Apr 23, 2010 Political
On the heels of the H1N1 (Swine Flu) scare that turned out to be much ado about nothing, a new threat has emerged that has the scientists in a tizzy. A potentially deadly fungus has emerged. The good news is that it affects people who are immunocompromised. The bad news is, if you are one of those folks, you are susceptible.
A potentially deadly strain of fungus is spreading among animals and people in the northwestern United States and the Canadian province of British Columbia, researchers reported on Thursday.
The airborne fungus, called Cryptococcus gattii, usually only infects transplant and AIDS patients and people with otherwise compromised immune systems, but the new strain is genetically different, the researchers said. al-Reuters
There are plenty of microorganisms that affect only those with a compromised immune system. I think the concern with this one is that they claim that global warming might aid its spread. Ah, the old global warming thing. If you can’t get attention by cooking the books or when you get caught cooking them the next best thing is to manufacture concern over a killer fungus that “might” be aided by global warming so probably not.
Will people who are not affected be concerned? There are plenty of microorganisms that affect such people but no one has claimed they are aided by global warming.
We have a fungus that has been growing in America for about 100 years and it is called the progressive movement. It is aided by our government and a Marxist philosophy and it is spread through the exploitation of tax payers.
We might never eradicate C. gattii but we can eradicate the progressive agenda.
Remember in November.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jul 18, 2008 Political
The ban on people with HIV coming to this country could soon be lifted if SB 2731 is enacted. This is a very stupid idea for several reasons.
People with HIV have a disease for which there is no cure. If they come here the chance of others getting infected increases but only because they are now here and can have contact. However, the chances of infection is especially greater for health care workers who might be exposed as the person’s need for health care services increases (as the disease progresses).
If people come here with this disease they will be entering into our health care system. It is unlikely they will have health insurance or the means to pay for their care so the burden of that cost will be borne by US taxpayers.
The people with the disease will eventually become too sick to work (assuming they get a job in the first place) so they will eventually be receiving welfare checks. This will add more financial burdens to the US taxpayer.
Unless the people with HIV are engaging in risky behavior the risk to others is nearly absent except for health care workers so this is not a consideration. Diseases like Tb kept people out because they were highly contagious but with HIV there must be direct blood or body fluid contact.
However, the disease is costly to treat and the people coming here will not be paying for it. The US taxpayer will be footing the bill and that is not what our tax dollars should be paying for. People with HIV should stay in their own countries and get their treatment at the expense of their government or international organizations.
It is wrong to expect us to pay for their illness when they have contributed nothing to our society. It is bad enough we are paying for all the illegals who are here.
Jun 9, 2008 General
The World Health Organization (WHO) has accepted as truth that the threat of a heterosexual AIDS pandemic has disappeared. That was nice of them but there never was a threat of a pandemic. HIV and AIDS are transmitted, mostly, through high risk behavior such as IV drug use with shared needles, homosexual sex and sex with those who engage in high risks.
Certainly the possibility exists that monogamous heterosexuals can get the disease. this can happen through tainted blood transfusions and exposure to contaminated body fluids (as in health care workers). However, the risk of contracting AIDS has always been low for heterosexuals who do not engage in sexual activity with high risk partners. The risk of a heterosexual pandemic has never really existed. Yes, outbreaks can occur and heterosexuals can get AIDS but the likelihood of a pandemic was close to zero, or nonexistent.
The whole issue was suggested years ago when homosexuals were singled out as having high risk for the disease based upon their sexual practices. They complained about the suggestion that their lifestyle put them at higher risk and they believed that if AIDS were only recognized as a pandemic in their group (and those of other high risk behaviors) then research and funding for a cure would be minimal. By including the average every day heterosexual they were able, in their minds, to get research money directed toward curing the disease. This idea is ridiculous. We have not halted the research into the cure for lung cancer based on the fact that smokers are more likely to get it.
