Democrats will Condone any Bad Behavior if it advances their Power

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 4th, 2014

Week in Review

The government has long warned us not to eat or drink things that are bad for us.  They banned Saccharin after mega doses in rats caused cancer.  They then determined that a rat’s physiology is different from humans.  And removed their ban.  They banned the use of Alar (used in apples and other fruits to provide a better harvest) when mega doses proved to be carcinogenic.  The consumption of healthy apples fell.  They told us not to eat eggs as they had cholesterol.  Even though no study showed egg cholesterol was bad for you.  So people quit eating eggs.  And many lost an excellent source of protein.  And it turned out saturated fats play a larger role in our cholesterol levels.  And that eating eggs really doesn’t affect our cholesterol levels.  So we’re eating eggs again.  Because they are good for you.

Mayor Bloomberg wanted to make large sugary beverages illegal in New York.  There have been bans on trans-fats.  They have tried to take toys out of McDonald’s Happy Meals to make them less attractive to children.  And let’s not forget the war on smoking.  They have put pictures of diseased lungs on the packaging to get us to quit.  They have made it illegal to smoke a cigarette pretty much everywhere to protect others from second-hand smoke (though no studies exist showing that there is even a risk due to second hand smoke just as there was no study showing egg cholesterol was bad for you).  They have even discussed bans on third-hand smoke (the ashtray smell you leave behind after smoking).

Government is regulating our lives to save us from ourselves.  Because we engage in behavior too risky for our own good.  Except for two behaviors.  Drugs.  As Colorado has decriminalized marijuana (without any regard to our diseased lungs, second-hand smoke or third-hand smoke).  And sex.  As they give out free birth-control to encourage our young people to have as much sex as they so desire.  And provide access to abortion when that fails.  Despite the slew of venereal diseases all that sex has given our young people.  Including AIDS (see A Resisted Pill to Prevent H.I.V. by DAVID TULLER posted 12/30/2013 on The New York Times).

Over a cup of tea at a downtown Starbucks, Michael Rubio recalled how four friends became H.I.V. positive through unprotected sex, all within a year…

The very existence of that option represents a startling turn in the too-long history of the AIDS epidemic. Many health experts hoped that the medication — Truvada, a combination of two antiviral drugs that has been used to treat H.I.V. since 2004 — would be exuberantly embraced by H.I.V.-negative gay men. Instead, Truvada has been slow to catch on as an H.I.V. preventive in the 18 months since the strategy’s approval by the Food and Drug Administration. In some quarters, the idea that healthy gay men should take a medication to prevent infection — an approach called pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP — has met with hostility or indifference…

For 30 years, public health officials have aggressively promoted condom use during every sexual encounter as the only effective method, apart from abstinence, for preventing H.I.V. transmission. Still, 50,000 new infections are occurring annually in the United States; sexual transmission between men accounts for more than half of them, and a disproportionate number among African-Americans and other minorities.

Many experts hailed Truvada as an opportunity to reduce new infections among high-risk groups like young gay men, people in relationships with H.I.V.-positive partners, and prostitutes. The F.D.A. called for prescriptions to be accompanied by counseling, frequent H.I.V. testing, and continued promotion of safer sex, although research suggests that daily use of the pill alone confers close to full protection.

But a generational shift in attitudes toward H.I.V. among gay men may also be playing a role, some experts say. With advances in treatment, many younger men who did not experience the worst years of the epidemic are less fearful of the consequences of infection. Moreover, current medications can lower viral levels in H.I.V.-positive people to the point where the risk of transmission is negligible, further reducing the perceived need for PrEP among H.I.V.-negative partners…

Certainly, “condom fatigue” among gay men is real. The proportion who reported unprotected anal sex in the previous year rose to 57 percent in 2011 from 48 percent in 2005, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Obamacare will pay for AIDS and HIV treatment.  But will people with AIDS/HIV pay more for their Obamacare?  Probably not.  Smokers will pay more, though.  Despite it being easier to prevent AIDS/HIV than lung cancer from smoking.  For you can still have anal sex without being at risk for catching AIDS/HIV if you wear a condom.  But you can’t smoke without putting yourself at risk every time.  Because when you smoke you pull in that cancer-causing smoke into your lungs.  Yet as preventable as AIDS/HIV is 57% of gay men have unprotected sex.  Which you can’t define as anything but willful and dangerous behavior.

But the left has no harsh words for the gay community.  Unlike they do for smokers.  Why?  Because the gay community votes Democrat.  As do young people.  Who believe that 30% or more of the population is gay.  While a 2010 study by the Williams Institute put the number at 3.5%.  But the young believe that 3 out of every 10 people (instead of 3.5 out of 100) identify themselves as lesbian, gay, or bisexual.  And want to be progressive and enlightened and cool and so unlike their parents that they want to show their enlightened support for them.  Which is another reason why they vote Democrat.  In addition to the sex and drugs the Democrats encourage.

