Rob Stott is the Morning Editor at www.news.com.au
So you can thank him for much of the pointless drivel that clogs his site, allegedly masquerading as ‘news’.
Just as an example, this morning’s ‘feature’ articles include:
- Aussie star posts ‘cheeky’ nude photo online.
- Is this the most bizarre wedding present ever?
- Geoff Edelsten steps out with Brynne lookalike.
- Theron opens up about relationship with Penn.
- Who’s the best (and worst) coach on The Voice?
- Internet has a field day with Affleck’s ‘Sad Batman’.
Nestled next to these titillating links is the latest update on Game of Thrones (never watched it) and an article asking if teleportation is a step closer (I’m guessing the answer is no).
And hidden amongst these journalistic gems was an article written by Rob Stott himself (who is also homosexual) that gave the strong impression morale was not super sky-high among some reporters who work for this esteemed news service. What a surprise!
However, it’s not because all the homosexual journalists at www.news.com.au spend their time writing utter rubbish. Instead, it’s because they must wait 12 months after engaging in sexual activity with another man before they can donate blood.
That little rule has got them all down around the mouth.
Apparently, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, tasked with the responsibility of ensuring that Australian blood supplies are safe, has evidence that male to male sexual activity has potential side-effects. And these are serious enough to rule out blood donations from this section of society if they’ve been active in the last year.
Now there’s an actual story that people should know about.
Instead, Rob Stott has chosen to write a whiny piece arguing that the Therapeutic Goods Administration should change its rules to make him and the other gay reporters feel better about themselves.
Just so you know, Australia already has some of the most liberal rules in the Western World on this score. In America, homosexuals are banned for life from donating blood.
Normal Australians would understand Rob’s discomfort at this situation. But they wouldn’t believe that the rules on blood donation should be re-written just to please him, notwithstanding his monogamous homosexual lifestyle.
Especially if they knew what government-funded homosexual lobby groups are up to.
And especially when the stats are laid bare.
Let’s look at the first point by examining ACON. It’s one of the premiere homosexual organisations in New South Wales and about $11 million of its $13.5 million budget comes from the taxpayer. That information is contained in its latest annual report, along with the wonderful news that these funds were spent on distributing half a million condoms and almost as many ‘sterile injecting’ packs.
You can find the ACON webpage right here.
At the bottom left hand corner of this website is a really interesting link, called Opposites Attract.
And if you want to know what this is all about, you don’t have to bother with cumbersome FOI searches or trawl through the fine print of some obscure PDF document. It’s all helpfully listed there under the heading ‘What’s Involved?’
And this is exactly what is involved.
The University of New South Wales is studying the effect of sexual activity between HIV positive men and HIV negative men.
And it’s doing this by encouraging such couples to participate in the study. As it obligingly points out, it doesn’t matter if these men have unprotected sex. And it doesn’t matter if the HIV positive male is not on any treatment. They just need to have anal sex once a month.
Just think about that for a second.
There are no links providing any information about ‘safe sex’. There are no links explaining the risks involved with unprotected sex with a HIV positive man. And there are certainly no links explaining that even condoms are not guaranteed to work.
There’s just a webpage that encourages men in these circumstances to join the study.
And this webpage also supportively explains that if the HIV negative man becomes infected during the study, they will no longer be able to take part. I guess that’s a real double-whammy.
This is where your taxes go during a ‘budget emergency’. There’s probably another real news story in that too.
This is a pretty reckless way of studying HIV. It’s akin to car manufacturers ‘researching’ the force of collision on children by exposing ‘injury-negative’ kids to impact from cars at ever increasing speed until they determine that 22 km/hr is the point where life is threatened.
That kind of study is going to get results. But it’s also going to cause serious injury or death. That’s why it’s not the kind of study any self-respecting university would conduct.
And that is also why anyone who does have the interest of homosexual people at heart would be outraged to know that the University of New South Wales is watching men engage in extremely risky behaviour simply so it can plot the results.
However, knowing that this is the kind of thing that goes on in the homosexual world, the Therapeutic Goods Administration has good reason to conclude that blood donations from this community are not a sound idea.
It’s also likely that the Therapeutic Goods Association is aware of these facts:
- The US Centre for Disease Control has found that homosexuals account for 75% of all syphilis cases.
- The US Centre for Disease Control has also found that homosexuals made up 4% of the population but accounted for 78% of new HIV cases. It also found that HIV infections were growing significantly. This mirrors infection rates in Australia.
- Studies have found that homosexuals have a much shortened life-span due to HIV and other causes.
- Blood transfusions in Greece resulted in HIV infection, leading the government to amend the way blood is tested.
- At least 100 children in Kazakhstan have been infected with HIV due to serious malpractice in the collection of blood-transfusions.
- Chinese authorities have also been dealing with HIV outbreaks following blood transfusions from a HIV positive man.
Knowing all this, I think it’s safe to say that the Therapeutic Goods Association is doing the responsible thing by Australians with its screening program.
But let’s not end this here. Let’s examine something else that Rob Stott raised. He claims that allowing homosexuals to donate blood will improve medical services by helping to increase blood supplies.
It’s a statement that kind of makes sense. So let’s examine it by looking not just at supply, but also demand.
What does the Red Cross tell us about how blood supplies are used?
It says that 19% of donated blood is used to treat anaemia.
And what is one of the primary causes of anaemia, according to the US National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute?
Why, it would be HIV.
It’s not possible to know exactly how much of that 19% goes to treating HIV-related anaemia (and the medical specialists do try and avoid transfusions for HIV positive patients if possible due to complicating factors). But there is clearly a demand at the other end of the blood-transfusion cycle from HIV sufferers. And the stats show that homosexual men make up the vast proportion of these people.
So if Mr Stott really wants to address issues of blood supply and demand, maybe he might want to look at whether the homosexual community can do this best by donating blood, or by reducing activity that results in HIV infections.
And maybe, just maybe, Rob Stott might also want to consider whether the STD rate amongst the homosexual community means it is a net drag on medical services in Australia. Especially as all Australians are required to pay for associated Medicare costs through their taxes.
These are the real questions Rob Stott should be asking because they would lead to real outcomes that actually reduce disease and improve people’s lives.