Libs come closer to putting blood supply at risk

[novasteve]

Gay men have a lifetime ban from donating blood, FDA in process of changing policy

So they are featuring a mutant who refers to itself as "they" who lied about being gay on the form and they are celebrating this degenerate liar?

"
bautista, who uses they/them pronouns and the lowercase spelling of their name, recommends including if the sexual acts were consensual or if protection was used. They point out that with the new recommendation, HIV-negative, married men who have sex with only each other are still denied from giving blood.

When bautista first registered to donate in 1999, there was a misunderstanding with the MSM questionnaire; once registered, bautista later received a call that their O-negative blood was needed for a 4-year-old with cancer. Although they were aware that they technically weren’t allowed to donate, and knowing they were HIV negative, bautista chose to lie about their sexual history in order to help the child.

“From then on, any time I received a call for a blood donation, I would donate,” bautista said. “All of the times, it was for children. These kids need it, and for me, that outweighs the discriminatory practice on part of the FDA.”"

 

[jillian]

idiot....

pity you're so obsessed. perhaps if you came out, you wouldn't be so angry.

 

[Compost]

Let's see. What's more important? Doing all they can to see that blood that isn't contaminated with a disease is the blood used to "help children"? Or avoiding damage to the tender feelings of gay men?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Gay men have a lifetime ban from donating blood, FDA in process of changing policy

So they are featuring a mutant who refers to itself as "they" who lied about being gay on the form and they are celebrating this degenerate liar?

"
bautista, who uses they/them pronouns and the lowercase spelling of their name, recommends including if the sexual acts were consensual or if protection was used. They point out that with the new recommendation, HIV-negative, married men who have sex with only each other are still denied from giving blood.

When bautista first registered to donate in 1999, there was a misunderstanding with the MSM questionnaire; once registered, bautista later received a call that their O-negative blood was needed for a 4-year-old with cancer. Although they were aware that they technically weren’t allowed to donate, and knowing they were HIV negative, bautista chose to lie about their sexual history in order to help the child.

“From then on, any time I received a call for a blood donation, I would donate,” bautista said. “All of the times, it was for children. These kids need it, and for me, that outweighs the discriminatory practice on part of the FDA.”"

You seem obsessed with gay people.

I wonder why.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Let's see. What's more important? Doing all they can to see that blood that isn't contaminated with a disease is the blood used to "help children"? Or avoiding damage to the tender feelings of gay men?

Not the children!

 

[Statistikhengst]

Let's see. What's more important? Doing all they can to see that blood that isn't contaminated with a disease is the blood used to "help children"? Or avoiding damage to the tender feelings of gay men?

The thing is, sexuality has nothing to do with blood quality.

A simple test can verify if the blood is good to go or not.

There are tons of heteros out there who are HIV-positive, or have herpes, or what not.
Their blood is every bit as tainted.

It's supposed to be science, not partisanship.

 

[Compost]

Let's see. What's more important? Doing all they can to see that blood that isn't contaminated with a disease is the blood used to "help children"? Or avoiding damage to the tender feelings of gay men?

The thing is, sexuality has nothing to do with blood quality.

A simple test can verify if the blood is good to go or not.

There are tons of heteros out there who are HIV-positive, or have herpes, or what not.
Their blood is every bit as tainted.

It's supposed to be science, not partisanship.

That's my point, clown boy. Now that they know more about how AIDS is transmitted, they are changing the rules so more people can donate. This shouldn't be about gay men who cried because they didn't get to save children. It should be about how it is good news that advances in science allows more people to give blood. Get it?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Let's see. What's more important? Doing all they can to see that blood that isn't contaminated with a disease is the blood used to "help children"? Or avoiding damage to the tender feelings of gay men?

The thing is, sexuality has nothing to do with blood quality.

A simple test can verify if the blood is good to go or not.

There are tons of heteros out there who are HIV-positive, or have herpes, or what not.
Their blood is every bit as tainted.

It's supposed to be science, not partisanship.

That's my point, clown boy. Now that they know more about how AIDS is transmitted, they are changing the rules so more people can donate. This shouldn't be about gay men who cried because they didn't get to save children. It should be about how it is good news that advances in science allows more people to give blood. Get it?

Your response made no sense at all, n00b.

