The Shotgun Blog
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Tainted Blood and AIDS
Forgive me for publishing on this dreadful topic again. What follows appeared on my website www.williamgairdner.com on February 23 last, but not yet on this site. Tomorrow I will publish here the mortality data on AIDS as compared to breast and prostate cancer in Canada (to back up my statement here that it is a minor disease) which I put together after sending for the info recommended below.
The “tainted blood” issue is in the news again in an attempt to sort out who lied to whom, and to place blame for a scandal that has resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people. The injustice of this should make any normal person very angry. “Tainted” means blood with the HIV virus (or with whatever agent[s] in blood are thought to cause AIDS). I knew a father of four who went for shoulder surgery, got tainted blood in a transfusion, and later died of AIDS. Excuse the expression, but this whole business was and remains a bloody outrage. The Red Cross was implicated and faulted publicly – just a wrist slapping - for supplying tainted blood beginning in the 1980s. But the real culprit is a society that was, and remains willing to hide the stark and continuing reality that it is mostly male homosexuals who get AIDS in the Western world, and that there were, and are still, radical homosexuals who insisted then, and continue to insist now that AIDS is a mainstream disease and so they should not be excluded from giving blood. I say “radical” because at the start of all this there were a few angry homosexual men on record engaging in “blood terrorism”. Which is to say they felt discriminated against as homosexuals, and saw it as their right to get even with a patriarchal and “homophobic” society by donating their own tainted blood. The more or less true picture on the connection between AIDS and male homosexuality can be obtained from Health Canada, HIV/AIDS Surveillance. They have a website www.aidssida.cpha.ca You can also call them at 613-725-3769 and ask to be sent the “HIV and AIDS” info as a hard copy.
There, you will see a kind of bureaucratic collusion to hide the truth by avoiding honest language. When it started reporting on AIDS in 1980, Health Canada used categories like “homosexual” and “heterosexual” to sort out the incidence of HIV-AIDS, because prior to its political renaming, AIDS was labeled “gay bowel syndrome” by every specialist in the place. But in the mid-90s or thereabouts the language was changed to such as the cute abbreviation “MSM”. This means “men who have sex with men,” and the clear intent of that language change is to make homosexual behaviour seem innocent and just like a sex act between a man and a woman. These reports go on to quietly inform you that somewhere around 85% of all HIV-AIDS deaths in Canada from the 1980s until now have been from MSM “sex”. I use quotations for “sex” because as argued in a blog I wrote a week ago it is not possible for homosexuals to “have sex” in any proper sense of the term. In short, the intent of the language change and the acquiescence of the Red Cross and so many other “health” professionals has been to remove stigma from homosexual behaviour and to pretend that AIDS is “everyone’s disease.” Don’t believe it. At least in Western countries it is overwhelmingly a disease of homosexual males, and thousands of these poor souls have died of AIDS in the past 30 years (though AIDS is still a very minor disease by ordinary standards. Far more die every year of breast and prostate cancer, for example, than die of AIDS, though these diseases are given about a tenth of the money for research that is given for AIDS.
To top all this horrendous discussion off – and this, too is hush-hush due to the fact that there is by now an enormous HIV-AIDS industry/bureaucracy/and national international aid machinery established to “conquer AIDS” – it is by no means clear at all that HIV is the “cause” of AIDS. Indeed, also getting off the ground in the 1980s was a group that then called itself “Rethinking -AIDS”. They have another name now. But this is a collection of four or five-hundred established scientists who are pretty certain that HIV is NOT the cause of AIDS. About 50 of them, including Luc Montagnier, the French scientists given many awards as the co-discoverer of the HIV virus, met in Amsterdam in 1992 at an “alternative” AIDS conference to assail the “HIV dogma.” An in-depth study of this controversy is Peter Duesberg, Inventing the AIDS Virus (Washington: Regnery publishing, 1996). Duesberg, though a distinguished professor at Berkeley, has become a pariah in the AIDS establishment for his work. Instead of facing the arguments, the full force of denkverboten (the German word for “forbidding of thought”) has been brought to bear on his work and career by his opponents.
Their position is drawn from two sources. First, as Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis (who wrote the foreward to Duesberg’s book) put it: “If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There are no such documents.” (London Sunday Times, Nov.28, 1993). You can access lots of similar material, at www.virusmyth.net including in-depth essays on the African “Aids” crisis (quotes used here for reasons you will see if you study up on the way Africa has no standard scientific requirement for distinguishing AIDS from the many other diseases that are rampant there).
And second, it seems to be the case that even if HIV is “associated” with AIDS, it may not necessarily manifest, or “cause” AIDS and this conclusion arises because so many people in whom the HIV virus may be found, but who do not practice homosexuality, never get AIDS, though it is quite likely if you are given blood from an active homosexual with AIDS. The main argument is that “co-factors” are required in combination with the virus and then you will likely come down with AIDS. What are the co-factors? They are behaviours and practices associated mostly with male homosexuality: primarily frequent anal sex, heavy drug use, especially nitrates used to heighten the senses, multiple sex partners, heavy alcohol use, chronic fatigue, poor diet, etc., etc.
Getting at the truth is a lot of work.
Posted by williamgairdner on March 18, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tainted Blood and AIDS:
William, you say that homosexual men donated tainted blood to "get even" with society. Do you have any evidence to back up your anecdote? I'm not saying this didn't occur, just that it sounds apocryphal. If that did happen, were these men charged?
Posted by: EBD | 2006-03-18 1:43:25 PM
Fascinating. You may be accused of hate mongering for telling the truth.
I've set up on "Half Wisdom Half Wit" the beginning of a discussion on the triumph of victimhood over self-sufficiency and the subordination of 'what is right' in favor of 'what is best for me'. What you describe here seems like a perfect example of these societal undertows. Comments welcome there too.
Posted by: Halfwise | 2006-03-18 1:55:06 PM
Making Sodomy Respectable
By Stephen Gray
"As the AIDS epidemic expanded, homosexual advocacy groups quickly realized that the negative association of sodomy with a fatal communicable disease could reverse past political achievements. Without aggressive countermeasures, AIDS could impede their drive for a national law equating homosexuality with race, skin colour and ethnicity. Homosexual groups had previously succeeded in pressuring the American Psychiatric and Psychological Associations into declaring that homosexuality was no longer a mental aberration." ( page 207, AIDS: Rage and Reality by Gene Antonio.)
