Gay Blood Ban?... Yes, they are 60 TIMES More Likely to have HIV

[Care4all]

before testing, we killed many children with leukemia by giving them platelets or Factor 8, to diminish their bleeding.

these children, were actually the reason we discovered HIV was passed on through the blood....a test was developed shortly afterwards.

when I worked at the Blood Center, even with testing on Hepatitis and on HIV, mistakes were made and patients did receive these tainted units....and yes, they contracted aids or hepatitis.

One unit of blood can end up going to as many as 3-4 patients if the blood components were spun down and separated in to red blood cells, platelets, plasma etc...so as many as 3-4 people can contract aids from one tainted unit.

We used to pay donors for blood as well, this stopped in mid 80's...due to the higher risk of paid donors....drug users, prostitutes etc, who are at higher risk of disease.

so, my guess is Article, that there are STILL some patients who may get tainted blood and HIV....

not that many, but mistakes do happen.

 

[mal]

"The FDA, explaining the current policy, points out that men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence that’s 60 times higher than the general population. The agency contends its first obligation is to ensure the safety of the blood supply."

Ban on gay blood donors revisited - AIDS- msnbc.com

It's not Bias, Bigotry, Hatred or Homophobia... It's simply a Statistical Fact and a Good Call by the FDA when they keep it the way it is...

It's NOT Worth the Risk to the Blood Supply for 2 or 3% of the Population to be Allowed to Donate with that Infection Rate.

Concerning thing is, they don't have to say they are Homosexual at all and then they can just Donate anyway.



peace...

And a VERY good argument why Gays should be banned from the military.

No, it's not.

Every time I gave blood while on active duty they also tested it for HIV. I'm pretty sure they would catch any tainted blood.

HIV can Hide for quite some time...

It's why they have People who have been Exposed get Repeatedly Tested for Months and Years...



peace...

 

[mal]

Gay Blood Ban?... Yes, they are 60 TIMES More Likely to have HIV

No shit sherlock!

You just now figuring that out?

Obviously NOT... It's a Discussion Topic... You are on a Political Discussion Board and this is an FDA Policy that is up for Review...



peace...

 

[Care4all]

the surest way to protect yourself, is to donate your own blood for your own surgery....you can start this about 8 weeks before your scheduled surgery and they can draw about 2 units of your own blood during this period before your surgery....then if something goes wrong and you need blood, you've got your own to use.....

I did this for myself, in 1992, when I had surgery.

 

[Article 15]

before testing, we killed many children with leukemia by giving them platelets or Factor 8, to diminish their bleeding.

these children, were actually the reason we discovered HIV was passed on through the blood....a test was developed shortly afterwards.

when I worked at the Blood Center, even with testing on Hepatitis and on HIV, mistakes were made and patients did receive these tainted units....and yes, they contracted aids or hepatitis.

One unit of blood can end up going to as many as 3-4 patients if the blood components were spun down and separated in to red blood cells, platelets, plasma etc...so as many as 3-4 people can contract aids from one tainted unit.

We used to pay donors for blood as well, this stopped in mid 80's...due to the higher risk of paid donors....drug users, prostitutes etc, who are at higher risk of disease.

so, my guess is Article, that there are STILL some patients who may get tainted blood and HIV....

not that many, but mistakes do happen.

Yes, they do and banning gays males from donating will not prevent mistakes from continuing to happen, nor will it prevent HIV from ever being accidentally passed via transfusion because alas! Even though gay men run the highest risk, they are not the sole carriers of the disease.

Multiply the chance of a mistake happening (a lab worker splashing or whatever) by they chance that a blood sample given by a gay man is tainted and you will have your odds. My bet is they are minuscule.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Gay Blood Ban?... Yes, they are 60 TIMES More Likely to have HIV

No shit sherlock!

You just now figuring that out?

How many people are infected with HIV via blood transfusion annually?

Extremely low in most developed countries due to HIV screening. Between 5% and 10% of the world's HIV infections come from transfusion of infected blood and blood products.

