Activism: Same method, different text

When you trade in confronting controversial topics like I do here, you expect to come across activists defending their issues.  It just occurred to me, however, after all this time, that activist’s methods of pushing their respective causes are nearly identical, but with a different message.  For example, supporters of abortion-choice rights will inevitably try to convince others that abortion is necessary because of cases of rape and incest.  But women who have abortions because of rape and incest account for 1% or less of all cases of elective abortion.  They attempt to defend their cause by citing the rarest of conditions with a fervor that suggests that is the main reason they want abortion legal.  December 1st is World Aids Day, and is set aside for people to show their support for those living with HIV and to remember people who have died.

Over the years it seems this day has gone from one of remembrance and support for individuals suffering from HIV, to support for homosexuality.  Now, why do I make this leap, that the day is for support of homosexuality?  Because HIV activists, generally speaking, omit the prime reason(s) people contract HIV in favor of the extremely rare causes.

Fullscreen capture 1222012 91400 AM.bmp

Fullscreen capture 1222012 91532 AM.bmp

Fullscreen capture 1222012 92032 AM.bmp

When I said HIV is 100% preventable, I would hope someone who reads that is reasonable enough to think to themselves, “Well, I see he said 100% preventable, but surely he isn’t talking about obvious cases where someone received a blood transfusion or organ transplant and it couldn’t possibly have been prevented by the person, especially since he mentioned desires”.  That would have been the reasonable thought process.

Is there a reason this person, or anyone for that matter, omits what are the majority of the reasons people contract HIV?  Of course there is, but it doesn’t jive well with the agenda.

(University of California, San Francisco) — In 1995, the risk in the United States of HIV-1 transmission per unit transfused was estimated to be between 1 in 450,000 and 1 in 660,000. By 2003, this estimated risk had decreased to between 1 in 1.4 million and 1 in 1.8 million units.

Apparently the odds of contracting HIV via blood transfusion is virtually zero.  But why would this person bring up a cause for contracting HIV that is virtually zero?

(Centers for Disease Control) — Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2009, MSM accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 3% of new infections. That same year, young MSM accounted for 69% of new HIV infections among persons aged 13–29 and 44% of infections among all MSM. At the end of 2009, an estimated 441,669 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the US were MSM or MSM-IDU.

(Centers for Disease Control) — Sharing syringes and other equipment for drug injection is a well known route of HIV transmission, yet injection drug use contributes to the epidemic’s spread far beyond the circle of those who inject. People who have sex with an injection drug user (IDU) also are at risk for infection through the sexual transmission of HIV. Children born to mothers who contracted HIV through sharing needles or having sex with an IDU may become infected as well.

Since the epidemic began, injection drug use has directly and indirectly accounted for more than one-third (36%) of AIDS cases in the United States. This disturbing trend appears to be continuing. Of the 42,156 new cases of AIDS reported in 2000, 11,635 (28%) were IDU-associated

Oh my.  Not to make trivial the plight of those living HIV/AIDS, but it seems there are somethings we can point to as the cause of the spread of HIV, and it’s not blood transfusions and organ transplants — it’s male same-sex sexual contact and intravenous drug use.  According to government numbers, approximately 73% of all new HIV cases are because of these factors.

What are we to take from all of this?  If you are a MSM, are an IDU, have sex with an IDU, or a woman who has sex with any of these people, your chances of contracting HIV is fairly certain given enough time.  Conversely, if you are in a heterosexual, monogamous, long-term relationship, and yourself are not an IDU, and are with someone who has never used drugs intravenously (or been with an IDU), your chances of contracting HIV are virtually nil.

The question that needs to be answered is why this isn’t said more.  If I’m not mistaken, the reasons above (MSM contact and IV drug use) are commonly discussed within their respective communities, but are suspiciously absent from discussions in mainstream media outlets.  It’s almost like activists don’t want people to know the link between MSM/IDU and HIV/AIDS.  My point here is that if we really cared about real prevention, we wouldn’t divert the attention away from the actual causes of the spread of HIV/AIDS in favor of the extremely rare exceptions.  Now why would people want to divert from the real causes?  I know why, it sounds too… Eww… Christian.


  1. It’s more important to them to protect people from accountability than to actually protect them from the results of their actions.

    When I was a kid, I remember the AIDS “crisis”. “Get tested”, they said. Though it was relatively early, we knew that iv drug use and homosexual behavior was the main reason for the spread of HIV. We knew it! But it was reported such that it seemed everyone could get it from anyone. Even back then, they didn’t want to say what is so obvious: homosexuality is risky when it comes to HIV.

    Also, note that the message has never been, “Abstinence, then monogamy will virtually end the sexual transmission of HIV/AIDS”.

    You’re right on about it sounding too Christian. They throw the baby out with the bathwater. Thirty years ago, the meia and the government should have been shouting the real threat from the rooftops, but they just can’t be seen as being in agreement with Christians.

    It reminds me of the pattern described by Thomas Sowell.

    Crisis. AIDS exists and spreads.

    Solution. Educate people about the risks, but don’t give the whole story. We say “You’ll get poor results without explaining the biggest threat”.

    Results. AIDS spreads mainly among those at greatest risk (gays).

    Response. We say, “See? We were right!”. They say that we don’t know what we’re talking about, that we just hate gays and that what’s needed is more of the failed “solution”. But still insist on hiding the truth.

  2. Clint Blomberg says:

    Recent research coming out of the National Anemia Action Council (NAAC) has found that the common practice of administering blood transfusion to traumatic brain injury patients may actually be increasing the risk of mortality as well as “composite complication including multi-organ failure.”The study, which lasted over a seven-year period, found that of the 1,150 TBI patients, approximately 76 percent were found to be anemic at some time period during their first week after administration to the hospital because of their TBI incident. The anemic group was said to have increased complications compared to non-anemic patients and of the “anemic group, 76 percent received blood transfusions during their first week and the transfusion in this group was associated with more complications and a higher mortality rate than patients who were not transfused.”`

    Look out for our personal blog site as well

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: