Why "gay's blood" doesn't help?

[rdean]

Why do disease ridden faggots want to donate blood to normal people? ......

They give blood to you and your not normal.

 

[Jarlaxle]

News flash: gays have been donating blood for years. How? Simple: they lie.

 

[Flopper]

News flash: gays have been donating blood for years. How? Simple: they lie.

And The last known case of HIV transmission from a blood transfusion was in 2002. Since then there has been over 50 million blood transfusions in the US. You are far more likely to be struck by lighting than to contract HIV through a blood transfusion.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Like we're supposed to go by the honor system regarding how recently a homo packed fudge? All this does is slow down the screening process while making it cost more all in the name of appeasing the extortion of the homofascist agenda.

The only thing you can rely on is the testing of blood. Screening by questionnaire is unreliable because you don't know if the information is accurate. The donor may have lied or the donor may be a heterosexual who has had sex with an infected person, either homosexual or heterosexual.

That's my point. If they admit they're homo male you disallow any donations and you don't have to test those results because there won't be any to test. It simplifies the process and is less expensive.

Someone on the streets selling their blood for $25 is going to admit there're homosexual and be rejected? Not gonna happen. The purpose of screening is to eliminate donations that would be rejected when the blood is tested. It simply reduces costs. The safeguard is the blood testing, not the screenings.

To the extent that any admit it, time and money is saved. If it is not asked then that option is moot and that time and money can't be saved.

 

[Flopper]

Like we're supposed to go by the honor system regarding how recently a homo packed fudge? All this does is slow down the screening process while making it cost more all in the name of appeasing the extortion of the homofascist agenda.

The only thing you can rely on is the testing of blood. Screening by questionnaire is unreliable because you don't know if the information is accurate. The donor may have lied or the donor may be a heterosexual who has had sex with an infected person, either homosexual or heterosexual.

That's my point. If they admit they're homo male you disallow any donations and you don't have to test those results because there won't be any to test. It simplifies the process and is less expensive.

Someone on the streets selling their blood for $25 is going to admit there're homosexual and be rejected? Not gonna happen. The purpose of screening is to eliminate donations that would be rejected when the blood is tested. It simply reduces costs. The safeguard is the blood testing, not the screenings.

To the extent that any admit it, time and money is saved. If it is not asked then that option is moot and that time and money can't be saved.

Well, they are still going to ask, but the question is going to be did they have sex with a man in the last 12 months. I doubt that there will be any significant difference in cost since the blood is tested in batches. Plus they will probably get additional donations.

All this ignores the fact that unprotected vaginal intercourse is the most common mode of HIV infection today and there's no screening going to detect that.

 

[jon_berzerk]

A decision by the Food and Drug Administration to move forward with a plan to allow “men who have sex with men” to donate blood under certain conditions amounts to caving to a social and political agenda, according to the Family Research Council.
“Research presented to the committee confirmed the dramatically elevated risk of HIV infection among men who have sex with men (MSM) — a risk 62 times higher than in the general public,” said Peter Sprigg, FRC senior fellow for policy studies, on Tuesday.
Blood-donor rules bent by 8216 politics 8217

Did you miss that part where they can't have had sex in a year?

Yes, i did. I've provided you with the link. Are you more concerned about the missed passage or the whole problem? Gay couple can't help people with their blood and you speak about a year-ban for sex. Just a nonsense!!

The vast majority of them are not going to be able donate blood because of that.

But, I got your number. We're done.

no one in their right mind would believe anyone regardless of sexual preference

about a self imposed sex ban

--LOL

testing of the blood after collection is key

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Like we're supposed to go by the honor system regarding how recently a homo packed fudge? All this does is slow down the screening process while making it cost more all in the name of appeasing the extortion of the homofascist agenda.

The only thing you can rely on is the testing of blood. Screening by questionnaire is unreliable because you don't know if the information is accurate. The donor may have lied or the donor may be a heterosexual who has had sex with an infected person, either homosexual or heterosexual.

That's my point. If they admit they're homo male you disallow any donations and you don't have to test those results because there won't be any to test. It simplifies the process and is less expensive.

Someone on the streets selling their blood for $25 is going to admit there're homosexual and be rejected? Not gonna happen. The purpose of screening is to eliminate donations that would be rejected when the blood is tested. It simply reduces costs. The safeguard is the blood testing, not the screenings.

To the extent that any admit it, time and money is saved. If it is not asked then that option is moot and that time and money can't be saved.

Well, they are still going to ask, but the question is going to be did they have sex with a man in the last 12 months. I doubt that there will be any significant difference in cost since the blood is tested in batches. Plus they will probably get additional donations.

