Gay Blood Donation Ban

[kilroy69 994]

We could always hold the blood of the most at risk of the gay population to have or get HIV until it can be sure to be free from hiv/aids.

 

However that would be racist as something like 80% of the new cases are in black and Hispanic men.

[MDC 5,893]

Looks like Hardcore Pilot is feeling lonely and agitated this election year.

[Thornton Melon 544]

I last donated blood on September 12, 2001, and I am ineligible to donate blood ever again, unless the rules change. The rule on the day I donated was that you had to have spent an aggregate total of less than 6 months in the UK between 1980 and 1996 (due to mad cow disease). I had spent a total of ~5.5 months in Scotland between 1987 and 1991 as a civilian working for the Navy. The nurse taking my blood tells me, "Oh, you just made the cutoff, on September 17th, the rule changes to 3 months." I said, "So, my blood is good to donate today, but next week, my blood is no good?" She said, "That's right". I just said , "uh, OK...

[porkbutt 861]

the gays and their fabulous feelings might get hurt. it's the new race card....nevermind if it puts people's lives in danger.

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

If I had to get blood donated to me and I found out it came from a gay dude I would be pretty pissed.

 

Something about that doesn't seem right at all to me.

[edjr 5,567]

Does gay blood turn you gay?

 

No, but the c0ck does.

[edjr 5,567]

I last donated blood on September 12, 2001, and I am ineligible to donate blood ever again, unless the rules change.

 

can you become ungay?

[penultimatestraw 473]

We could always hold the blood of the most at risk of the gay population to have or get HIV until it can be sure to be free from hiv/aids.

 

However that would be racist as something like 80% of the new cases are in black and Hispanic men.

Don't know where you guys get your stats. MSM account for 63% of new infections, of which a little more than half are Black or Hispanic. Including heterosexuals, Blacks and Hispanics account for ~65% of newly diagnosed HIV infections. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/overview/ataglance.html

 

Blood has a shelf life which would be compromised by holding it to incubate any potential HIV, and any additional testing would add to the cost of maintaining the blood supply. Is 1 in 2 million units too high a risk? How much would this risk increase if any MSM could donate?

 

The overall prevalence of HIV in the MSM population is between 10 and 20%. Presumably, those who know they are HIV+ won't donate, so you are really talking about those unaware of their status who are in the window period where false negative tests can occur. For comparison, the risk of a transfusion carrying hepatitis B is ~1 in 200,000 units.

[edjr 5,567]

lets ask Arthur Ashe what he thinks

[Thornton Melon 544]

 

can you become ungay?

Never!

[penultimatestraw 473]

I last donated blood on September 12, 2001, and I am ineligible to donate blood ever again, unless the rules change. The rule on the day I donated was that you had to have spent an aggregate total of less than 6 months in the UK between 1980 and 1996 (due to mad cow disease). I had spent a total of ~5.5 months in Scotland between 1987 and 1991 as a civilian working for the Navy. The nurse taking my blood tells me, "Oh, you just made the cutoff, on September 17th, the rule changes to 3 months." I said, "So, my blood is good to donate today, but next week, my blood is no good?" She said, "That's right". I just said , "uh, OK...

The time limits for prion disease ("Mad Cow", etc.) are pretty arbitrary, as there is no test to screen blood, unlike HIV. I think the argument is excluding all sexually active gay males from donating blood ignores the excellent testing methodology available and the well described virology of HIV.

[Sho Nuff 719]

If I had to get blood donated to me and I found out it came from a gay dude I would be pretty pissed.

 

Something about that doesn't seem right at all to me.

 

Why? If its clean..what the fock does it matter?

[Frank M 181]

 

Why? If its clean..what the fock does it matter?

 

It only matters if you're homophobic.

 

And I guarantee that he'll say he's not homophobic and saying that he would be pissed about getting blood from a gay man is not homophobic.

[Frank M 181]

The time limits for prion disease ("Mad Cow", etc.) are pretty arbitrary, as there is no test to screen blood, unlike HIV. I think the argument is excluding all sexually active gay males from donating blood ignores the excellent testing methodology available and the well described virology of HIV.

 

 

But...but...they're gay!!

 

Gross!!!

[edjr 5,567]

mad cow ditheath

[Hardcore troubadour 12,657]

 

It only matters if you're homophobic.

