gay dudes can't give blood?

[xalos]

It takes up to 3 months for HIV to be detectable in the blood. So, they still use the law of probability. If you were engaging in risky behavior recently the blood tests might not show your recent HIV exposure but the blood is still tainted.

 

[Zolty]

Even with the use of condoms anal sex carries a higher infection rate.

 

[Sea Moose]

you poke a guy in the arm and green slime comes out, you know you have got a gay

 

[TheFamilyMan]

Originally posted by: Safeway

Originally posted by: Platypus

Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan

Originally posted by: Platypus

not all gay people carry HIV, cunty.

Is that all you can comeback with, Tinkerbell? I've seen that little response twice now in the same thread...Unfortunately there's a little thing called statistics that exist. Statistics show that although not all gay people carry HIV, a large percentage of HIV-carriers are gay. Many are intravenous drug users as well. They don't let IV drug users donate either...same statistical theory applied there that is applied with gays.

Don't get all butthurt that statistics and science prove that allowing gay men to donate blood has a significant possiblity of increasing risks of catching HIV to people who may need a blood transfusion.

Get over it...

Wow it's been awhile since we've had a visit from TheBigotMan, I'm honored!

Don't come crying when you or your family need a transfusion and the blood bank is out because they've eliminated a giant donation pool. My response was to a poster that claimed all gay people carry AIDS and taken out of context not only makes no sense, it makes you look like a fucking idiot who can't read.

Crawl back in your hole please.

In his defense, it is not a giant donation pool. Other than that, he is a fucking bigot.

Wow, Assway, what in my post was bigoted? Douche-bag. Nothing. Why don't you and Platypussy and KY1052 go get a room somewhere...always attacking when something doesn't fit your cry-me-a-river, discriminated-against, woe-is-me viewpoint. Lawlz...internetz tough girls...

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: mcmilljb
I think the rule is stupid if they test every pint any way. Hell if you show up with a negative HIV test not older than 30 days, you should be allowed to donate.

:facepalm;

Ever heard of incubation period? Or the fact that HIV is a retrovirus and can remain inactive in the host for years? False negatives do occur, and that chance is much higher in the listed high-risk populations.

Someone please get an actuary in here to explain...

 

[paulney]

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

Originally posted by: mcmilljb
I think the rule is stupid if they test every pint any way. Hell if you show up with a negative HIV test not older than 30 days, you should be allowed to donate.

:facepalm;

Ever heard of incubation period? Or the fact that HIV is a retrovirus and can remain inactive in the host for years? False negatives do occur, and that chance is much higher in the listed high-risk populations.

Someone please get an actuary in here to explain...

Don't let the facts get in the way of a gay agenda.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

Originally posted by: mcmilljb
I think the rule is stupid if they test every pint any way. Hell if you show up with a negative HIV test not older than 30 days, you should be allowed to donate.

:facepalm;

Ever heard of incubation period? Or the fact that HIV is a retrovirus and can remain inactive in the host for years? False negatives do occur, and that chance is much higher in the listed high-risk populations.

Someone please get an actuary in here to explain...

HIV can easily be detected during the incubation period or during latency.

 

[mcmilljb]

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

Originally posted by: mcmilljb
I think the rule is stupid if they test every pint any way. Hell if you show up with a negative HIV test not older than 30 days, you should be allowed to donate.

:facepalm;

Ever heard of incubation period? Or the fact that HIV is a retrovirus and can remain inactive in the host for years? False negatives do occur, and that chance is much higher in the listed high-risk populations.

Someone please get an actuary in here to explain...

Ummm that's when symptoms occur. Antibodies will be found much earlier than that. This is why we do testing because some people would never know for years before getting symptoms.

The CDC has some interesting facts for you. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/.../qa/be_tested.htm#wait

 

[paulney]

Whole blood is stored for 42 days only. Not enough time for a negative HIV test (don't confuse with positive), which take 3 months.

 

[mcmilljb]

Originally posted by: paulney

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

Originally posted by: mcmilljb
I think the rule is stupid if they test every pint any way. Hell if you show up with a negative HIV test not older than 30 days, you should be allowed to donate.

:facepalm;

Ever heard of incubation period? Or the fact that HIV is a retrovirus and can remain inactive in the host for years? False negatives do occur, and that chance is much higher in the listed high-risk populations.

