Gay blood ban is homophobic!

WOW some people are way homophobic on ATS. I don't care if they have intercourse with transvestites from Transalvania, if their blood is clean and I need I'll take it.

reply to post by halfoldman


It is interesting to note that you have used the term "dissident" at least seven times, and "denialist" at least once. While I suppose "denialist" can be a functional term in science, "dissident" is strictly a political term, and herein lies the greatest problem to finding a cure for AIDS, it is way too mired in politics to actually be a scientific movement. Further, you claim that none of these so called "dissidents" were qualified virologists but then just a few sentences later reference Peter Duesberg who Robert Gallo himself once called the "golden boy of retro-virology", until Duesberg began questioning the HIV=AIDS paradigm. Now people like you make claims that no qualified virologist is a "dissident". AIDS is not a political movement, it is a syndrome of chronic illness that leads to death. As long as people insist on making AIDS a political movement the likelihood of finding a cure is highly unlikely.

Just speculating, but maybe the reason homosexuals can be denied giving blood and other high risk groups can't comes down to genetics. I am not trying to turn this into a "homosexuality is a choice" thread. The thing is that race and country of birth is NOT something the person can choose. Whether you believe homosexuality is a choice or not, people CAN choose to have sex with somebody of the same sex.

If we wanted to be really strict, the only people who should be able to donate blood would probably be white female celibates. The dilemma is how many people would that leave to donate blood?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

You have a good point there regarding terminology, although I'm not that clever and use them here interchangeably. Some footnotes make lengthy differences on medical grounds between terms live HIV denialist, HIV-dissident, or HIV-skeptic (some even divide this from HIV/AIDS, or "HIV and AIDS" denialist, dissident, skeptic).
As for politics, I'm not sure that being a "Holocaust denialist" for example is not political - so "denialist" is also political. Well, in SA it became the preferred term in the political debate.
As for Duesberg, I specifically mentioned him because he is closest to being qualified academically. Yes, he was once highly esteemed, but he kinda blew it, and not just on HIV/Aids. en.wikipedia.org...
Nevertheless, the denialists have their supporters and alternative careers, and they are hardly umemployed.



[edit on 19-6-2010 by halfoldman]

reply to post by halfoldman


You're more clever than you give yourself credit for, and I appreciate your willingness to consider the importance of how we use words and the importance they hold in how we view things. As to the term "denialist" being political, I tend to agree with you which was why I begrudgingly allowed that it could have some functional use in science. Flat Earthers today are called denialists. Of course, when Galileo was persecuted for advocating a heliocentric view over a geocentric view, Flat Earthers were not called denialists.

I am one of those straight HIV negative people who tends to be rather suspicious of the HIV=AIDS paradigm, as you probably all ready know from your experience with me in other threads. I had the opportunity to meet and work a little with Christine Maggiore before she suddenly died a few years back. She was the hetrosexual woman who tested positive for HIV even though she was not in any specific risk group. She lived a productive and healthy life and her advocacy of questioning the HIV=AIDS paradigm had influenced me greatly. However, her sudden death, (and of pneumonia no less), gave me pause. I try to be much more careful today about my own advocacy, and to acknowledge that HIV very well could have an active part in the cause of AIDS.

At this point there does seem to be enough evidence to support at least a partial connection, if not the primary connection. Even so, the scientific community today can act no different than the Catholic Church did when they put Galileo on trial for advocating a heliocentric view, and this problem extends far outside the realm of the HIV=AIDS paradigm, and the IPCC act as much like the Catholic Church does regarding climate change, as the HIV advocates do, and the AMA can be unbelievably religious when attacking "alternative medicines", especially when they begin attacking herbs and vitamins that have been held for centuries to have health benefits.