Until gay men wear condoms all of the time or abstain from willful and dangerous unprotected anal sex AIDS/HIV will spread.  (If these young gay men were in monogamous relationships they wouldn’t be spreading AIDS/HIV).  And it won’t be just in the gay community.  Thanks to bisexuals, intravenous drug users and prostitutes the disease will migrate to others who think they are being progressive and enlightened to have as much sex as the Democrats encourage them to have.  Guaranteeing a large voting block for the anti-parents (i.e., Democrats) come Election Day.  And they don’t care how many lives they destroy in the process.  But if you want to enjoy a cigarette or a big juicy burger look out.  They are coming after you and your reckless lifestyle.  Unless, of course, you’re smoking a marijuana cigarette.  And eating that big greasy burger afterward because you have the munchies.  Because there’s nothing wrong with that lifestyle.  Because you’re likely a Democrat voter.

The temperance movement took off in large part due to the STDs husbands brought home to their wives after drinking away their paychecks at the local saloon.  And then making bad decisions when drunk.  Like spending what money they didn’t spend on alcohol on prostitutes.  Bringing home syphilis to many an unsuspecting wife.  Who passed it on to their unborn children.  It was the progressives that try to put a stop to that with Prohibition.  Including women like Susan B. Anthony.  Now look at the progressives.  Who are a far cry from those who once wanted to protect women and children.  Who now champion some of the most dangerous behavior women and children can face.  Sex and drugs.  Just to win elections.  Something Susan B. Anthony would not likely approve of if she were alive today.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Woman dying from Cystic Fibrosis gets New Life-Saving Lungs from Heavy Smoker and then dies from Lung Cancer

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 22nd, 2012

Week in Review

There are often very restricting rules to receive a donor organ.  If you’re on the list for a liver you’ll probably get denied that liver if you had one drink in the past month or so.  They do this because a donated organ is a gift.  There are more people waiting for this gift than there are available organs.  So to make sure the organ goes to the most deserving patient they have some strict rules.  Apparently there are no such rules for donors (see Cystic fibrosis woman died with smoker’s donor lungs posted 12/18/2012 on BBC News Essex).

A 27-year-old woman with cystic fibrosis died of cancer after she was given the donor lungs of a smoker.

Jennifer Wederell, of Hawkwell, Essex, died at home in August – 16 months after the transplant at Harefield Hospital in London…

She had been on the waiting list for a lung transplant for 18 months when in April 2011, she was told there had been a match…

She married her fiance David Wederell in September last year, but by February 2012 a malignant mass was found in her lungs.

“The shock immediately turned to anger in so far as all the risks were explained in the hour before her transplant and not once was the fact smoker’s lungs would be used mentioned,” said Mr Grannell.

“Regrettably, the number of lungs available for transplantation would fall by 40% if there was a policy of refusing those which have come from a smoker; waiting lists would increase and many more patients would die without a transplant…”

“Recipients of transplants are immunosuppressed, to stop the body rejecting the organ – this may have encouraged the cancer to grow. But is no one really knows- these are just theories.”

New warnings on cigarette packages in the U.S. include a scary picture of a diseased lung.  To scare you into quitting smoking.  Because while you can improve your health by quitting some damage is irreversible.  Smoking is that bad.  Smokers have an elevated risk of heart disease.  And lung cancer.  Yet they will give a woman with a suppressed immune system a set of lungs from a heavy smoker.  They were clinically healthy.  But as it turns out they had cancer.  Which probably should not surprise anyone as they came from a heavy smoker.

She was not informed that the donor was a heavy smoker.  Had they told her imagine that horrible decision.  Take a chance with cancer.  Or refuse them and take a chance of dying before the next set of lungs become available.

Was this a failure of national health care?  Cold impersonal staff that didn’t bother to inform the patient about the risk of getting a diseased lung?  Did the NHS just make this decision for her?  Because consulting her would just waste time?  They had already wasted an hour explaining all the risks to her an hour before the surgery.  How much more time would they waste if they had to wait for her to make up her mind about taking a chance with lung cancer?

Time.  It’s something they don’t have a lot of in the NHS.  They’re struggling to make their limited resources cover ever more patients as baby boomers fill their hospitals.  All while having to deal with budget cuts due to deficits.  So they are dealing with longer wait times, rationing of services and service denials.  Things are so difficult that some hospitals have put some elderly patients on the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient without consulting their family.  Suspending food and liquids so they die.  Ostensibly to free up a bed and end a needless drain of hospital resources on someone who is just taking their sweet time to die.  It’s cold and callous but this is national health care.  And why they may not waste time waiting for patients to decide if they want to reject a potentially diseased lung.

A donated organ is a gift.  But a potentially cancerous organ?  Given to someone with a suppressed immune system?  Perhaps that’s more the product of a cold and calloused bureaucracy than a gift.  Something to look forward to under Obamacare.  Unless Obamacare just prescribes a pill to manage pain.  Sort of their own version of the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient.  But with less to do with a patient’s end-of-life dignity and more to do with economic efficiency.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,