All this ignores the fact that unprotected vaginal intercourse is the most common mode of HIV infection today and there's no screening going to detect that.

Wrong. Male-on-male sex is way more of a risk than any other mode. The sad part is that you have to do the CDC research yourself to find that out. The homofascist agenda and its buds in the mainstream media make a point to keep that reality obscured.

 

[Politico]

A decision by the Food and Drug Administration to move forward with a plan to allow “men who have sex with men” to donate blood under certain conditions amounts to caving to a social and political agenda, according to the Family Research Council.
“Research presented to the committee confirmed the dramatically elevated risk of HIV infection among men who have sex with men (MSM) — a risk 62 times higher than in the general public,” said Peter Sprigg, FRC senior fellow for policy studies, on Tuesday.
Blood-donor rules bent by 8216 politics 8217

Did you miss that part where they can't have had sex in a year?

No he just hates gay people.

 

[Disir]

A decision by the Food and Drug Administration to move forward with a plan to allow “men who have sex with men” to donate blood under certain conditions amounts to caving to a social and political agenda, according to the Family Research Council.
“Research presented to the committee confirmed the dramatically elevated risk of HIV infection among men who have sex with men (MSM) — a risk 62 times higher than in the general public,” said Peter Sprigg, FRC senior fellow for policy studies, on Tuesday.
Blood-donor rules bent by 8216 politics 8217

Did you miss that part where they can't have had sex in a year?

Yes, i did. I've provided you with the link. Are you more concerned about the missed passage or the whole problem? Gay couple can't help people with their blood and you speak about a year-ban for sex. Just a nonsense!!

The vast majority of them are not going to be able donate blood because of that.

But, I got your number. We're done.

no one in their right mind would believe anyone regardless of sexual preference

about a self imposed sex ban

--LOL

testing of the blood after collection is key

Obviously testing is key.

 

[Disir]

A decision by the Food and Drug Administration to move forward with a plan to allow “men who have sex with men” to donate blood under certain conditions amounts to caving to a social and political agenda, according to the Family Research Council.
“Research presented to the committee confirmed the dramatically elevated risk of HIV infection among men who have sex with men (MSM) — a risk 62 times higher than in the general public,” said Peter Sprigg, FRC senior fellow for policy studies, on Tuesday.
Blood-donor rules bent by 8216 politics 8217

Did you miss that part where they can't have had sex in a year?

No he just hates gay people.

Yep.

 

[Flopper]

Like we're supposed to go by the honor system regarding how recently a homo packed fudge? All this does is slow down the screening process while making it cost more all in the name of appeasing the extortion of the homofascist agenda.

The only thing you can rely on is the testing of blood. Screening by questionnaire is unreliable because you don't know if the information is accurate. The donor may have lied or the donor may be a heterosexual who has had sex with an infected person, either homosexual or heterosexual.

That's my point. If they admit they're homo male you disallow any donations and you don't have to test those results because there won't be any to test. It simplifies the process and is less expensive.

Someone on the streets selling their blood for $25 is going to admit there're homosexual and be rejected? Not gonna happen. The purpose of screening is to eliminate donations that would be rejected when the blood is tested. It simply reduces costs. The safeguard is the blood testing, not the screenings.

To the extent that any admit it, time and money is saved. If it is not asked then that option is moot and that time and money can't be saved.

Well, they are still going to ask, but the question is going to be did they have sex with a man in the last 12 months. I doubt that there will be any significant difference in cost since the blood is tested in batches. Plus they will probably get additional donations.

The only thing you can rely on is the testing of blood. Screening by questionnaire is unreliable because you don't know if the information is accurate. The donor may have lied or the donor may be a heterosexual who has had sex with an infected person, either homosexual or heterosexual.

That's my point. If they admit they're homo male you disallow any donations and you don't have to test those results because there won't be any to test. It simplifies the process and is less expensive.

Someone on the streets selling their blood for $25 is going to admit there're homosexual and be rejected? Not gonna happen. The purpose of screening is to eliminate donations that would be rejected when the blood is tested. It simply reduces costs. The safeguard is the blood testing, not the screenings.

To the extent that any admit it, time and money is saved. If it is not asked then that option is moot and that time and money can't be saved.

Well, they are still going to ask, but the question is going to be did they have sex with a man in the last 12 months. I doubt that there will be any significant difference in cost since the blood is tested in batches. Plus they will probably get additional donations.

All this ignores the fact that unprotected vaginal intercourse is the most common mode of HIV infection today and there's no screening going to detect that.

