Our Quietest Advocate? 3 Pro-LGBT Act...

Our Quietest Advocate? 3 Pro-LGBT Actions From the Military That You Don't Know About

There are 25 comments on the www.huffingtonpost.com story from Nov 19, 2012, titled Our Quietest Advocate? 3 Pro-LGBT Actions From the Military That You Don't Know About. In it, www.huffingtonpost.com reports that:

Yesterday, via OutServe Magazine , I reported on the biggest change to military HIV policy since mass testing went into effect in 1980.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.huffingtonpost.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#1 Nov 19, 2012
"biggest change to military HIV policy since mass testing went into effect in 1980" ???!!!

The CDC didn't even say "Uh-oh, we have a problem," regarding what would become to be called hiv & AIDS until June, 1981.

And the hiv family of viruses that causees AiDS weren't even identified and named until some years after that.

So "mass testing went into effect in 1980" for hiv and AIDS is SHEER NONSENSE, and shows that the person who wrote this has NO IDEA WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.

It's like saying "President Teddy Roosevelt won World War I." DIDN'T HAPPEN !

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#2 Nov 20, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
"biggest change to military HIV policy since mass testing went into effect in 1980" ???!!!
The CDC didn't even say "Uh-oh, we have a problem," regarding what would become to be called hiv & AIDS until June, 1981.
And the hiv family of viruses that causees AiDS weren't even identified and named until some years after that.
So "mass testing went into effect in 1980" for hiv and AIDS is SHEER NONSENSE, and shows that the person who wrote this has NO IDEA WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.
It's like saying "President Teddy Roosevelt won World War I." DIDN'T HAPPEN !
Exactly.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#3 Nov 20, 2012
The original article reads: " ... the late 1980s ... ".

A person with HIV does not belong in the U.S. Military.

Sorry.
The Mad Man

Glendale, CA

#4 Nov 20, 2012
snyper wrote:
The original article reads: " ... the late 1980s ... ".
A person with HIV does not belong in the U.S. Military.
Sorry.
I wasn't aware that people with HIV were allowed to be in the military BUT the privacy concerning HIV and medical testing was once a privacy issue. What about all the DADT people? Are they going to claim they got HIV from a bad blood transfusion? I know it could happen but did it? What will happen now?
HIV is still a very scary thought for people who do not understand it. They think you can catch it if you sneeze on someone. Yes the ignorance is still out there so beware...so much for privacy!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#5 Nov 20, 2012
The Mad Man wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't aware that people with HIV were allowed to be in the military BUT the privacy concerning HIV and medical testing was once a privacy issue. What about all the DADT people? Are they going to claim they got HIV from a bad blood transfusion? I know it could happen but did it? What will happen now?
HIV is still a very scary thought for people who do not understand it. They think you can catch it if you sneeze on someone. Yes the ignorance is still out there so beware...so much for privacy!
There IS no presumption of privacy in the military.
The Mad Man

Glendale, CA

#6 Nov 20, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
There IS no presumption of privacy in the military.
Well that answered that. Good luck from here...

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#7 Nov 20, 2012
snyper wrote:
The original article reads: " ... the late 1980s ... ".
A person with HIV does not belong in the U.S. Military.
Sorry.
Just curious: What other chronic diseases disqualify people from military service? Diabetes? Fibrilation? Congestive heart failure?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#8 Nov 20, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Just curious: What other chronic diseases disqualify people from military service? Diabetes? Fibrilation? Congestive heart failure?
Chronic AND contagious is the operative concept.

Off the top of my head, Tuberculosis.

Psittacosis.
Leprosy.

others?

Poliomyelitis.
Multiple Sclerosis
Parkinson's
Huntinton's
Epilepsy.
Narcolepsy.
Rheumatoid Arthritis.
Acromegaly.
Dwarfism.

I think that chronic and contagious is what matters.

Combat injuries and their treatment do not occur in safe ERs.

