Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Hardcore troubadour

Gay Blood Donation Ban

Recommended Posts

Well, the LGBT crowd is now complaining that the FDA won't lift the ban on gay men from donating blood if they have had gay sex in the last year. The medical community says it's the right policy. What is wrong with this crowd? It's getting to be enough is enough time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They test the blood for hiv. I do not see what the problem is.

 

Any donor is a good donor, let them donate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad JT isn't here anymore.

 

Any donor is a good donor, let them donate.

Well, medical scientists disagree. Eh, who cares what they have to say. Somebody's feelings are getting hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They test the blood for hiv. I do not see what the problem is.

 

Any donor is a good donor, let them donate.

This/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, medical scientists disagree. Eh, who cares what they have to say. Somebody's feelings are getting hurt.

 

Link?

 

 

My argument with this has nothing to do with gay rights and everything to do with blood and organ donation. I think the low organ and blood donation rate is borderline criminal. There are people dieing on the waiting list and there are healthy organs in dead people. Yet we cannot put 2 and 2 together in this country.

 

I also think that everyone should donate blood. I donate blood at least 2-3 times a year. I am O+, which can be given to 65% of the population. If you or a loved one ever need blood I hope you appreciate us blood donors.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Link?

 

 

My argument with this has nothing to do with gay rights and everything to do with blood and organ donation. I think the low organ and blood donation rate is borderline criminal. There are people dieing on the waiting list and there are healthy organs in dead people. Yet we cannot put 2 and 2 together in this country.

 

I also think that everyone should donate blood. I donate blood at least 2-3 times a year. I am O+, which can be given to 65% of the population. If you or a loved one ever need blood I hope you appreciate us blood donors.

The day after my Dad passed, got an email from the hospital asking me to replenish what he had used. 3 pints. He had donated 10 gallons over thirty years. They still wanted donors to man up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also donate. My biggest problem is, will it be rejected for bhc... Oh well, I try.

My organs are trash IMO. A lady who works for me donated her body to science. After signing for her, I did also.

 

I have fun tingly thoughts that I'm going to sit on a cold slab with a towell over my face getting cut the fawk up by a bunch of premed doctors wannabes using my body as their final exam to enter medschool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Link?

 

 

My argument with this has nothing to do with gay rights and everything to do with blood and organ donation. I think the low organ and blood donation rate is borderline criminal. There are people dieing on the waiting list and there are healthy organs in dead people. Yet we cannot put 2 and 2 together in this country.

 

I also think that everyone should donate blood. I donate blood at least 2-3 times a year. I am O+, which can be given to 65% of the population. If you or a loved one ever need blood I hope you appreciate us blood donors.

Can't link. Google it and there are stories on it. The HIV test that is given now can detect after the virus has been in someone past the 9 day Mark. It's not me saying what the policy should be. I'm not qualified. I will assume you are not either. Maybe you are. But I know what the doctors/ scientists say. I'll go with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They test the blood for hiv. I do not see what the problem is.

 

Any donor is a good donor, let them donate.

 

Except, what is the percentage of false negatives in that test? In Amurka where you can sue anyone for anything, blood donation services can't afford to take the chance. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also donate. My biggest problem is, will it be rejected for bhc... Oh well, I try.

ETA: If someone is in pain and I donate some .025 blood, BONUS!!!!!!!!

Pain Management Da Big Dog way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They test the blood for hiv. I do not see what the problem is.

 

Any donor is a good donor, let them donate.

There is a false negative rate for HIV testing, albeit small. Using current methodology, the risk of acquiring HIV from blood transfusion is ~1 in 2 million. But that excludes men who have had sex with men from the process. If the ban were lifted, the rate would be a bit higher, but probably still worth it given the shortage of blood products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a false negative rate for HIV testing, albeit small. Using current methodology, the risk of acquiring HIV from blood transfusion is ~1 in 2 million. But that excludes men who have had sex with men from the process. If the ban were lifted, the rate would be a bit higher, but probably still worth it given the shortage of blood products.

Not to make light of a blood shortage situation, but do people in the U.S. Actually die because they don't get a blood transfusion? Are there cases where the hospital says "sorry, we're all out" ? How many per year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Except, what is the percentage of false negatives in that test? In Amurka where you can sue anyone for anything, blood donation services can't afford to take the chance. :dunno:

It's a really low number (see my post above) and those who accept transfusion require informed consent, except in emergencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to make light of a blood shortage situation, but do people in the U.S. Actually die because they don't get a blood transfusion? Are there cases where the hospital says "sorry, we're all out" ? How many per year?

