May 3, 2015
The Canadian Blood Services has the responsibility of protecting the public. It is not acceptable that homosexual activists endanger public safety by demanding that this agency use blood taken from sexually active gays be used in transfusions.
The Canadian Blood Services has declined to do so for the all too obvious reason that homosexual sexual acts are particularly risky.
For example, in Canada, men comprise 75% of all HIV cases, and of those, 64% are men who have sex with men.
The next most HIV prevalent male category is intravenous drug users, but they consist of only 12% of HIV carriers. Even though homosexuals make up a tiny minority of the Canadian population, they still represent 50% of all new HIV cases–i.e., they are identified as one of the most likely groups to have HIV.
The Canadian Blood Services is a not-for-profit charity funded by the provinces, but at arms’ length from them. It replaced the Canadian Red Cross in blood collection work in 1998. Under the Red Cross, Canada had one of its greatest health disasters because of tainted blood donations, which caused 800 deaths. There were also 400 tainted blood recipients, who are still living with HIV, and, as many as 20,000 living with Hepatitis C.
As a result of this tragedy, the Canadian Blood Services has insisted that no blood can be accepted if a donor has had sex with a man during his lifetime.
Under political pressure from homosexual activists, however, the ban was relaxed in 2013 to permit blood from homosexuals who have not had sex with a man for a five year period.
Concern about homosexuals donating blood is not just peculiar to Canada. Many of the most gay-friendly countries, including Norway, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Denmark and Belgium maintain a lifetime ban on blood donations from “men who have sex with men”.
To be sure, the Canadian Blood Services carefully tests for HIV and every other blood-borne disease. But the HIV has a brief early period when it doesn’t show up in the tests. The consequences of a false negative are so devastating that the Canadian Blood Services doesn’t take chances and does “category screening” as well. It also excludes blood donations from prostitutes, johns and intravenous drug users.
Refusing blood donations is not discrimination against homosexuals, but, rather, the protection of the public from receiving contaminated blood resulting in illness and death.
Homosexual activists accuse the Canadian Blood Services of being “homophobic”. However, the Canadian Blood Services has the responsibility of protecting the public. Political interference by homosexual activists who want to push their socially subversive agenda is not acceptable.
—-
Comments for “Blood Donations: Where Discrimination is Justified “
Adrian said (May 4, 2015):
The only reliable blood bank that remains is family. But since family has been dispersed geographically and almost deconstructed by the NWO, then good luck with that.
I wonder if sodomites would consider selecting family members for blood as discriminatory. Do Western medical politics still allow use
of family members? Do they bar it on some spurious grounds?
Dan said (May 4, 2015):
Hamid has the rational solution. Let homosexual donations be used for HIV positive patients exclusively.
But somehow I doubt the LGBT orgs will be satisfied with rational solutions. For them it’s political. They want to force everybody to share their risk.
Actually, ‘STD denial’ is rampant among the most promiscuous homosexual demographic. I recently read a mainstream op ed in Huffington Post by a young homosexual actor in LA: “I’m healthier than most people that aren’t HIV positive” he bragged.
That’s delusional.
Andrew said (May 4, 2015):
William H Masters and Virginia E Johnson (Masters & Johnson) published their research in 1979 in their book Homosexuality In Perspective. Remember originally “homosexuality” referred to both lesbian and queer behavior. They treated both sexually confused men and women. For the people who came in trying to make the change, they used sexual surrogates and were successful in almost 80% of the test subjects.
The NWO destroyed Masters & Johnson, shut down their clinic and prevented all further scientific research in this area, but Masters & Johnson at least proved that you can help lesbians and queers who want to make the change.
Dan said (May 4, 2015):
The blood issue highlights the misconception that any exclusion of profligates is political discrimination. I use the word ‘profligate’ since high risk blood includes promiscuous people and needle sharing drug users. Not just sodomites.
When you donate blood in the US, the questionnaire looks for three basic risk factors: homosexual contact; prostitution; needle sharing drugs; and travel to high risk countries.
Over fifty years time they’ve managed to disarm the arguments of 1. religion, 2. social norms and majority preference.
Now they’re working on disarming the Scientific Method. So who’s acting like a religion now?
Diane said (May 3, 2015):
As a survivor of massive blood loss/hemorrhage and resuscitation after childbirth, I am alive today thanks to a blood transfusion. If you are a healthy person, I encourage you to donate blood, it is truly a precious and life-saving gift. Maybe you will help a mother or father live to raise their children. I have lived in a secret fear though, that one day a virus will present itself. I did develop chronic arthralgia after my experience, which could be from the trauma, but one never knows. Having worked in healthcare for many years, I am all too aware of how much we are still learning about communicable diseases.
I cannot imagine how afraid I would be if an at risk group such as gay men, were allowed to donate blood. You are helpless when they hook the blood bag on.
Dan said (May 3, 2015):
Muhammed’s explanation of the pathology of homosexual fixation is the most clear and concise I’ve seen.
When the psychiatric associations redefined it as ‘healthy’, we stopped seeing explanations for it in print.
The post traumatic rage was turned on normality.
I wonder who figured out using people’s disorders as weapons? I think it all goes back to animal husbandry. People who breed dogs for specialized purposes are keen on recognizing traits they can exploit. One breed makes good guard dogs but is generally harmless, while dogs bred for fighting are vicious. Dogfight breeders control such dogs through what I can only describe as sadomasochistic dynamics.
Mary said (May 3, 2015):
Henry I lost someone close to me in the early eighties. A hemophiliac , who was administered factor VIII to clot his blood . At the time the medicine was first developed blood donors were being minimally screened.
After a life of pain and suffering every time a joint filled with blood from a mild bump or twist of a limb that normal individuals would never even notice, he passed from full blown AIDS that his embarrassed parents explained away as “cancer”. He was not a homosexual.
Once the source of contamination was discovered here, the drug batches were taken off the market, but true to corporate greed for profit the leftovers were sent overseas to kill more people suffering with hemophilia.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/22/business/22BLOO.html
“But in the early years of the AIDS epidemic, it became a killer. The medicine was made using pools of plasma from 10,000 or more donors, and since there was still no screening test for the AIDS virus, it carried a high risk of passing along the disease; even a tiny number of H.I.V.-positive donors could contaminate an entire pool.In the United States, AIDS was passed on to thousands of hemophiliacs, many of whom died, in one of the worst drug-related medical disasters in history. While admitting no wrongdoing, Bayer and three other companies that made the concentrate have paid hemophiliacs about $600 million to settle more than 15 years of lawsuits accusing them of making a dangerous product.”
Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at
Source Article from http://henrymakow.com/2015/05/blood-donations-where-discrimination.html
Blood Donations: Where Discrimination is Justified
No comments:
Post a Comment