Wrong. Male-on-male sex is way more of a risk than any other mode. The sad part is that you have to do the CDC research yourself to find that out. The homofascist agenda and its buds in the mainstream media make a point to keep that reality obscured.

Worldwide, vaginal intercourse is the primary means of transmission. In the US, the primary means is homosexual sex, 30,695 in 2012. The second most common means is vaginal intercourse, 12,150 in 2012.

 

[daws101]

US to lift lifetime ban on blood donations from gay men

December 23, 2014 2:25 PM

• 
• 
• 
• 

Content preferences
Done

.
View photo
A medical volunteer (L) checks a blood bag after a rally on the observation of National Voluntary Blood Donation Day in Hyderabad on October 1, 2013 (AFP Photo/Noah Seelam)
Washington (AFP) - The US Food and Drug Administration said Tuesday it will move to ease a lifetime ban on blood donations from homosexual men, allowing them to give after a year of abstaining from sexual activity.
The FDA said it made the decision after reviewing scientific evidence in recent years regarding its blood donor policy for homosexual males.
"The agency will take the necessary steps to recommend a change to the blood donor deferral period for men who have sex with men from indefinite deferral to one year since the last sexual contact," said a statement from FDA Director Margaret Hamburg.
The agency said it will recommend the policy change in 2015 and that it will be subject to public feedback before it is finalized.
A growing number of medical and legal experts have argued that the existing restrictions are outdated, and that sophisticated tests for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) exist that can make blood donation by gay men a much safer practice.

US to lift lifetime ban on blood donations from gay men - Yahoo News

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The only thing you can rely on is the testing of blood. Screening by questionnaire is unreliable because you don't know if the information is accurate. The donor may have lied or the donor may be a heterosexual who has had sex with an infected person, either homosexual or heterosexual.

That's my point. If they admit they're homo male you disallow any donations and you don't have to test those results because there won't be any to test. It simplifies the process and is less expensive.

Someone on the streets selling their blood for $25 is going to admit there're homosexual and be rejected? Not gonna happen. The purpose of screening is to eliminate donations that would be rejected when the blood is tested. It simply reduces costs. The safeguard is the blood testing, not the screenings.

To the extent that any admit it, time and money is saved. If it is not asked then that option is moot and that time and money can't be saved.

Well, they are still going to ask, but the question is going to be did they have sex with a man in the last 12 months. I doubt that there will be any significant difference in cost since the blood is tested in batches. Plus they will probably get additional donations.

That's my point. If they admit they're homo male you disallow any donations and you don't have to test those results because there won't be any to test. It simplifies the process and is less expensive.

Someone on the streets selling their blood for $25 is going to admit there're homosexual and be rejected? Not gonna happen. The purpose of screening is to eliminate donations that would be rejected when the blood is tested. It simply reduces costs. The safeguard is the blood testing, not the screenings.

To the extent that any admit it, time and money is saved. If it is not asked then that option is moot and that time and money can't be saved.

Well, they are still going to ask, but the question is going to be did they have sex with a man in the last 12 months. I doubt that there will be any significant difference in cost since the blood is tested in batches. Plus they will probably get additional donations.

All this ignores the fact that unprotected vaginal intercourse is the most common mode of HIV infection today and there's no screening going to detect that.

Wrong. Male-on-male sex is way more of a risk than any other mode. The sad part is that you have to do the CDC research yourself to find that out. The homofascist agenda and its buds in the mainstream media make a point to keep that reality obscured.

Worldwide, vaginal intercourse is the primary means of transmission. In the US, the primary means is homosexual sex, 30,695 in 2012. The second most common means is vaginal intercourse, 12,150 in 2012.

I was referring to US transmission, that's why I mentioned the CDC.
If you factor in those numbers with the percentage of women vs the percentage of homo males you'll see why the real problem still vastly lies with male homos. All other rationale is a smokescreen.

 

[Flopper]

That's my point. If they admit they're homo male you disallow any donations and you don't have to test those results because there won't be any to test. It simplifies the process and is less expensive.

Someone on the streets selling their blood for $25 is going to admit there're homosexual and be rejected? Not gonna happen. The purpose of screening is to eliminate donations that would be rejected when the blood is tested. It simply reduces costs. The safeguard is the blood testing, not the screenings.

To the extent that any admit it, time and money is saved. If it is not asked then that option is moot and that time and money can't be saved.

Well, they are still going to ask, but the question is going to be did they have sex with a man in the last 12 months. I doubt that there will be any significant difference in cost since the blood is tested in batches. Plus they will probably get additional donations.

