Despite pressure, ban on gay blood donors endures

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Is that documented somehwhere?

Yes

[sandinista! 1,816]

Hello, and welcome to 2013. Where there's nucleic acid testing and other means of pathogen detection in the blood supply that were completely and totally non-existent 30 years ago when those tragedies occurred and the FDA were dragging their heels to do anything about it.

No one is asking for a big gay blood free for all, damn the risk. Anyone, gay or straight who engages in known to be risky behaviors in line with 2013 scientific research and epidemiology WILL BE SCREENED OUT. Duh.

Depending on the reason for being excluded, groups like British people being excluded typically dont whine about it because they're smart enough to know that there's no damn test to detect the infectious agent the FDA is scared of them having. Which is like, totally freaking different from HIV testing in 2013 in various screened groups. And nothing to do with politics.

Edited September 18, 2013 by sandinista!

[Dakine10 5,452]

...how do they know the sexual orientation of the donor?

Can celibate gay men donate?

Can lesbians?

This is weird -- I never knew such a ban exists.

Barring any recent changes, blood donation deferrals are self-deferrals. It is possible for anyone in a deferred group to donate if they don't disclose that fact on the form.

Sometimes they even have a little box you can check on the form that basically says "do not use this blood for transfusion". That was originally put there for people who maybe got pressured into going to donate blood - by friends or a blood drive at work etc., and they don't want to tell everyone why they can't donate blood so they just check that box.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yes

Where?

[GandD 5,966]

Hello, and welcome to 2013. Where there's nucleic acid testing and other means of pathogen detection in the blood supply that were completely and totally non-existent 30 years ago when those tragedies occurred and the FDA were dragging their heels to do anything about it.

No one is asking for a big gay blood free for all, damn the risk. Anyone, gay or straight who engages in known to be risky behaviors in line with 2013 scientific research and epidemiology WILL BE SCREENED OUT. Duh.

Depending on the reason for being excluded, groups like British people being excluded typically dont whine about it because they're smart enough to know that there's no damn test to detect the infectious agent the FDA is scared of them having. Which is like, totally freaking different from HIV testing in 2013 in various screened groups. And nothing to do with politics.

That's devil talk. And coming from a female and Muslim to boot, that's Super Devil talk.

(Hint, Super Devil is on the right)

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Hello, and welcome to 2013. Where there's nucleic acid testing and other means of pathogen detection in the blood supply that were completely and totally non-existent 30 years ago when those tragedies occurred and the FDA were dragging their heels to do anything about it.

No one is asking for a big gay blood free for all, damn the risk. Anyone, gay or straight who engages in known to be risky behaviors in line with 2013 scientific research and epidemiology WILL BE SCREENED OUT. Duh.

Depending on the reason for being excluded, groups like British people being excluded typically dont whine about it because they're smart enough to know that there's no damn test to detect the infectious agent the FDA is scared of them having. Which is like, totally freaking different from HIV testing in 2013 in various screened groups. And nothing to do with politics.

Please do not inject facts into the debate. It confuses them.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Hello, and welcome to 2013. Where there's nucleic acid testing and other means of pathogen detection in the blood supply that were completely and totally non-existent 30 years ago when those tragedies occurred and the FDA were dragging their heels to do anything about it.

No one is asking for a big gay blood free for all, damn the risk. Anyone, gay or straight who engages in known to be risky behaviors in line with 2013 scientific research and epidemiology WILL BE SCREENED OUT. Duh.

Depending on the reason for being excluded, groups like British people being excluded typically dont whine about it because they're smart enough to know that there's no damn test to detect the infectious agent the FDA is scared of them having. Which is like, totally freaking different from HIV testing in 2013 in various screened groups. And nothing to do with politics.

I always love when logic and reason gives fear and misinformation a beatdown.

[sandinista! 1,816]

That's devil talk. And coming from a female and Muslim to boot, that's Super Devil talk.

(Hint, Super Devil is on the right)

Yes! I love capes.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Where?

on da internet

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

on da internet

prove it!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

HIV infection resulting from blood transfusion has been documented repeatedly since the first case report in late 1982. In the United States, almost all cases are due to blood transfused before March 1985, when HIV antibody testing became available to screen donated blood.

In 1995, the risk in the United States of HIV-1 transmission per unit transfused was estimated to be between 1 in 450,000 and 1 in 660,000. By 2003, this estimated risk had decreased to between 1 in 1.4 million and 1 in 1.8 million units.

http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=kb-07-02-09#S2X

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

HIV infection resulting from blood transfusion has been documented repeatedly since the first case report in late 1982. In the United States, almost all cases are due to blood transfused before March 1985, when HIV antibody testing became available to screen donated blood.

In 1995, the risk in the United States of HIV-1 transmission per unit transfused was estimated to be between 1 in 450,000 and 1 in 660,000. By 2003, this estimated risk had decreased to between 1 in 1.4 million and 1 in 1.8 million units.

http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=kb-07-02-09#S2X

thanks

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Hello, and welcome to 2013. Where there's nucleic acid testing and other means of pathogen detection in the blood supply that were completely and totally non-existent 30 years ago when those tragedies occurred and the FDA were dragging their heels to do anything about it.

No one is asking for a big gay blood free for all, damn the risk. Anyone, gay or straight who engages in known to be risky behaviors in line with 2013 scientific research and epidemiology WILL BE SCREENED OUT. Duh.

Depending on the reason for being excluded, groups like British people being excluded typically dont whine about it because they're smart enough to know that there's no damn test to detect the infectious agent the FDA is scared of them having. Which is like, totally freaking different from HIV testing in 2013 in various screened groups. And nothing to do with politics.

Where have you been all my life????

[Danno 1,228]

Is that documented somehwhere?

Ryan White

I guess he was the most famous case, poor kid.

[Dieseltu 19]

Just need some crumphets and we're all set. You would think with all the folks that marry people from different countries, their views would become more open. But I guess you can still hate in categories.

When will people learn that self preservation against known proven risk. And unproven risk to boot. Is a choice. A free choice. A personal right .A Constitutional right. And is not hate.