In Canada today, homosexuality is being equated with race. The National Post of August 18, 2003, had the headline: "DO NOT SEGREGATE GAYS: FRY " Member of Parliament, Hedy Fry was quoted in this article as saying, in response to an alternative being proposed to gay marriage, " It’s like suggesting you have water fountains or washrooms - they’re equally equipped, etcetera - but one is for blacks and one is for whites. You’re still segregating."
The strategy to equate a behaviour with ‘race, skin colour and ethnicity’ is obviously working. Many people have been cowed into silence. After all, who likes being called a racist if they dare to speak out on this matter. Although people of colour are entitled to be upset to see themselves used as examples to justify respectability for a disease ridden lifestyle. Words are being used as weapons to suppress any criticism. The latest buzz words are "equality" and "discrimination."
Even the Justice Minister, Mr. Cauchon is getting in on the act. He is quoted on the issue of same-sex marriage as saying: "Anything less is discrimination." (National Post, August 18, 2003.) Orwellian doublespeak has come to Canada. And of course the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been used by assorted "experts" to say that this lifestyle is all about "equality." Never mind that this behaviour was never in the Charter, yet we are being brainwashed into believing that it is, by all the usual suspects, politicians, media etc. In fact, the Prime Minister says "all Canadians respect and cherish" the Charter (National Post, August 20, 2003). Which makes one wonder, Is our "great leader" deluded or daft or both? Though one of the ruling party’s politicians did say this about his government: "We’re at the stage where nonsense is the rule of the day" (National Post, August 18, 2003).
There is a madness abroad in the land. It seems to have infected the brain cells of judges, most politicians, the media, the law and all those who form the so-called "intellectuals" and ruling class of society. Ask yourself the question: Is it normal for two people of the same-sex to be married? Should this insanity even be up for discussion? Any child would say that same-sex marriage is stupid, but not our so-called mature and "sensible" adult politicians and judges. How do you certify a ruling class and who would do it? Why is it that those who practice this abnormal lifestyle are able to make judges and many politicians subservient to their wishes? What can be the reason for this insanity being proclaimed as a Charter "right?" Do we have a defective democracy? The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was never voted on by the people. But now it is used as a weapon to impose on the country a lifestyle that is detrimental to the health of society.
"Instead of enacting appropriate measures to protect the public, many politicians have identified with the cause of those spreading mass contagion" ( page 248, AIDS: Rage And Reality by Gene Antonio).
The highest percentage of AIDS cases in Canada are caused by homosexual behaviour, and an article titled, "AIDS: Medical and Scientific Aspects" by Thomas Curran, Research Branch, Library of Parliament stated regarding AIDS that, "...most of the cases of the disease in Canada have been diagnosed in the gay community. By 30 June 1995, 76.4% of total AIDS cases were related to homosexual or bisexual activity."
Despite all the evidence available in their own departments on this dangerous and disease ridden lifestyle the government and the judges supported by most of the media are determined to impose on the country this deadly conduct and call it "marriage." Practicing a behaviour that can bring disease and death is all about "equality." One must be "tolerant," cry our mad rulers. Canada’s blood supply was contaminated by those immersed in this "nice" lifestyle. Innocent people who received tainted blood were victims, because some people were afraid to ask questions of homosexuals, fearing it might be discriminatory. Others were afraid of "offending the gay community."
We are now in the final stages of a political and judicial disease: legitimizing the sodomite lifestyle. No matter that this behaviour is costing our healthcare system billions of dollars. Sodomy is to be celebrated. Sodomy is a "human right." Sodomy is all about "tolerance" "diversity" "equality" "inclusivity" and being "non-discriminatory." Sodomy is being made respectable by the powers that be and only they know their reason for doing so. But then in the words of one writer: "Insanity destroys reason..." and perhaps that is the explanation.
August 22, 2003.
firstname.lastname@example.org website http://www.geocities.com/graysinfo
Some info on the Author: Stephen Gray is a writer and researcher on various topics. He published a newsletter for 11 years exposing the misuse of trade union time and money.
Posted by: Stephen Gray | 2006-03-18 3:15:37 PM
Yo - Stephen Gray - Please to tell us the day, time , place month and year that you chose to be hetrosexual . If you can't be that exact then roughly when did you choose to be hetro?
Posted by: Nbob | 2006-03-18 4:40:31 PM
Hey Stephen and William, can I get you to sign this great picture of the two of you?
Hot pic! Though didn't anyone ever tell you: don't get your poles crossed!!
Posted by: Justin rules | 2006-03-18 5:08:59 PM
More info on AIDS from the Government website. Stephen
“In Canada, the HIV/AIDS epidemic continues to grow despite the efforts of governments, community-based organizations, national non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the health care sector, researchers and a legion of committed and dedicated volunteers across the country. The Centre for Infectious Disease Prevention and Control (CIDPC) estimates that 56 000 people in Canada were living with HIV infection at the end of 2002 - a 12 per cent increase from previous estimates in 1999. Men who have sex with men (MSM) continue to be the most affected group,…"
Posted by: Stephen | 2006-03-18 5:25:14 PM
"Yo - Stephen Gray - Please to tell us the day, time , place month and year that you chose to be hetrosexual . If you can't be that exact then roughly when did you choose to be hetro?"
Do you think that people choose to be sexually attracted to children -- infants even? And, if it is not something they choose, then does this mean that it is natural and must be accepted and celebrated by society? Do you think pederasts have "rights" based on their sexual inclinations?
Posted by: Richard Ball | 2006-03-18 5:37:13 PM
Nice point, Richard. Brief and to the point....lokking forward to the answer.
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2006-03-18 5:48:12 PM
Can anyone tell me: Did the Krever report identify homosexual donors as the cause of tainted blood?
Posted by: Herman | 2006-03-18 5:51:52 PM
An article from B.C. report a few years ago on tainted Blood. Stephen
Bureaucratic serial killers
Krever's tainted-blood inquiry lays bare in meticulous detail the heavy death toll from political correctness Illustration by CRAIG WIWAD
In the summer of 1983 Dr. Thomas Bowen, medical director of Calgary's Red Cross Blood Centre, was ordered by the national Red Cross office not to mark blood donations from people suspected of being homosexual, intravenous drug users, or otherwise at a high risk of contracting AIDS. Nevertheless, for two years Calgary nurses put a black dot on suspect samples so that they were not used for transfusions. Dr. Bowen did not tell the national office this, because senior Red Cross bureaucrats were committed to a policy of "voluntary self-exclusion" and Dr. Bowen did not want to be told to stop doing it.