 

[Compost]

Let's see. What's more important? Doing all they can to see that blood that isn't contaminated with a disease is the blood used to "help children"? Or avoiding damage to the tender feelings of gay men?

The thing is, sexuality has nothing to do with blood quality.

A simple test can verify if the blood is good to go or not.

There are tons of heteros out there who are HIV-positive, or have herpes, or what not.
Their blood is every bit as tainted.

It's supposed to be science, not partisanship.

That's my point, clown boy. Now that they know more about how AIDS is transmitted, they are changing the rules so more people can donate. This shouldn't be about gay men who cried because they didn't get to save children. It should be about how it is good news that advances in science allows more people to give blood. Get it?

Your response made no sense at all, n00b.

Really? No sense at all? Then you have a reading comprehension problem. You also have a hypocrisy problem. As a member of the Right winger in Clown face Avi Club, you are in no position to lecture anyone on how something shouldn't be partisan.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Let's see. What's more important? Doing all they can to see that blood that isn't contaminated with a disease is the blood used to "help children"? Or avoiding damage to the tender feelings of gay men?

The thing is, sexuality has nothing to do with blood quality.

A simple test can verify if the blood is good to go or not.

There are tons of heteros out there who are HIV-positive, or have herpes, or what not.
Their blood is every bit as tainted.

It's supposed to be science, not partisanship.

That's my point, clown boy. Now that they know more about how AIDS is transmitted, they are changing the rules so more people can donate. This shouldn't be about gay men who cried because they didn't get to save children. It should be about how it is good news that advances in science allows more people to give blood. Get it?

Your response made no sense at all, n00b.

Really? No sense at all? Then you have a reading comprehension problem. You also have a hypocrisy problem. As a member of the Right winger in Clown face Avi Club, you are in no position to lecture anyone on how something shouldn't be partisan.

You just joined in September 2015 and know nothing about me, unless of course, you are a sock.

And yes, your drivel made no sense at all, but I expect no less from RWNJs like you.

Again: it's science. A person's sexuality is no way to gauge whether or not his or her blood can be donated, since there are tests that can instantly determine if the blood is tainted with the HIV-infection, or not. For this reason, the CDC is seriously considering lifting a restriction because there are millions of gay and lesbian folk out there with perfectly good, untainted blood, blood that could save another person's life. And there are also millions and millions of heteros out there with tainted blood that should NOT end up at the blood bank, and it won't, since testing has gotten so good.

Ergo, there is no reason to specifically exclude a group of people from donating blood, because it is going to be tested, anyway. the CDC is smart enough to realize this. You are not.

I hope that you are only ignorant but not really stupid, because ignorance can be cured with education, while, sadly, stupidity is a life-sentence.

You are welcome, sock-n00b.

 

[Compost]

You don't have t

Let's see. What's more important? Doing all they can to see that blood that isn't contaminated with a disease is the blood used to "help children"? Or avoiding damage to the tender feelings of gay men?

The thing is, sexuality has nothing to do with blood quality.

A simple test can verify if the blood is good to go or not.

There are tons of heteros out there who are HIV-positive, or have herpes, or what not.
Their blood is every bit as tainted.

It's supposed to be science, not partisanship.

That's my point, clown boy. Now that they know more about how AIDS is transmitted, they are changing the rules so more people can donate. This shouldn't be about gay men who cried because they didn't get to save children. It should be about how it is good news that advances in science allows more people to give blood. Get it?

Your response made no sense at all, n00b.

Really? No sense at all? Then you have a reading comprehension problem. You also have a hypocrisy problem. As a member of the Right winger in Clown face Avi Club, you are in no position to lecture anyone on how something shouldn't be partisan.

You just joined in September 2015 and know nothing about me, unless of course, you are a sock.

And yes, your drivel made no sense at all, but I expect no less from RWNJs like you.

Again: it's science. A person's sexuality is no way to gauge whether or not his or her blood can be donated, since there are tests that can instantly determine if the blood is tainted with the HIV-infection, or not. For this reason, the CDC is seriously considering lifting a restriction because there are millions of gay and lesbian folk out there with perfectly good, untainted blood, blood that could save another person's life. And there are also millions and millions of heteros out there with tainted blood that should NOT end up at the blood bank, and it won't, since testing has gotten so good.

