Federal ban on gay men's blood donation to be reconsidered

This is going to lead to problems with people who have deeply set reservations about homosexuality. They're going to have to be offered the option of refusing blood from a homosexual. In otherwords the blood will have to be labeled "gay blood". There are a lot of people out there that are not going to be pleased if the ban is overturned and will demand such labeling.

Speaking strictly in biological terms: Regardless of your opinions on male homosexuality, it is a high-risk lifestyle to be living. Without being grotesque, some of the actions the males engage in the human body is not necessarily meant to be engaged in. It clearly involves health risks. Yes heterosexual couples engage in such activities too, though not as frequently.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by dbates
The real question of course is, are homosexual males more likely to to be HIV positive than other segments of society?

They may be more likely, but there is also a HELL OF A LOT of heterosexuals with it also.

Or do you think that only homosexual blood shows antibodies after 6 months but heterosexuals show it within the 42 days?

Deny ignorance mod.

Originally posted by mikelee
Stop being being so ignorant and supportive of those who are deviants and get your mind straight people!

How about Stop being such an assinine peanut gallery provocateur hellbent on shaping the world and others around you to fit into Your definition of what is Right and what is Wrong.

Originally posted by mikelee
When was the last time you saw two male deer getting it on?

Or how baout two male otters?

Perhaps two male bears? Get the point people!? In nature it ain't right!

Honestly. Do you really want to go there? ... the avenue of Epic Fail?

Its only right in the minds of those who are wrong.

Here we are back to the Right -vs- Wrong self-dictated fulcrum of morality and judgement Once again.



As previously mentioned, this is Not about lifestyles, personal choices, or a self-perceived/dictated sense or morality (what's right -vs- wrong), it's about a dated ruling that is being reconsidered due to the advancements in modern medical science and screening capabilities. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Give up "The Gay", I say!

Originally posted by dbates
The real question of course is, are homosexual males more likely to to be HIV positive than other segments of society?

A valid question and a damned good point, as there are many Heterosexual individuals who contract HIV from spousal infidelities, involuntary exposure, etc. And they're as susceptible to the 3-6 month period for testing positive as any other.

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by LadySkadi

 

Nature, thats who. And if any of you really have to inquire about that, then I feel more than disappointed be it coming from the ATS society.

When was the last time you saw two male deer getting it on?

Or how baout two male otters?

Perhaps two male bears? Get the point people!? In nature it ain't right!

Its only right in the minds of those who are wrong.

In nature it ain't right?

And I quote....

Source

The Amazon River dolphin or boto has been reported to form up in bands of 3–5 individuals enjoying group sex. The groups usually comprise young males and sometimes one or two females. Sex is performed in non-reproductive ways, using snout, flippers and general rubbing, without regards to gender. They will sometimes perform homosexual penetration of the blowhole, a hole homologous with the nostril of other mammals, making this the only known example of nasal sex in the animal kingdom. The males will sometimes also perform sex with tucuxi males, a small porpoise.

Courtship, mounting, and full anal penetration between bulls has been noted to occur among American Bison. The Mandan nation Okipa festival concludes with a ceremonial enactment of this behavior, to "ensure the return of the buffalo in the coming season." Also, mounting of one female by another is common among cattle.

The Bonobo, which has a matriarchal society, unusual amongst apes, is a fully bisexual species—both males and females engage in heterosexual and homosexual behavior, being noted for female-female homosexuality in particular. About 60% of all sexual activity in this species is between two or more females. While the homosexual bonding system in Bonobos represent the highest frequency of homosexuality known in any species, homosexuality has been reported for all great apes (a group which includes humans), as well as a number of other primate species.

Bottlenose dolphin males have been observed working in pairs or larger groups to follow and/or restrict the movement of a female for weeks at a time, waiting for her to become sexually receptive. The same pairs/groups have also been observed engaging in ardent sexual play with each other.

African and Asiatic males will engage in same-sex bonding and mounting. Such encounters are often associated with affectionate interactions, such as kissing, trunk intertwining, and placing trunks in each other's mouths. Male elephants, who often live apart from the general flock, often form "companionships", consisting of an older individual and one or sometimes two younger, attendant males with sexual behavior being an important part of the social dynamic.

Male giraffes have been observed to engage in remarkably high frequencies of homosexual behavior. After aggressive "necking", it is common for two male giraffes to caress and court each other, leading up to mounting and climax.

Shall I continue?

Originally posted by dbloch7986
This is going to lead to problems with people who have deeply set reservations about homosexuality. They're going to have to be offered the option of refusing blood from a homosexual. In otherwords the blood will have to be labeled "gay blood". There are a lot of people out there that are not going to be pleased if the ban is overturned and will demand such labeling.

And I say to this. Do they label blood "black blood" for the biggots too?

Yes heterosexual couples engage in such activities too, though not as frequently.

