This past weekend they demonstrated their pretense of objectivity is gone by turning a report regarding the safety of the nation's blood supply into another piece screaming "discrimination" on behalf of a gay person. I say "a gay person" because I don't buy the notion that you pick one person and that person literally represents every other person who is similar (example: Fred Phelps has nothing in common with Billy Graharm). But here's the problem - agenda setters have to DISREGARD PLAIN FACTS. And having worked in transfusion services for the last six years (and with an overall experience level of about nine), let me blunt: after reading this diatribe of pretend news, CNN needs to change their name to FOS.
The American Red Cross says power outages created by recent storms in the East and Midwest cut blood donations, which were already low this summer. In June there was a nationwide shortfall, with donations down more than 10% across the country.
In part because people go on summer vacation starting in June. This shortfall is primarily due to the two wars we just wound down. Oh, and the fact that the screening process eliminates "high risk donors." Keep that in mind - it will be important in just a moment.
"We are asking people to please call 1-800-RED-CROSS or visit us at redcrossblood.org to find a way to donate if they can," said Stephanie Millian, Red Cross director of biomedical communications. "We need people's help."
Ok, so we now have the set-up. Here comes the execution.
One group that would like to help, but legally can't, may be moving one step closer to eligibility. Since the 1980s, when the AIDS epidemic decimated their community, gay men -- or MSMs (men who have sex with men) as they are called by federal agencies -- have not been allowed to donate blood.
This statement is a 100% bald-faced lie. They HAVE been able to DONATE blood. They have NOT BEEN ABLE to donate blood that would be given to ANOTHER person. They have been able to donate for testing.
In June, a group of 64 U.S. legislators led by Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Illinois, and Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts,
Both of them lawyers who never spent one day working in a medical facility....although Kerry did go to Vietnam.
sent a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services encouraging it to move forward with a study that may lead to the end of the decades-old ban.
Since the incubation time for HIV may be as high as fifteen years, this means the study ought to take at least that long, should it not?
"We remain concerned that a blanket deferral of MSM for any length of time both perpetuates the unwarranted discrimination against the bisexual and gay community and prevents healthy men from donating blood without a definitive finding of added benefit to the safety of the blood supply," the letter said.
Note that for lawyers Kerry and Quigley DISCRIMINATION comes at the expense of someone else's WELFARE. It's real simple: NOT giving someone potentially contaminated blood reduces the risk of a transfusion-related illness. This is not rocket science. Even a buffoon like John Kerry should be able to understand this. And this is not just true in the blood bank but in all walks of life. Believe it or not, if you do not drink alcohol that ELIMINATES the ability of you to be a drunk driver. Got it? Not a difficult concept except for these two Democratic lawyers.
The policy started at a time when people didn't know how the deadly virus that causes AIDS spread.
The policy started at a time when it was known that transfused blood could transmit AIDS. (Note the deception).
At the time, there wasn't a good test to detect whether HIV was present in donated blood, and HIV was getting into the nation's blood supply. They knew this because hemophiliacs who were getting blood transfusions started showing symptoms of AIDS.
So....the AABB and FDA decided to play it safe so Democratic lawyers (or even Republican ones) could not sue them for liability.
What scientists also knew was that a disproportionate number of gay men were affected by the virus.
Amazingly enough that's STILL the highest risk group. So in other words NOTHING HAS CHANGED!!! But so some people will feel better about it, we need to increase the risk of an infection that may not be detected for up to 15 years. That's the argument.
To eliminate risk, the Food and Drug Administration added a screening question to the federal guidelines.
To REDUCE the risk - there's no such thing as eliminating. (How did this make it past any editor with a brain?).
Blood banks were instructed to ask male donors if they had had sex with a man, even once, since 1977. The FDA regards 1977 as the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the United States. If the potential donor responded "yes," he would automatically be removed from the donor pool for life.
Just like those of us who grew up on military bases in the United Kingdom and West Germany. You don't see me screaming up and down about how I'm being discriminated against.
No similar questions were asked to screen out donors who engaged in other potentially risky sexual behavior.