 

And I guarantee that he'll say he's not homophobic and saying that he would be pissed about getting blood from a gay man is not homophobic.

So, you disagree with the scientists on this one? How come?

[penultimatestraw 473]

So, you disagree with the scientists on this one? How come?

Can you provide a link/reference to these "scientists"?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,657]

Can you provide a link/reference to these "scientists"?

The FDA imposes the ban, right? Who do you think makes the recommendation, plumbers? I like you, but you can be a bit obtuse. And stop asking for links.

[penultimatestraw 473]

The FDA imposes the ban, right? Who do you think makes the recommendation, plumbers? I like you, but you can be a bit obtuse. And stop asking for links.

I believe the recommendation is outdated, based on old testing methodology. And I don't think their guidelines have been scientifically validated, which is often the case when medicine and government bureaucracy overlap. Hence the controversy.

 

So yes, I disagree with the "scientists".

[Hardcore troubadour 12,657]

I believe the recommendation is outdated, based on old testing methodology. And I don't think their guidelines have been scientifically validated, which is often the case when medicine and government bureaucracy overlap. Hence the controversy.

 

So yes, I disagree with the "scientists".

Then why have an FDA at all then? I could see disagreeing with the FDA because they said something was safe, because somebody, like let's say a weight loss supplement company, lobbied and got it approved. In that case, someone has something to gain. Who gains by saying this blood is a risk? If there is a blood shortage, why would anyone want to limit possible donors? Is it possible they are right? And these other countries, that have socialized medicine and the same policy, are they getting it wrong too?

[wiffleball 4,645]

Those of you who are appearing to be incredibly uneducated on the subject Really should watch a movie called And the band played on.

 

It is the story of the early days of HIV AIDS. The FDA and NIH was clearly In the back pocket of The executive branch Who was clearly trying To appease The Fundamentalist Christians And the Red Cross was almost negligently if not criminally Greedy In their approach to the disease and its prevention.

 

What's funny Is that guys like Hardcore Openly Spout that scientists are Pushing a political agenda when it comes to climate change, But suddenly the same scientists are incapable of doing so when it comes to AIDS and AIDS testing.

 

You flash cards can't have it both ways.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,657]

Those of you who are appearing to be incredibly uneducated on the subject Really should watch a movie called And the band played on.

 

It is the story of the early days of HIV AIDS. The FDA and NIH was clearly In the back pocket of The executive branch Who was clearly trying To appease The Fundamentalist Christians And the Red Cross was almost negligently if not criminally Greedy In their approach to the disease and its prevention.

 

What's funny Is that guys like Hardcore Openly Spout that scientists are Pushing a political agenda when it comes to climate change, But suddenly the same scientists are infallible when it comes to AIDS and AIDS testing.

 

You flash cards can't have it both ways.

I speak about climate change? And as far as having it both ways, I'm the one who pointed that out when it comes to science and people using it when it suits their ideology, in a post in this very thread. Hack. Go get a burrito, woukd you? And please, please resume ignoring me, ok freak?

[penultimatestraw 473]

Then why have an FDA at all then? I could see disagreeing with the FDA because they said something was safe, because somebody, like let's say a weight loss supplement company, lobbied and got it approved. In that case, someone has something to gain. Who gains by saying this blood is a risk? If there is a blood shortage, why would anyone want to limit possible donors? Is it possible they are right? And these other countries, that have socialized medicine and the same policy, are they getting it wrong too?

I am saying the one year restriction is ridiculous, based on my medical training, which included running an HIV clinic and working in a lab which studied the virus. When the regulations were created, we knew a lot less about HIV and had crude testing methodology

 

There are many examples where policy is slow to change, especially when there is no impetus to do so. And public hysteria remains concerning HIV, so there is reason to maintain the status quo independent of actual risk. But I feel pretty confidently gay males can lobby to change to policy, with the backing of HIV virologists/clinicians.

[Frank M 181]

So, you disagree with the scientists on this one? How come?

 

When the ban on gay men donating blood was first instituted, there was not yet the level of testing of the blood supply that there is now. Plus, gay men are no longer the overwhelming majority of HIV infections.

 

A ban is a vestige of an older time when we knew less, and it should be changed.

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

 

Why? If its clean..what the fock does it matter?

 

Dude why are you so PC? You know exactly why I wouldn't want it in my body. Do I need to break this down for you step-by-step too?