It is good and healthy to question conventional wisdom, and it is certainly a part of science. Duesberg, in my opinion, was unfairly treated, as was Kerry Mullis, and the Perth Group. Gallo's credentials, and particularly his ethics have been questioned far more than these so called "dissidents", and his questionable ethics have been well documented.

reply to post by Uniceft17


Actually, my wife is a director at a multi-state blood center. The reason is the tendency for gay men to have various strains of hepetitus, aids, and a few other things in their blood. It's a public safety measure. Facts are facts. It's not a conspiracy against gay people, but the fact is your blood is many times more prone to have this diseases, and often they go undetected. This is because gay men are prone to have multiple partners, are prone to infection because they have sex in ways that the various body parts weren't designed for, hence torn skin and exposed flesh more prone to infection. Deny it if you want, but this is no big secret. Just simple facts. Allowing gay men to donate blood would lead to many unnecessary deaths.

reply to post by astrogolf
Having sex with parts of the body it wasn't "designed for"?
What would that be? I thought being gay was a sexual orientation, and not a sex act. Well straight guys love anal sex porn with women. It seems only "mis-designed" if two guys do it.
People have been having anal sex for a million years - even the bonobos do it.
We were not designed for Aids - this virus is an intrusion on all our lives.
Our sexual bodies were designed perfectly.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You are correct sir. Drug users, prostitutes, those who have traveled outsitde the US within a given timeframe. etc. banned. Also , certain physical ailments preclude.

reply to post by halfoldman


The problem is, once again, aids and hepetitus are widespread among gays, who are more prone to infection. Gayness may refer to an orientation and not a sex act (I wouldn't agree with your premise, but whatever) however, It's pretty much the gay guys having gay sex. I'm relaying facts to you and your whinning about semantics. And the facts are that you guys are prone to various strains of hepetitus, aids, and a few other maladies that often go undetected. Therefore, to reduce the risk of killing innocent people with diseases that you obtained by having butt sex with each other, gay men are not accepted as blood donors. Sorry if it hurts your feelings, but the safety of the receipient is more important than you feelings. Nobody is stopping you from wearing each others rear ends out, but we don't want your blood. As far as it being homophobic, it is in the sense that taking their blood increases risk to the patient. You guys really like to break out that term. Let me say this. I know you wish to mainstream it, but the truth is that it creeps most people out. There are two kinds of guys. Guys who like to take it up the arse, and homophobes.

I would not want homosexual blood to be running around my body so yes i hope they do ban it and i'm not to joyed at the risk of getting aids from such people.

Health and saftey you know but never where it's needed.

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by astrogolf

 

Having sex with parts of the body it wasn't "designed for"?
What would that be? I thought being gay was a sexual orientation, and not a sex act. Well straight guys love anal sex porn with women. It seems only "mis-designed" if two guys do it.
People have been having anal sex for a million years - even the bonobos do it.
We were not designed for Aids - this virus is an intrusion on all our lives.
Our sexual bodies were designed perfectly.

Feel free to talk for yourself but a lot of men will tell you they have never put there manhood in such a place and find it a total turn off and a lot of females agree they don't like it having tried it once, just seems queer to me.

First off, lol this just has 2 flags(one of them mine), there for sure are a lot of homophobes here. Anyway, I think a lot of people posting replies didnt even read the whole thing or know what their talking about.

Let me point out one key factor - they test your blood when you donate, if its HIV positive, it's tossed. Not allowing gays to donate has literally NOTHING to do with the safety of anyone. Come on guys, wake up and smell the homophobia.

[edit on 19-6-2010 by CREAM]

reply to post by CREAM

Let me point out one key factor - they test your blood when you donate, if its HIV positive, it's tossed. Not allowing gays to donate has literally NOTHING to do with the safety of anyone. Come on guys, wake up and smell the homophobia.

If HIV is to be taken seriously as the factor in causing AIDS, and you are implicitly giving HIV credence by your argument, then it is imperative you understand that HIV has a proclivity of not making its presence known for a period of time before finally manifesting in a "positive" way in regards to testing. This is why one can be celibate after a sexual encounter but medical personnel will still advise that one test is not enough and a person should return in 3 to 6 months and test again, and the prudent medical personnel will even advise testing again after that, even if you have been celibate since that first sexual encounter that caused the testing to begin with. Plenty of straight people have been through this testing routine and understand fully what this means.

So, you can scream homophobia all you want, but the gains the gay movement made in the past several decades in terms of cultural acceptance could be jeopardized greatly if they insist that people should share their risk in terms of blood transfusions. If you want to have gay sex, have it, and I would fight for your right to do so, but don't you dare tell me I am obligated to accepting a transfusion from your blood after you made this choice. You want homophobia? Keep making arguments like that and the gay movement just very well may find themselves driven back into the closet by an outraged populace who has had enough of "political correctness".