I guess you've taken a consesus and will be showing us your results. I won't be holding my breath.

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
All blood collected is screened anyway.

The issue is that it takes up to 6 months before standard tests will show that a person is infected with HIV.


This is a problem because donated blood isn't kept for that long. Most donated red blood cells are used within 42 days. So it's pretty obvious why someone suspected of being at risk for HIV would be banned from donating. A person who was infected with the last 3-6 months may test negative for HIV and their blood donations could infect others.

The real question of course is, are homosexual males more likely to to be HIV positive than other segments of society?

You raise some good points, very important ones. I guess the only answer would be is that anyone who has had unprotected sex/shared a needle, would have to wait until the "incubation" period is over, and supply a test certificate. But then you've got to take into consideration the people who don't tell the truth, for what ever reason.

Also worth noting, for those who think that gay people are more likely to be infected.... Gay people have had "the fear" over HIV and AIDs for a long time. It's been drummed into us to practice safe sex. In gay bars they hand out free condoms to promote safe sex. How many normal bars do that? And straight venues are just as much a meat market as gay venues are. The ammount of mates I've got who've had 1 night stands and not used any protection is getting silly. It's the question I always ask, and I know if they were drunk, then they didn't use one.

You have to understand when this rule was made HIV was the plague of the gay community. This is fact, no matter how you view the gay lifestyle.

Nowadays I think it should be lifted as the technology and awareness has caught up.

Then it was necessary, now not so much.

Originally posted by DaMod
You have to understand when this rule was made HIV was the plague of the gay community. This is fact, no matter how you view the gay lifestyle.

Yes it was. I acknowledge this.

But, today it is NOT just a gay disease. So either not allow ANYONE to donate or lift the ban on homosexuals.

Nowadays I think it should be lifted as the technology and awareness has caught up.

Then it was necessary, now not so much.

100% agree.

Also, for those who still think like they did in the '80's, there is a new test called a PCR test....not antibody. PCR actually detects the virus and not the antibodies.

It is correct within 2 to 3 weeks after donation. Which is well within the 42 days before use.

I am all for gay rights and think gay people should be able to get legally married. However, we must call a spade a spade. While I might not be homophobic, the HIV virus is.

The HIV virus hits gay men at higher rates than the rest of the population. Even though screening tests are in place, they are not 100% effective. If we allow gay people to donate blood, we are increasing the risk of someone getting HIV through a blood transfusion.

Not allowing gay people, IV drug uses, people from southern Africa, and others who are in high risk groups to donate blood makes the blood supply safer. Whether this extra safety precautions outweighs the benefits of having a larger donor pool is a question few of us are qualified to answer.

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
However, we must call a spade a spade. While I might not be homophobic, the HIV virus is.

Tell that to the hundreds of thousands who once thought like you.

Not allowing gay people, IV drug uses, people from southern Africa, and others who are in high risk groups to donate blood makes the blood supply safer.

I agree. But then you need to include heterosexuals as well.

Or don't these people get HIV?

How about banning blacks and hispanics?

Black and Hispanic communities have been disproportionately affected by HIV and AIDS in America. Despite their smaller share of the general population, more black people have been diagnosed with AIDS than white people, and they are far more likely to be diagnosed with HIV and AIDS.

During 2007, 50% of all new HIV diagnoses and 42% of new AIDS diagnoses were in black people yet they comprise around just 13% of the population

For females living with AIDS heterosexual contact accounts for the majority of all infections.

www.avert.org...

Good idea?

Now, I don't discount the high numbers in gay men, but let's be fair here. To ban ONLY homosexuals and drug users isn't going to stop an unwanted infection from occuring while those heterosexuals who have it are allowed to donate.

So, what should it be?

Ban all and screen the blood that somehow does get donated

or

Ban none and screen all blood?

MO is ban none and screen all.

reply to post by Uniceft17


What a crazy idea

I can imagine ppl are being afraid of gay men having 'HIV-infected' blood but I doubt IF ppl in general do know that HCV-infected blood is much more contagious (bout 7 times more) than HIV (or even AIDS) blood.

It still isn't generally know that HCV in all it different forms (HEV & HDV etc) is nowwadys more widespread between people of both sexes than ppl who have HIV, especially in the Western countries.

If someone, gay or not, wants to give blood, first thing to is check their blood on ANY contagious virussen or immune-system defects.

Dont exclude all gay ppl to think they have 'bad blood'. What to think about all them (drug)addicts giving their (often) bad/sick-blood for some bucks that directly go into a drugdealer's pocket?

Make 1 rule: ppl with GOOD blood, blood that has no signs of any HIV, HCV or other immune-system threatning cells, can give blood to help others and NOT to receive money for it!

[edit on 5/26/2010 by Melyanna Tengwesta]

Reply to post by Nutter

Definitely don't hold your breath! I didn't mean to offend.

