect since 1983 and applies to MSM since 1977, the beginning of the AIDS epidemic.

Randy Shilts’ book, And the Band Played On, and the movie by the same name that was based on it, documents how gays at that time of the discovery of AIDS and the virus causing it, HIV, were even then arguing that a ban on gay blood was discriminatory. The blood industry was then resisting the testing of the blood, mainly because of the cost.

The result was an unconscionable delay in banning gay blood and the unnecessary deaths of many people.

The gays even objected to the original name for AIDS as GRID, standing for gay-related immune deficiency. Another name for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, the “gay cancer,” was also jettisoned because of its obvious association with the gay lifestyle.

Upset at the delay in responding to the dangers to the blood supply, one official of the Centers for Disease Control, reported Shilts, attended a meeting on blood safety and pounded his table with his fist, shouting, “How many people have to die? How many deaths do you need?”

A representative of hemophiliacs, dependent on blood transfusions for their day-to-day survival, objected to all of the talk at the time about the rights of gays not to be discriminated against, asking, “What about our right to live?”

Once again, as we have seen in the gays in the military debate, the gays are constantly screaming about their rights, oblivious to the point of madness about the rights of others. In this case, it’s our right to be free of infected blood when our loved ones get a blood transfusion.

But unless the public quickly offers its comments and raises an outcry with the federal authorities coming under the influence and intimidation of the gay rights lobby, the “right” to donate blood could soon be extended to a politically-connected special interest group that has a demonstrated propensity to acquire life-threatening and deadly diseases.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-battle-over-blood/

CueSi
06-09-2010, 08:21 PM
If this is true, it highlights something that's always worried me . . . that the activist wing is going to be so concentrated on winning that it will be nothing for them to sacrifice sanity. And I won't have it. This ban isn't about hate, it's about public safety.

I want DADT to be lifted for practical reasons. . .most of the people discharged under it were Arabic Translators. We need those people. But if they're going to tie it in to a lift of the blood ban, I can't and won't support it.

To lift the blood ban is to return of the days of Ryan White, Kevin Peter Hall, and Kimberly Bergalis.


~QC

PoliCon
06-09-2010, 08:24 PM
Here's something I don't get - why would a gay person want to know a language that is primarily spoken - with very VERY few exceptions - by people who would require that gay persons life be forfeit for their choice in sexual partners?

Gingersnap
06-09-2010, 09:08 PM
To be honest, there is no way now to prevent donors from donating. I'm an apheresis donor and there's a huge list of questions that would toss me out. I don't have sex with prisoners or go to Africa nor have I had a certain type of brain surgery but the techs have no way of knowing if you are lying or not.

They test everything but there's no way right now to test for extremely low levels of virus.

People with personal integrity would never put another person at risk to score a social or political point. People blinded by identity politics simply don't care.

noonwitch
06-10-2010, 09:10 AM
If this is true, it highlights something that's always worried me . . . that the activist wing is going to be so concentrated on winning that it will be nothing for them to sacrifice sanity. And I won't have it. This ban isn't about hate, it's about public safety.

I want DADT to be lifted for practical reasons. . .most of the people discharged under it were Arabic Translators. We need those people. But if they're going to tie it in to a lift of the blood ban, I can't and won't support it.

To lift the blood ban is to return of the days of Ryan White, Kevin Peter Hall, and Kimberly Bergalis.


~QC



I have to agree with you about the public safety factor. There may be a time that the ban on gay blood donors can be lifted in the future, especially if transmission rates drop substantially in the gay population and reach the level of the hetero population. Or, where new testing methods allow immediate and accurate confirmation of someone's HIV status.

PoliCon
06-10-2010, 11:32 AM
To be honest, there is no way now to prevent donors from donating. I'm an apheresis donor and there's a huge list of questions that would toss me out. I don't have sex with prisoners or go to Africa nor have I had a certain type of brain surgery but the techs have no way of knowing if you are lying or not.

They test everything but there's no way right now to test for extremely low levels of virus.

People with personal integrity would never put another person at risk to score a social or political point. People blinded by identity politics simply don't care.

So this proves to be yet another example of gays wanting to be in your face.

noonwitch
06-10-2010, 12:54 PM
So this proves to be yet another example of gays wanting to be in your face.



For the activists, yes. For the average gay person, it's more of a desire to give to the community. Blood banks around here go through phases were the supply gets low-it would be frustrating to me if I knew I was healthy and HIV free and desired to help my community, but was denied that opportunity to help others simply because I was gay.

I still think the policy is right.

CueSi
06-10-2010, 01:39 PM
Here's something I don't get - why would a gay person want to know a language that is primarily spoken - with very VERY few exceptions - by people who would require that gay persons life be forfeit for their choice in sexual partners?