It is your right to choose your sexual partners, it is not your right to demand all people should share that risk with you.

Originally posted by astrogolf
reply to post by halfoldman

 

The problem is, once again, aids and hepetitus are widespread among gays, who are more prone to infection. Gayness may refer to an orientation and not a sex act (I wouldn't agree with your premise, but whatever) however, It's pretty much the gay guys having gay sex. I'm relaying facts to you and your whinning about semantics. And the facts are that you guys are prone to various strains of hepetitus, aids, and a few other maladies that often go undetected. Therefore, to reduce the risk of killing innocent people with diseases that you obtained by having butt sex with each other, gay men are not accepted as blood donors. Sorry if it hurts your feelings, but the safety of the receipient is more important than you feelings. Nobody is stopping you from wearing each others rear ends out, but we don't want your blood. As far as it being homophobic, it is in the sense that taking their blood increases risk to the patient. You guys really like to break out that term. Let me say this. I know you wish to mainstream it, but the truth is that it creeps most people out. There are two kinds of guys. Guys who like to take it up the arse, and homophobes.

As I mentioned earlier, here in South Africa the issue was resolved around 2005/2006, and neither blacks nor gays are automatically excluded from giving blood by the wording on the forms. The blood supply is now safer, partly also because more sensitive tests are used. Men who have sex with men (not all of these men identify as being gay) are more likely to be honest about their behaviour. Anyone can be dishonest and donate blood really, so the wording on the screening form is important.
Here HIV/Aids is largely a heterosexual disease spread by vaginal sex, so all the obsessive potty-mouthing about "butts" and "arses" has no meaning.
Diseases aren't created by certain sex acts. The problem is patterns of behaviour, so the real issue in the gay community is promiscuity and multiple partners over short periods of time.
Vaginal sex is also an effective way of transmitting HIV. So anybody who thinks that simply being straight (without taking precautions) will safegaurd them from HIV is seriously deluded and high risk material.


[edit on 19-6-2010 by halfoldman]

I'm just wondering if any serious researchers concerning this field could help me out. Despite web searches I seem to find few concise answers on the following:
1. The cheaper and older antibody HIV-tests cannot detect HIV itself, but rather respond to antibodies to the virus which only build up 3 weeks to 6 months after infection. This has been the rationale for excluding "high risk" groups. During the "window period" the infected person has not yet developed antibodies, and will test negative to antibody antigens.
However, the more expensive PCR test looks for the virus itself, and has become more refined (once it was only used to do a "viral load" test in already diagnosed cases). Current PCR tests should pick up HIV even in the window period. Are these the more sensitive tests used successfully in SA (where the statistical illusion of high/low risk groups is blurred in any case)? I've just read in our Sunday Times that HIV infections are down this year considerably. So we must be doing something right!
2. Does anyone have a clear historical account of blood banks in the US since AIDS was noted in the 1980s? I saw a documentary that showed HIV activists (mostly gay) actually agitating for this ban about two decades ago. The blood banks were slow to react, and it appears that "blood" was an industry with people getting paid to even donate (in SA it was always voluntary). Gay HIV-activists had a very difficult time, both with HIV in their own community and with public health. Nevertheless the blood banks were cajoled into excluding high-risk groups by mainly gay activists.
As I've said, there is no monolithic gay view on calling the policy homophobic. There has been a huge movement in the gay community for monogamy and responsible living, and having long-term relationships recognized. Perhaps it is the wording that is homophobic. Surely one can have decent public relations and still destroy high-risk blood? In any case, I wish somebody could post a form from a blood bank, to see what all the controversy is about.
3. We have some visitors who work as nurses in Saudi Arabia. Even there HIV exists behind the scenes (and often women can only be informed with the agreement of their husbands). Where ever you are in the world you are vulnarable to HIV, and statistics are misinterpreted. The presence of "high risk" groups does not speak for every individual, and it does not mean that there are "no risk" groups. Every person on this planet is at risk.
Specifically, I just wonder if anyone has some info on the blood plasma scandals in China?