Absolute 100% BULLSHIT!!! You see, I actually ASKED those questions. Those questions included whether you had ever had sex with a prostitute since 1977 - and the penalty was the same. So this article is unadulterated BS from the word "go." But you don't have to take my word for it. Simply do what the lazy journalist failed to do:
1) Go to Google
2) enter in "blood donor screening questions"
The FIRST that comes up is from the FDA. Let's take a look at these questions and see if this CNN "journalist" is lying. From page three:
1) 21. In the past 12 months have you given money or drugs to anyone to have sex with you?
2) 22A. At any time since 1977 have you taken money or drugs for sex?
3) In the past 12 months have you had sex even once with anyone who has ever taken money or drugs for sex?
I'm not going to post the rest but if you just read page three there are questions about STDs, hemophilia, and AIDS. So whe now have a journalist we know did not spend even three seconds researching the issue and the lied about the question.
1) Go to Google
2) enter in "blood donor screening questions"
The FIRST that comes up is from the FDA. Let's take a look at these questions and see if this CNN "journalist" is lying. From page three:
1) 21. In the past 12 months have you given money or drugs to anyone to have sex with you?
2) 22A. At any time since 1977 have you taken money or drugs for sex?
3) In the past 12 months have you had sex even once with anyone who has ever taken money or drugs for sex?
I'm not going to post the rest but if you just read page three there are questions about STDs, hemophilia, and AIDS. So whe now have a journalist we know did not spend even three seconds researching the issue and the lied about the question.
Donors weren't asked about the number of partners they had,
Neither are the male gay donors...
nor were they asked if their sexual partners had engaged in unprotected sex with other HIV positive partners.
As I just showed you that is a bald-faced lie.
Neither are the male gay donors...
nor were they asked if their sexual partners had engaged in unprotected sex with other HIV positive partners.
As I just showed you that is a bald-faced lie.
"While the Red Cross is obligated by law to follow the FDA guidelines, we continue to work with the AABB (formerly known as the American Association of Blood Banks) to push through policies that would be much more fair and consistent among donors who engage in similar risk activities," Millian said.
Yes. Do you want to know what ONE of the possible future bannings is about? (Remember, I work in one of these places). There are discussions to eliminate ANYONE who has ever had more than five sexual partners in a lifetime. Why? Because of risk.
Yes. Do you want to know what ONE of the possible future bannings is about? (Remember, I work in one of these places). There are discussions to eliminate ANYONE who has ever had more than five sexual partners in a lifetime. Why? Because of risk.
Scientists can now screen for most instances of HIV within days of infection, and the nation's blood banks have called a lifetime ban "medically and scientifically unwarranted."
Funny, it's not the "blood banks" stirring up a ruckus now, is it?
Funny, it's not the "blood banks" stirring up a ruckus now, is it?
Men who have sex with men still are disproportionately affected by the virus and account for nearly half the approximately 1.2 million people living with HIV in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Hmm. The author just gave an incredibly sound SCIENTIFIC and EVIDENTIAL reason WHY we have the current policy. This does not take a genius to figure out.
But it is a person's behavior, not their sexual orientation, that puts them at risk say health experts.
Well DUH!
Hmm. The author just gave an incredibly sound SCIENTIFIC and EVIDENTIAL reason WHY we have the current policy. This does not take a genius to figure out.
But it is a person's behavior, not their sexual orientation, that puts them at risk say health experts.
Well DUH!
While he is a gay man, Adam Denney thinks he would be the perfect candidate to donate blood.
I think I would be the perfect candidate to replace the idiot in the White House too, but that isn't happening. And tell me who is more probable to be unbiased in this situation - the group that Democratic lawyers like Kerry and Quigley will sue when a person contracts a disease - or a guy who just wants his name in the paper like Adam Denney?
He doesn't use IV drugs.
So he says. (You see - that's the other thing not being discussed here).
He practices safer sex.
Unless he's abstinent, he is by definition a risk. End of story.
He even educates people on how to prevent new HIV infections as a regular volunteer educator with AIDS Volunteers Inc. in Lexington, Kentucky.
Is there a way to prevent "old" HIV infections? Seriously, I'm not sure if the author or the CNN editor is the bigger dummy here.
He thinks his exclusion is unfair.
And the Atlanta Braves still think they should have won the 1991 World Series. So what?
I think I would be the perfect candidate to replace the idiot in the White House too, but that isn't happening. And tell me who is more probable to be unbiased in this situation - the group that Democratic lawyers like Kerry and Quigley will sue when a person contracts a disease - or a guy who just wants his name in the paper like Adam Denney?