In all this time research money and time has been wasted looking for ways to stop a pandemic occurrence of heterosexual acquired AIDS when money and time would have been better if it had been focused on those most likely to get the disease. It took quite a bit of time for people to state the obvious.
The study still has unanswered questions:
But the factors driving HIV were still not fully understood, he said.
“The impact of HIV is so heterogeneous. In the US , the rate of infection among men in Washington DC is well over 100 times higher than in North Dakota, the region with the lowest rate. That is in one country. How do you explain such differences?” The Independent
I have certainly not looked at the data but off the top of my head I would have to say it is because Washington DC has a larger population of homosexuals and IV drug users than does North Dakota. There are not as many people engaging in high risk behavior in North Dakota as there are in DC. Washington is a bastion of liberalism and the “do what you want in life” mentality, so when coupled with the population demographics, it stands to reason that DC will have the higher rate. Also, the National Institute of Health is in DC and there are research hospitals as well so it also stands to reason that some of the population migrated to DC for [inclusion in] research, testing and treatment.
The waste of time and money over the years is attributable to a politically correct attitude that said we could not single out high risk groups. This makes as much sense as spending years researching the affects of sickle cell anemia in whites who do not come from [have ancestry in] Africa, South or Central America (especially Panama), Caribbean islands, Mediterranean countries (such as Turkey, Greece, and Italy), India, and Saudi Arabia. Since the disease affects mostly African Americans in the US it would be a waste of resources to do expansive research in whites. This is the same principle for AIDS research.
Once again, political correctness rears its ugly head…
Apr 29, 2008 Political
For quite some time now Barack Hussein Obama has been taking heat because he attended a church with a racist pastor who hates white people and has a huge chip on his shoulder. Obama had hoped that the furor over Pastor Wright’s remarks had passed and that his [Obama's] speech about race had sealed the deal. Unfortunately, the man Obama described as an uncle more closely resembles the black sheep (pun intended) of the family. I believe that the Obama’s hold many of Wright’s views but don’t want to be associated with them so that he can be elected and Michelle can go on being proud for the first time in her life.
Wright was making the rounds this past week and he ended up at the National Press Club on what turns out to be the invite of a Hillary Clinton supporter. Barbara Reynolds helped get Wright as a speaker. Whether she did it to throw more fuel on the fire and help Clinton or did it to hear what he has to say is a matter of speculation. Regardless of the motive, he did not disappoint people and his anti-American hate filled speech is probably giving Obama more gray hair by the minute.
Obama, who has tried to distance himself from Wright, completely denounced his spiritual mentor and said he was outraged by statements Wright made. Wright told audiences that the attacks were not on him but on the black church as a whole and that the US government created AIDS to get rid of black people. Wright likens this to the Tuskegee experiments early in the last century:
Wright criticized the U.S. government as imperialist and stood by his suggestion that the United States invented the HIV virus as a means of genocide against minorities. “Based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything,” he said. Breitbart
Just for historical purposes, the experiments dealt with syphilis, a venereal disease. In the 1930s syphilis killed a lot of people and the medication they gave to treat it was often worse than the disease. The medications killed people or made them very sick and often did not cure the infection. A group of people decided to follow black men with the disease (they had it already, the government did not infect them) and see how it progressed. This was a time when there was no real informed consent and the “participants” (uneducated black men) in the study were not informed why they were being observed. Many patients were often not told the truth about conditions at that time in our history.
Syphilis was not brought under control until the invention of penicillin in the 1940s. However, many people in the Tuskegee study were not given penicillin and remained under observation to see how the disease affected them. There is no getting around the fact that these people were used and were the victims of what we would now consider unscrupulous medical practices though at the time they were not seen as such. The fact that they were not given penicillin when it was discovered is a terrible case of malpractice. However, there is no way to equate this to the AIDS virus (which came from a simian virus). Wright is spouting off conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact.