[edit on 20-6-2010 by halfoldman]

I give blood. People who use needles recreationaly are not allowed to donate. If you come from overseas you are not allowed to donate. If your even in the UK for more then a few months you are not allowed to donate. Your not allowed to donate if you get a tattoo in the past year. etc etc

I can't figure out the European one.

But women can contact aids from sex. So I don't understand the ban against gay males. Anyone can contract aids through sex.

reply to post by nixie_nox


I think the prohibitions on giving blood after European travel are about concern with Variant Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease (aka "Mad Cow disease"). Here's the Red Cross blurb:

There is now evidence from a small number of case reports involving patients and laboratory animal studies that vCJD can be transmitted through transfusion. There is no test for vCJD in humans that could be used to screen blood donors and to protect the blood supply. This means that blood programs must take special precautions to keep vCJD out of the blood supply by avoiding collections from those who have been where this disease is found.

Source

I've been trying to stay out of this thread, but now I guess I'm sunk

I have to agree that maintaining the guideline that men who have had even one homosexual encounter since 1977 smacks of homophobia, athough I suspect it's more of a reaction to the fear that homophobia in the general population would affect our trust in the blood supply than homophobia on the part of the Red Cross or whoever else participates in making these guidelines.

I think that the OP was way off base in dragging black and hispanic populations into it, since the prohibition is related to behavior not sexual preference, and since the prevalence of HIV and hepatitis among those populations can be explained by the higher rates of blacks and hispanics who meet one of the other criteria for exclusion (eg, prison detention, iv drug use, prostitution or sex with a prostitute).

BTW, the Red Cross guidelines do also prohibit prostitutes from giving blood, they just don't use the word prostitute. They say you should not give blood if you "have ever taken money, drugs or other payment for sex since 1977".

As for the point that anyone can get HIV from sex, I think that's why they have the guideline that no one who has had sex in the past year with anyone from one of the particularly high-risk groups (men who have had sex with men since 1977, anyone who has ever used needles without a doctor's prescription, anyone who has accepted payment for sex ever since 1977) should give blood.

Originally posted by nixie_nox

I can't figure out the European one.

Mad Cow diesease.

I was stationed in Germany from 1987-1990. I cannot give blood.

I'm OK with it. Plus it would be gay to cry about it. So why bother?

Click here for more information.

Interesting points on the blood supply and the slow official response: en.wikipedia.org... Far from forcing unsafe blood one anyone (as argued in some above posts) gay activists actually agitated for restrictions. After all, the lack of response from the profiteering blood industry actually harmed the gay communities foremostly.
However, some would argue that the tests are now better - one site mentions tests that reduce the window period to 12 days, and in Australia, a fortnight.
One does hope that US donors and recipients are receiving the latest tests, and that the virtual life-long ban on any male who had sex with a male since 1977 isn't just cosmetic theorizing to disguise skimping on the latest equipment. According to statistics the US is not doing particularly well regarding HIV infections. The concern of critics is that current policies give heterosexuals a false sense of security, which is also clear in several of the posts. In any case:

Regarding the social effects of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, there has been since the 1980s a "profound re-medicalization of sexuality".

Referring to the work of Randy Shilts (author of "And the band played on"):

Shilts also details the fact that despite recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control, the Red Cross and other non-profit blood banking organizations refused to ban bisexual and gay men from donating blood in an effort to keep the blood bank industry from suffering shortages, particularly in cities having large homosexual communities; the same cities where AIDS was first discovered in. As a result, tens of thousands of hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients were infected and died.

So people should really find out more about the facts before they judge the gays. If anything gay activists did their best to safegaurd others, often getting nothing but hate and ignorance from their own community or wider society, simply because they spoke about a topic that nobody really wants to deal with.

On newer tests with 12 day window periods: en.wikipedia.org...
Rapid blood testing technology with a window period of less than a fortnight:
www.gayblooddonation.org...

Of course I cannot say what is best, or what kind of questionaires vs. latest technology people are willing to stake their lives on.
What is obvious is that a lot of the homophobic posts are based on ill-informed hysteria (usually reflecting the propaganda spread by rightwing religious groups). So maybe in some countries it's not a rational debate, which explains the policies.


[edit on 20-6-2010 by halfoldman]