Two and a half reasons off the top of my civilian head:

Know your enemy. It's a known fact that many radical Islamic clerics and others say one thing in English and another in Arabic.

Plus it's a marketable skill that carries you well outside the service, to places like the UN, various embassies and major industries. And everyone (fabulous,lawl) loves a jet-setting lifestyle. You can even work for yourself as a translator. I know a lady who speaks fluent Russian and Spanish and makes GREAT money translating documents.

And I'm guessing it was marketed as a 'low risk/high-smarts' way of being part of the military, and maybe that's what drew people like Lt. Dan Choi to that particular MOS.

~QC

linda22003
06-10-2010, 01:57 PM
Here's something I don't get - why would a gay person want to know a language that is primarily spoken - with very VERY few exceptions - by people who would require that gay persons life be forfeit for their choice in sexual partners?

Because it's a high value knowledge asset despite that, and something our military and intelligence groups need more expertise in. They're not hiring tenth-grade Spanish speakers; those are a dime a dozen.

PoliCon
06-10-2010, 02:37 PM
Because it's a high value knowledge asset despite that, and something our military and intelligence groups need more expertise in. They're not hiring tenth-grade Spanish speakers; those are a dime a dozen.

I understand the value to the US what I don't get is why gays would take the time to learn the language of people who want them dead.

linda22003
06-10-2010, 02:45 PM
I already explained that. If it's a valued asset, people who have that asset will be doing a valued service and will be rewarded accordingly.

PoliCon
06-10-2010, 02:46 PM
I already explained that. If it's a valued asset, people who have that asset will be doing a valued service and will be rewarded accordingly.

Butchering is a valued asset - does it make sense for vegans to learn that skill?

linda22003
06-10-2010, 02:48 PM
I've exolained it in the simplest terms I can and you refuse to get it. That's all I'm in the mood for.

Sonnabend
06-10-2010, 07:33 PM
Gays cant give blood here and the ban stays.

Good.

warpig
06-10-2010, 10:18 PM
Gays wish to do this because they feel it will legitimize their sexual orientation as being normal, which it isn't. This is why they come out with all of these "causes", to try and convince society there is nothing wrong with what they do. In truth the list of problems they experience is long.

CueSi
06-12-2010, 11:51 AM
Butchering is a valued asset - does it make sense for vegans to learn that skill?

Like I said before, it is a case of knowing your enemy. Maybe it's also a compensation route. I know if I joined the military, I'd want to do something complicated and indispensable.

~QC

wilbur
06-12-2010, 12:01 PM
I suspect similar objections relating to prevalence of std's, etc could be raised against black women/men donating blood. Wonder if anyone would favour cutting them completely out too.

CueSi
06-12-2010, 12:05 PM
I suspect similar objections relating to prevalence of disease, etc could be raised against black women/men donating blood. Wonder if anyone would favour cutting them out too.

OH kiss my black ass. . . don't EVEN play the race card here. Race and sexual behavior are two different things. Your emotionalism is shallow here. Sexual behavior crosses all races.

Christ, I fucking hate liberals like you.

~QC

wilbur
06-12-2010, 12:13 PM
OH kiss my black ass. . . don't EVEN play the race card here. Race and sexual behavior are two different things. Your emotionalism is shallow here. Sexual behavior crosses all races.

Christ, I fucking hate liberals like you.

~QC

Sexual orientation isn't a behaviour. In any case, I'm just saying... if one is going to leverage the types of arguments in the OP against homosexuals.. they better be prepared to deal with the consequences. Like it or not, rates of STD's in the black population (including AIDS) are far greater than they are in most other demographics, so the arguments can easily apply. One might be able to say the same for people in poverty, in general.

wilbur
06-12-2010, 12:23 PM
And of course, lesbians should be super-donors - they have lower rates of STD than anybody ;)

CueSi
06-12-2010, 12:31 PM
Sexual orientation isn't a behaviour. In any case, I'm just saying... if one is going to leverage the types of arguments in the OP against homosexuals.. they better be prepared to deal with the consequences. Like it or not, rates of STD's in the black population (including AIDS) are far greater than they are in most other demographics, so the arguments can easily apply. One might be able to say the same for people in poverty, in general.

Sexual orientation translates to behavior in some cases.

There are many other factors in that rise in STD's . The Down low phenomenon is a major consideration- you have men who are engaging in sex with men , then come home to their unaware female partners. Also you have the use of crystal meth - - which puts you on a multiday high and not giving a fuck about condoms. Or widen your view to the circuit party scene in total -- which puts gay men in a collision course with trouble. Hence why they also ask about IV drugs, prison stays, and travel to various parts of the world. I don't see anyone asking the ban be lifted on THEM.

Lesbians aren't shut out of the donor process - I know plenty that give almost every time they are asked. Gay/Bisexual men are.