Someone please get an actuary in here to explain...

Don't let the facts get in the way of a gay agenda.

The fact they can get tested and confirm they do not have AIDS? The questionaire is based on the honor system any ways. A gay guy could go in there and lie, and no one would ever know. My proposal is based on FACTS. Could we make it longer? Sure. You can't really argue with CDC facts though.

 

[paulney]

Originally posted by: mcmilljb

Originally posted by: paulney

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

Originally posted by: mcmilljb
I think the rule is stupid if they test every pint any way. Hell if you show up with a negative HIV test not older than 30 days, you should be allowed to donate.

:facepalm;

Ever heard of incubation period? Or the fact that HIV is a retrovirus and can remain inactive in the host for years? False negatives do occur, and that chance is much higher in the listed high-risk populations.

Someone please get an actuary in here to explain...

Don't let the facts get in the way of a gay agenda.

The fact they can get tested and confirm they do not have AIDS? The questionaire is based on the honor system any ways. A gay guy could go in there and lie, and no one would ever know. My proposal is based on FACTS. Could we make it longer? Sure. You can't really argue with CDC facts though.

That's the problem: they can't confirm it in the period that donated whole blood is good for. Yes, it's an honor system, and please don't screw it up just because you feel you should donate even though you engage in extremely risky behavior.

 

[Sea Moose]

so they basically saying that if you engage in anal sex, you cannot donate blood. Does this include women who take it up the pooper?

 

[mcmilljb]

Originally posted by: paulney

Originally posted by: mcmilljb

Originally posted by: paulney

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

Originally posted by: mcmilljb
I think the rule is stupid if they test every pint any way. Hell if you show up with a negative HIV test not older than 30 days, you should be allowed to donate.

:facepalm;

Ever heard of incubation period? Or the fact that HIV is a retrovirus and can remain inactive in the host for years? False negatives do occur, and that chance is much higher in the listed high-risk populations.

Someone please get an actuary in here to explain...

Don't let the facts get in the way of a gay agenda.

The fact they can get tested and confirm they do not have AIDS? The questionaire is based on the honor system any ways. A gay guy could go in there and lie, and no one would ever know. My proposal is based on FACTS. Could we make it longer? Sure. You can't really argue with CDC facts though.

That's the problem: they can't confirm it in the period that donated whole blood is good for. Yes, it's an honor system, and please don't screw it up just because you feel you should donate even though you engage in extremely risky behavior.

I'm not gay you presumptuous dumbass, but I am sticking up for people who want to help save people's lives.

They would have to do their HIV test ahead of time. Duh! That's why I said if they show up with a negative test. Adjust the date of the test however you want. If a gay person says they're in a monogamous relationship and passes the test, there is no reason the person should not be allowed to donate according to information provided by the CDC.

 

[paulney]

Originally posted by: Sea Moose
so they basically saying that if you engage in anal sex, you cannot donate blood. Does this include women who take it up the pooper?

Do you do it with five-dollar crack whores every Saturday night?

 

[Sea Moose]

Originally posted by: paulney

Originally posted by: Sea Moose
so they basically saying that if you engage in anal sex, you cannot donate blood. Does this include women who take it up the pooper?

Do you do it with five-dollar crack whores every Saturday night?

yes

 

[paulney]

Originally posted by: mcmilljb

I'm not gay you presumptuous dumbass, but I am sticking up for people who want to help save people's lives.

They would have to do their HIV test ahead of time. Duh! That's why I said if they show up with a negative test. Adjust the date of the test however you want. If a gay person says they're in a monogamous relationship and passes the test, there is no reason the person should not be allowed to donate according to information provided by the CDC.

Ooooh, what's wrong? Is being gay bad that you reacted in such a way? I thought it was honorable.

So what if they do it in advance. They do a test 2 months in advance. Then they catch AIDS within that period and go donate. How does the test help?

 

[novasatori]

Originally posted by: mcmilljb

Originally posted by: paulney

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

Originally posted by: mcmilljb
I think the rule is stupid if they test every pint any way. Hell if you show up with a negative HIV test not older than 30 days, you should be allowed to donate.

:facepalm;

Ever heard of incubation period? Or the fact that HIV is a retrovirus and can remain inactive in the host for years? False negatives do occur, and that chance is much higher in the listed high-risk populations.