 

[del]

And we are AIDS (among other things) tested every year....and if I remember correctly, there was JUST AS MUCH (if not more) danger of picking up HIV from prostitutes, particularly in the Far East. The first sailor in my command to come up positive was married and had come back from a 7th Fleet tour just 3 months prior. Maybe those who might sleep around should not be allowed in the military too. (Of course, then we'd have a recruitment problem)

There isn't even a Question about it...

The EASIEST and Most Prevelent Transmission of HIV in the First World is Men who have Sex with Men... Followed by MSM/IV Drug... Followed by IV Drug... Followed by Heterosexuals who have Sex with High Risk Partners, top of that High Risk Partner List is?... Yep, MSM.... Then MSM/IV Drug...

Been this way for 30 years and Homosexual Men have yet again another Increasing Rate of New HIV Infections and continue to Dominate ALL HIV/AIDS Data.

After 30 Years, being Educated and in the First World, you'd think they'd Learn.

Hell, the Relatively Animalistic and Uneducated Poor in the Third World have Learned to Curb it better.



peace...

As group, gay males run a much greater risk of getting AIDS. This is common knowledge. What your point is, I have no idea.

neither does he

 

[Care4all]

before testing, we killed many children with leukemia by giving them platelets or Factor 8, to diminish their bleeding.

these children, were actually the reason we discovered HIV was passed on through the blood....a test was developed shortly afterwards.

when I worked at the Blood Center, even with testing on Hepatitis and on HIV, mistakes were made and patients did receive these tainted units....and yes, they contracted aids or hepatitis.

One unit of blood can end up going to as many as 3-4 patients if the blood components were spun down and separated in to red blood cells, platelets, plasma etc...so as many as 3-4 people can contract aids from one tainted unit.

We used to pay donors for blood as well, this stopped in mid 80's...due to the higher risk of paid donors....drug users, prostitutes etc, who are at higher risk of disease.

so, my guess is Article, that there are STILL some patients who may get tainted blood and HIV....

not that many, but mistakes do happen.

Yes, they do and banning gays males from donating will not prevent mistakes from continuing to happen, nor will it prevent HIV from ever being accidentally passed via transfusion because alas! Even though gay men run the highest risk, they are not the sole carriers of the disease.

Multiply the chance of a mistake happening (a lab worker splashing or whatever) by they chance that a blood sample given by a gay man is tainted and you will have your odds. My bet is they are minuscule.

Oh! I agree! Banning men from the military because their blood donations are at higher risk, is ridiculous.

there are many, many many people who can not donate blood...just being anemic prevents one from donating, a cold or the flu....so many things....

There is no way there is a rule that all military MUST donate blood....many in the military would not be eligible to donate...just being with a whore would screen them out....let alone numerable medical conditions.

 

[Article 15]

before testing, we killed many children with leukemia by giving them platelets or Factor 8, to diminish their bleeding.

these children, were actually the reason we discovered HIV was passed on through the blood....a test was developed shortly afterwards.

when I worked at the Blood Center, even with testing on Hepatitis and on HIV, mistakes were made and patients did receive these tainted units....and yes, they contracted aids or hepatitis.

One unit of blood can end up going to as many as 3-4 patients if the blood components were spun down and separated in to red blood cells, platelets, plasma etc...so as many as 3-4 people can contract aids from one tainted unit.

We used to pay donors for blood as well, this stopped in mid 80's...due to the higher risk of paid donors....drug users, prostitutes etc, who are at higher risk of disease.

so, my guess is Article, that there are STILL some patients who may get tainted blood and HIV....

not that many, but mistakes do happen.

Yes, they do and banning gays males from donating will not prevent mistakes from continuing to happen, nor will it prevent HIV from ever being accidentally passed via transfusion because alas! Even though gay men run the highest risk, they are not the sole carriers of the disease.

Multiply the chance of a mistake happening (a lab worker splashing or whatever) by they chance that a blood sample given by a gay man is tainted and you will have your odds. My bet is they are minuscule.