Let me add some qualifiers:

The lifestyle of the average homosexual male is riskier than the average heterosexual lifestyle. This is excluding drug usage and heavy tattooing and exclusively in the United States. Stricly speaking about sexual activity and not factoring in race or other lifestyle choices.

You can bring race into it. You can bring all kinds of other lifestyle choices into it (e.g. drug use), but the OP is specifically talking about homosexual males. That is, by itself, a riskier lifestyle choice than heterosexuality. I am not going to go off topic because the OP has stated exactly what he wishes the topic to be.

If you want to deny that homosexuality is a riskier lifestyle than heterosexuality, suspending all other factors and only speaking of the sexual orientation, then go check out the CDC facts on HIV. Show me that heterosexuals, purely and only in a sexual setting, suspending all other factors besides their sexual orientation, are at a higher risk for infections than heterosexual males.

Link: www.cdc.gov...


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
All blood collected is screened anyway.

The issue is that it takes up to 6 months before standard tests will show that a person is infected with HIV.

Ninety seven percent will develop antibodies in the first 3 months following the time of their infection. In very rare cases, it can take up to 6 months to develop antibodies to HIV.

www.hivtest.org...

This is a problem because donated blood isn't kept for that long. Most donated red blood cells are used within 42 days. So it's pretty obvious why someone suspected of being at risk for HIV would be banned from donating. A person who was infected with the last 3-6 months may test negative for HIV and their blood donations could infect others.

The real question of course is, are homosexual males more likely to to be HIV positive than other segments of society?

Yes, agreed.
And a star 4 U.
Some of the sexual deviants on this forum will completely ignore the scientific studies that prove how insidious HIV/AIDS really is.
They will continue to spread their delusional aidspeak to justify their lust for the flesh. Even if it causes the demise of others. This is only to satisfy their their selfish desires, and propagate their evil agenda.
I have treated many with HIV/AIDS, toward the end, just before they are completely ravaged by the virus, their last months are agony, like hell on earth. I do Not want to become a walking Petri plate.
Why should we allow someone who has the propensity to infect the blood supply, donate, is beyond rational cognition.

reply to post by Violater1


We've already been through this. Whether homosexuality is deviant or not is not the topic. Please keep to it. See page 1.

Originally posted by Nutter
Also, for those who still think like they did in the '80's, there is a new test called a PCR test....not antibody. PCR actually detects the virus and not the antibodies.

It is correct within 2 to 3 weeks after donation. Which is well within the 42 days before use.

Could you provide a link for that please?

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Nutter
Also, for those who still think like they did in the '80's, there is a new test called a PCR test....not antibody. PCR actually detects the virus and not the antibodies.

It is correct within 2 to 3 weeks after donation. Which is well within the 42 days before use.

Could you provide a link for that please?

I can't find a timeframe, however this informatin..

In the RT-PCR test, viral RNA is extracted from the patient's plasma and is treated with reverse transcriptase (RT) to convert the viral RNA into cDNA. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) process is then applied, using two primers unique to the virus's genome. After PCR amplification is complete, the resulting DNA products are hybridized to specific oligonucleotides bound to the vessel wall, and are then made visible with a probe bound to an enzyme. The amount of virus in the sample can be quantified with sufficient accuracy to detect three-fold changes.

Source

An article on the PCR test itself from wiki seems to indicate the testing process takes a day or so once you have a viable sample...

~Keeper

Here, this is straight from the CDC website:

"Incidence is the number of new HIV infections that occur during a given year.

In 2008, CDC estimated that approximately 56,300 people were newly infected with HIV in 20061  (the most recent year that data are available). Over half (53%) of these new infections occurred in gay and bisexual men. Black/African American men and women were also strongly affected and were estimated to have an incidence rate than was 7 times as high as the incidence rate among whites.

Visit the HIV incidence page for more details.

1Hall HI, Ruiguang S, Rhodes P, et al. Estimation of HIV incidence in the United States. JAMA. 2008;300:520-529."
Source: www.cdc.gov...

All I am saying is that homosexuality is a risky lifestyle. End of story.

I also believe there will be some people fundamentally opposed to receiving blood from homosexuals that will want to know where the blood they receive came from. I did not say I am one of those people.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by intrepid


Sure thing.

You don’t have to wait for 3 months to take a HIV Test. The PCR test can be taken as early as 10 days after exposure to HIV.

The PCR test is very useful to find a very recent infection, determine if an HIV infection is present when antibody test results were uncertain, and screen blood or organs for HIV before donation.

www.hivpcrtest.com.sg...

reply to post by Nutter


As early as 10 days after exposure? That's pretty damn good. We need a medical doctor in here to explain how HIV infects the body. Exposure to diagnosis. That would help a lot. Like say if a person had sex with an HIV infected person the night before donating blood, what about that? Or any given time frame. Sure we could Google but then there are follow up questions. Need a Doc.