I can't give you an exact number (not sure there is a database), but people can die or suffer loss of their organs because of inadequate transfusional support. This is particularly important if you have a rare blood type or specific antibodies limiting the blood you can receive. Certainly the number is higher than those who die of transfusion-associated HIV, which is exceedingly rare nowadays and treatable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't link. Google it and there are stories on it. The HIV test that is given now can detect after the virus has been in someone past the 9 day Mark. It's not me saying what the policy should be. I'm not qualified. I will assume you are not either. Maybe you are. But I know what the doctors/ scientists say. I'll go with them.

Maybe a good compromise would be to limit donation from males who have had sex with males within 30 days, which exceeds the "window period" for both HIV tests used to screen the blood supply?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't give you an exact number (not sure there is a database), but people can die or suffer loss of their organs because of inadequate transfusional support. This is particularly important if you have a rare blood type or specific antibodies limiting the blood you can receive. Certainly the number is higher than those who die of transfusion-associated HIV, which is exceedingly rare nowadays and treatable.

The ban is agreed upon by medical scientists in other countries, as well as here. Why would we just disregard that consensus? It appears that when science is in alignment with people's ideology, it's an unquestioned source and only dumb religious types question it. But what is the reasoning for disregarding it here? All of these scientists got it wrong? They're a bunch of homophobes? Some of you people are focked in the head. No better than the religious idealouges you rail about. Not you Pen.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe a good compromise would be to limit donation from males who have had sex with males within 30 days, which exceeds the "window period" for both HIV tests used to screen the blood supply?

I just read that 3% of the population may not register for HIV up until 3 months after contracting it. Wikipedia, but I don't think they get things like that wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ban is agreed upon by medical scientists in other countries, as well as here. Why would we just disregard that consensus? It appears that when science is in alignment with people's ideology, it's an unquestioned source and only dumb religious types question it. But what is the reasoning for disregarding it here? All of these scientists got it wrong? They're a bunch of homophobes? Some of you people are focked in the head. No better than the religious idealouges you rail about. Not you Pen.

I don't think there is a scientific consensus regarding banning MSM from donating blood for one year post-coitus. Blood donation and screening policies differ from country to country.

 

Objectively, the risk is very low and probably wouldn't change much with a compromise like I suggested above. Moreover, HIV is no longer a death sentence, with infected individuals having life expectancies similar to those with diabetes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read that 3% of the population may not register for HIV up until 3 months after contracting it. Wikipedia, but I don't think they get things like that wrong.

Link the text and I'll clarify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link the text and I'll clarify.

I can't link. It's in the Wikipedia entry titled - men who have sex with men blood donor controversy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like the ban should be on "people who engage in anal sex" since that is the risk factor, not necessarily just ghey men. That might shut the LGBT maniacs up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like the ban should be on "people who engage in anal sex" since that is the risk factor, not necessarily just ghey men. That might shut the LGBT maniacs up.

I think has more to do with AIDS still being prevalent throughout the gay male community and they account for over 75% of new infections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Thanks man

This is the quote from that link:

However, there is a small percentage of the population at 3% who still will not test positive after 3 months with serology testing.

I've bolded the term serology, as this refers to older test methodology which screens for antibodies to the HIV virus. In the US, blood is screened via serology and nucleic acid testing (viral RNA), which is much more sensitive and doesn't have as long of a window period for false negative tests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tested false positive back in the mid-nineties when the technology was pretty much horseshit. That story alone and the way I was notified is a whole nother thread onto itself. But let's just say I ripped a few heads off.

 

They went out of their way to say that they had my sample retested Through a far more sophisticated and through a process and indeed it was a false positive.

 

Well that's great, thanks for scaring the s*** out of me. Could you leade with that news?

 

So, the next time I tried to donate blood, I decided to be honest And told him about the whole experience and how is a false positive about the state lab had gone through and determined that was absolutely a false positive yada yada yada.They got some crack on the phone And He disallowed My donating any blood.

 

That's just f****** stupid. Not only had my blood gone through some of the most rigorous screening Of any other simple, All blood donations are Tested For HIV. So, from then on, I made a moral decision. I wasn't going to offer up any information they didn't ask me about. Have you been Have you tested positive for AIDS nopeBecause of false positive isn't it positive. And the fact that I can Save lives potentially with my blood Beats the s*** out of some bureaucrat covering his or her ass Overshadow and unrealistic Policy-making That has nothing to do with actual science.

 

I have lost track The amount of blood I have donated subsequent to that event. But each and every donation goes through an ever-increasing and ever more sophisticated level of scrutiny. And I have never once Received Any sort of Negative or false positive result.

 

However, For sexually promiscuous Adults Even if they wear condoms I would not be comfortable with Them donating. If you do any sort of research, Pretty much only America Claims the condoms AR Virtually totally effective against AIDS prevention. It turns out the AIDS Molecules or whatever are far smaller than the pores in many Condoms. But Reagan was trying to make up for his complete f****** and Italy and came up with this silver bullet theory that he forced down The FDA and CDC Throat.