Oh! I agree! Banning men from the military because their blood donations are at higher risk, is ridiculous.

there are many, many many people who can not donate blood...just being anemic prevents one from donating, a cold or the flu....so many things....

There is no way there is a rule that all military MUST donate blood....many in the military would not be eligible to donate...just being with a whore would screen them out....let alone numerable medical conditions.

There's no such rule, otherwise the military would have to ban tattoos.

A lot of military can't donate because of assignments they have had and deployments they've been on.

 

[bodecea]

Good points. I don't know how civilian blood banks or the red cross operates with their testing but I am positive they test all blood donated in the military for HIV and I would reject any argument made that this would be reason to keep the gays out of the uniform.

Captain's Mast! Where you been?

Reality.

Hey! What a concept! Happy to see you, I is.

 

[mal]

There isn't even a Question about it...

The EASIEST and Most Prevelent Transmission of HIV in the First World is Men who have Sex with Men... Followed by MSM/IV Drug... Followed by IV Drug... Followed by Heterosexuals who have Sex with High Risk Partners, top of that High Risk Partner List is?... Yep, MSM.... Then MSM/IV Drug...

Been this way for 30 years and Homosexual Men have yet again another Increasing Rate of New HIV Infections and continue to Dominate ALL HIV/AIDS Data.

After 30 Years, being Educated and in the First World, you'd think they'd Learn.

Hell, the Relatively Animalistic and Uneducated Poor in the Third World have Learned to Curb it better.



peace...

As group, gay males run a much greater risk of getting AIDS. This is common knowledge. What your point is, I have no idea.

neither does he

Considering that the Issue of Homosexuals, Specifically Gay Men and HIV seems to get your Attention, I am wondering del...

Are you an HIV+ Homosexual Male?...

Serious Question.

It's the only Issue that I discuss that Angers you to Response.



peace...

 

[xotoxi]

"The FDA, explaining the current policy, points out that men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence that’s 60 times higher than the general population. The agency contends its first obligation is to ensure the safety of the blood supply."

Ban on gay blood donors revisited - AIDS- msnbc.com

It's not Bias, Bigotry, Hatred or Homophobia... It's simply a Statistical Fact and a Good Call by the FDA when they keep it the way it is...

It's NOT Worth the Risk to the Blood Supply for 2 or 3% of the Population to be Allowed to Donate with that Infection Rate.

Concerning thing is, they don't have to say they are Homosexual at all and then they can just Donate anyway.



peace...

They test the blood whether it is from a gay or straight person.

Are you proposing that they stop testing the blood for HIV and instead just exclude gay blood?

 

[del]

As group, gay males run a much greater risk of getting AIDS. This is common knowledge. What your point is, I have no idea.

neither does he

Considering that the Issue of Homosexuals, Specifically Gay Men and HIV seems to get your Attention, I am wondering del...

Are you an HIV+ Homosexual Male?...

Serious Question.

It's the only Issue that I discuss that Angers you to Response.



peace...

once again, you're batting .000, well, i guess .250 to be fair

i'm not hiv positive, i'm not homosexual and i'm not angry.

i am male, though

if stupidity made me angry, i'd spend most of my time pissed off.

that'd be, well, stupid. like you.

keep swinging

 

[syrenn]

Asking if you are high risk is all part of the PRE screening. Why take the blood of someone who is considered high risk in the first place. Blood products are expensive as it stands now, why spend the extra money to screen units that are high risk?

The blood supply needs to be as clean as it can possibly get. If that means some people are precluded from donating so be it. Would you want a blood product that will kill you? I know I sure don't.

And by the way, how many of you donate blood on a regular basis?

 

[mal]

"The FDA, explaining the current policy, points out that men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence that’s 60 times higher than the general population. The agency contends its first obligation is to ensure the safety of the blood supply."

Ban on gay blood donors revisited - AIDS- msnbc.com

It's not Bias, Bigotry, Hatred or Homophobia... It's simply a Statistical Fact and a Good Call by the FDA when they keep it the way it is...

