It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbloch7986
If you want to deny that homosexuality is a riskier lifestyle than heterosexuality, suspending all other factors and only speaking of the sexual orientation,


I never denied homosexuality is riskier than heterosexuals when it comes to HIV. Reread my post.


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...


These numbers do not clearly say "homosexual men".

They say "men who have sex with men". What's the difference you say? A lot. MSM includes all prison sex (not homosexuals in a normal setting....and where a lot of minority women are getting it from), and men on the DL (down low). DL men identify as heterosexual but have sex with other men in places like parks etc. where most of it is unprotected.

So, let's be honest and just say that the most risky sex (hetero and homo) is unprotected sex. OK?




posted on May, 26 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uniceft17

This law or rule or whatever you want to call it has the ignorance from the 80's written all over it




Fail!
It is the ignorance of anyone who believes that this ban should be lifted!
The AVERAGE time for HIV antibodies to appear is 25 days.
www.redcross.org...
And according to Scientific American,” up to 47 percent of all HIV infections (62 percent in men) are still transmitted through male-male sexual contact, according to CDC statistics from 2007.”
www.scientificamerican.com...
Multiple studies continue to this day, nothing has changed!
Scientific American continues to state,” that as many as 7,200 transfusion recipients could have received infected blood components.”
www.scientificamerican.com...
Additionally, The American Red Cross does have a one-year ban implemented for heterosexuals with multiple partners.
www.scientificamerican.com...
No stars and no Flags!
Deny Ignorance.


[edit on 26-5-2010 by Violater1]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbloch7986
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.



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


But forgot to mention that black people are 7 times more. Going by your logic, we need to ban blacks from the blood supply also.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Like say if a person had sex with an HIV infected person the night before donating blood, what about that?


Even then, I believe what they are stating is that the blood will either have a virus in it or not. And within the timeframe alotted, then it can be fairly certain when it turns out to be negative. 2 weeks is a lot less than 3 months to have to store the blood supply.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   
I don't trust Any blood from the 'bank'

I Know people won't like this but it's honest
if I thought it was homosexual blood - male or female - I would recieve,
the only way I would accept it is if I was gonna die for sure without it.

And for sure it would only be right to specify if it was homo blood or not.

It's just too riskey.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1

And according to Scientific American,” up to 47 percent of all HIV infections (62 percent in men) are still transmitted through male-male sexual contact, according to CDC statistics from 2007.”
www.scientificamerican.com...


I see you conveniently forgot to finish the end of that cited paragraph that you bolded:


Nevertheless, current blood screening techniques can effectively eliminate the risk of HIV-infected blood, regardless of whether it came from a donor who has had such contact in the past year or the past 39 years.


I'm sure you have an incomplete out of context statistic to justify why muslims shouldn't donate blood either.



[edit on 26-5-2010 by haterproof]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1
Deny Ignorance.


For someone who claims to work with HIV patients, I suggest you do the same. Or are we ignoring my data on PCR testing of the actual virus?

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Nutter]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   
OK, someone has to say it. Maybe the Jehovah's Witnesses were right all along about this blood thing.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
I think one of the main reasons that they didn't want gays in the military is because in an emergency situation, one might need blood from another soldier. It really isn't safe to share the blood with a gay person.
Now if you get blood from someone who is faithful to one partner, and both are clean and you know it, maybe that is ok. I'd really have to know the person though.


This isn't mean to be offensive in any way, it is just true. Of course, it is also true that any straight person may also be just as likely to be carrying a disease of some sort. Still, if given a choice, I'd rather take a chance on someone who I might think is clean. Of course, one would like to believe that a straight person only has one sexual partener, maybe a loving wife or husband at home which they are faithful to.

But that doesn't mean that one might not end up getting blood from a straight person who has multiple partners and sleeps with every prostitute when given a leave.


So what would you do?

Say person A is known to be gay, has one partner, and you know for sure that they are faithful to that partner.

Person B you know for sure sleeps around with everyone they can get.

Who would you want if you had to choose?

I might even be tempted in that situation to take the blood of the gay, if I know their history.

But if I didn't know and they said "this man is straight and this one is gay" I have to be honest and say I would pick the straight man.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 



HIV tests that detect the genetic material of HIV itself (rather than antibodies or antigens) are known as PCR tests. PCR stands for Polymerase Chain Reaction and is a common way of testing for a variety of different organisms. A DNA PCR test will provide positive results within three to four weeks (sometimes sooner).
www.avert.org...

