Well I got the news early today from the AMA, and reacted here at JunkScience, condemning the FDA and Public Health advocacy of eliminating the blood donor ban for homosexuals.
I was provided the longer piece from the Washington Post with quotes linked below. It includes quotes from medical people and it reminds me of the book by Randy Shilts, who wrote the book And the Band Played on. (1987) about the rise of the AIDS epidemic and the irrational politics and public health policy making of the period that caused unnecessary deaths and disease. Politics sometimes produces dumb. Here we go again.
Shilts, who was the homosexual advocate/columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, condemned the homosexual community and their allies for making AIDS a political rather than public health issue. He said it caused great harm and many deaths–he was right.
Shilts deplored the suicidal nature of the homosexual community political leaders, who insisted on interfering with normal public health measures, claiming DISCRIMINATION against homosexuals. So the bathhouses stayed open, customary hyperactive promiscuity and the resultant epidemic went unchecked, and silly politicians managed to distract the public with nonsense about how the plague could be controlled without the normal public health measures of contact tracing and quarantine if necessary to stop dangerous behaviors.
The public health community refused to use the normal methods for tracing contacts and preventing the spread of the AIDs epidemic–guess what, the epidemic was strengthened and spread. Duh?
Read this WAPO discussion linked below, now 30 years later, and count the number of times the word discrimination was used. This is a politically motivated move, and isn’t anything more. The homosexual community only cares about the idea of donating blood so they can knock down one more barrier to them being considered normal. They have an obsession about being considered normal.
I am here to remind them they are not normal, they participate in anal intercourse and other sexual activities that are considered by normal people to be DEVIANT.
Homosexuals think they’re deserving of being called normal and mainstream–just like their insistence on getting married. The media set it up–and politicians, this new move on donating blood isn’t about their serious concern about the blood supply, it’s about eliminating another barrier to them being considered normal. Won’t change the reality if a bunch of politically correct idiots say–go ahead, donate blood. Same old, same old.
Homosexuals want to knock down the prohibition on donating blood, for what reason? They are all worked up about their inability to contribute to the blood supply?–not likely. However they want to stick their thumb in the straight community’s eye–one more barrier to their pretense they are normal even if they are a big reservoir of blood borne disease, Hep C and HIV being lethal.
There is no way that the removal of the prohibition will produce a 2 to 4 % increase in the blood supply, maybe a short burst of enthusiasm, but not a long-term thing.
The homosexual community pushes another political crusade just like they pushed the politicians and public health community around in the 80s. Mustn’t discriminate, even if it makes public health sense.
Now a couple of realities are unavoidable–promiscuity and hypersexuality is a part of the homosexual lifestyle, and they have higher rates of blood and semen born disease. If we could be sure they would never lie about sexual activity, then the blood tests for antibodies for Hepatitis B C and the antigen test for HIV provide some protection. Not absolute protection but a high level of protection.
There is no way to avoid false positive and false negative tests for these serious and lethal diseases. And there is surely no way to guarantee that homosexuals will tell the truth.
So how safe should the blood supply be? What is the benefit to adding male homosexuals to the donor pool? Is that outweighed by the downside risk of a failed test or a lie about sexual contacts? Who would suggest that we expose the innocent public to a blood borne lethal disease risk, for no real benefit other than political correctness and another bucket list issue for politically agitated homosexuals?
You might note that there is no mention here of risk factors for lesbians, who do not create a reservoir for hepatitis and HIV because they are not involved with traumatic anal sex that involves semen.
Who cares what lesbians do–it is not a public health issue.
I also leave aside the issue of needle using drug addicts, who represent the other major reservoir of Hepatitis and HIV in the blood that might be donated. This debate or controversy is not about IV drug needle sharing idiots–they don’t have a political advocacy group or we might be dealing with that insanity.
And is the change to eliminate some alleged discrimination against male homosexuals a gesture born of silly political correctness? Could that be????
If homosexuals feel restrictions on their ability to donate blood is discriminatory and involved profiling–yes that’s an issue for them, and what should public health officials say–might I suggest some gentle admonition like–GO POUND SAND? That’s what good public health policy is about, what good public policy people do, reduce risk for the populace of innocence based on the evidence.
Political correctness and political bullying can make for stupid decision-making. In this case of homosexual blood donors, we have a stupid move for what reason–so homosexuals will feel better about their lifestyle or themselves? To use the usual leftist argument about policy making–would one case of HIV in an innocent be worth this feel good project by public policy and medical mandarins?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/government-could-ease-31-year-old-ban-on-blood-donations-from-gay-men/2014/11/29/92ab8fae-7037-11e4-893f-86bd390a3340_story.html
No comments:
Post a Comment