2002 New HIV Diagnoses
by tdaxp ~ February 5th, 2005
“CDC-NCHSTP-DHAP: HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report – Volume 14- Table 1,” Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1402/table1.htm, 24 October 2003.
“Want my Bone Marrow?,” Cracking my Vain Pot, http://vainpot.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/01/31/do_u_want_my_bone_marrow.html, 31 January 2005.
In a radically irresponsible tale of medical insanity and donated bone marrow, fellow blogspiriter “Cracked” writes
But whilst filling in our forms, a big-fond sentence stared back at me: People at risk of HIV.AIDS infection are not permitted to donate bone marrow. Need to guess what their definition of being at risk? Men having sex with other men.
BUT WHY?
Surely you HAVE to screen EVERYONE for all sort of nasty bugs before ANY transfusion, regardless of sexual preferences?! Is it NOT far more important to access to as many potential donors as possible? Surely str8 people get HIV too? Can’t RISK be redefined as “People engaged in unsafe sex”?
What if I AM that 1 in a 1,000,000 person who has the same HLA blood type as that Asian lymphoma kid on the poster?
I grieved not so much of the discrimination, as the good that I’d have done.
Now, considering new HIV cases look something like this
One might want to do some rational risk assessment. One might want to ponder how a statistically tiny minority can be so responsible for brining such a terrible plague to our shores. One might ponder through what measures the government has nearly obliterated transfusions as a source of HIV.
Or one might chose to push a political agenda.
Homosexuality is no more a “sin” that manic-depressiveness. It is not condemned in the Bible as it did not exist in biblical times. The “religious right’s” crusade against it is misguided, if ultimately useful.
But that does not distract from the need to stop a plague. And the plague must be stopped even if someone is offended or if someone’s feelings are hurt.
The New York Times uses top 1% of income, not wealth. From the legend:...
February 10th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Andrew,
Thank you for your comments. However, the suspicious URL your name links to, as well as the fact you appear to be plagiaraizing
“This tendency to metamorphise from an earnest AIDS discussionist into a humorist is an urge felt by many in the game of critiquing AIDS-HIV ideology from the famously witty Peter Duesberg on downwards, including this author. Perhaps it is caused by the inescapable tediousness of repeating the same obvious flaws in the AIDS-HIV hypothesis time after time to the slower witted adherents of the paradigm, many of whom seem to have given up independent thinking almost completely. That, and the hilarity induced by the sheer gigantic absurdity of some of the unscientific beliefs promulgated with a straight face by the powers that be in the field.”
http://www.newaidsreview.org/posts/1126726099.shtml
I will be removing your hyperlink from your posts.
March 26th, 2005 at 12:00 am
I hope you realise along with the pro abstinence campaigns is a very concerted effort in the USA to prevent any mention of condom literature.
and you wonder why the statistics are the way they are.
Its been mentioned before, it certainly is no long stretch that they wish every single gay person gets aids.
March 26th, 2005 at 12:00 am
I've never blogged on abstinence campaigns, though that hasn't stopped folks from criticizing my views on them!
The reason for the statistics is pretty clear — homosexual men tend to engage in unsafe sex much more often than the general population.
Your third paragraph is a straw-man.
February 10th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Tt is caused by the inescapable tediousness of repeating the same obvious flaws in the AIDS-HIV hypothesis time after time to the slower witted adherents of the paradigm, many of whom seem to have given up independent thinking almost completely.