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: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   

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


Saliva does not contain enough to infect. Nor tears, nor sweat. Actually, sweat has no virus in it.

I also didn't include breast milk. As the question pertained to sex and transmission.


www.sfaf.org...

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Nutter]




posted on May, 26 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

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:
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]



One of my papers in college was about HIV.
Yes, it is transmitted through salvia, and through intact skin.]
www.nature.com...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.jimmunol.org...
and
jada.ada.org...

We have known about this since 1988, but the AIDS activists, and PC continue to shout us down.
HIV is fatal. If it contaminates the blood banks again, it will be worse than the hemophiliac catastrophe in the 1990’s.



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

Originally posted by intrepid
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]




In reference to Nutters disinformation to the results of a HIV PCR in 10 to 12 days, please reread his post at 15:29 on page 2.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   
I'm out. I can't debate the inane. Well I could and apparently have in this case. The reader will get the facts.



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

Originally posted by Violater1
Yes, it is transmitted through salvia, and through intact skin.]
www.nature.com...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.jimmunol.org...
and
jada.ada.org...


Show me in these links where it says that saliva can transmit HIV.

And NOT where it says saliva mixed with blood.

As like Intrepid. I am out of debating the inane.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Nutter]



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

Originally posted by Violater1

Originally posted by intrepid
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]




In reference to Nutters disinformation to the results of a HIV PCR in 10 to 12 days, please reread his post at 15:29 on page 2.


OK, staff mode. What in his link led you to a Google search in Spanish?

Edit: This specifically:


Originally posted by Violater1
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.


[edit on 26-5-2010 by intrepid]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
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?


You asked:

Originally posted by intrepid
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?


So I thought you were inquiring about the protection of a condom.

If you're comparing homosexual versus heterosexual infection risks, it depends on the country/continent you're interested in and what the infection rates are there.

If the infection rate of an at-risk population like gays or drug users is higher than the infection rate of heterosexuals, then whatever failure rate applies to the condoms, increases your risk by the amount of higher infection rate in the at risk population being considered.

For example, if the infection rate of heterosexuals is 1% and homosexuals is 2%, then a 10% condom failure rate may apply to both populations, and 10% of 2% is double 10% of 1% so the risk is higher with the population that has a higher infection rate, even for condom users.

According to this:

New HIV infections rising among homosexuals


[edit on 27-5-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
I'm out. I can't debate the inane. Well I could and apparently have in this case. The reader will get the facts.



Sometimes the truth is hard to accept.
The laws and regulations preventing people who engage in sex with multiple partners and homosexuals, to give blood, will safe guard the world blood banks.
Research the facts, read the links provided.
Deny ignorance.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
OK, staff mode. What in his link led you to a Google search in Spanish?
Edit: This specifically:

Originally posted by Violater1
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.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by intrepid]



OK staff mode.
First of all, it is Nutter’s post, not mine. Ask him. I found nothing Spanish when I revisited his links.
However, since you are obviously, not only off the subject of the thread, but allowing you personal felling to cloud your judgment, I will do my best to roll it to you.
Nutter left a link to wikipedia as a source of his information, regarding the erroneous expediency for the results of the HIV PCR. Thus found at en.wikipedia.org...
On this page, under Terminology, it states,” 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]. “ Notice the upper case bracketed 2. You are supposed to be able to click on this upper case 2 and reveal the source of the information. When doing so, this takes you to the bottom of the page where the External links are located. Click on FDA Approves First Nucleic Acid Test (NAT) Systems to Screen Plasma for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Hepatitis C Virus (HCV)
This takes you to this link, www.fda.gov...
Which states that the page is not found.
Obviously, the information given regarding a HIV PCR result is erroneous.
Additionally, some of the porous gaps in latex condoms are larger than the HIV verion.
I would suggest abstinence is the better protection.
The laws and regulations pertaining to the exclusion of heterosexuals engaging with multiple sex partners and homosexual donors, need to continue, in order to protect the worlds blood banks.


[edit on 26-5-2010 by Violater1]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Violater1
Yes, it is transmitted through salvia, and through intact skin.]
www.nature.com...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.jimmunol.org...
and
jada.ada.org...

Show me in these links where it says that saliva can transmit HIV.
And NOT where it says saliva mixed with blood.
[edit on 26-5-2010 by Nutter]



May I suggest you printing out the information in these links and taking it with you, to your MD or Dentist. The explanation is in depth, and would require them to evaluate your comprehension to this material. This evaluation would enable them to disseminate the material to you, in a way for you to understand.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Violater1]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1
May I suggest you printing out the information in these links and taking it with you, to your MD or Dentist. The explanation is in depth, and would require them to evaluate your comprehension to this material. This evaluation would enable them to disseminate the material to you, in a way for you to understand.