~QC

PoliCon
06-12-2010, 12:34 PM
Sexual orientation translates to behavior in some cases. in MOST cases.

CueSi
06-12-2010, 12:39 PM
in MOST cases.

Depends. Would you say all straights act out sexually the same way? No, you wouldn't...Not every straight person is a Girls Gone Wild extra waiting to happen, nor are they sexually repressed prudes.

But because gay/bisexual men are a radically smaller number,you notice the loud, glittery, promiscuous ones, and when they get around - - they get AROUND.

In the case of blood donation, you can't afford to ignore it, so you quarantine the group.


~QC

wilbur
06-12-2010, 12:46 PM
There are many other factors in that rise in STD's . The Down low phenomenon is a major consideration- you have men who are engaging in sex with men , then come home to their unaware female partners. Also you have the use of crystal meth - - which puts you on a multiday high and not giving a fuck about condoms. Or widen your view to the circuit party scene in total -- which puts gay men in a collision course with trouble. Hence why they also ask about IV drugs, prison stays, and travel to various parts of the world. I don't see anyone asking the ban be lifted on THEM.


~QC

But there is a blanket ban on gay men, not just a ban on sexually active gay men or gay men who use IV drugs. The questions about recent sexual activity, drug use, etc, should screen out the risky donors, gay, straight, black or white. The policy is that - if you identify as homosexual - you are barred from giving blood, as I understand it.

CueSi
06-12-2010, 12:57 PM
But there is a blanket ban on gay men, not just a ban on sexually active gay men or gay men who use IV drugs. The questions about recent sexual activity, drug use, etc, should screen out the risky donors, gay, straight, black or white. The policy is that - if you identify as homosexual - you are barred from giving blood, as I understand it.


Not as homosexual, but as a man who has sex with men. . .that includes bisexual men as well. And known partners of bisexual men.

~QC

seehorse
06-12-2010, 02:36 PM
I will keep my eye out for the link but they said no to this idea! I am against gay blood. :eek: found the link,,


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37599992/ns/health-aids

"""Ban on gay blood donors upheld
Panel admits flaws, but restrictions likely to remain"""


A government health committee Friday recommended not changing the ban on gay men donating blood but also called for new research on alternative policies, citing flaws in the current rules.

Gay men have been prohibited from giving blood since 1985. But momentum to change the ban has grown recently, with advocacy groups, blood-collection organizations and members of Congress calling for the Food and Drug Administration to revise the donation rules.

The Health and Human Services Committee, in its recommendations, noted that current policy permits some potentially high-risk blood donations and prevents some possible low-risk donations. But the panel said existing research isn’t adequate to justify lifting the ban. The FDA

PoliCon
06-12-2010, 05:32 PM
Depends. Would you say all straights act out sexually the same way? No, you wouldn't...Not every straight person is a Girls Gone Wild extra waiting to happen, nor are they sexually repressed prudes.

But because gay/bisexual men are a radically smaller number,you notice the loud, glittery, promiscuous ones, and when they get around - - they get AROUND.

In the case of blood donation, you can't afford to ignore it, so you quarantine the group.


~QCI understand your point and still maintain - MOST cases.

PoliCon
06-12-2010, 05:33 PM
But there is a blanket ban on gay men, not just a ban on sexually active gay men or gay men who use IV drugs. The questions about recent sexual activity, drug use, etc, should screen out the risky donors, gay, straight, black or white. The policy is that - if you identify as homosexual - you are barred from giving blood, as I understand it.

jackass - just because a given gay man is monogamous does not mean that his partner is. :rolleyes:

djones520
06-12-2010, 07:03 PM
For the activists, yes. For the average gay person, it's more of a desire to give to the community. Blood banks around here go through phases were the supply gets low-it would be frustrating to me if I knew I was healthy and HIV free and desired to help my community, but was denied that opportunity to help others simply because I was gay.

I still think the policy is right.

I've got the same exact issue. I was born in Greece, and I'm not allowed to give blood. I know I don't have Mad Cow, but it doesn't matter. From what I understand, the military only gets it's blood supply from military donor's. Kinda frustrating that I can't donate even when I know I'm perfectly healthy.

PoliCon
06-12-2010, 07:30 PM
I've got the same exact issue. I was born in Greece, and I'm not allowed to give blood. I know I don't have Mad Cow, but it doesn't matter. From what I understand, the military only gets it's blood supply from military donor's. Kinda frustrating that I can't donate even when I know I'm perfectly healthy.

You're not the only one who is not allowed to donate - and to be frank I don't mind at all. I don't do needles. :o

wilbur
06-12-2010, 08:07 PM
jackass - just because a given gay man is monogamous does not mean that his partner is. :rolleyes:

So... exactly no difference between gay or straight in this regard, then.