Someone please get an actuary in here to explain...

Don't let the facts get in the way of a gay agenda.

The fact they can get tested and confirm they do not have AIDS? The questionaire is based on the honor system any ways. A gay guy could go in there and lie, and no one would ever know. My proposal is based on FACTS. Could we make it longer? Sure. You can't really argue with CDC facts though.

CDC facts also say tested homosexual males are 10x (3,320 positive in 12,593) more likely to have HIV than heterosexual men & women combined (4,655 positive in 198,861)

I don't get what the issue is here, its a completely rational logic to keep high risk individuals from donating blood, its not a sleight against homosexuals, its just a fact that on average, those who choose that sexual lifestyle are at higher risk.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
What amdhunter said is true; the stigma against gay men giving blood is based entirely around the spread of HIV within the gay community since anal sex is the most likely to transmit the virus. It's a stupid policy, since straight people can get HIV too, but that's not going to stop the Red Cross from continuing their ridiculous policy (blood has to be screened for HIV regardless, and in a time where they are always saying they need more blood, you'd think they'd take anyone who was willing to donate).

-EDIT- Didn't realize it was FDA policy. That makes it even stupider...

If they screen for HIV anyway then I don't see any reason why a gay man could not donate blood. 😕

No test is 100% accurate. It's all about minimizing risk

 

[paulney]

Originally posted by: Sea Moose

Originally posted by: paulney

Originally posted by: Sea Moose
so they basically saying that if you engage in anal sex, you cannot donate blood. Does this include women who take it up the pooper?

Do you do it with five-dollar crack whores every Saturday night?

yes

You are out! But thanks for playing.

 

[Adam8281]

It is always amazing and disturbing to see people bend facts to fit ideology. Those of you advocating letting active homosexuals donate blood: would you eliminate screening of IV drug users and those who have recently visited prostitutes? Does the fact that we have HIV tests mean that we should no longer practice any initial screening, but should simply throw open the floodgates to all blood and let the test sort everything out? This thread is full of anti-factual PC ideology, yet I wonder if many of the posters clamoring for allowing donation from practicing homosexuals wouldn't also be clamoring for "more safety measures" if they happened to receive tainted blood. We've all heard of accidental contamination from transfusions. Don't you think it makes more sense to tend towards greater safety measures than simply letting everything hinge on the test?

 

[paulney]

Any of the people advocating letting gay people donate blood would be screaming bloody murder if any of their relatives contracted HIV through blood transfusion during the surgery.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: Adam8281
It is always amazing and disturbing to see people bend facts to fit ideology. Those of you advocating letting active homosexuals donate blood: would you eliminate screening of IV drug users and those who have recently visited prostitutes? Does the fact that we have HIV tests mean that we should no longer practice any initial screening, but should simply throw open the floodgates to all blood and let the test sort everything out? This thread is full of anti-factual PC ideology, yet I wonder if many of the posters clamoring for allowing donation from practicing homosexuals wouldn't also be clamoring for "more safety measures" if they happened to receive tainted blood. We've all heard of accidental contamination from transfusions. Don't you think it makes more sense to tend towards greater safety measures than simply letting everything hinge on the test?

Shh, people don't like reason around here. 😉

Now, how many flamebait, nef, and wtf posts should I make to compensate for this one?

 

[rudeguy]

Originally posted by: paulney
Any of the people advocating letting gay people donate blood would be screaming bloody murder if any of their relatives contracted HIV through blood transfusion during the surgery.

Having gay sex does not mean you have AIDS. They test the blood. I would venture that the is a greater possibility of the doctor removing the wrong part of your relative than getting AIDS from someone who had buttseks with another dude.

I just think its dumb.

 

[DougoMan]

OK let's take gay blood. And reserve it for gay patients.

Sounds fair to me. Or we could pull out the gay blood for emergencies when we are all out of good blood. Have patients sign a consent form.

 

[Sea Moose]

Originally posted by: DougoMan
OK let's take gay blood. And reserve it for gay patients.

Sounds fair to me. Or we could pull out the gay blood for emergencies when we are all out of good blood. Have patients sign a consent form.

what r u gonna do when straights turn into zombies after accepting gay blood?