Nobody knows how many lives Dr. Bowen saved by this expedient. After testifying at the Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada, Dr. Bowen said that it was just "luck" that he took appropriate steps while the Red Cross did not. But the head of the commission, Justice Horace Krever, disagrees. In his report, released November 26, Mr. Justice Krever maps out with devastating precision exactly how and why the guardians of Canada's blood supply let thousands of people die unnecessarily through inaction, cowardice, bureaucratic bungling and lies.
The report details how top Red Cross bureaucrats refused to properly screen donors because they were afraid of offending the gay community and the public; how they publicly insisted that the risk of transmitting AIDS by blood transfusion was "overrated," while privately acknowledging that contamination of the supply was only a matter of time; how they frittered away an 18-month opportunity between 1983 and 1985 to implement AIDS prevention measures already in place in the U.S.; and how they later distributed blood products to hemophiliacs that they should have known to be contaminated.
Other factors contributed to the debacle, such as political infighting between the Red Cross and federal and provincial agencies. Neither Ottawa nor the provinces did anything to stop the medical malfeasance, and as a result over 1,100 Canadians got AIDS and over 60,000 were infected with hepatitis C. But the "primary responsibility" for preventing such a catastrophe was in the hands of one entity: the Canadian Red Cross.
Mr. Justice Krever begins the story in the U.S. In December 1981 the New England Journal of Medicine warned that "a nation-wide epidemic of immunodeficiency among male homosexuals" was occurring and that it was beginning to affect drug users. The mortality rate (over 40%) was alarming, and the number of cases was doubling every six months, but epidemiologists were particularly troubled by the association with homosexual males. Because diseases spread more quicklyamong homosexuals, it is sometimes considered a bellwether of impending epidemics. Mr. Justice Krever also notes that homosexual males were frequent blood donors in those days, believing that it would improve their public image.
By spring 1982 it was widely acknowledged in America that the new "gay-related immunodeficiency" might be infectious. A July 1982 outbreak of 34 cases among Haitian immigrants frightened officials, who thought initially it to be a new phenomenon; it was later discovered that most of the Haitian men had had sex in their birthplace with visiting New York homosexuals. Meanwhile, there were reports of AIDS-like symptoms in the prison population. That summer the Centres for Disease Control in Atlanta noted that the agent might be a blood-borne virus, and so "hemophiliacs would be prime candidates to develop this syndrome."
The U.S. quickly took measures to suppress AIDS. At the time, 75% of AIDS patients were gay or bisexual men and 15% were intravenous drug users. Beginning in January 1983 the Americans implemented measures designed to discourage or prevent these people and their sexual partners from donating blood. They began a general education program for the public, they insisted that information on AIDS be presented at clinics, and in many cases they questioned donors directly and excluded those who were members of high-risk groups or exhibiting AIDS symptoms. All this was happening by March 1983; U.S. inquiries later determined that even more should have been done earlier.
In Canada, Dr. Roger Perrault, national director of the Canadian Red Cross Society's blood transfusion service, had been struggling with regular and severe blood shortages. New procedures like transplants had increased demand for blood, and the Red Cross was required by the provinces to fill all requests. However, bureaucrats discouraged transfers of blood from surplus to needy regions. Much of the blood used by hemophiliacs consequently came from the U.S., where the rates of infection were four times as high.
In August 1982 Dr. John Furesz, the director of Canada's federal Bureau of Biologics, the agency responsible for regulating blood products, asked Dr. John Derrick, the head of Red Cross blood products services, to coordinate the surveillance of new cases of the disease, particularly among hemophiliacs. On September 9, 1982, a Red Cross committee rejected the request because "the evidence suggesting that hemophiliacs could be at risk in developing AIDS had been overpublicized and was still inconclusive."
The committee also argued that it was not in a position to take on that role, which was nonsense, as Mr. Justice Krever points out; the agency had controlled the safety of the blood system for years and had responded to numerous threats in the past, such as syphilis and hepatitis B, through screening, testing and other measures. Dr. Furesz, for his part, never followed up his own request to ensure that it had been acted on.
Meanwhile, the AIDS cases were increasing rapidly. By December 1982 there were 800 in the U.S. and 21 in Canada. In the U.S., several dozen hemophiliacs had already been infected with HIV, the human immunodeficiency virus that causes AIDS. The Canadian Red Cross was aware of developments and government actions in the U.S. At a committee meeting on January 21, 1983, an American doctor advised the Red Cross governing committee to implement direct questioning about AIDS symptoms and high-risk groups in its questionnaire. The Red Cross declined because it was "concerned that it might offend donors," notes Mr. Justice Krever. "This concern was not the result of any study of donor attitudes by the RC."
It had more to do with a furious controversy a month earlier. A Medical Post article had summarized research on hemophiliacs with failing immune systems, and Dr. Joseph Shuster, a McGill University researcher, had been quoted as saying "there is 'no question' that gay men should not donate blood until the issue is resolved." But the assistant director of the Red Cross's Blood Transfusion Unit, Dr. Martin Davey, was quoted as downplaying the risk and saying that rigorous scientific proof would be needed before high-risk donors were excluded. Nevertheless, the gay community was outraged. "Facing a difficult public relations problem," writes Mr. Justice Krever, the Canadian Red Cross adopted a policy of "voluntary self-exclusion" on March 10, 1983.
The plan was to get gay community leaders and other high-profile members of risk groups to convince their fellows not to donate blood. A press release was issued describing the new policy and listing known risk groups: gays, IV-drug users and Haitians. The public was assured that "everything possible" was being done to protect blood recipients.
Montreal's Haitian community resented the stigma the press release placed on them and denounced the Red Cross as racist. They complained to the Quebec Human Rights Commission, the Haitian embassy protested, the Red Cross was picketed, and donations fell off, exacerbating the blood shortage. "As a humanitarian and non-discriminatory organization...the Red Cross was particularly sensitive to the accusation that it was acting in a racist manner," observes Mr. Justice Krever.