Rockntractor
06-12-2010, 08:13 PM
I've got the same exact issue. I was born in Greece, and I'm not allowed to give blood. I know I don't have Mad Cow, but it doesn't matter. From what I understand, the military only gets it's blood supply from military donor's. Kinda frustrating that I can't donate even when I know I'm perfectly healthy.

Hmmm didn't you have a wobbly leg not long ago? Could be a bad sign.:confused:

PoliCon
06-12-2010, 09:10 PM
So... exactly no difference between gay or straight in this regard, then.

except that straight men are not having sex with GAY men. :rolleyes:

Sonnabend
06-12-2010, 11:34 PM
But there is a blanket ban on gay men, not just a ban on sexually active gay men or gay men who use IV drugs.

,..and it stays forever. If I ever need a transfusion, I dont want to run the risk of getting AIDS from a screaming little peter puffer.


The questions about recent sexual activity, drug use, etc, should screen out the risky donors, gay, straight, black or white. The policy is that - if you identify as homosexual - you are barred from giving blood, as I understand it.

Yes. It's a good law and it should stay forever.

wilbur
06-13-2010, 12:08 AM
,..and it stays forever. If I ever need a transfusion, I dont want to run the risk of getting AIDS from a screaming little peter puffer.


Then I take it you'll want to prohibit African Americans - and any person whose ever slept with one - from donating blood as well.

But seriously... is there some inside information people have here? We have questions to screen out those who engage in risky behaviour. Are you guys suggesting that homosexuals simply lie more than the rest of us, or what?

Sonnabend
06-13-2010, 12:47 AM
Then I take it you'll want to prohibit African Americans - and any person whose ever slept with one - from donating blood as well.Nice strawman and typical liberal BS.


But seriously... is there some inside information people have here?Yes, gay man = AIDS and a host of other STD's


We have questions to screen out those who engage in risky behaviour. Are you guys suggesting that homosexuals simply lie more than the rest of us, or what?Yes. And are more promiscuous, and are carriers. I cant give blood for five years because I had cancer of the thyroid.


Australia has the safest blood in the world, as far as donated blood goes. The screening of donated blood is so rigorous that the risk of contracting a blood born disease is very minimal...and we have no intention of letting that standard drop. FOR ANYONE.

And incidentally, gay men can use THEIR OWN BLOOD for transfusions, the blood is taken and stored. Zero risk to anyone else.

Others are also banned or limited for health reasons (http://www.donateblood.com.au/travellers_map.aspx?IDDataTreeMenu=356)

As usual, you are ill informed about the subject. I was a blood donor and I am now forbidden, for the reasons above, from donating. Yet you don't see me complaining about it.

In my case I am better informed, as I served in both medical and rescue. As usual, wilbur opens his yap before actually checking any FACTS on the issue.


Sexual activity - Is there any kind of sexual activity that will affect my ability to donate blood?

If you have any reason to believe you may have acquired an infection through unprotected sex, you should not donate.

Safe sex practices are vital to the prevention of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. However, 'protected sex' is not 100% effective and therefore the Australian Red Cross Blood Service's guidelines relating to sexual activity are based on the prevalence of infection in certain population groups.

A lot of gays use meth and other drugs and then dont use condoms....meaning the risk is the same as playing Russian Roulette with SIX loaded chambers instead of one.


The following questions are asked in regard to sexual activity:

* Have you ever thought you could be infected with HIV or have AIDS?
* In the last 12 months have you engaged in sexual activity with someone who you think might answer yes to any of the questions on the use of drugs, partner with HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C or HTLV, or treatment with clotting factors?
* Since your last donation or in the last 12 months have you had sexual activity with a new partner who currently lives or has previously lived overseas?

Within the past twelve months have you:

* Had male to male sex? more info
* Had sexual activity with a male who you think might be bisexual?
* Been a male or female sex worker (e.g. received payment for sex in money, gifts or drugs?)
* Engaged in sex with a male or female sex worker?

If the answer is 'yes' to any of the above questions, then a 12 month deferral is appliedWhy?

Incubation periods.

It helps, wilbur, if you actually do some research on the subject.

CueSi
06-13-2010, 01:35 AM
I understand your point and still maintain - MOST cases.

Your understanding is all I'm asking for in this case.


You're not the only one who is not allowed to donate - and to be frank I don't mind at all. I don't do needles. :o

I am currently ineligible to donate as well. I could if I wanted to lie about it, but I won't do that.

~QC

Sonnabend
06-13-2010, 01:43 AM
I am currently ineligible to donate as well. I could if I wanted to lie about it, but I won't do that.

For different reasons CueSi, me too....and I wish more people had your integrity. :)

PoliCon
06-13-2010, 10:01 AM
Your understanding is all I'm asking for in this case.



I am currently ineligible to donate as well. I could if I wanted to lie about it, but I won't do that.

~QC

Oh I can't even lie about it. I'm Anemic.