I'm just thinking about the medics and corpsmen.
The Mad Man

Glendale, CA

#9 Nov 20, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Chronic AND contagious is the operative concept.
Off the top of my head, Tuberculosis.
Psittacosis.
Leprosy.
others?
Poliomyelitis.
Multiple Sclerosis
Parkinson's
Huntinton's
Epilepsy.
Narcolepsy.
Rheumatoid Arthritis.
Acromegaly.
Dwarfism.
I think that chronic and contagious is what matters.
Combat injuries and their treatment do not occur in safe ERs.
I'm just thinking about the medics and corpsmen.
Damn, I had high hopes of joining the military again but most of my diseases are listed here so I guess I don't have a fighting chance unless I go to a war zone...does that qualify me? If I have anything that is catchy will they put me on the front line?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#10 Nov 20, 2012
snyper wrote:
The original article reads: " ... the late 1980s ... ".
A person with HIV does not belong in the U.S. Military.
Sorry.
You can't get in if you are HIV positive, but if you become infected after you have enlisted, you cannot be dismissed as a result. As long as you are fit for service, you are legally obligated to continue to serve and they are legally obligated to allow you to.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#11 Nov 21, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>You can't get in if you are HIV positive, but if you become infected after you have enlisted, you cannot be dismissed as a result. As long as you are fit for service, you are legally obligated to continue to serve and they are legally obligated to allow you to.
That's kinda scary unless they reclassify infected combat troops to the rear in non-combat positions. I'm not current on that. Do they?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#12 Nov 21, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Chronic AND contagious is the operative concept.
Off the top of my head, Tuberculosis.
Psittacosis.
Leprosy.
others?
Poliomyelitis.
Multiple Sclerosis
Parkinson's
Huntinton's
Epilepsy.
Narcolepsy.
Rheumatoid Arthritis.
Acromegaly.
Dwarfism.
I think that chronic and contagious is what matters.
Combat injuries and their treatment do not occur in safe ERs.
I'm just thinking about the medics and corpsmen.
I'm not aware that most of the diseases that you listed are infectious. I can see how they jeopardize safety and effectiveness, however.

Here's some food for thought on HIV, however: CDC studies consistently show that one in three HIV+ persons is unaware of this status. This means that the person carries a high--uncontrolled--dose of virus and no one knows about it. Hence, the chance that a fellow soldier will be infected by contact with an infected person's bodily fluid is highest exactly when the status is unknown.

With proper treatment, viral loads can be reduced to undetectable levels. Studies confirm that patients under treatment are significantly less contagious.

So the point is this: If the stigma and consequences of being HIV+ can be reduced to the point that people seek early diagnosis and treatment, could the safety of fellow soldiers actually be enhanced? Perhaps we can weed out two of three infected soldiers, but the remaining soldier is highly infectious. Would we be better off with three soldiers who are at low risk of infecting others?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#13 Nov 21, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not aware that most of the diseases that you listed are infectious. I can see how they jeopardize safety and effectiveness, however.
Here's some food for thought on HIV, however: CDC studies consistently show that one in three HIV+ persons is unaware of this status. This means that the person carries a high--uncontrolled--dose of virus and no one knows about it. Hence, the chance that a fellow soldier will be infected by contact with an infected person's bodily fluid is highest exactly when the status is unknown.
With proper treatment, viral loads can be reduced to undetectable levels. Studies confirm that patients under treatment are significantly less contagious.
So the point is this: If the stigma and consequences of being HIV+ can be reduced to the point that people seek early diagnosis and treatment, could the safety of fellow soldiers actually be enhanced? Perhaps we can weed out two of three infected soldiers, but the remaining soldier is highly infectious. Would we be better off with three soldiers who are at low risk of infecting others?
Leprosy and polio are CERTAINLY contagious.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#14 Nov 21, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Leprosy and polio are CERTAINLY contagious.
Did I not say most? I stand ready to be corrected when that is in order, but you seem to have merely confirmed the accuracy of my original statement.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#15 Nov 21, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not aware that most of the diseases that you listed are infectious. I can see how they jeopardize safety and effectiveness, however.
Here's some food for thought on HIV, however: CDC studies consistently show that one in three HIV+ persons is unaware of this status. This means that the person carries a high--uncontrolled--dose of virus and no one knows about it. Hence, the chance that a fellow soldier will be infected by contact with an infected person's bodily fluid is highest exactly when the status is unknown.
With proper treatment, viral loads can be reduced to undetectable levels. Studies confirm that patients under treatment are significantly less contagious.
So the point is this: If the stigma and consequences of being HIV+ can be reduced to the point that people seek early diagnosis and treatment, could the safety of fellow soldiers actually be enhanced? Perhaps we can weed out two of three infected soldiers, but the remaining soldier is highly infectious. Would we be better off with three soldiers who are at low risk of infecting others?
Please note the distinction of "others"