Before I get off this tangent it is important to note one thing. Wright blames the government for HIV and says that this is a way [for whites] to get rid of blacks. Then he brings up the Tuskegee study as if a bunch of white guys went around infecting blacks with syphilis. Two of the people involved in the Tuskegee study were black. There was a black nurse and a black doctor who studied the men who had become (on their own) infected with syphilis. It does not make it right, it only dispels this idea that white guys are trying to kill off blacks.
Is Wright now a thorn in Obama’s side? Wright told people in his speech that he is a pastor and Obama a politician so he speaks as a pastor and Obama says what politicians have to say [to get elected]. Does this mean that Obama agrees with Wright but says the opposite in order to gain higher office? Regardless of what he means, it is obvious that Wright has blackened Obama’s eye. It looks as if Wright has been offended by Obama’s constant denunciation of him and his preachings.
Is Pastor Wright now deliberately sabotaging Obama because Obama has distanced himself from his one time spiritual adviser? Has Obama become the black sheep of Wright’s flock? It seems like Wright is an intelligent man so he has to know that his multiple appearances will adversely affect Obama. Is he so vain that he is blind to the effect he is having or has he decided that Obama needs to pay for denouncing him? Does Wright think that trying to redirect the blame by saying white people are attacking the black church will play well with the very white people Wright thinks are racists?
It seems as if Pastor Wright has turned against Barack Obama. Is it because he is upset?
Or did the Clintons get to him?
Obama has Wright to mess things up and Hillary has Bill. You have to love watching the Democrats implode.
Jan 11, 2008 General
I know there are many arguments about whether or not homosexuals should serve in the military. There are many homosexuals who are patriots and who would love to serve their country. Having that desire does not mean they should be able to serve or that they have a right to serve. I have my own views about why they should not serve, openly or otherwise, and many have taken me to task for my views. So be it. However, this story from Stars and Stripes shows how harmful allowing homosexuals to serve can be and this episode shows the dangers involved:
Eighteen British military members and six contractors are having their blood checked for infections and diseases after receiving emergency war-zone transfusions that might not have been properly screened by U.S. officials, British authorities said Thursday.
The transfusions were performed at U.S. military facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan at various times since 2001, according to the British Ministry of Defence.
While U.S. and U.K. policy is to use certified blood products in combat zones, donors are used in emergency situations or when there are supply shortages, according to an MOD release. Policy also dictates that these emergency samples be retrospectively tested to ensure they are clean.
â€œHowever, not all of the emergency collections had samples that made it back to the U.S. for retrospective testing,â€ according to a statement from Derek Twigg, the U.K. undersecretary of state for defence. â€œThis is the key reason for offering testing to the recipients of these U.S. emergency blood collections.â€
Why is this of concern? The blood is retrospectively tested. In other words it is tested after the transfusions. Unfortunately, some injuries require blood quickly and prior to proper screening in order to save a life. The homosexual male population accounts for the majority of HIV cases in the US and Western Europe:
In North America and Western Europe HIV infection and AIDS cases have been concentrated among men who have sex with men and among users of intravenous drugs. In some US cities up to half of homosexual and bisexual men are infected (440) (see Table 1, p. 4). In the population as a whole, however, infection is uncommon–0.12 percent among US military recruits in 1988, for example (442). BNET
Additionally, the US accounts for 60% of the world’s reported cases. This might just be because we have a better reporting system but no matter the reason, the fact is allowing homosexual men to serve would increase the likeliness that emergency transfusions would result in the transmission of the AIDS virus. The reason that the military tests low is because the test is required for entrance into the service which would exclude carriers prior to entry. This means that about 50% of gay men would be excluded from entering. It also means that those who make it through pose a risk to their fellow soldiers because the gays are most likely to get infected. We can exclude IV drug users because they would not make it in and it is unlikely, with drug testing, that those who took up that vice would remain in the service.
This will cause people to make all kinds of excuses and try to rationalize why gays should be permitted to serve. No matter what the argument, allowing them to serve poses a danger to others.
Imagine surviving a terrible injury only to be diagnosed with AIDS. Don’t ask, don’t tell could be a death sentence.