He doesn't use IV drugs.
So he says. (You see - that's the other thing not being discussed here).
He practices safer sex.
Unless he's abstinent, he is by definition a risk. End of story.
He even educates people on how to prevent new HIV infections as a regular volunteer educator with AIDS Volunteers Inc. in Lexington, Kentucky.
Is there a way to prevent "old" HIV infections? Seriously, I'm not sure if the author or the CNN editor is the bigger dummy here.
He thinks his exclusion is unfair.
And the Atlanta Braves still think they should have won the 1991 World Series. So what?
"Yes, gay men are still a high-risk community,
Meaning a blood bank has every right to protect:
a) itself from civil or criminal liability
b) the patients it serves from harm (which is the most important thing here - not Adam or anybody else's alleged rights, which don't even exist in transfusion world).
but so are minority women,
Simply by virtue of being a minority? I don't think so! Notice also that Scientist Adam and Journalist Jen here have literally given NO EVIDENCE of this - they've simply said something, and because their intentions and motives are good (even though they've done nothing but lie through this whole piece) we are not to say anything.
and there are no standards prohibiting them from donating.
The standards are the same for everyone. Sorry, nice try.
There would be rightful outrage against that kind of blanket population ban," Denney said.
Excuse me, Jackass, but every single military dependent whose parents defended your right to tell the lies you're telling here is BANNED FOR LIFE from donating by virtue of nothing other than....we lived in Europe prior to 1990. Keep in mind that Mad Cow Disease has only killed about 200 people in the last 20 years compared to over 21 million killed by AIDS. Yet amazingly enough the ban still stands.
"I am banned based on one reason only, my sexual orientation."
No, you are banned because you had sex with another man since 1977, NOT because of your orientation. Seriously, did the idiot writing this or the editor not look back up when she said this earlier?
"It's totally discriminatory."
[Flipping through "US Constitution" - seeing nothing about the right to donate blood]...
Meaning a blood bank has every right to protect:
a) itself from civil or criminal liability
b) the patients it serves from harm (which is the most important thing here - not Adam or anybody else's alleged rights, which don't even exist in transfusion world).
but so are minority women,
Simply by virtue of being a minority? I don't think so! Notice also that Scientist Adam and Journalist Jen here have literally given NO EVIDENCE of this - they've simply said something, and because their intentions and motives are good (even though they've done nothing but lie through this whole piece) we are not to say anything.
and there are no standards prohibiting them from donating.
The standards are the same for everyone. Sorry, nice try.
There would be rightful outrage against that kind of blanket population ban," Denney said.
Excuse me, Jackass, but every single military dependent whose parents defended your right to tell the lies you're telling here is BANNED FOR LIFE from donating by virtue of nothing other than....we lived in Europe prior to 1990. Keep in mind that Mad Cow Disease has only killed about 200 people in the last 20 years compared to over 21 million killed by AIDS. Yet amazingly enough the ban still stands.
"I am banned based on one reason only, my sexual orientation."
No, you are banned because you had sex with another man since 1977, NOT because of your orientation. Seriously, did the idiot writing this or the editor not look back up when she said this earlier?
"It's totally discriminatory."
[Flipping through "US Constitution" - seeing nothing about the right to donate blood]...
When Denney went to donate at a blood drive on the Eastern Kentucky University Campus a few years ago, he said he knew what likely would happen when the nurses asked the sexual history question.
He could have looked it up online and known and saved gas, too.
"I did know what I was getting into,"
No, you didn't, or you wouldn't have done it.
but I was shocked by how it felt to be rejected," he said.
So nobody has ever rejected you? Really? Man, you must be special!
"It was almost like they thought I wasn't important enough to give blood,
THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, YOU MORON!!! It is a PUBLIC SAFETY issue.
If I ask you, "Who is more likely to get breast cancer" and you say women - isn't that common sense? Or if I say to you, "A smoker is more likely to die of a lung cancer than a non-smoker," isn't that also common sense (as well as scientifically established fact)?
like because I was gay I didn't count. It was a horrible feeling."