[porkbutt 861]

 

Plus, gay men are no longer the overwhelming majority of HIV infections.

[southcarolina 166]

What about gay Crips? Can they donate?

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

Dude why are you so PC? You know exactly why I wouldn't want it in my body. Do I need to break this down for you step-by-step too?

There is nothing PC about you be an ignorant homophobe.

Gay blood wont make you gay.

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

There is nothing PC about you be an ignorant homophobe.

Gay blood wont make you gay.

 

Ignorant homophobe? Man you are an idiot.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,657]

Geek club Lefty loons 1, FDA medical scientists 0. Should have took the points. I thought science was a lock.

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

Ignorant homophobe? Man you are an idiot.

I asked if the blood was clean, why would you object.

Your answer was "you know why"

Which leads a reasonable person to think you are afraid of gay blood.

Care to clarify?

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

The blood is clean yes, in the sense that it won't make you sick or die.

 

There needs to be more research done. As silly as "it turns you gay" sounds, it could be true.

 

There are MANY MANY reports of people getting heart transplants and inheriting some of their taste, memories etc.. sounds like science fiction but it isn't.

 

You don't think getting DNA put in your body from another person doesn't effects you on a molecular level? It does.

 

Lets research this more before making a final decision on it.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,657]

The blood is clean yes, in the sense that it won't make you sick or die.

 

There needs to be more research done. As silly as "it turns you gay" sounds, it could be true.

 

There are MANY MANY reports of people getting heart transplants and inheriting some of their taste, memories etc.. sounds like science fiction but it isn't.

 

If you don't think getting DNA put in your body from another person doesn't effect you on a molecular level then you are a dummy.

 

Lets research this more before making a final decision on it.

Well, you just fumbled the ball, now all they have to do is kneel out.

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

Well, you just fumbled the ball, now all they have to do is kneel out.

 

By asking for more research to be done? Science is falsifiable, lets take advantage of that.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,657]

 

By asking for more research to be done? Science is falsifiable, lets take advantage of that.

Yeah, more research is the way to go. But not to find out if blood makes you gay. Come on man.

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

Yeah, more research is the way to go. But not to find out if blood makes you gay. Come on man.

 

My point is we don't know that for a fact, and until it is a scientific fact that it doesn't, it shouldn't be handed out to the masses. I don't think that is asking to much. I'm not saying it does or doesn't. I'm saying I don't know and that is the problem.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,657]

 

My point is we don't know that for a fact, and until it is a scientific fact that it doesn't, it shouldn't be handed out to the masses. I don't think that is asking to much. I'm not saying it does or doesn't. I'm saying I don't know and that is the problem.

Yeah. Way to go Ernest Byner.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,657]

I believe the recommendation is outdated, based on old testing methodology. And I don't think their guidelines have been scientifically validated, which is often the case when medicine and government bureaucracy overlap. Hence the controversy.

 

So yes, I disagree with the "scientists".

Well, as long as they use the old testing method, would you agree the ban should stay in place? And then they can change the policy when the testing is upgraded?

[Frank M 181]

The blood is clean yes, in the sense that it won't make you sick or die.

 

There needs to be more research done. As silly as "it turns you gay" sounds, it could be true.

 

There are MANY MANY reports of people getting heart transplants and inheriting some of their taste, memories etc.. sounds like science fiction but it isn't.

 

You don't think getting DNA put in your body from another person doesn't effects you on a molecular level? It does.

 

Lets research this more before making a final decision on it.

 

Actually, it IS science fiction. There are no verifiable reports of this happening.

 

There are zero scientific studies supporting so-called "cell memory". Stop believing all the stuff you read on the internet.

 

A blood transfusion from a gay man will no more turn you gay than a blood transfusion from a black man will turn you black. The fact that you consider this a possibility makes you a focking retard.

[MDC 5,893]

The blood is clean yes, in the sense that it won't make you sick or die.

 

There needs to be more research done. As silly as "it turns you gay" sounds, it could be true.

 

There are MANY MANY reports of people getting heart transplants and inheriting some of their taste, memories etc.. sounds like science fiction but it isn't.

 

You don't think getting DNA put in your body from another person doesn't effects you on a molecular level? It does.

 

Lets research this more before making a final decision on it.

This is true. I also saw this movie where a woman gets corneal implants but they came from a killer and now she can see the ghosts of his victims. Could be true.