 

Don't believe me? Check out what the Canadian and European and other nations Views on condoms and AIDS prevention really are. They're better than nothing, but they're damn sure not a silver bullet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tested false positive back in the mid-nineties when the technology was pretty much horseshit. That story alone and the way I was notified is a whole nother thread onto itself. But let's just say I ripped a few heads off.

 

They went out of their way to say that they had my sample retested Through a far more sophisticated and through a process and indeed it was a false positive.

 

Well that's great, thanks for scaring the s*** out of me. Could you leade with that news?

 

So, the next time I tried to donate blood, I decided to be honest And told him about the whole experience and how is a false positive about the state lab had gone through and determined that was absolutely a false positive yada yada yada.They got some crack on the phone And He disallowed My donating any blood.

 

That's just f****** stupid. Not only had my blood gone through some of the most rigorous screening Of any other simple, All blood donations are Tested For HIV. So, from then on, I made a moral decision. I wasn't going to offer up any information they didn't ask me about. Have you been Have you tested positive for AIDS nopeBecause of false positive isn't it positive. And the fact that I can Save lives potentially with my blood Beats the s*** out of some bureaucrat covering his or her ass Overshadow and unrealistic Policy-making That has nothing to do with actual science.

 

I have lost track The amount of blood I have donated subsequent to that event. But each and every donation goes through an ever-increasing and ever more sophisticated level of scrutiny. And I have never once Received Any sort of Negative or false positive result.

 

However, For sexually promiscuous Adults Even if they wear condoms I would not be comfortable with Them donating. If you do any sort of research, Pretty much only America Claims the condoms AR Virtually totally effective against AIDS prevention. It turns out the AIDS Molecules or whatever are far smaller than the pores in many Condoms. But Reagan was trying to make up for his complete f****** and Italy and came up with this silver bullet theory that he forced down The FDA and CDC Throat.

 

Don't believe me? Check out what the Canadian and European and other nations Views on condoms and AIDS prevention really are. They're better than nothing, but they're damn sure not a silver bullet.

WOW. How long did you think you had the AIDS??? I bet the stress alone from thinking that took some years off your life, that is horrifying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW. How long did you think you had the AIDS??? I bet the stress alone from thinking that took some years off your life, that is horrifying.

The worst part was I got the official letter About my results on a Friday night. And I damn sure wasn't going to call from work So I Had to get out of work early on Monday and go home And make the phone call.At that point, he explained everything to me And I was ready to rip their heads off. I explain to them the context And I think they finally understood that that was a major colossal f****** on their part.I got a letter from the director of The Blood Bank in question Apologizing sometime later.

 

I have received a lot of bad news in my day, But I can honestly tell you I have never been literally driven to my kneesI've received a lot of bad news in my day, But I can honestly tell you I've never been literally driven to my knees To land on this horrible blood orange vinyl laminate flooring When I received and read the letter that friday night.

 

Longest weekend of my life.

 

And for you youngsters out there. This was the era of Ryan White. Nobody really had any idea Where the f*** AIDS came from or how the f*** you got it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tested false positive back in the mid-nineties when the technology was pretty much horseshit. That story alone and the way I was notified is a whole nother thread onto itself. But let's just say I ripped a few heads off.

 

They went out of their way to say that they had my sample retested Through a far more sophisticated and through a process and indeed it was a false positive.

 

Well that's great, thanks for scaring the s*** out of me. Could you leade with that news?

 

So, the next time I tried to donate blood, I decided to be honest And told him about the whole experience and how is a false positive about the state lab had gone through and determined that was absolutely a false positive yada yada yada.They got some crack on the phone And He disallowed My donating any blood.

 

That's just f****** stupid. Not only had my blood gone through some of the most rigorous screening Of any other simple, All blood donations are Tested For HIV. So, from then on, I made a moral decision. I wasn't going to offer up any information they didn't ask me about. Have you been Have you tested positive for AIDS nopeBecause of false positive isn't it positive. And the fact that I can Save lives potentially with my blood Beats the s*** out of some bureaucrat covering his or her ass Overshadow and unrealistic Policy-making That has nothing to do with actual science.

 

I have lost track The amount of blood I have donated subsequent to that event. But each and every donation goes through an ever-increasing and ever more sophisticated level of scrutiny. And I have never once Received Any sort of Negative or false positive result.

 

However, For sexually promiscuous Adults Even if they wear condoms I would not be comfortable with Them donating. If you do any sort of research, Pretty much only America Claims the condoms AR Virtually totally effective against AIDS prevention. It turns out the AIDS Molecules or whatever are far smaller than the pores in many Condoms. But Reagan was trying to make up for his complete f****** and Italy and came up with this silver bullet theory that he forced down The FDA and CDC Throat.

 

Don't believe me? Check out what the Canadian and European and other nations Views on condoms and AIDS prevention really are. They're better than nothing, but they're damn sure not a silver bullet.