Why not give it a shot yourself since you are the one trying to prove a point? Honest. I'm an educated man who can surely keep up.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   
LOL

Cool just remind me to ask where that blood came from and is it pure from diseases.


I can see now people infected will get revenge on the public for their disease.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
I'm an educated man who can surely keep up.



Then read the links I have provided. If you had, you would have pointed out something very relevant. But you have not. Obvious to me, you have not read my links. So give it shot.
Read my links.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

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.


Is your post disinformation? Do you have statistics
to prove otherwise?

• Overall, one in four MSM participating in the study was infected.

A study of MSM in five U.S. cities found extremely high levels of infection among MSM, and many of those infected did not know it. • Overall, one in four MSM participating in the study was infected. Black MSM were twice as likely to be infected with HIV than other MSM. • Among all of those who were infected, about half were unaware of their HIV status. Results were particularly alarming for black MSM and young MSM, with more than two-thirds of infected black MSM, and nearly 80 percent of infected young MSM (aged 18–24), unaware that they were infected.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 


Did you notice there is a link to the archived FDA website from archive.org, following the link you quoted, tagged as "[dead link]"?

The 12 days period seems to be true, from a FDA press release, providing support to the Singapore institution.

FDA APPROVES FIRST NUCLEIC ACID TEST (NAT) SYSTEMS TO SCREEN PLASMA FOR HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS (HIV) AND HEPATITIS C VIRUS (HCV)


Currently, donors of blood and plasma are tested for antibodies to HCV, antibodies to HIV, and HIV-1 antigens, which are the virus' own proteins. However, there is still a "window period" during which a donor can be infected, but have negative screening tests. With the use of NAT for HCV, the "window period" for detection of HCV is reduced by 57 days (from an average of 82 days to 25 days). For HIV-1, the average window period with antibody tests is 22 days. Antigen testing cuts the window period to approximately 16 days and NAT further reduces this period to 12 days.


[edit on 26-5-2010 by jjjtir]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uniceft17


But today, with the availability of more accurate testing, activists, blood organizations and several U.S. senators say the lifetime ban is "medically and scientifically unwarranted" and are calling for change.



The Human Rights Campaign, the American Red Cross, America's Blood Centers and AABB, formerly known as the American Association of Blood Banks, support easing the lifetime ban to allow gay blood donors. In a joint statement, the blood organizations said that safety was the first priority and that potential donors should be screened more fairly, regardless of sexual orientation.


This law or rule or whatever you want to call it has the ignorance from the 80's written all over it, to assume all gay men are whores and potentially have HIV or Aids is wrong and shouldn't exclude them from the procedure, especially when they are screening the blood anyways, i just don't see the point to not allow it at all if they screen everyone elses anyways.

Anyways, It's about damn time a discussion started taking place. I've said it once and i'll say it again, STD's, Aid's Hiv isn't just a gay issue, sleeping around or without protection isn't either, and to make it out as if it is is just wrong and embracing ignorance.

Deny Ignorance.

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 5/26/2010 by Uniceft17]


A large majority of gay men ARE WHORES. im sorry but the gay community is VERY promiscuous. Now im not saying EVERY gay man is that way...but the community as a whole is very promiscuous.

Hell studies have shown 60% of ALL gay relationships are NON-MONOGAMOUS.

meaning they 'say' they are 'with someone' but they still have sex with other people.

lesbians have much more as well then straight couples. 30% of all lesbian couples are non-monogamous.

a large majority are very promiscuous.

denying this is ignorance.

deny ignorance.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Uniceft17
 


HIV does not cause AIDS anyway.

Look up Peter Duesberg's HIV/AIDS research web site, and learn.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 04:26 AM
link   
oh noes! let's open gay food preperation places, gay drinks companies, gay toilets, gay water and gay burger bars hey while were at it let's seperate the blacks too, and anyone who's ever touched a goat.

If you don't want gay blood you can always choose the other option - no blood!



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Cradle12003
 


Well, do I not have the right to insist that if I needed a blood transfusion that the blood did not come from a homosexual?

Yes, doctors can screen for anything nowadays but do they? I know that there was a tainted blood scandal in Canada a while back. The Red Cross did not screen the blood. Surprise, surprise.

Oh, but now it's all better. Now they will screen the blood, every drop. Don't any of you worry about it. It's being done. Now.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by TheComte]




top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join