Gay leaders, for their part, worried about being turned into scapegoats for AIDS. They also worried that they would lose, writes Mr. Justice Krever, "the sexual freedom that many had come to enjoy and that had become a defining element of the gay community." However, many leaders decided the problem was real and chose to help as best they could. In a March 22 meeting with Dr. Derrick, gay spokesmen warned the Red Cross that some gays might prefer to let the blood supply become tainted if they were not given a chance to withdraw their blood confidentially. They also warned that the gospel of self-exclusion was unlikely to reach homosexuals who were "outside the gay community" because they were in the closet or the homosexual underworld.
On March 24 Dr. Derrick informed a meeting of Red Cross medical directors that the number of American AIDS cases, at the time 1,250, was expected to reach at least 8,000 by the end of the year. He also warned of an imminent crossover into the heterosexual population. Dr. Derrick estimated that Canada was about 18 months behind the U.S. in the spread of AIDS and argued that many cases could still be prevented. However, when informed that some B.C. nurses were discarding blood tagged as coming from high-risk individuals, Dr. Perrault insisted—according to the formal minutes of the meeting—that blood from high-risk donors was "not to be singled out at the moment."
In his testimony to the inquiry, Dr. Perrault claimed that he only meant that the risk-group status should not be marked on the patient's record. But Mr. Justice Krever thinks that claim rings hollow; Dr. Davey told the same March 24 meeting that "no centre should be asking any questions other than the basic: 'Are you well?' and most definitely, no centre should be conducting its own diagnostic quiz for AIDS."
Five days later, at a meeting of the Red Cross AIDS working group, Red Cross honorary counsel Michael Worsoff said that the Red Cross had, "above all," a moral and legal obligation to assure the safety of the blood it accepted. The agency, he argued, must not wait for rigorous scientific proof before taking strong measures to contain the disease, nor should it worry about occasional complaints of discrimination. But despite the mounting concerns about AIDS, the possibility that it was blood-borne, the warnings of legal culpability, and the likelihood that voluntary self-exclusion would not work, Drs. Perrault, Davey and Derrick continued with their program.
The Red Cross public information "campaign" consisted initially of two press releases and a letter from Dr. Derrick to the directors of local blood centres. The letter, delivered in July 1983, provided an incomplete list of contact names for gay organizations and asked blood centre directors to work out local communications strategies. Some directors did, some did not, and the head office made no follow-up efforts. Dr. Davey testified that the Red Cross worried that if some members of the gay community were sufficiently provoked by discriminatory policies, they would deliberately donate in protest. "At this time, no gay person in Canada had ever made such a threat," wrote Mr. Justice Krever.
Homosexual communities in some cities did begin their own communication campaigns, which were as blunt as anything in the U.S. "If you're here," read one poster in Vancouver bath houses, "don't give blood, now, more than ever." If gays were found responsible for the spread of AIDS, there could be "dangerous repercussions," the poster warned. A 1985 study found that, given its large gay population, Vancouver's rate of transfusion-related AIDS was half of what was expected.
On May 30, 1983, Dr. Davey, who is not an epidemiologist, wrote a memorandum in which he divided the number of reported full-blown AIDS cases in the U.S. by the number of transfusions. He concluded incorrectly that the chances of getting AIDS from the blood supply were 1.5 in a million. He did not account for cases where the symptoms were less than full-blown, or for the thousands who had AIDS but were showing no symptoms. The "1.5 in a million" figure was cited several times over the next few months by Dr. Derrick and other Red Cross officials to explain why they were not taking more direct action.
In July 1983 four months after the U.S. and most other developed countries were explaining risk groups and AIDS symptoms to blood donors, the Canadian Red Cross began to consider following suit. A 400-word brochure took another 10 months to produce. When it finally got to the clinics in May 1984, it was used sporadically or not at all. It was badly written and said nothing about AIDS symptoms—only that donors should be in "good health." AIDS's long latency period, already well known, made this warning all but worthless. However, at least it asked homosexuals with "multiple partners" not to donate, though it did not quantify "multiple."
When the brochure was finally redrafted in the summer of 1985, it said that "active homosexual or bisexual males" should refrain from donating, leaving the door open for temporarily inactive homosexuals. By that time in the U.S., the criterion for exclusion had advanced to "any male that has had sex with another male since 1977." "There is no reasonable explanation for [this discrepancy between countries]," writes Mr. Justice Krever, adding that U.S. blood collectors had adequate pamphlets in place within days of being told to do so by federal authorities.
He also lambastes the Red Cross for refusing to step on a few toes when the possible alternative was allowing a fatal disease to contaminate the national blood supply. He shows that the Red Cross knew of U.S. rules that allowed homosexual men to withdraw their donations with a discreet telephone call without revealing their sexual habits. Because of this and other methods, American donation levels had suffered little. The Red Cross did not adopt the measures.
In November 1983 Dr. Derrick argued that "There are many now who consider that the importance of AIDS as a threat to public health in this country has been overrated." The question whether AIDS was blood-borne was settled two months later by a January 1984 article in the New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Davey interpreted this study as "only a statement that increased the odds considerably." But in the same month a memo from a Red Cross staffer confided that "Dr. Derrick has shared his profound concerns of our culpability when (not if) Canadian doctors identify transfusion-related cases of AIDS. The attached copy from the January 9th Globe and Mail indicates we are routinely screening for AIDS. I believe this would be difficult to prove."
By March 1984 there were 37 adults and eight children in the U.S. who had almost certainly contracted AIDS through blood transfusion. Nevertheless, the Red Cross prepared an article for the Canada Diseases Weekly Report that stated that "There is currently no available evidence that blood transfusion recipients are at higher risk of developing AIDS."
After a test for the presence of HIV antibodies was developed in January 1985, it was apparent how pervasive the virus had become among the high-risk groups. Various U.S. studies showed HIV antibodies present in 22% to 65% of homosexual males, 87% of intravenous drug users and 56% to 72% of persons with type-A hemophilia. Drs. Davey and Perrault testified at the inquiry that they were "overwhelmed by new discoveries" about AIDS and were not convinced until 1985 that it could be spread through transfusions.
"By the summer of 1985, the senior RC officials still did not appreciate the serious threat that AIDS posed to the blood supply," writes Mr. Justice Krever. He concedes that it is easy to be critical in hindsight, but he still insists that the Red Cross should have known sooner.
Dr. Davey told a July 4, 1985, federal-provincial AIDS meeting that if HIV antibody testing had been available in 1980, it would have prevented only three cases of AIDS. He was wrong. In all, 1,148 cases of AIDS were eventually attributed to transfusions done between 1978 and 1985. The introduction of an affordable screening test for the AIDS virus should have reduced the danger to the blood system, but the Red Cross did not start using the test until the fall of 1985, eight months after it became available. In the meantime, 133 transfusion recipients got HIV.
