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

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.

He wants someone to argue the statistics, but it's not something that people can argue over. It's just a simple truth. Anal sex is the most risky sexual behavior for transmitting the virus.

It starts to get silly when he tries to extend that into a larger social commentary or ignore that HIV is a risk for all sexual acts.
 
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...

ja_overview_graph_cd4vsRNA.gif
 
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.

He wants someone to argue the statistics, but it's not something that people can argue over. It's just a simple truth. Anal sex is the most risky sexual behavior for transmitting the virus.

It starts to get silly when he tries to extend that into a larger social commentary or ignore that HIV is a risk for all sexual acts.

I didn't say there was NO Risk outside of Homosexual Sex...

But the Risk is so Overwhelming with Homosexual Men that the FDA will continue this Practice to Protect the Blood Supply from a REAL Threat.

That Reality Confuses, Frustrates and Angers some, but that's there Problem, not mine.

:)

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.

He wants someone to argue the statistics, but it's not something that people can argue over. It's just a simple truth. Anal sex is the most risky sexual behavior for transmitting the virus.

It starts to get silly when he tries to extend that into a larger social commentary or ignore that HIV is a risk for all sexual acts.

I didn't say there was NO Risk outside of Homosexual Sex...

But the Risk is so Overwhelming with Homosexual Men that the FDA will continue this Practice to Protect the Blood Supply from a REAL Threat.

That Reality Confuses, Frustrates and Angers some, but that's there Problem, not mine.

:)

peace...

As it should be as well as all the other precautions taken on the matter.

It's far more extensive than HIV. In fact, HCV is a much higher risk in blood transfusion and it's basically acknowledged that certain viruses (like CMV) are ubiquitous in the blood supply.

Though, most everyone probably has CMV in their system anyways.
 
"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...

Is this really a issue now in the industrialized world. I know there is a homosexual plot to infect every man, woman and child in America. Do you really think they would give tainted blood to someone?

I don't know, ask the people who have DIED from receiving HIV-infected blood.

Including my neighbor and her young son.
 
"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...

Is this really a issue now in the industrialized world. I know there is a homosexual plot to infect every man, woman and child in America. Do you really think they would give tainted blood to someone?

I don't know, ask the people who have DIED from receiving HIV-infected blood.

Including my neighbor and her young son.

Ok, let's ask them!

Who's got a Ouija board?
 
"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...

Is this really a issue now in the industrialized world. I know there is a homosexual plot to infect every man, woman and child in America. Do you really think they would give tainted blood to someone?

I don't know, ask the people who have DIED from receiving HIV-infected blood.

Including my neighbor and her young son.

And the thing he and others aren't Realizing is that they may not Believe or Know that they have it...

Others still are IV Drug Users and aren't likely to be Honest about their Lifestyles...

Store your own Blood.

:)

peace...
 
Is this really a issue now in the industrialized world. I know there is a homosexual plot to infect every man, woman and child in America. Do you really think they would give tainted blood to someone?

I don't know, ask the people who have DIED from receiving HIV-infected blood.

Including my neighbor and her young son.

And the thing he and others aren't Realizing is that they may not Believe or Know that they have it...

Others still are IV Drug Users and aren't likely to be Honest about their Lifestyles...

Store your own Blood.

:)

peace...

Storing your own blood is highly impractical. It's very rare that it would be advantageous.

Blood Donation FAQs :: America's Blood Centers

How long until my blood is used?
All blood donations are processed and available for use between 24 and 48 hours. Whole blood is processed into components (red cells, platelets, plasma). After processing, the red cells can be stored for 42 days. Plasma can be frozen and stored for up to 12 months. Platelets (from whole blood or by apheresis) expire after five days.

There are techniques for retrieving blood during surgery, and reinfusing it into the patient, if he/she is losing more than would be expected. But storing your own blood before surgery is not recommended. It depletes the patient, and it takes time to recover the lost red blood cells.

Many instances where blood are given can't be anticipated, such as a traumatic injury emergency scenario. Other situations where the patient needs blood products are when the patient is very sick, has cancer, a blood dyscrasia, or other medically compromising condition.
 
"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.

No, not necessarily. HIV can be in the blood for a while without showing up on tests.
 
Dr's are slowly moving away from blood transfusions. The outcomes for those that use other methods besides blood transfusion actually have better outcomes than those who get it.

Here is Kansas City, there is at least one hospital that has a bloodless surgery dept and they are considering stopping the practice of giving blood transfusions all together.
 
I would like to mention that storing your own blood really only works if you know the surgery is coming. Blood has a short shelf life, and the use of old blood is quite dangerous, so simply having a supply of your own blood on hand at all times in case of emergency is impractical.
 
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.

No, not necessarily. HIV can be in the blood for a while without showing up on tests.

That's really not an issue anymore due to the way HIV is tested for. It's a tiered system. The first test is highly sensitive but has a low specificity. That means it creates a lot of false positives. If that test is positive, then you move on to the next test which is highly specific (you have to test positive for 2/3 proteins found on the HIV envelope) if that comes back positive, then you are HIV Positive. Any negative along the way means you are HIV negative. If the second step is inconclusive then an additional test is done.

So, if your viral load is so low that you would come up negative on the first exam, I would wonder if you were infectious at that point.
 
Dr's are slowly moving away from blood transfusions. The outcomes for those that use other methods besides blood transfusion actually have better outcomes than those who get it.

Here is Kansas City, there is at least one hospital that has a bloodless surgery dept and they are considering stopping the practice of giving blood transfusions all together.

I don't see how hospitals can "stop giving transfusions" altogether.

The trend is to reduce the number of transfusions given because of the risk and cost. I know at our hospital, the trigger point for transfusion is a hemoglobin of 8. However, studies have shown that there is no advantage to transfusing someone whose hemoglobin is 8 versus someone whose hemoglobin is 7. There are further questions if you could go lower on that number if a patient is not symptomatic. Some people tolerate being anemic better than others.

However, you can't get around the fact that some people need to be transfused (i.e. trauma, etc) with RBCs and I would think that would be more evident in with plasma and platelets.

I was just part of a clinical research study on this matter so I am interested in it.
 
One must be able to give blood while in the military, you never know when you will need more blood due to mission needs and requirements. Further one must be disease free to be deplorable. Gays are known to have more problems with disease due to their chosen life style and sexual conduct.

There is no requirement to give blood for military personnel.

You and I both know this to be true.

And Gays are only known to have a problem with one particular disease, not generally "more problems with disease".

And finally, military personnel are certainly no saints in the sexual promiscuity department.

I would argue that military personnel probably have a larger problem with sexual disease in general, as a rule, than homosexuals do.

At least I would say the Navy does. (Being an Army vet. ROFL)
 

Forum List

Back
Top