It's NOT Worth the Risk to the Blood Supply for 2 or 3% of the Population to be Allowed to Donate with that Infection Rate.

Concerning thing is, they don't have to say they are Homosexual at all and then they can just Donate anyway.



peace...

They test the blood whether it is from a gay or straight person.

Are you proposing that they stop testing the blood for HIV and instead just exclude gay blood?

Of course not...

And HIV+ Blood gets passed those Tests and with a 60 TIMES Higher Rate of HIV in Homosexual Men it's not Worth the Risk to the Supply.



peace...

 

[mal]

neither does he

Considering that the Issue of Homosexuals, Specifically Gay Men and HIV seems to get your Attention, I am wondering del...

Are you an HIV+ Homosexual Male?...

Serious Question.

It's the only Issue that I discuss that Angers you to Response.



peace...

once again, you're batting .000, well, i guess .250 to be fair

i'm not hiv positive, i'm not homosexual and i'm not angry.

i am male, though

if stupidity made me angry, i'd spend most of my time pissed off.

that'd be, well, stupid. like you.

keep swinging

You are the one Swinging, del... And Failing Miserably.

The Discussion Continues in Spite of your Trolling.



peace...

 

[geauxtohell]

"The FDA, explaining the current policy, points out that men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence that’s 60 times higher than the general population. The agency contends its first obligation is to ensure the safety of the blood supply."

Ban on gay blood donors revisited - AIDS- msnbc.com

It's not Bias, Bigotry, Hatred or Homophobia... It's simply a Statistical Fact and a Good Call by the FDA when they keep it the way it is...

It's NOT Worth the Risk to the Blood Supply for 2 or 3% of the Population to be Allowed to Donate with that Infection Rate.

Concerning thing is, they don't have to say they are Homosexual at all and then they can just Donate anyway.



peace...

They also screen out IV drug use and travel to certain foreign countries (including servicemembers), etc.

The point is the eliminate risk factors. Still, Hep C is the most frequent bloodbourne pathogen transmitted via transfusion. I think HIV is 1/1,000,000 units (it could be 2,000,000).

Anyways, it's low.

What's your point?

 

[geauxtohell]

What is the rationale for forbidding visitors to UK or Europe?

I would suspect CJD, though it's not blood borne. Maybe just an overabundance of caution.

 

[geauxtohell]

"The FDA, explaining the current policy, points out that men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence that’s 60 times higher than the general population. The agency contends its first obligation is to ensure the safety of the blood supply."

Ban on gay blood donors revisited - AIDS- msnbc.com

It's not Bias, Bigotry, Hatred or Homophobia... It's simply a Statistical Fact and a Good Call by the FDA when they keep it the way it is...

It's NOT Worth the Risk to the Blood Supply for 2 or 3% of the Population to be Allowed to Donate with that Infection Rate.

Concerning thing is, they don't have to say they are Homosexual at all and then they can just Donate anyway.



peace...

And a VERY good argument why Gays should be banned from the military.

You have got to be kidding me.

You think soldiers are transfusing each other with their own blood in the field?

Fuck worrying about HIV, I'd be more worried about an ABO mismatch killing people.

There is a reason that the blood donation process is screened rigorously. Aside from the infectious pathology, you have to worry about autoimmune pathology which is much more tricky. Aside from the no brainers (A,B,O, and D antigens) there are about 40 other antigens that are screened for to prevent complications.

When blood is donated to the red cross, after the screening and typing of the blood, it is filtered and (in certain cases) irradiated.

This is pretty complicated. Go get a tour of your local blood bank one day if you don't believe me.

 

[geauxtohell]

And a VERY good argument why Gays should be banned from the military.

How exactly is this a good argument to ban gays from the Military?

I don't remember the ability to give blood being a prerequisite to serve.

Or are you convinced that just having gay men in the military would have been the deciding factor between military personnel like you being gay or straight?

Are you afraid knowing the guy next to you was gay would have been too much of a temptation for you?

That and the fact that service members are tested for HIV annually (at least).

Probably the lowest at risk population for catching the disease.