Jun 29, 2010 Political
The federal government has spent $1.44 million of taxpayer money to study, among other things, male prostitutes in South East Asia.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has so far awarded $1.44 million in federal funds to a project that, among other things, is estimating the size of the population and examining the “social milieu” of male prostitutes in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. CNS News
The study will look at HIV rate in men who have sex with men.
Who cares about their male prostitutes (or any of their prostitutes) and who cares about their HIV rate? That is not our concern and is for their government to look at. One thing is for sure is that taxpayer money should not be spent for this folly.
Did Barney Frank allocate the money for this?
If anyone knows about male prostitutes, he would be the guy…
Never surrender, never submit.
Sep 30, 2009 Political
The government health care takeover calls for all medical records to be electronic. Electronic records can make life a lot easier and I have seen some amazing technology with regard to electronics and medical application. But, as with all electronic records, there is a chance that data will be compromised and someone who shouldn’t will gain access to the records. Look how many electronic data bases, government and private, have been compromised.
Patrick Kennedy said that sexually transmitted diseases and abortions will not be required to be reported in electronic medical records. The cynic might wonder about the abortions. Is this so they can be paid for with taxpayer money and not be recorded?
Probably not. Kennedy is worried about the data being compromised and people being embarrassed by it. Kennedy should know about items in medical records that could be embarrassing given his treatment for substance abuse.
Kennedy, probably without realizing it, told us that the electronic records might not be so secure after all. If they were then why would he want these items omitted (upon patient request)? They are not omitted from paper records because there is not a great a chance that they will be compromised. By asking that they not be included he has indicated that there is a concern that they would be inadvertently released. Therefore, the electronic records will not be as secure as the government wants you to believe.
I am having trouble understanding why these two items were selected by him. The left is proud of its support of abortion and it is a badge of honor for a young liberal woman to have an abortion and the younger the better.
Perhaps the STD issue is to allow people to exclude a positive HIV test.
No matter what the reason, Kennedy gave us a glimpse as to how secure the records will be.
He is not so sure or he would not want certain things omitted.
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…
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.