Wow. This guy has some serious issues. People are worried about their home values and futures and what kind of country their children will grow up in - and this imbecile is basing his self-esteem on getting rejected at a blood donor center. Guess what? MORE PEOPLE ARE REJECTED THAN ACCEPTED FOR BLOOD DONATION!! That's right!! So you're in the MAJORITY of people here, Adam. Jeez!
He could have looked it up online and known and saved gas, too.
"I did know what I was getting into,"
No, you didn't, or you wouldn't have done it.
but I was shocked by how it felt to be rejected," he said.
So nobody has ever rejected you? Really? Man, you must be special!
"It was almost like they thought I wasn't important enough to give blood,
THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, YOU MORON!!! It is a PUBLIC SAFETY issue.
If I ask you, "Who is more likely to get breast cancer" and you say women - isn't that common sense? Or if I say to you, "A smoker is more likely to die of a lung cancer than a non-smoker," isn't that also common sense (as well as scientifically established fact)?
like because I was gay I didn't count. It was a horrible feeling."
Wow. This guy has some serious issues. People are worried about their home values and futures and what kind of country their children will grow up in - and this imbecile is basing his self-esteem on getting rejected at a blood donor center. Guess what? MORE PEOPLE ARE REJECTED THAN ACCEPTED FOR BLOOD DONATION!! That's right!! So you're in the MAJORITY of people here, Adam. Jeez!
Nathan Schaefer with GMHC, an AIDS service organization
Uh, A GAY RIGHTS organziation that could care less about who gets what they pass on....
, said Denney normally would be the type of donor blood banks are hungry for.
Hmm. Can't wait to see the evidence given to support this nonsense....
Studies show those who give blood when they are young become regular lifetime donors, something most blood banks are struggling to find these days.
Young? You can't even donate until you're 17 and you have to have a certain weight and H/H. Don't try this garbage on me.
GMHC has been fighting to change the ban for years.
Yes, they've been trying to change a lot of things for years.
Uh, A GAY RIGHTS organziation that could care less about who gets what they pass on....
, said Denney normally would be the type of donor blood banks are hungry for.
Hmm. Can't wait to see the evidence given to support this nonsense....
Studies show those who give blood when they are young become regular lifetime donors, something most blood banks are struggling to find these days.
Young? You can't even donate until you're 17 and you have to have a certain weight and H/H. Don't try this garbage on me.
GMHC has been fighting to change the ban for years.
Yes, they've been trying to change a lot of things for years.
In 2010 GMHC joined a coalition of other nonprofits to encourage Congress to send a letter to HHS to end the ban, which some members of congress did.
Number of members of Congress who have ever worked in transfusion medicine? I'm gonna guess it's less than five and probably near zero.
. In June of that year, HHS brought together an independent panel of experts. The Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability reviewed the policy and decided to keep it and concluded the ban was "suboptimal," because it allows high-risk individuals to donate while keeping low-risk donors out. However, the expert committee also concluded "available scientific data are inadequate to support change to a specific alternate policy." The panel suggested the policy not be changed and recommended further evaluation.
In other words, you just established this has NOTHING TO DO with sexual orientation and EVERYTHING to do with SCIENCE. Thank you.
Number of members of Congress who have ever worked in transfusion medicine? I'm gonna guess it's less than five and probably near zero.
. In June of that year, HHS brought together an independent panel of experts. The Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability reviewed the policy and decided to keep it and concluded the ban was "suboptimal," because it allows high-risk individuals to donate while keeping low-risk donors out. However, the expert committee also concluded "available scientific data are inadequate to support change to a specific alternate policy." The panel suggested the policy not be changed and recommended further evaluation.
In other words, you just established this has NOTHING TO DO with sexual orientation and EVERYTHING to do with SCIENCE. Thank you.
HHS then promised to conduct feasibility studies to determine if there was a subset of the gay male population that would pose little or no threat to the blood supply. "We finally got them to stop defending the policy at the very least, which was pretty significant," Schaefer said.
In a related story, the Red Sox almost beat the Yankees in game 7 of the 2003 ALCS. Sure, they lost on a walk-off home run, but it was significant that they only lost in 11 innings.
In a related story, the Red Sox almost beat the Yankees in game 7 of the 2003 ALCS. Sure, they lost on a walk-off home run, but it was significant that they only lost in 11 innings.
