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

Daredevel7 said:
The question is... if you take away ALL the gay men, is there enough blood to go around?

What is the probability of someone dying from HIV from a blood transfusion vs the probability of someone dying because there wasn't enough blood? That should be the real statistical question.
Click to expand...

I agree....that is the key. If there is enough blood.....no reason to add the slightest of risk. When the supply of blood is down then you have to weigh the risks and accept blood from riskier sources.
 
netrox said:
It's funny how some people are terrified of HIV when in reality, the risk of getting HIV is actually REALLY difficult, even while doing unsafe sex. The odds of getting it is at most 2 out of 1,000 times during unsafe anal sex - the most risky sex act. Odds of getting it from oral sex is 1 out of 10,000. It's not that easy to catch.

I have shared drinks or food with HIV+ friends and I don't think about it. I get tested once a year and it's still negative. I had gay friends who are negative and they worry about getting it from salsa despite the fact that there's no document of a person getting it from food! I laughed when they tell me about their dates with POZ guys and how they try to avoid touching them or not eating where they ate. Even gays can be stupid. :)

The odds of getting infected with blood transfusion is 90% - it's the MOST efficient way to transmit HIV. The 10% who didn't get infected probably have natural immunity to it.

I firmly believe that the reason for high HIV rate in Africa is malnutrition (so many of them have open sores) and genetics that make them vulnerable to HIV infection. The fact that half of HIV cases here is black shows that it's likely genetic.

While HIV is more manageable than ever, it's life changing and it is always a big deal. You have to deal with toxic side effects of medications. In fact, nowadays, most HIV+ people die from toxic side effects of HIV meds than AIDS. AIDS is becoming rare nowadays. The lifespan is about 10 years shorter than the average lifespan.

Anyway, the ban should stay here because of the window period where HIV cannot be detected but gays are also more likely to be infected with other viral infections such as HPV and some strains of hepatitis that won't be detected through blood tests because of their perceived low risk. Because gays are often networked with the same gays across the nation, it makes them more likely to get infected along. The tighter the network, the more risk they face.

So, yes, if I were given a choice to pick blood from Salt Lake City and DC, I'd pick SLC as statistics would show that SLC is less likely to have infections than people in DC. I'd even rather have blood from the whites than from the blacks because statistics consistently show that blacks have high rate of STD's, as much as 4 times more than whites. That's reality. It's sad that people make it a race issue because they are ignoring the REAL risks.
Click to expand...

:gpost:
 
TXgolfer said:
I agree....that is the key. If there is enough blood.....no reason to add the slightest of risk. When the supply of blood is down then you have to weigh the risks and accept blood from riskier sources.
Click to expand...

What's the risk when the blood is already subjected to testing prior to storage?
 
Jiro said:
You didn't contest it before



why you mad now?
Click to expand...


I have never said anything about HIV/AIDS being transferred by saliva or in a swimming pool. That is neither a perceived nor statistical risk. ALL of my comments are about blood transfusion risks.
 
Testing is not 100% foolproof.

That's a fact.
 
Reba said:
Testing is not 100% foolproof.

That's a fact.
Click to expand...

That would apply to any population. The risk of failed testing applies across the board. There are many not within the homosexual population that could transmit the HIV virus as a result of failed testing. Not to mention which, this ban applies only to those that have the courage to self identify. What about the risk of those homosexuals who do not self identify giving blood.

As I said, this ban does nothing but provide a false sense of security to homophobes.
 
jillio said:
That would apply to any population. The risk of failed testing applies across the board. There are many not within the homosexual population that could transmit the HIV virus as a result of failed testing. Not to mention which, this ban applies only to those that have the courage to self identify. What about the risk of those homosexuals who do not self identify giving blood.

As I said, this ban does nothing but provide a false sense of security to homophobes.
Click to expand...
I didn't say anything about homosexuals.

I wanted to point out that testing should not provide a false sense of security that the blood is free of all blood-borne diseases.
 
Reba said:
Testing is not 100% foolproof.

That's a fact.
Click to expand...

Nothing is 100% statistically foolproof in any decision made in humanly flesh life anyway, there is always a chance of failure.
 
Yes, Reba. There are other incidentals included to go with high risk groups that increases the likelihood of donating tainted blood.


Donors can be disqualified if they are known to have engaged in behavior that put them at risk of infection (such as having had a tattoo, having had sex with people in high-risk groups, having used illegal intravenous drugs, having had certain diseases, or having been raped) or have spent time in specific parts of the world, such as areas where malaria may be prevalent.
Click to expand...

Read more: Blood Donation and Registry - test, complications, time, infection, heart, cells, types, risk, cancer, rate, Definition, Purpose, Description, Preparation, Risks Blood Donation and Registry - test, complications, time, infection, heart, cells, types, risk, cancer, rate, Definition, Purpose, Description, Preparation, Risks
 
Reba said:
I didn't say anything about homosexuals.