Someone on the streets selling their blood for $25 is going to admit there're homosexual and be rejected? Not gonna happen. The purpose of screening is to eliminate donations that would be rejected when the blood is tested. It simply reduces costs. The safeguard is the blood testing, not the screenings.

To the extent that any admit it, time and money is saved. If it is not asked then that option is moot and that time and money can't be saved.

Well, they are still going to ask, but the question is going to be did they have sex with a man in the last 12 months. I doubt that there will be any significant difference in cost since the blood is tested in batches. Plus they will probably get additional donations.

All this ignores the fact that unprotected vaginal intercourse is the most common mode of HIV infection today and there's no screening going to detect that.

Wrong. Male-on-male sex is way more of a risk than any other mode. The sad part is that you have to do the CDC research yourself to find that out. The homofascist agenda and its buds in the mainstream media make a point to keep that reality obscured.

Worldwide, vaginal intercourse is the primary means of transmission. In the US, the primary means is homosexual sex, 30,695 in 2012. The second most common means is vaginal intercourse, 12,150 in 2012.

I was referring to US transmission, that's why I mentioned the CDC.
If you factor in those numbers with the percentage of women vs the percentage of homo males you'll see why the real problem still vastly lies with male homos. All other rationale is a smokescreen.

And you believe changing a screening question on a questionnaire asking if a person is a homosexual male to homosexual sex in the last the 12 months is going to increase the spread of aids? Over the last 12 years of testing over 50 million units of blood, not a single person has contracted aids due to a transfusion, This was not because of a ban on male homosexuals but rather the advanced testing we started in the late 1990's. Prior to that time we had the lifetime band but were still getting some infections due to transfusions.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Someone on the streets selling their blood for $25 is going to admit there're homosexual and be rejected? Not gonna happen. The purpose of screening is to eliminate donations that would be rejected when the blood is tested. It simply reduces costs. The safeguard is the blood testing, not the screenings.

To the extent that any admit it, time and money is saved. If it is not asked then that option is moot and that time and money can't be saved.

Well, they are still going to ask, but the question is going to be did they have sex with a man in the last 12 months. I doubt that there will be any significant difference in cost since the blood is tested in batches. Plus they will probably get additional donations.

To the extent that any admit it, time and money is saved. If it is not asked then that option is moot and that time and money can't be saved.

Well, they are still going to ask, but the question is going to be did they have sex with a man in the last 12 months. I doubt that there will be any significant difference in cost since the blood is tested in batches. Plus they will probably get additional donations.

All this ignores the fact that unprotected vaginal intercourse is the most common mode of HIV infection today and there's no screening going to detect that.

Wrong. Male-on-male sex is way more of a risk than any other mode. The sad part is that you have to do the CDC research yourself to find that out. The homofascist agenda and its buds in the mainstream media make a point to keep that reality obscured.

Worldwide, vaginal intercourse is the primary means of transmission. In the US, the primary means is homosexual sex, 30,695 in 2012. The second most common means is vaginal intercourse, 12,150 in 2012.

I was referring to US transmission, that's why I mentioned the CDC.
If you factor in those numbers with the percentage of women vs the percentage of homo males you'll see why the real problem still vastly lies with male homos. All other rationale is a smokescreen.

And you believe changing a screening question on a questionnaire asking if a person is a homosexual male to homosexual sex in the last the 12 months is going to increase the spread of aids? Over the last 12 years of testing over 50 million units of blood, not a single person has contracted aids due to a transfusion, This was not because of a ban on male homosexuals but rather the advanced testing we started in the late 1990's. Prior to that time we had the lifetime band but were still getting some infections due to transfusions.

Asking if someone is homo male reduces the amount of blood that needs to be tested, reducing cost.

 

[Flopper]

To the extent that any admit it, time and money is saved. If it is not asked then that option is moot and that time and money can't be saved.

Well, they are still going to ask, but the question is going to be did they have sex with a man in the last 12 months. I doubt that there will be any significant difference in cost since the blood is tested in batches. Plus they will probably get additional donations.

Well, they are still going to ask, but the question is going to be did they have sex with a man in the last 12 months. I doubt that there will be any significant difference in cost since the blood is tested in batches. Plus they will probably get additional donations.

All this ignores the fact that unprotected vaginal intercourse is the most common mode of HIV infection today and there's no screening going to detect that.

Wrong. Male-on-male sex is way more of a risk than any other mode. The sad part is that you have to do the CDC research yourself to find that out. The homofascist agenda and its buds in the mainstream media make a point to keep that reality obscured.

Worldwide, vaginal intercourse is the primary means of transmission. In the US, the primary means is homosexual sex, 30,695 in 2012. The second most common means is vaginal intercourse, 12,150 in 2012.