The HHS is still determining the criteria for which part of the population to study.
GMHC suggested the population to consider should include gay men who have had only one sex partner in the past six months.
So GMHC wants a shorter span than a prostitute? Ha ha!!
Spain and Italy, two countries with more progressive donor policies,
And no CDC and nowhere near as many ambulance-chasing attorneys....
hold everyone to that standard regardless of sexual orientation.
And, of course, they know without a doubt everyone is telling the truth.
So GMHC wants a shorter span than a prostitute? Ha ha!!
Spain and Italy, two countries with more progressive donor policies,
And no CDC and nowhere near as many ambulance-chasing attorneys....
hold everyone to that standard regardless of sexual orientation.
And, of course, they know without a doubt everyone is telling the truth.
Schaefer takes the point one step further. "A straight person could donate today after having unprotected sex with hundreds of partners, and in the United States they won't ask about that behavior," he said
Not specifically, but they also don't ask the guy how many men he's been with, either. They DO ask relevant questions. Of course, if Schaefer would like we can simply start having them give us a number and go from there.
. He added that four out of five gay men are HIV negative, which he estimated means 2 million additional people could be blood donors.
No, they couldn't. Surely among those men are people who were assigned to US airbases overseas during the Cold War, gay men who DO have hepatitis or other STDs, some who have used IV drugs, and other risk factors including anemia or malaria.
Not specifically, but they also don't ask the guy how many men he's been with, either. They DO ask relevant questions. Of course, if Schaefer would like we can simply start having them give us a number and go from there.
. He added that four out of five gay men are HIV negative, which he estimated means 2 million additional people could be blood donors.
No, they couldn't. Surely among those men are people who were assigned to US airbases overseas during the Cold War, gay men who DO have hepatitis or other STDs, some who have used IV drugs, and other risk factors including anemia or malaria.
A 2010 study by the Williams Institute at the University of California-Los Angeles estimated that if gay men who had not had sexual contact for the past 12 months were allowed to donate blood, more than 53,000 additional men would likely make more than 89,000 blood donations.
Black lies, white lies, statistics.
That number may seem small, but blood banks say it could help enormously, especially now, when blood supply shortages are common.
Because folks left town for the summer...
Black lies, white lies, statistics.
That number may seem small, but blood banks say it could help enormously, especially now, when blood supply shortages are common.
Because folks left town for the summer...
After Denney was denied the chance to donate, he asked some of his friends to help him demonstrate outside the blood drive.
Which tells me the man is a complete idiot.
They produced signs to raise awareness about the ban and distributed educational material.
About transfusions or about gay rights or what?
They also escorted people to the drive, because they wanted people to continue to donate.
How many of those were turned down for reasons like "has hemophilia" or "once dated Anna Nicole Smith?"
"A lot of people in the Bible Belt assume you have AIDS if you are a gay man," he said.
Nope. Prove this statement - I call this the rhetorical crap that it actually is.
"We wanted them to understand that is not the case. We are banned based on an outdated policy.
No, you're not - go back and read what the dolt who wrote this said herself:
Men who have sex with men still are disproportionately affected by the virus and account for nearly half the approximately 1.2 million people living with HIV in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
When people questioned us, I told them about how I always heard that people who donate blood are heroes.
Pass me that joint you're smoking, Adam.
"Gay men want to be heroes, too."
Fine. Go join the military.
Which tells me the man is a complete idiot.
They produced signs to raise awareness about the ban and distributed educational material.
About transfusions or about gay rights or what?
They also escorted people to the drive, because they wanted people to continue to donate.
How many of those were turned down for reasons like "has hemophilia" or "once dated Anna Nicole Smith?"
"A lot of people in the Bible Belt assume you have AIDS if you are a gay man," he said.
Nope. Prove this statement - I call this the rhetorical crap that it actually is.
"We wanted them to understand that is not the case. We are banned based on an outdated policy.
No, you're not - go back and read what the dolt who wrote this said herself:
Men who have sex with men still are disproportionately affected by the virus and account for nearly half the approximately 1.2 million people living with HIV in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
When people questioned us, I told them about how I always heard that people who donate blood are heroes.
Pass me that joint you're smoking, Adam.
"Gay men want to be heroes, too."
Fine. Go join the military.
No comments:
Post a Comment