And this from Quest Labs,
www.questdiagnostics.com...
It takes longer than 12 days.
Regarding Nutter’s link,” www.hivpcrtest.com.sg...
I don’t live in Singapore, so I don’t know how Robertson Medical Practice or The Men’s Clinic can make this claim. They are the only one’s in the world to do so.
Deny ignorance.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
For someone who claims to work with HIV patients, I suggest you do the same. Or are we ignoring my data on PCR testing of the actual virus?
[edit on 26-5-2010 by Nutter]


What are you referring too?
Please explain.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 


You're banging the wrong drum friend. If you want to quibble on sources, who's stats aren't that different, what's the point?

Here's something to think about, you're as apt to get HIV from someone other than a gay man. 24,000(gay)-20,000(non-gay):

www.cdc.gov...

That's from the CDC, not any place in Singapore.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   
I think if they test the blood and it is free of disease, it needs no label. If it is disease free blood, then it is good blood.

If it is an emergency and I had to take some blood from someone, I'd like to know about them, but if I am in no condition to make a choice, I'd probably be better off just being thankful for someone willing to donate some blood.

Thankfully, I am not in the military and I think I am pretty healthy, so I might never be in a situation like that anyway.

If I ever need blood, I just want it to be tested really thoroughly. Then if it is good enough to save my life and not give me a disease, I should be thankful.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
OK, someone has to say it. Maybe the Jehovah's Witnesses were right all along about this blood thing.


I have saved many lives by giving blood to patients. Because of the current laws, this blood remains with a chance in about 1 in a million, of containing the HIV. That is still too high! It should be 0%.
But Utopia is nonexistent.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
OK, someone has to say it. Maybe the Jehovah's Witnesses were right all along about this blood thing.


It kind of freaks me out too but if it could save my life, then who am I to look a gift horse in the mouth.

BTW, Intrepid. One of my very good friends is an HIV specialist. If you'd like to know anything let me know and I'll try to get an answer for you.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
BTW, Intrepid. One of my very good friends is an HIV specialist. If you'd like to know anything let me know and I'll try to get an answer for you.


Thanks Man. What I want to know is what is the average time from exposure, by sexual means, needles are pretty obvious, to the time that HIV is present in the blood stream?

I know, long question.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
You're banging the wrong drum friend. If you want to quibble on sources, who's stats aren't that different, what's the point?
Here's something to think about, you're as apt to get HIV from someone other than a gay man. 24,000(gay)-20,000(non-gay):
www.cdc.gov...
That's from the CDC, not any place in Singapore.


No drum banging here. Just linking the source of the 12 day HIV PCR.
If you would put your emotions aside, I was commenting on the ability for a HIV PCR test to be completed in 12 days. Thus containing my research on the 2 places in Singapore. They state that they can have results of HIV contamination back in 12 days. It is the only place in the world to do so.
If you feel so passionately about this that it clouds your ability to focus, may I suggest seeing your family MD.
The laws for donating blood need not be changed. Doing so would place the world in jeopardy.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1
Deny ignorance.


In deed so.


The window period is the time from infection until a test can detect any change. The average window period with HIV-1 antibody tests is 22 days for subtype B. Antigen testing cuts the window period to approximately 16 days and NAT (Nucleic Acid Testing) further reduces this period to 12 days.


en.wikipedia.org...


Polymerase chain reaction (PCR). This test finds either the RNA of the HIV virus or the HIV DNA in white blood cells infected with the virus. PCR testing is not done as frequently as antibody testing because it requires technical skill and expensive equipment. This test may be done in the days or weeks after exposure to the virus. Genetic material may be found even if other tests are negative for the virus. 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.


health.yahoo.com...

Should I still go on or are you going to admit that the PCR test can detect the virus within weeks as opposed to 3-6 months?

Remember what started this conversation? You claimed it took 3-6 months before we could test the blood. Which is.....what did you call it? FAIL.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
That's from the CDC...


Has The CDC ever mislead the public?
May I remind you of H1N1.
Did you get the vaccine for H1N1?
It too was recommended by the CDC.
The current laws on the donation of blood, need not be changed.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Reply to post by Nutter
 


I'm being objective here. Homosexual sex between males is riskier than heterosexual sex.

Offtopic: I am not putting anyone down for homosexual sex. I am a smoker and that is risky too. I eat unhealthy and I am overweight. That's also risky. So is skydiving. People do risky things all the time. So this is not a put down.

I am just saying homosexual sex between men is riskier than heterosexual sex.

It is therefore valid to say they are not allowing homosexual men to donate blood because they're at higher risk of HIV infection.

Your points about unprotected sex are valid as well. Protected or unprotected, homosexual sex between men is still riskier than heterosexual sex. It is just a statement of documented fact. There is no emotion, put down, hate speech, religion or anything else involved.

And like I said before race, drug usage and other similar HIV risk groups is off topic. This is about allowing or not allowing homosexual men to donate blood and I refuse to go into a debate on other risk groups.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join