Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Going for blood out of the gate

My mother is doing well.Thanks to everyone expressing concern.

In the middle of yesterday's drama, I noticed the following:

A new variety of staph bacteria, highly resistant to antibiotics and possibly transmitted by sexual contact, is spreading among gay men in San Francisco, Boston, New York and Los Angeles, researchers reported Monday.

The study released online by the journal Annals of Internal Medicine found the highest concentrations of infection by the drug-resistant bug in and around San Francisco's Castro district and among patients who visit health clinics that treat HIV infections in gay men in San Francisco and Boston.

My eyes rolled for two reasons. First I get spooked when I hear of any new calamities that are out and could potentially affect us all.

The second reason is because I knew what would happen next. I was just telling a friend today that we can expect an one-sided article from One News Now. The article will most likely cite quotes from a so-called "pro-family" leader while omitting comments from any lgbts or anyone directly involved in the situation.

But of course our friend, Peter LaBarbera, had to be first on the list with his comments. I imagine him chomping at the bit as he wrote the following:

Is this not an eerie reminder of the initial stories about AIDS — then called GRID (Gay-Related Immunodeficiency Disease) – 25 years ago? It is unfathomable that after that plague, disease specialists and the media are now surprised at the correlation of new infections with homosexual behavior.

Wake up, medical and political establishment: homosexual behavior is unhealthy — no matter how many secular sermons you preach against "homophobia." Due to liberal political correctness, which insists on treating aberrant — even deadly — behaviors and lifestyles as a "civil right," we as a society don’t seem to have learned much from the AIDS pandemic. This latest news begs some serious questions:

Why aren’t all schoolchildren being taught that there are special health risks associated with homosexual behavior and that they should "just say no" to homosexuality? (Instead, schools are willy-nilly working to spread the PC idea among youth that certain people are naturally "gay," and that this is a harmless identity);

Why won’t the news media make the common-sense connection between these frequent stories about (male) homosexual behavior and disease — to the idea that perhaps it’s probably not smart for society and pop culture to celebrate homosexuality and bisexuality ?;Why isn’t there a concerted government effort — akin to the current anti-smoking campaigns — to reign in homosexual promiscuity – beginning with closing down all sex businesses (bathhouses) that facilitate homosexual perversion? (Of course, we favor closing down straight prostitution businesses as well.) We know that bisexual behavior (men on the "down low") help spread dangerous diseases to the general population: how many deaths and illnesses have to result from "second-hand sodomy" before authorities take corrective action? (Curiously, even President Bush’s White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, recently abruptly cut off a question by reporter Les Kinsolving critical of homosexual bathhouses);

If any other behavior were as closely linked to death and disease as male homosexuality, would we be so careful not to criticize it – or would we offer healthy alternatives to it like abstinence and the ex-"gay" movement?

Well I am one never to get alarmed at a snake when he acts like a snake, so Peter's exploitation of this situation to promote his political bullshit does not surprise me.

But it does bother me a little.

I would suggest everyone read the entire San Francisco Chronicle article and not just Peter's rehashing of it. Amongst other things, it says the following:

Just why the new, more drug-resistant variety is concentrated among gay men is not yet known. Patients infected with HIV appear to run a higher risk of infection, but the study suggests that gay men are being infected with the staph germ regardless of whether they are HIV-positive.

One factor that could be in play is a medical history of heavy use of antibiotics, which creates conditions for breeding drug-resistant strains. Any patient, HIV-positive or not, who has had high previous exposure to antibiotics might be more susceptible.

The good news is that, once the public is aware of the risk, there are ways to prevent the spread of drug-resistant staph. It can be as simple as soap and water.

"Taking a shower after sexual contact may minimize contamination," said Dr. Chip Chambers, director of infectious diseases at San Francisco General, a co-author of the study. "Ordinary soap will do. It dilutes the concentration of bacteria. You don't need antibacterial soap."Chambers stressed that some people, no matter how fastidious, could be more prone than others to staph infections.

They could have unknown genetic traits or a history of antibiotic use that raises the risk. "Despite one's best efforts, it is still possible, of course, to get a staph infection," he said. "This is why if one has a cut or open wound that it is important to clean it out and keep it clean."

Peter is quick to point out the early history of AIDS and HIV.

He, however, conveniently omits that the demonization of lgbts via Anita Bryant's crusade, the Briggs Amendment, and various other petty correalations between homosexuality and anti-social behavior were small but crucial factors in the spread of HIV.

Some gays beaten down by those lies had no credibility in objetive information coming out telling them about HIV and AIDS. They viewed them as yet another attack.

And this a huge problem when it comes to lgbts and disease prevention, particularly in the case of STDs. Many times, while heterosexuals are given adequate care to prevent sexuallytransmitted diseases (STDs), the gay and lesbian community finds itself being blamed for the outbreak of STDs.

The anti-gay industry, in particular, blame gay sexual orientation rather than the sexual behavior of individual people or how societal rejection contributes to the sexual behavior of individual gay men.

This can contribute to a stumbling block to gay men receiving adequate health care.

According to the article Health Care Screening for Men Who Have Sex with Men, gay men can be at a high risk for preventable diseases for a number of reasons, including:

the patient being fearful to come out to his or her doctor, the personal discomfort the doctor may feel about having a gay or lesbian patient, possible open hostility of the doctor to having a gay or lesbian patient, and concern that the patient’s employer may learn his or her orientation and terminate their employment.

I would sincerely hope that no one takes Peter's nonsense seriously. No one, that is, except for the usual suspects. After all, isn't that what we have come to expect from them?

UPDATE - And it looks like all of the dipsticks are coming out the woodwork.