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: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbloch7986
Protected or unprotected, homosexual sex between men is still riskier than heterosexual sex. It is just a statement of documented fact.


I would like to see stats on that because HIV can only be transmitted through blood. If you're protected(condom) how can it still be riskier?




posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


So these other tests are available, but does anyone know which tests are actually used for mass screening of blood donations?

If there's a test available that shortens the detection period but it's not being used to screen the blood supply, then we won't derive its benefits, right?



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
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...



Your source is Wikipedia?
When clicking on the link for the information regarding, “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.[2] “ FDA Approves First Nucleic Acid Test (NAT) Systems to Screen Plasma for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Hepatitis C Virus (HCV

You are directed here, www.fda.gov...
This page states that the information is NOT found!
I would suggest that this information that you wish to believe, is erroneous.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1


en.wikipedia.org...



You are directed here, www.fda.gov...
This page states that the information is NOT found!
I would suggest that this information that you wish to believe, is erroneous.


OK, I can be a little thick at times but what in Nutter's link lead you to your link?



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1
Has The CDC ever mislead the public?
May I remind you of H1N1.


And yet you use statistics from the very source you condemn?



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbloch7986
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.


Unprotected sex between heterosexuals is nearly just as risky. Especially if the man is uncircumsized (there is some kind of layer of mucus membrane there which HIV links onto). Although the same can be said of uncut homosexuals.

Although, I don't know why we are having this conversation. I have already stated that I agree that homosexual sex is riskier than heterosexual sex.

And I didn't take offense to what you said. It is after all the truth.


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.


So, you don't want to talk about the other higher risk groups who are not banned to give blood? Then I guess this conversation ends here.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Nutter]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Nutter
 


So these other tests are available, but does anyone know which tests are actually used for mass screening of blood donations?

If there's a test available that shortens the detection period but it's not being used to screen the blood supply, then we won't derive its benefits, right?


The Nucleic Acid Tests are being used already. Note that the wiki says that the NAT can detect infection after 16 days.

Also, Intrepid. I got confirmation from my friend. PCR can detect 2-3 weeks after infection has taken place.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
Also, Intrepid. I got confirmation from my friend. PCR can detect 2-3 weeks after infection has taken place.


Not quite what I meant. How long from sexual exposure until HIV gets to the blood stream?



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by dbloch7986
Protected or unprotected, homosexual sex between men is still riskier than heterosexual sex. It is just a statement of documented fact.


I would like to see stats on that because HIV can only be transmitted through blood. If you're protected(condom) how can it still be riskier?


Can't it be transmitted by semen?

Here are some scary statistics on condom reliability:

www.globalchange.com...


In one UK survey, holes were found in up to thirty-two out of a hundred condoms of the least reliable makes. These holes were gross defects, not microscopic holes seen in some latex (5 micron, HIV is 0.1 micron), which are worrying but probably far less significant. The British Standards Institute permits up to three out of a hundred to have holes in them when they leave the factory. In the US, government standards allow only four condoms out of every thousand to have leaks. But users still experience a failure rate of between 3% and 15%, which is the percentage of women who have an unwanted pregnancy using this method of birth control over a year.

A spokesman from the London Rubber Company (Durex) admitted that if incorrectly used, the failure rate of condoms could be anything from 25% up to 100%, and there are real problems with teaching people how to use them---not least because of illiteracy.


I guess some condoms aren't as reliable as I thought. And can't AIDs go through a smaller hole than a sperm?



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


New question asked.

Not being a doctor, I would imagine it to be either pretty short or within a few days.

We'll see what he says if he's still awake.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


That may be true, but don't you think that that would also hold true for straight people using condoms?



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Looks like about 72 hrs.

www.aids.org...



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   
I was thinking about your question Intrepid.

I would have to say (again I'm not a doctor) that it would be pretty much instantaneous.

The three fluids that can cause infection are blood, semen, and vaginal secretions.

If we think about how infection occurs, it is within the bloodstream.

For example....blood to blood. Semen to blood. VS to blood.

Very rarely (if ever...not sure if there are any documented cases out there) does infection go the other way around. I.E. blood to semen or blood to VS or semen to VS. There has to be a way for the virus to enter the bloodstream for one to become infected.

Therefore, my conclusion is that the virus is in the bloodstream instantaneously.

But, we'll see if my friend has any more insight that I am unaware of.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   

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?


Finally a post beyond rhetoric.
www.cdc.gov...
While CDC estimates that MSM (men sex men) account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522–989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men).

Why cant people be logical. A large percentage of gay men have aids, how large is hard to find,(gee why is that,a govt conspiracy?).
If they donate blood and the test fails to find it people will die.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


Thanks dbates.

But that is before infection. The HIV virus would still be in the bloodstream instantaneously but not had a change to infect yet. Giving the anti-viral meds a chance to stop the virus from attaching itself to the T-cells. But, the virus is still in the blood within this timeframe.

Hope this stuff helps Intrepid.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
I was thinking about your question Intrepid.

I would have to say (again I'm not a doctor) that it would be pretty much instantaneous.

The three fluids that can cause infection are blood, semen, and vaginal secretions.

If we think about how infection occurs, it is within the bloodstream.

For example....blood to blood. Semen to blood. VS to blood.

Very rarely (if ever...not sure if there are any documented cases out there) does infection go the other way around. I.E. blood to semen or blood to VS or semen to VS. There has to be a way for the virus to enter the bloodstream for one to become infected.

Therefore, my conclusion is that the virus is in the bloodstream instantaneously.

But, we'll see if my friend has any more insight that I am unaware of.



You omitted saliva, as well as any of the body fluids coming in contact with the skin.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRokkyy
While CDC estimates that MSM (men sex men) account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522–989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men).


How did they come to their "estimate"?

Do they include the prisons with their "estimate"?

You know the ones that have:


Males were incarcerated at the rate of 1,309 inmates per 100,000 U.S. men,


usgovinfo.about.com...

With a risk factor of 5 times higher.


The estimated prevalence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection is nearly five times higher for incarcerated populations (2.0%) (1) than for the general U.S. population (0.43%) (2).


www.cdc.gov...

That accounts for a heck of a lot of those MSM figures the CDC and anti-gay crowds like to throw around.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1
You omitted saliva, as well as any of the body fluids coming in contact with the skin.


Do you make this up as you go along? Saliva is NOT a transmitter of HIV:


# Eating food that has been pre-chewed by an HIV-infected person. The contamination occurs when infected blood from a caregiver’s mouth mixes with food while chewing. This appears to be a rare occurrence and has only been documented among infants whose caregiver gave them pre-chewed food.
# Being bitten by a person with HIV. Each of the very small number of cases has included severe trauma with extensive tissue damage and the presence of blood. There is no risk of transmission if the skin is not broken.


www.cdc.gov...

 


Btw, I'm still waiting on an explanation as to why you posted a link you said was from Nutter's. Explain please.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by intrepid]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
BTW, my HIV specialist friend concures that it is instantaneous into the bloodstream. But, the body takes a day or two to get "infected". Hence why anti-HIV medication can be affective if it's caught in time.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Beauty, thanks man.




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join