I wanted to point out that testing should not provide a false sense of security that the blood is free of all blood-borne diseases.
Click to expand...

The entire thread is about the ban on homosexual donation. The fact of the matter is, this ban does not reduce the risk of testing failure.
 
kokonut said:
Yes, Reba. There are other incidentals included to go with high risk groups that increases the likelihood of donating tainted blood.




Read more: Blood Donation and Registry - test, complications, time, infection, heart, cells, types, risk, cancer, rate, Definition, Purpose, Description, Preparation, Risks Blood Donation and Registry - test, complications, time, infection, heart, cells, types, risk, cancer, rate, Definition, Purpose, Description, Preparation, Risks
Click to expand...

So, you propose that we ban all of these other groups from donation, as well?
 
jillio said:
As I said, this ban does nothing but provide a false sense of security to homophobes.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with homophobia or racism if you refuse to accept blood from blacks and gays based on given statistics on their infection rate.

Blacks and gays would be much safer if they accept blood from heterosexual white men than they would if they get it from their own kinds.

It's about public safety.
 
Reba said:
I didn't say anything about homosexuals.

I wanted to point out that testing should not provide a false sense of security that the blood is free of all blood-borne diseases.
Click to expand...

Exactly

naisho said:
Nothing is 100% statistically foolproof in any decision made in humanly flesh life anyway, there is always a chance of failure.
Click to expand...

Exactly

Good reason for limiting the risk. In this case donation from gay men is already banned. Therefore, adding that blood to the pool increases the risk. It's not like their rights are being violated....:lol:. They can still volunteer.

If people choose to lie and put others at risk I guess that is their choice. Hope they are prepared to suffer the consequences of those actions.
 
netrox said:
It has nothing to do with homophobia or racism if you refuse to accept blood from blacks and gays based on given statistics on their infection rate.

Blacks and gays would be much safer if they accept blood from heterosexual white men than they would if they get it from their own kinds.

It's about public safety.
Click to expand...

You are right......Nothing to do with Racism or homophobia.

You can put the numbers into a statistical model void of nonnumerical data and the result is the same. The end result doesn't change by adding testing. Risk level would fall across the board with testing..... But there would still be risk and there would still be a difference in risk level.
 
Wirelessly posted

netrox said:
jillio said:
As I said, this ban does nothing but provide a false sense of security to homophobes.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with homophobia or racism if you refuse to accept blood from blacks and gays based on given statistics on their infection rate.

Blacks and gays would be much safer if they accept blood from heterosexual white men than they would if they get it from their own kinds.

It's about public safety.
Click to expand...

This only holds true if the general public isn't doing the same acts as the excluded groups.

Sorry, but homosexuals and heterosexuals are doing the same things now.

Not very many people share needles though. :ugh:
 
souggy said:
Wirelessly posted



This only holds true if the general public isn't doing the same acts as the excluded groups.

Sorry, but homosexuals and heterosexuals are doing the same things now.

Not very many people share needles though. :ugh:
Click to expand...

Any link on the prevalence of anal sex in the heterosexual community?

Beside porn??? :lol:
 
TXgolfer said:
I have never said anything about HIV/AIDS being transferred by saliva or in a swimming pool. That is neither a perceived nor statistical risk. ALL of my comments are about blood transfusion risks.
Click to expand...

all based on perceived risk as you said.. the part about Boise and Las Vegas. Do you know how Perceived Risk is made? It is largely based emotion and personal experience along with collected information - mostly from news to make risk assessment. More information is found here. The problem is - the perceived risk ignores or overlooks the actual facts. the actual statistic. the actual risk.

You live your life based on Perceived Risk
and I live my life based on Actual Risk.

Neither is wrong but Perceived Risk should not be used when deciding on a national policy.
 
Jiro said:
all based on perceived risk as you said.. the part about Boise and Las Vegas. Do you know how Perceived Risk is made? It is largely based emotion and personal experience along with collected information - mostly from news to make risk assessment. More information is found here. The problem is - the perceived risk ignores or overlooks the actual facts. the actual statistic. the actual risk.

You live your life based on Perceived Risk
and I live my life based on Actual Risk.

.
Click to expand...

Wrong again.....I already explained the hypothetical was using an assumption based on your parameters. In real life that risk would be perceived but as for it's use in the hypothetical it was assumed......again using YOUR preset parameters.

And going back to the topic.....adding gay blood to the donation pool adds statisticall risk....not perceived.

And none of this says exactly where I said in any way that there was an actual or even perceived risk with saliva or being in a swimming pool.

You made that up.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top