Monday, January 21, 2008

Ooopsie.


Remember this post? It seems there’s more to the story. I know, I was totally shocked, too. From yesterday's commie New York Times:

On Monday, a team of researchers led by doctors from the University of California at San Francisco announced that gay men were “many times more likely than others” to acquire a new strain of drug-resistant staphylococcus, a nasty, fast-spreading and potential lethal bacteria known as MRSA USA300. And sure enough, the study, published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine, was quickly picked up by reporters round the world and across the Internet, including a London tabloid which dubbed the disease “the new H.I.V.”

Which, like clockwork, led to the usual hate-filled spinning from the wingnut Right:

The report also inadvertently offered ammunition for many antigay groups, including the conservative Concerned Women for America, which issued a release on Wednesday citing the “sexual deviancy” of gay men as leading to AIDS, syphilis and gonorrhea.

“The medical community has known for years that homosexual conduct, especially among males, creates a breeding ground for often deadly disease,” the release read.

Another group, Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, also cited the report as a way of proving that “homosexual behavior is unhealthy.”

“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?” read a released posted on the group’s Web site.

Christ these people make me sick. Here’s a question – why aren’t all schoolchildren taught that there are special mental health risks associated with rightwing family values? I think that would better prepare them for life.

But what’s this? It appears a clarification has been issued by the authors of the report:

National gay rights groups were quick to label such talk as “hysteria,” even as researchers as the university scrambled to clarify their findings. On Friday, it issued an apology, saying their release had “contained some information that could be interpreted as misleading.”

“We deplore negative targeting of specific populations in association with MRSA infections or other public health concerns,” it concluded. Dr. Henry Chambers, one of the report’s authors and a professor of medicine at the university, said he was surprised by how the report had been spun.

“I think we were looking at this from a scientific point of view and not projecting any political impact,” he said. “We were focusing on the data. You want to make sure it’s as right as possible and written up in a form that reviewers would understand what you’re trying to say, and do it in a clear manner so it’s not subject to misinterpretation. Which is what happened later, it appears.”

And the icing on the bullshit cake (emphasis all mine):

Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, which helped finance the study, affirmed on Wednesday that the disease was not sexually transmitted or limited to a certain type of person. It is transmitted through skin-to-skin contact, the agency said in a statement, and is widespread in hospitals and among hospital workers.

“These infections occur in men, women, adults, children and persons of all races and sexual orientations,” the statement read, adding that while the particular strain identified in the report had been found in gay men, it had also been found in people who were not gay.

As the upstanding, honest creatures that they are, I’m sure the Ass Monkey and Five Feet of Crazy™ are drafting their retractions even as we speak. Yup ... they’ll be up any second now.

8 comments:

CC said...

I refuse to link to that deranged dingbat "Neo Conservative" on this one, but the money quote from his homophobic posting on the subject:

"Wow, a recent resurgence in HIV/AIDS cases... and now this. Looks like there may be a downside to promiscuous, drug-fuelled sexual behaviour after all."

You have to give the Blogging Tories' Stephen Taylor credit -- he's so enamored of Canada's bigots, he's collecting the entire set.

Lindsay Stewart said...

I'd wager the only thing to be retracted on Five Fetus of Fetish is the dentata.

E in MD said...

“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?

All homophobia aside, the first and foremost the answer to the question would be the fact that you right wing morons have advocated an abstinence only program. So that you don't teach the kids anything except that they're all evil little bags of hormones who are going to hell if they so much as touch themselves while going to the bathroom.

Facts are facts, unprotected uneducated sex of any type is dangerous. Kids are going to experiment with sex and if you don't teach kids to protect themselves from a young age then that will carry over into adulthood. It doesn't matter what sexual orientation they happen to be. If this weren't the case all those nice little 'virginal' girls you wingnuts keep making take purity pledges and giving silver rings wouldn't be five times more likely to end up with STD's because they didn't believe that oral or anal sex was sex. Then because you have this delusion that your virgin bride is pure you end up with an STD from her.

You're digging your own graves there, pals. So my suggestions are educate all kids about all options and dangers and for you to mind your own damned biz when it comes to other people's sexual habits.

toujoursdan said...

It's hard to believe that they didn't realize how this was going to be spun. Saying that gay men are more likely to get this staph infection is about as meaningful as saying women are more likely to get osteoporosis. Which women? What factors or behaviours (age, diet, genetics, etc.) put them at risk? The report as issued is too vague to be helpful, but specific enough to be used as political ammunition.

Right wingnuttery aside, gay men aren't going to be anything other than gay men so telling us that we are in danger of a disease because of who we are is pointless. And it's dangerous - people who don't identify as gay will continue to do them.

Why are gay men at risk? Do HIV medications put people at risk of this particular infection? Is it something found in particular hospitals in the Castro? What?

Balbulican said...

Well, I think the intent is that gay men will look at the increased risk of this specific staph infection, and decide..."Damn. You know, I don't think I'll be gay anymore."

Red Tory said...

Heh. You have to love the concept of “Just say no to homosexuality.” That’s about as effective as instructing the wingnuts to “Just say no to stupidity.”

Ti-Guy said...

As the upstanding, honest creatures that they are, I’m sure the Ass Monkey and Five Feet of Crazy™ are drafting their retractions even as we speak.

No, she's preparing her "political correctness (purveyed by violent Arab retards) hides truth and endangers our children!" screed, and Cacademia is preparing to plagiarise it.

KEvron said...

just so lons as teh gays are dying, right?

KEvron