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#16 Nov 21, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Did I not say most? I stand ready to be corrected when that is in order, but you seem to have merely confirmed the accuracy of my original statement.
I was MERELY pointing out that those two diseases ARE contagious.

And Leprosy is 100% curable at the very low cost of $150 in treatment, so it's a damn shame tht leprosy has not been eradicated. It's a very disfiguring disease, easily treated and cured, that cause many people affliced with it to become social outcasts.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#17 Nov 21, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Did I not say most? I stand ready to be corrected when that is in order, but you seem to have merely confirmed the accuracy of my original statement.
Battlefield medical attention is not tidy. It's really not just wrapping the boo-boo in gauze and administering a syrette. Battlefield treatment does not stop just because a latex glove tears (almost always).

Take if from someone who HAS had a hand fishing around inside my belly to find and pinch off the severed femoral artery that had retracted back into my abdomen. No glove. You can't feel the artery with gloves on.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#18 Nov 21, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I was MERELY pointing out that those two diseases ARE contagious.
And Leprosy is 100% curable at the very low cost of $150 in treatment, so it's a damn shame tht leprosy has not been eradicated. It's a very disfiguring disease, easily treated and cured, that cause many people affliced with it to become social outcasts.
Not "cured". Controlled. Hanson's Bacillus cannot be eradicated from the body, but like Tuberculosis it can be rendered dormant.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#19 Nov 21, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Battlefield medical attention is not tidy. It's really not just wrapping the boo-boo in gauze and administering a syrette. Battlefield treatment does not stop just because a latex glove tears (almost always).
Take if from someone who HAS had a hand fishing around inside my belly to find and pinch off the severed femoral artery that had retracted back into my abdomen. No glove. You can't feel the artery with gloves on.
I am sympathetic to your argument. But I don't believe you addressed mine, which is based on statistical chance.

It seems to me you're playing the same game as those who have unprotected sex with partners they believe to be HIV- without knowing. They feel secure because they don't know. Is it possible that it's better to know that there are soldiers presenting a minimized level of risk, rather than to pretend that there aren't any soldiers presenting a very high level of risk?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#20 Nov 21, 2012
snyper wrote:
That's kinda scary unless they reclassify infected combat troops to the rear in non-combat positions. I'm not current on that. Do they?
Until the most recent change in the regulations, those who tested positive could not even qualify for an overseas posting, even with the changes made they will still be barred from combat.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Health Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The 'generic' version of this popular drug coul... 1 hr Tobby 1
Human Sexuality 13 hr Enter Username 7
News All gay and bisexual men should get meningitis ... 14 hr Mark Mark 8
News What does a low blood platelet count mean? (Jun '07) 15 hr Liz Liz 890
News Church: Pastor Rick Warren's son commits suicide (Apr '13) 17 hr Mork 17
I am Very excited about gender Determination in... Thu Infoindianmed 1
News Vaccine shortage expected next week (Nov '09) Wed chlamydia vaccine 4
News Pregnancy Symptoms - 12 Very Early Symptoms of ... (Jun '07) Wed Never been pregnant 6,882
Nudity at doctor's office (Mar '07) Jul 26 james 93
More from around the web