As time wore on, explains Mr. Justice Krever, the Red Cross began delegating decisions on sensitive issues to outside agencies, like the National Advisory Committee on AIDS, because it wanted somebody else on the hook in case of another public relations disaster. In addition, its relationship with the Canadian Blood Committee, the joint federal-provincial agency that funded the blood program, had soured because of conflicts over money and procedure. Consequently, the funding for the virus-screening program was not approved until August 1985 and implementation was delayed until November for what were explained as scheduling reasons.
Once the AIDS test became available, the Red Cross was supposed to test its blood stores and notify both donors and recipients of tainted products. However, the provinces took no leadership in this issue and "the federal government disregarded invitations for it to act," leaving the Red Cross on its own, says Mr. Justice Krever. Consequently, the Red Cross had no "look-back" (recipient identification) and "trace-back" (donor identification) policies until 1987. By 1988, only 20% of look-backs had been completed.
Hemophiliacs, the Canadians most vulnerable to blood mismanagement, were not yet out of the woods just because HIV screening had been adopted. Hemophiliacs require regular doses of "factor concentrates" made from donated blood; these concentrates cause clotting and prevent the hemophiliac from bleeding to death if he is cut or needs surgery. Given the state of the blood supply, hemophiliacs regularly had to choose between risking death by refusing treatment and risking death from AIDS or hepatitis. By 1985 some 800 Canadian hemophiliacs had been infected by tainted blood products.
In the early 1980s researchers discovered that heat-treating killed a variety of viral agents, such as hepatitis. In October 1984 researchers in the U.S. discovered that it also killed the AIDS virus in factor concentrates. Accordingly, the Red Cross planned to convert to heat-treated products. However, in those days, shortages of factor concentrates regularly became crises; the Red Cross thus decided that it would use up its store of untreated products rather than let them go to waste. This saved the agency some money and forestalled the possibility of a shortage. On two occasions, the Red Cross deliberately misled hemophiliacs and their doctors, not telling them that improved products were available, because the agency feared a rush on heat-treated products.
Moreover, writes Mr. Justice Krever, it took eight months to get the safe products into service. Dr. Davey testified that the Red Cross needed the Canadian Blood Committee's permission to purchase more expensive products from the U.S. Mr. Justice Krever says that the Red Cross did not really need permission, but acrimony flared up between the agencies whenever the Red Cross spent substantial sums without prior approval. In addition, the Red Cross took flak from the committee every time it made decisions that hurt the interests of an Ontario blood-products manufacturer.
The federal Bureau of Biologics ordered that the transition to heat-treated products take place "as soon as possible" and then disappeared from the process. But Mr. Justice Krever notes that the bureau had the authority to insist that blood donors be told the symptoms of AIDS; to require donors to be asked if they belonged to a high-risk group or if they had the symptoms of AIDS; and to ask that high-risk donors be excluded from donating. The bureau did none of those things, even though its only job was to ensure the safety of blood products for Canadians.
Mr. Justice Krever concludes his report with a description of the consequences of the tragedy. Of the 1,148 who got AIDS through blood transfusions before 1985, 627 had died by 1993, and of the 521 then still living with the virus, 274 were showing AIDS symptoms. Between 1986 and 1990, after the introduction of heat-treated products and the AIDS screening test, 28,600 people were infected with hepatitis C by blood transfusions. If adequate screening techniques, which were available in 1986, had been introduced then, 85% of those infections would have been prevented.
Mr. Justice Krever estimates that the number of people needlessly infected with hepatitis C between 1980 and 1986 is much higher, driving the total number of preventable infections to over 60,000. Three quarters of Canada's 2,500 hemophiliacs now have hepatitis C, which causes fatal illnesses such as cirrhosis and liver cancer in 15% to 20% of sufferers.
But "statistics are impersonal and abstract," observes Mr. Justice Krever, so he recorded anecdotes from the victims. A 55-year-old man was given a transfusion in 1983 without his knowledge and discovered 10 years later that he and his wife had AIDS. In 1985, a premature infant was given a tablespoon of blood for reasons still unknown, and seven years later, coughing relentlessly, he died of AIDS. A mildly hemophiliac boy was given untreated blood factor concentrates in 1985, instead of a safer product the family requested, developed AIDS and died in 1993. In 1989 a 40-year-old woman received a tiny transfusion during dental surgery and was diagnosed with hepatitis C the following year.
An AIDS-infected hemophiliac writes, "Some of us were so frightened and confused that we did not even kiss, hug or touch our children for three years for fear of contaminating them." People who contracted AIDS from transfusions have been receiving about $30,000 annually in compensation. Mr. Justice Krever recommends that the government provide no-fault compensation for those infected with hepatitis C. About $3-billion worth of class action lawsuits have been filed by hepatitis C victims. After the report's November 26 release, Health Minister Allan Rock apologized profusely on behalf of the federal government and promised to consult with the provinces about compensation.
Mr. Rock's apologies and those of current Red Cross president Gene Durin rang hollow in many quarters. For years the Red Cross has denied any responsibility for the debacle. It paid Drs. Perrault and Davey $100,000 and $50,000 respectively to testify at the inquiry. (Dr. Derrick is deceased.)
As justice minister in 1996, Mr. Rock led a coalition of the Red Cross, the federal government, six provincial governments, five pharmaceutical firms, and 64 individuals in asking the Federal Court of Canada to prevent Mr. Justice Krever from naming names in his report. They were afraid that civil and criminal sanctions would result. After a delay of 20 months, the Supreme Court ruled that he might name names, and he has—but his report does not finger any politicians.
This could be because in 1989 the Canadian Blood Committee's executive director, Dr. Jo Hauser, ordered that all records of blood committee meetings from 1982 to 1989 be destroyed. This order was given 15 days after an access-to-information request for the materials was filed. The records, detailing the decisions of provincial and federal health ministers as represented by their deputy health ministers, were potentially incriminating.
The RCMP are looking into the incident, along with the rest of the report, to see whether criminal charges are warranted. Lindee David, executive director of the Canadian Hemophilia Society, reports that the society has filed a complaint with the RCMP. "The senior political figures, the health ministers of the day, were never called to testify," she says. "What were the bases of some of those decisions? We just don't know."