I used to donate regularly. Not just whole blood, but platelets usually. That is a lengthy process laying in the chair for an hour or more.

 

Last time I went, I asked to see whoever was in charge. He came in and I said, "I don't mind giving my time to give blood. What I do mind is that it takes you guys an hour to get me in the chair when I get here, with an appointment. I am a regular monthly donor, with a card and everything."

 

"I'm sorry sir, we can't do it any faster."

 

"Well then, take my name out of your database, I'm finished with the red cross."

 

Haven't been back since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't ever taken the time to confirm this, But I'm pretty sure that The Red Cross and other independent blood banks Actually Get paid by the hospitals Or whomever For the blood That they Supply. Because I know that Patients are charged for that blood.Would be curious if anybody could Confirm or deny that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tested false positive back in the mid-nineties when the technology was pretty much horseshit. That story alone and the way I was notified is a whole nother thread onto itself. But let's just say I ripped a few heads off.

 

They went out of their way to say that they had my sample retested Through a far more sophisticated and through a process and indeed it was a false positive.

 

Well that's great, thanks for scaring the s*** out of me. Could you leade with that news?

 

So, the next time I tried to donate blood, I decided to be honest And told him about the whole experience and how is a false positive about the state lab had gone through and determined that was absolutely a false positive yada yada yada.They got some crack on the phone And He disallowed My donating any blood.

 

That's just f****** stupid. Not only had my blood gone through some of the most rigorous screening Of any other simple, All blood donations are Tested For HIV. So, from then on, I made a moral decision. I wasn't going to offer up any information they didn't ask me about. Have you been Have you tested positive for AIDS nopeBecause of false positive isn't it positive. And the fact that I can Save lives potentially with my blood Beats the s*** out of some bureaucrat covering his or her ass Overshadow and unrealistic Policy-making That has nothing to do with actual science.

 

I have lost track The amount of blood I have donated subsequent to that event. But each and every donation goes through an ever-increasing and ever more sophisticated level of scrutiny. And I have never once Received Any sort of Negative or false positive result.

 

However, For sexually promiscuous Adults Even if they wear condoms I would not be comfortable with Them donating. If you do any sort of research, Pretty much only America Claims the condoms AR Virtually totally effective against AIDS prevention. It turns out the AIDS Molecules or whatever are far smaller than the pores in many Condoms. But Reagan was trying to make up for his complete f****** and Italy and came up with this silver bullet theory that he forced down The FDA and CDC Throat.

 

Don't believe me? Check out what the Canadian and European and other nations Views on condoms and AIDS prevention really are. They're better than nothing, but they're damn sure not a silver bullet.

What is your definition of "promiscuous"? Both gay and straight? Regarding your condoms and HIV prevention:

Latex condoms, used consistently and correctly, are 98-99% effective in preventing HIV transmission. Two rigorous studies of couples in which one person is infected with HIV and the other is not (known as “discordant couples”) indicate that HIV is very rarely transmitted when condoms are always used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Straw, what's your source? Because if it is domestic, I wouldn't trust it.

It was from a Chicago AIDS resource center. But the WHO and UNAIDS agree: http://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/featurestories/2015/july/20150702_condoms_prevention

Condoms are a critical component in a comprehensive and sustainable approach to the prevention of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and are effective for preventing unintended pregnancies. In 2013, an estimated 2.1 million people became newly infected with HIV and an estimated 500 million people acquired chlamydia, gonorrhoea, syphilis or trichomoniasis.[ii] In addition, every year more than 200 million women have unmet needs for contraception,[iii] leading to approximately 80 million unintended pregnancies.[iv] These three public health priorities require a decisive response using all available tools, with condoms playing a central role.

 

Male and female condoms are the only devices that both reduce the transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and prevent unintended pregnancy.

Laboratory studies show that condoms provide an impermeable barrier to particles the size of sperm and STI pathogens, including HIV.[v] [vi] Condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV. Research among serodiscordant couples (where one partner is living with HIV and the other is not) shows that consistent condom use significantly reduces the risk of HIV transmission both from men to women and women to men[vii] [viii] [ix] Consistent and correct use of condoms also reduces the risk of acquiring other STIs and associated conditions, including genital warts and cervical cancer.[x]With a failure rate of about 2% when used consistently and correctly, condoms are very effective at preventing unintended pregnancy.[xi] [xii]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't link. Google it and there are stories on it. The HIV test that is given now can detect after the virus has been in someone past the 9 day Mark. It's not me saying what the policy should be. I'm not qualified. I will assume you are not either. Maybe you are. But I know what the doctors/ scientists say. I'll go with them.

How much does the test cost? Maybe they do not want to pay to test every sample of blood for AIDS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much does the test cost? Maybe they do not want to pay to test every sample of blood for AIDS

All blood in the US is screened with the test to which he refers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×