More "logic" from that wisher of death upon Republicans

Of course I am speaking of that "lovely" human being (term used very loosely) who recently directed his ... anger at (surprise!) conservatives for not allowing gay men to donate blood:

Back in the early 1980’s, the wonderous Reagan Administration, and society as a whole, did a bang up job in reacting to the AIDS outbreak. One of the reactionary responses was to prohibit gay men who had sex after 1977 from donating blood.

Of course, being that politics means more to Delaware Dunce than common sense or basic decency, for those of us who actually remember the 1980's AIDS scare remember that at one point back then:

• we didn't know for sure exactly how AIDS (caused by the HIV virus) was spread;
• we didn't know exactly why gay men were infected at such a much higher rate than other groups;
• so since we weren't certain of all the means of transmission, and that gay men were so infected at a much higher rate, what does one do to protect the nation's blood supply?

But, DD is merely [re]echoing a lot of the sentiment of the Left from back then. His blog supported a school board candidate who explicitly blamed Ronald Reagan for the deaths of AIDS victims during the 80s. Not the high-risk behavior of those who became infected. And not the derision and outright ignoring of basic, common sense health measures by same when such became necessary.

But I digress ...

So, wait a minute. What the F**K! It would be one thing if this policy had not been reviewed since its enactment since 1983, although I would wonder why the Clinton Administration did not review it, since we knew in the 1990’s how to test for HIV. But the policy was reviewed in 2006 during the Bush Administration, and those sick fucks decided to keep the ban in place!!??!!

DD "would wonder why the Clinton Administration ..."? Hmm, let's see:

A recent meeting of the Blood Products Advisory Committee of the FDA addressed this question. At the start of the meeting, the committee agreed that the permanent ban on gay men seemed discriminatory, lacked a firm foundation in science, and should be changed.

The FDA proposed changing the lifetime ban to five years, bringing the gay ban in line with the length of time organ or tissue transplant recipients are barred from blood donation.

Since that information from that link is dated December 2000, this means that the FDA meeting in question occurred ... during the Clinton Administration.

But then ... why wasn't that five year ban enacted over the still-enforced lifetime ban for gay men wishing to donate blood?

The committee seemed poised to recommend a change in the gay donation policy, but then the slides on herpes virus 8 were presented. Human herpes virus 8 (HHV-8) is a newly discovered virus thought to be the cause of Kaposi's sarcoma (KS). HHV-8 is also widespread among gay men, which helps explain the early, baffling concentration of KS among gay AIDS patients but not heterosexual ones. Although KS in gay men is almost always the result of infection with both HIV and HHV-8, there have been a few isolated cases of KS in gay men with HHV-8 alone. Data emerging on HHV-8 show that it shares a similar epidemiological profile with HIV. Gay men begin acquiring HHV-8 during late adolescence when sexual activity begins, and its incidence accelerates through early adulthood. By age 40, about one-third of gay men seem to be infected with HHV-8.

HHV-8 is most likely transmitted orally, but no blood test is routinely available to detect those who have it.

The uncertainty associated with HHV-8 is ultimately what caused the committee to change its mind.

Now, granted, just over nine years later, surely detection techniques have improved. (Although, after much searching, I found little information on whether HHV-8 continues to be a concern for blood banks.) Still, despite HHV-8 concerns, there are still many medical reasons to be wary of a complete revocation of the ban on gay men donating blood. To do so would only be to buckle under the very same politically correct pressures we saw in the late 1980s in response to AIDS -- things like "everyone is at risk" when, of course, everyone was not at risk. But hey, we couldn't in any way stigmatize an historically oppressed group, no matter the medical necessity now, could we?

Just take a look at the numerous restrictions on donating blood. Hell, last summer I was disalllowed from donating blood for a full year -- because I spent three days outside of San José, Costa Rica ... at a beach resort. A beach resort! The reason? Worry of malaria infection. Aren't their detection methods for this malady? Sure there are. So, if I must wait a full year, you mean to tell me that the health risks associated with unprotected [male] gay sex aren't worthy of at least similar consideration?

Republicans and conservatives in general really need to get over their homophobia already.

No, actually what "progressives" need to do is stop letting ridiculous PC concerns dictate sensible health policy.

Posted by Hube at March 6, 2010 05:54 PM | TrackBack