I was referring to US transmission, that's why I mentioned the CDC.
If you factor in those numbers with the percentage of women vs the percentage of homo males you'll see why the real problem still vastly lies with male homos. All other rationale is a smokescreen.

And you believe changing a screening question on a questionnaire asking if a person is a homosexual male to homosexual sex in the last the 12 months is going to increase the spread of aids? Over the last 12 years of testing over 50 million units of blood, not a single person has contracted aids due to a transfusion, This was not because of a ban on male homosexuals but rather the advanced testing we started in the late 1990's. Prior to that time we had the lifetime band but were still getting some infections due to transfusions.

Asking if someone is homo male reduces the amount of blood that needs to be tested, reducing cost.

Possibly a bit. However, increased donations from gays that were previously banned may well offset any cost savings.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Well, they are still going to ask, but the question is going to be did they have sex with a man in the last 12 months. I doubt that there will be any significant difference in cost since the blood is tested in batches. Plus they will probably get additional donations.

Wrong. Male-on-male sex is way more of a risk than any other mode. The sad part is that you have to do the CDC research yourself to find that out. The homofascist agenda and its buds in the mainstream media make a point to keep that reality obscured.

Worldwide, vaginal intercourse is the primary means of transmission. In the US, the primary means is homosexual sex, 30,695 in 2012. The second most common means is vaginal intercourse, 12,150 in 2012.

I was referring to US transmission, that's why I mentioned the CDC.
If you factor in those numbers with the percentage of women vs the percentage of homo males you'll see why the real problem still vastly lies with male homos. All other rationale is a smokescreen.

And you believe changing a screening question on a questionnaire asking if a person is a homosexual male to homosexual sex in the last the 12 months is going to increase the spread of aids? Over the last 12 years of testing over 50 million units of blood, not a single person has contracted aids due to a transfusion, This was not because of a ban on male homosexuals but rather the advanced testing we started in the late 1990's. Prior to that time we had the lifetime band but were still getting some infections due to transfusions.

Asking if someone is homo male reduces the amount of blood that needs to be tested, reducing cost.

Possibly a bit. However, increased donations from gays that were previously banned may well offset any cost savings.

That's my point. Allowing homo male donations offsets cost savings because it will cost more.

 

[daws101]

Worldwide, vaginal intercourse is the primary means of transmission. In the US, the primary means is homosexual sex, 30,695 in 2012. The second most common means is vaginal intercourse, 12,150 in 2012.

I was referring to US transmission, that's why I mentioned the CDC.
If you factor in those numbers with the percentage of women vs the percentage of homo males you'll see why the real problem still vastly lies with male homos. All other rationale is a smokescreen.

And you believe changing a screening question on a questionnaire asking if a person is a homosexual male to homosexual sex in the last the 12 months is going to increase the spread of aids? Over the last 12 years of testing over 50 million units of blood, not a single person has contracted aids due to a transfusion, This was not because of a ban on male homosexuals but rather the advanced testing we started in the late 1990's. Prior to that time we had the lifetime band but were still getting some infections due to transfusions.

Asking if someone is homo male reduces the amount of blood that needs to be tested, reducing cost.

Possibly a bit. However, increased donations from gays that were previously banned may well offset any cost savings.

That's my point. Allowing homo male donations offsets cost savings because it will cost more.

bullshit! the tests have to be done anyway..

 

[Treeshepherd]

MSM refers to men who have sex with men.
"Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections. MSM accounted for 54% of all people living with HIV infection in 2011, the most recent year these data are available. "
-CDC

That's astounding to have such a tiny segment of the population getting so much of the AIDS, and HIV among MSM is on the rise.

I wonder if they cover that reality in sex ed class these days? Or, maybe it's considered insensitive and a form of bullying to do so.

Around the world, people get HIV from blood transfusions. Here in the US, cases are very rare (1 in 2 million chance). But, lab screeners do make the occasional error, and you'd have to assume that lifting the ban on homos would result in cases becoming slightly less rare.

 

[Political Junky]

A decision by the Food and Drug Administration to move forward with a plan to allow “men who have sex with men” to donate blood under certain conditions amounts to caving to a social and political agenda, according to the Family Research Council.
“Research presented to the committee confirmed the dramatically elevated risk of HIV infection among men who have sex with men (MSM) — a risk 62 times higher than in the general public,” said Peter Sprigg, FRC senior fellow for policy studies, on Tuesday.
Blood-donor rules bent by 8216 politics 8217

How does the Family Research Council feel about men who have sex with hookers donating blood? Or women who have sex with male hookers? Is that your husband or wife?