Civil suits against blood systems and governments have been successful to varying degrees in different parts of the world, and most governments have initiated compensation programs. Besides compensation, Mr. Justice Krever has recommended that a new, independent blood agency be created and that the Red Cross be excluded from the system. He also believes that governments should increase their funding and tighten their regulatory watch.
Ottawa has been working on a new system since March 1996, but Reform health critic Grant Hill is not impressed. "Who will ensure that [Mr. Justice Krever's recommendations] are implemented?" he asks, pointing out that several faces from the old regime are appearing in the new one. "I call it an old skeleton in new clothes."
As a doctor, a citizen and a long-time believer in the Red Cross, he says "I feel betrayed by what happened. I was let down and the people who contracted diseases were let down even more. This is what happens when political correctness takes precedence over public health."
BC Report is available at your favorite newsstand,
Posted by: Stephen | 2006-03-18 6:17:44 PM
That is a fair and accurate report Stephen and thank you!
Political correctness and the fear of the angry gay community killed a lot of Canadians who shouldn't have died!
Posted by: Canadian freedoms fan | 2006-03-18 7:00:48 PM
Thanks, Stephen! That's what I've been looking for. It'll take me a while to read it. Man, the things one can learn on the internet.
Posted by: Herman | 2006-03-18 7:11:54 PM
As someone has just pointed out on the other "Gays, gays, gays" post where William drolls over a Brokeback poster and attempts to fight back decades of internalized homophobia (yeah that's right Billy - I just called you a fag), lesbianism should be our model for healthy sexual behavior, as it poses the lowest risk for STD transmission.
Save the world - go lesbian!
Posted by: Justin rules | 2006-03-18 8:11:27 PM
Richard Ball -
They have the right to think and fantasize as they like ( or are you advocating state sanctioned mind control ) but it is not natural and should not be celebrated - see there's this little matter of consent.
Posted by: Nbob | 2006-03-18 8:17:07 PM
Would someone please define "normal" and "natural"? Many animals display homosexual behaviour, and they're not saddled with religious and moral baggage, so I presume that the behaviour is "natural." Quit pretending that you oppose homosexuality because it's unnatural. You people oppose homosexual because you don't like people who are different that yourselves.
Posted by: Levant Sucks | 2006-03-18 9:03:25 PM
LS: No, you're wrong on that point. David Ortiz( pro baseball player) is different than me, my friends who are Lebanese, or Native, or who can sing are different than me. That doesn't mean I don't like them. I oppose homosexuality because it disgusts me, and I think it is abnormal, not because it is merely 'different'. Give me a break, will ya !
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2006-03-18 9:20:36 PM
Greater than the Halifax Explosion during WWI, the 'Tainted Blood Scandal' killed more Canadians in one mass extinction than any other event on Canadian soil. Why then, is it so little well know or understood?
The answer lies in the workings of a Stalinist Healthcare System, responding to Government Political requirements, above and opposed to the therapeutic needs of the health and wellness of individual Canadians, who had nowhere else to go but the Government Healthcare Monopoly.
The dictum of death.
Unfortunately, being subjects of the Crown, they cannot sue the Crown.
At least they weren't fetuses whose therapeutic options are lesser.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-03-18 10:51:44 PM
Hey Markalta - you disgust me, therefore I hate you. I really have no reason to hate you, it's just that I think you're abnormal and you disgust me. You should trying doing your wife in the ass every now and then... she'd probably like it and then you'd have a more open mind about sodomy. Trust me, she likes it.
Posted by: Fuck MarkAlta | 2006-03-18 10:54:57 PM
The claim that homosexuality often occurs with animals is RUBBISH. The only time you find it in nature (animals) is when they are forced to remain in a very unnatural environment without access to the opposite sex. Give them some freedom and both sexes and you will not find them going for the same sex. This rubbish is an attempt to deny natural law and it doesn't hold up.
I suspect that most of us are not interested in finding out the sexual behaviour of consenting adults in private, but I am fed up with the agenda to 'normalize' abnormal behaviour and having it constantly in my face.
Posted by: Alain | 2006-03-18 11:05:27 PM
Kind of like jail.
Posted by: Howard Roark | 2006-03-18 11:14:13 PM
I have seen cannibalism among animals occur naturally under certain conditions but, then not every homosexual is a Jeffery Dahlmer.
Oh, wait. Maybe having sex with your own kind is like eating.....
Of course that can't be. That would be perverse.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-03-18 11:26:04 PM
God intended sex for reproduction only. Heterosexual intercourse is natural because it follows God's purpose.
Homosexual sex is not natural because nobody gets pregnant.
But you know what disgusts me ? Putting your penis in a woman's mouth. Like what up with that ? You still don't believe you get pregnant by swallowing do you ? Why it's an abomination - nobody's going to get pregnant that way.
People who do that disgust me, they're an abomination - we aught to prevent them from getting married if they're just going to make a mockery of it by spilling seed that way.
Same goes for the 50 % or so of couples who occasional or regularly practice sodomy - worse yet those who put it in her mouth before hitting her hershey highway. Yuck !
And don't get me started on giving her a lick when she should have your prick! Have you smelled it down there ? Rather stuff 3 day old sushi up my nose. Gross, disgusting an abomination .
Repent all ye who engage in such vile acts !!!
Posted by: Nbob | 2006-03-18 11:42:37 PM
FMA: gee, you're so sensitive. I don't hate homosexuals. Just don't expect everyone to embrace your 'lifestyle'. I do have a right to my opinion, you don't have to like it. It is still a free country, isn't it ?
And the left/homo lobby are so tolerant, eh ? The most disgusting posts on here seem to be from the homo crowd.
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2006-03-18 11:48:28 PM
Nbob: Clean up your posts you ignorant jerk ! Or is that the only way you can express your leftist rants ?
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2006-03-18 11:51:35 PM
Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, Nbob.
I want to talk about a health system, closed to competition, which fails to deliver timely efficacious service and refuses to allow alternatives.
This is a reprehensible situation. I want solutions and answers.
Why should my money be good enough to pay government taxes, but not permit me to buy therapeutic services I need for a better life, enabling me to pay more taxes over a long healthy time-span?(answer=immigration)
Do I need to worry about politics compromising my survival at the hands of a politically motivated health care deliverer?
Will they kill me or cure me?