Ergo, there is no reason to specifically exclude a group of people from donating blood, because it is going to be tested, anyway. the CDC is smart enough to realize this. You are not.

I hope that you are only ignorant but not really stupid, because ignorance can be cured with education, while, sadly, stupidity is a life-sentence.

You are welcome, sock-n00b.

I hate to break the news to you, but your are so nakedly obvious that very little time is needed to see what you are. I'll spell it out for you. Your avi is a proclamation of partisanship, ergo, you can be expected to be partisan. Furthermore, you noticed I am new here but you've already decided I am a RWNJ. According to your logic, you know nothing about me. Maybe you're the sock (whatever that is supposed to mean).

Rather than just admit that we don't disagree on the topic of who can give blood, you call me ignorant. What does that make you?

 

[Statistikhengst]

You don't have t

The thing is, sexuality has nothing to do with blood quality.

A simple test can verify if the blood is good to go or not.

There are tons of heteros out there who are HIV-positive, or have herpes, or what not.
Their blood is every bit as tainted.

It's supposed to be science, not partisanship.

That's my point, clown boy. Now that they know more about how AIDS is transmitted, they are changing the rules so more people can donate. This shouldn't be about gay men who cried because they didn't get to save children. It should be about how it is good news that advances in science allows more people to give blood. Get it?

Your response made no sense at all, n00b.

Really? No sense at all? Then you have a reading comprehension problem. You also have a hypocrisy problem. As a member of the Right winger in Clown face Avi Club, you are in no position to lecture anyone on how something shouldn't be partisan.

You just joined in September 2015 and know nothing about me, unless of course, you are a sock.

And yes, your drivel made no sense at all, but I expect no less from RWNJs like you.

Again: it's science. A person's sexuality is no way to gauge whether or not his or her blood can be donated, since there are tests that can instantly determine if the blood is tainted with the HIV-infection, or not. For this reason, the CDC is seriously considering lifting a restriction because there are millions of gay and lesbian folk out there with perfectly good, untainted blood, blood that could save another person's life. And there are also millions and millions of heteros out there with tainted blood that should NOT end up at the blood bank, and it won't, since testing has gotten so good.

Ergo, there is no reason to specifically exclude a group of people from donating blood, because it is going to be tested, anyway. the CDC is smart enough to realize this. You are not.

I hope that you are only ignorant but not really stupid, because ignorance can be cured with education, while, sadly, stupidity is a life-sentence.

You are welcome, sock-n00b.

I hate to break the news to you, but your are so nakedly obvious that very little time is needed to see what you are. I'll spell it out for you. Your avi is a proclamation of partisanship, ergo, you can be expected to be partisan. Furthermore, you noticed I am new here but you've already decided I am a RWNJ. According to your logic, you know nothing about me. Maybe you're the sock (whatever that is supposed to mean).

Rather than just admit that we don't disagree on the topic of who can give blood, you call me ignorant. What does that make you?

It makes me someone who can spot a sock about a million mile away.
I will now make it my holy quest to see whose sock you are.
Oh, and my avi is my business. You don't like it? Uhm, ok: then fuck off and fall off the face of the planet. There's a nice sock-bin in space waiting for you but warning: the air is a little thin.

 

[Compost]

F

You don't have t

That's my point, clown boy. Now that they know more about how AIDS is transmitted, they are changing the rules so more people can donate. This shouldn't be about gay men who cried because they didn't get to save children. It should be about how it is good news that advances in science allows more people to give blood. Get it?

Your response made no sense at all, n00b.

Really? No sense at all? Then you have a reading comprehension problem. You also have a hypocrisy problem. As a member of the Right winger in Clown face Avi Club, you are in no position to lecture anyone on how something shouldn't be partisan.

You just joined in September 2015 and know nothing about me, unless of course, you are a sock.

And yes, your drivel made no sense at all, but I expect no less from RWNJs like you.

Again: it's science. A person's sexuality is no way to gauge whether or not his or her blood can be donated, since there are tests that can instantly determine if the blood is tainted with the HIV-infection, or not. For this reason, the CDC is seriously considering lifting a restriction because there are millions of gay and lesbian folk out there with perfectly good, untainted blood, blood that could save another person's life. And there are also millions and millions of heteros out there with tainted blood that should NOT end up at the blood bank, and it won't, since testing has gotten so good.

Ergo, there is no reason to specifically exclude a group of people from donating blood, because it is going to be tested, anyway. the CDC is smart enough to realize this. You are not.

I hope that you are only ignorant but not really stupid, because ignorance can be cured with education, while, sadly, stupidity is a life-sentence.

You are welcome, sock-n00b.

I hate to break the news to you, but your are so nakedly obvious that very little time is needed to see what you are. I'll spell it out for you. Your avi is a proclamation of partisanship, ergo, you can be expected to be partisan. Furthermore, you noticed I am new here but you've already decided I am a RWNJ. According to your logic, you know nothing about me. Maybe you're the sock (whatever that is supposed to mean).

Rather than just admit that we don't disagree on the topic of who can give blood, you call me ignorant. What does that make you?

It makes me someone who can spot a sock about a million mile away.
I will now make it my holy quest to see whose sock you are.
Oh, and my avi is my business. You don't like it? Uhm, ok: then fuck off and fall off the face of the planet. There's a nice sock-bin in space waiting for you but warning: the air is a little thin.

Fine. Don't tell me what a sock is but make it your mission to find out whose sock I am! Do I not like it? Well, sorry 'bout this, but I just don't care.

Your warning is meaningless to me. So, sock on. Or whatever.

 

[jillian]

Let's see. What's more important? Doing all they can to see that blood that isn't contaminated with a disease is the blood used to "help children"? Or avoiding damage to the tender feelings of gay men?

gays aren't the only ones who get AIDS.

blood should be screened. that has nothing to do with a blanket prohibition to satisfy the delicate feelings of homophobic bigots.

 

[Compost]

Let's see. What's more important? Doing all they can to see that blood that isn't contaminated with a disease is the blood used to "help children"? Or avoiding damage to the tender feelings of gay men?

gays aren't the only ones who get AIDS.

blood should be screened. that has nothing to do with a blanket prohibition to satisfy the delicate feelings of homophobic bigots.

Looks like I am the only one who read the OP article.

 

[hortysir]

Malaria used to be a lifetime ban, also.

Science progresses.

Now I am a 2gallon donor

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Gay men have a lifetime ban from donating blood, FDA in process of changing policy

So they are featuring a mutant who refers to itself as "they" who lied about being gay on the form and they are celebrating this degenerate liar?

"
bautista, who uses they/them pronouns and the lowercase spelling of their name, recommends including if the sexual acts were consensual or if protection was used. They point out that with the new recommendation, HIV-negative, married men who have sex with only each other are still denied from giving blood.

When bautista first registered to donate in 1999, there was a misunderstanding with the MSM questionnaire; once registered, bautista later received a call that their O-negative blood was needed for a 4-year-old with cancer. Although they were aware that they technically weren’t allowed to donate, and knowing they were HIV negative, bautista chose to lie about their sexual history in order to help the child.

“From then on, any time I received a call for a blood donation, I would donate,” bautista said. “All of the times, it was for children. These kids need it, and for me, that outweighs the discriminatory practice on part of the FDA.”"

No more risky using blood from gay men than straight swingers.

 

[bucs90]

What a faggot

 

[jillian]

Let's see. What's more important? Doing all they can to see that blood that isn't contaminated with a disease is the blood used to "help children"? Or avoiding damage to the tender feelings of gay men?

gays aren't the only ones who get AIDS.

blood should be screened. that has nothing to do with a blanket prohibition to satisfy the delicate feelings of homophobic bigots.

Looks like I am the only one who read the OP article.

probably because it's a useless whining article.

 

[Compost]

Let's see. What's more important? Doing all they can to see that blood that isn't contaminated with a disease is the blood used to "help children"? Or avoiding damage to the tender feelings of gay men?

gays aren't the only ones who get AIDS.

blood should be screened. that has nothing to do with a blanket prohibition to satisfy the delicate feelings of homophobic bigots.

Looks like I am the only one who read the OP article.

probably because it's a useless whining article.

It may well be. The thing is, when the OP discusses something taken from the article, people who comment without having read the details of that article sound very much like useless whiners.