Posted by: Speller | 2006-03-18 11:59:41 PM
Is it Nbob or Knob? I think the latter.
Posted by: Roark | 2006-03-19 12:08:36 AM
They are vile acts and it was necessary for me to use artistic license to demonstrate just what abominations they are. If I offend you - well that is my right ( or does that right only apply to cartoons offensive to muslims ? )
I suspect some of you have engaged in one or more of the above shameful and non-reproductive sex acts. You hate yourselves for it . And because I have pointed out what abominations you are you hate me for that.
And because you find what you do even more vile when done by members of the same sex you hate them most - and in so doing you can hate yourself a little less. Although you are not normal you are at least not the worst .
I say again - Repent all ye who engage in such vile acts !!!
Posted by: Nbob | 2006-03-19 1:00:30 AM
You do have a credibility problem!
Or is it acase of self loathing?
Its pretty hard to respect anyone or take what they say seriously;
When they're standing there with shit on their dick and a glazed look in their eye.
Brings to mind some little kid sitting on the floor ,in the corner,with excretment over him playing in the stuff.
Posted by: in ques t | 2006-03-19 8:19:32 AM
When I read Lee Sillars' summary of the Krever report on tainted blood (see Stephen above) I am amazed how the media managed to ignore the responsibility of male homosexuals for so much of it. Just like a news blackout, political correctness rearing its ugly head. The report confirms what I have long suspected, that homosexuals are basically sex perverts who spread disease. They talk about love but lust would be more appropriate.
Posted by: Herman | 2006-03-19 8:44:12 AM
I can't think of a better example of the state this country is in, than this thread. Here you have people, who are truly concerned about a scandal that has clearly led to the deaths of many people, and the reasons for the scandal, they back it up with clear facts and statistics, whose concerns are very real, and very valid. The realists.
The discussion didn't even make it past four posts before the cave-dwellers emerged, smug and condescending as always, assuming they have some sort of majority on their side, some sort of moral superiority over everyone, not a single fact or statistic on their side to back up their claims, instead their posts simply border on disgusting.
I urge everyone to read them, this is our new "progressive Canadian values" on display from the people who are demanding them. The people who obviously could care less if innocent people have died because of tainted blood.
These same people that abhor the Iraq war, the total casualties of allied fighting men and women who have died fighting for the freedoms for these ingrates to practice the lifestyle they choose, are far less then the people infected, that have died, and are condemned to death by their own scandal while under the watch of their perverted, corrupt government.
The same people who scream about George Bush, and the evil Americans. How many Canadians have died under the Liberal watch? Sars, tainted blood, unbelievable.
The cave dwellers, completely hidden in their world of self illusion, not wanting the hear the facts, or certainly to see them.
This thread is a classic battle of the cave-dwellers verses the real world, perception verses reality, and anyone can see the outcome.
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-03-19 10:01:53 AM
There are cases (ie. Thornton) where it was proven that individuals who knew they were HIV positive still tried to donate blood. Some of these people were charged, and rightly so. I think the reason so many people are annoyed with this thread, though, is that it appears like an attempt to cast *all* homosexuals in a bad light. Even if some did donate tainted blood, then it is those *individuals* who are morally blameworthy, not the entire community. After all, just because some heterosexual men violently rape women and children (sometimes spreading HIV and other STIs) does not mean that all heterosexual men should be held accountable for the actions of a few.
If some people want to choose to be disgusted by anal sex, so be it. Don't engage in it. But those individuals must also recognize that anal sex is not solely confined to homosexuals... not by a long shot. The reality is that you will never truly know what goes on in your neighbour's bedroom, and neither should you.
Posted by: Concerned | 2006-03-19 10:53:38 AM
Nbob....great commments...you put the "ass" in classy.
Just an all-round terrible representation of whatever it is you are trying to standup for. You are def. taking steps in the wrong direction, and not winning over any supporters with posts like the one above...
well done deepblue
Posted by: cowtown | 2006-03-19 12:40:18 PM
"You are def. taking steps in the wrong direction, and not winning over any supporters with posts like the one above"
Oh fuck what???? This is about "winning over supporters"???
Sorry cowtownm, but as I've already said, statisically the type of animosity against gays on display here is on its way to the retirement home and soon after that six feet under. Statistically, if you harbour resentments like this you're probably old and therefore close to death. Nothing anyone says here will change your mind so all we can do is wait for your natural death.
Gays have marriage and adoption and the right to work and live as they want in Canada and the majority of people under 50 haven't any problem with gays. The battle is over.
If you all want to spend your final years raging against gay sodomy and obsessing about guy on guy action that's fine - it's amusing and hilariously absurb in its futility - but frankly it's not chaging anything.
Think what you want. Post what you want. It's over. You lost.
Posted by: Justin rules | 2006-03-19 1:01:26 PM
ahh.. justin... you don't rule, and either do gays... in fact, you and your friends are the ones dying. You are actually killing each other... hum. interesting.
And last time I looked, gays were well under 6% of the Canadian population, and have very poor representation in any governing body.
Just for the record, I am 24 and quite happy living my hetrosexual life and hanging out with all my friends who also agree that the whole gay issue is getting really out of control.
I therefore think you would be very surprised with the size of the young population that is in full support of economic and social right-wing policy and beliefs...
So as you can see, the battle is no where near finished, and if anyone is dying... it is def. on your side of the fence. It is actually funny that you brought forth the dying arguement.
Take it easy. Be safe, especially in your bedroom...b/c sooner or later there will be no one left for us young conservatives to "battle" with...
Posted by: cowtown | 2006-03-19 4:11:19 PM
I seek not to win supporters but to save souls.
Those of you who have normal heterosexual relations (vaginal intercourse)- please join me in this vital crusade. Those who, like me, once took pleasure of woman in a most abominable unnatural way (giving/getting oral sex ) but have since repented -please help me stop such vile acts - as well as both hetero and homo sodomy - your voice is needed more than ever.
That spilling seed in a mouth or a rectum of another person , no mater what the gender, is an abomination in God's eye is a proven given. It does not meet with His approval because it does not meet with his design of sex for offspring.
But here's more proof that it's unnatural : Has anyone ever seen a hen perform oral sex on a cock ?
Has anyone seen a male hippo go down on a female ? God does note abide such things.
But He also does not abide the hypocrite and/ or the unrepentant sinner. Yet still he shows mercy upon them for He tells us to hate the sin and not the sinner.
And this is why He does not abide with many of the posters here: Every sperm is sacred. Every time seed is spilled on the ground, or in a cavity other than the natural vagina a vile sin has been done. It matters not whether a couple is same sex or opposite sex because in both cases there is at least one person's reproductive organ not being used at all or being misused.
And yet many do not hate the sin of spilled seed. A man and a women practice- and take pleasure from - performing shameful non-reproductive acts on each other --but when two of the same sex perform the exact same acts as them - how can they hate the sin (when they do the exact same) ? It must be that they hate the sinner. And that is against His command.
It is difficult for them to confront their prejudices. It is hard to admit one's sins. But I say again : Confess your wrong doings : Repent all ye who engage in such vile acts and then go away and sin no more !
Posted by: Nbob | 2006-03-19 5:14:28 PM
"that the whole gay issue is getting really out of control."
Which issue would that be? The stay the fuck outta my bedroom issue? All my heterosexual friends (male and female) frankly don't give a shit. Anyway cowtown have you heard about the latest study on you and your friends?
You were whiners.
Posted by: Justin rules | 2006-03-19 6:03:14 PM
nice study there justin...great source... THE STAR... I don't even need to read that one to know where it's going...
I see that you didn't bring up your "dying" argument again. Age is def. not what you guys have to worry about. By the way what is the average life expectancy for North American Gay men?
The "gay issue" would be people like yourself that won't keep your business in the bedroom.
I actually really don't have an problem with your typical gay person. I just don't agree with their behaviour.
IT is radicals like you who make people upset. I feel bad for the typical gay guy that is just minding his own business... and getting represented by ppl. like you.
As a side not,
My friends and I are the next generation of leaders, in both government and big business...
You better get used to guys like me... I'll probably be paying your pay cheque
Posted by: cowtown | 2006-03-19 7:26:37 PM
How about the stay-the-HELL out of my wedding Chapel issue, pervert faggot. Go felch a dog, diddler.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-03-19 10:19:50 PM
Cowtown, you're probably a pretentious uppity little n'er-do-well, no doubt studying commerce at the eternally middling University of Calgary. I doubt you'll be "paying [my] pay cheque" at any time in the future. SIGNING paycheques, maybe, but certainly not PAYING them.
Continue thinking that you're the great white hope, though. Your self aggrandizement is a hilarious tonic to the mediocrity of your thinking.
Posted by: Frank | 2006-03-20 8:31:18 AM
Speaking of studies...
"Research by US psychologists suggests that 80 percent of men who are homophobic have secret homosexual feelings."
Posted by: Justin rules | 2006-03-20 3:08:41 PM
Well, it looks like we finally managed to prove that this IS about hate and bigotry. Wonder what everyone from the other thred (EBT, etc.) has to say about Speller's comments here?
Posted by: someone | 2006-03-20 4:09:40 PM
Approve? You mean you approve of Speller's comments? Wow... suddenly the admissions of hatred are coming fast and furious.
Posted by: someone | 2006-03-20 4:13:56 PM
The non-word, 'homophobe' that they love to pronounce on anyone who disagrees with them is, I feel a BIG JOKE. They are decencyaphobes !
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2006-03-20 5:59:06 PM
Homophobia is SO HOT!!
Empty threats on a message board - even HOTTER!!
The way you guys type those words is just so manly and powerful!!!
Posted by: Justin rules | 2006-03-20 7:48:34 PM
I seem to recall you whining about child support on this board, with the fervour of a man who actually has to pony up every month. Wondering how you reconcile that obligation (or rather the circumstances that give rise to such an obligation) with your bleatings about the SACRED institution of marriage.
Is it only sacred until you feel the need to move on? Sacred until someone starts asking to you to support the child your little swimmers have spawned? Or sacred so long as you can use it as a cudgel to beat fags with?
BTW, I find it hard to believe you were ever tolerant. Unless, of course, your current mental state is the result of some form of head injury or late-blossoming genetic disorder.
Posted by: truewest | 2006-03-20 8:36:11 PM
Seriously, trueweasle, you could not possibly understand even if you wanted to. A paedophile as willfully ignorant as yourself only wants to ridicule and whine. I won't waste my time with the likes of you.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-03-20 11:03:13 PM
You're a sad, sorry little man -- seething, slandering, threatening impotently anyone who threatens your tiny little world. So, out of curiousity, jsut who do you owe the child support arrears to? Your cousin? Your sister? Mom?
Posted by: truewest | 2006-03-20 11:13:53 PM
Projecting again, trueweasle.
Tired of surfing those child porn sites are you? That carrot you've crammed in your banged out keister getting uncomfortable? Pining away for your neighbours 4 year old with only those stolen undergarments to sniff?
You sick twist, trueweasle.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-03-20 11:26:07 PM
To be fair - that study you link to has been discounted. Back in the mid 90's ,when it was done, plethysmographs were relatively new. Today, like polygraphs, they are not admitted in to evidence. Medically the DSM-IV says validity should be questioned.
The problem is that it doesn't measure what's in the brain. Some subjects may return positive results because they project themselves into the visual stimulus and are " latently" turned on by that. Others may be stimulated because they project themselves walking in to the scene with a baseball bat and beating the crap out of the actors. They , like those who commit rape, get aroused from the violence of the situation.
None the less, I've acted for a few gay bashers and a couple were certainly dealing with issues of sexuality. One did not admit to latent homosexual feelings but said he thought everyone else thought he was gay. He thought his arrest was a good thing and he hoped his name would be in the paper so he could prove he wasn't gay to them.
Posted by: Nbob | 2006-03-21 12:36:40 AM
I agree with what your saying about the limitations of the study but one has only to see what passion Billy, Speller, ebt and MarkAlta put into their homophobia to see that there's something else going on.
Their obsession with the sexuality of other consenting adults seems as unhealthy as the lifesstyle they are constantly deriding.
Faced with the impotence of their failed social views (ie. the success of gay rights advocates, the pro-gay opinions of a majority of Canadians) they feel that by posting anonymous messages they will secure their own heterosexuality when in fact it has the opposite effect and reveals them for the weak, emasculated fools they are.
I am under no misconceptions about their inadequacies - even their leader has abandoned much of his former anti-gay stance - and I simply respond to their empty threats because it is a fun game. Like going to the zoo.
Posted by: Justin rules | 2006-03-21 9:17:21 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.