Notices
Results 1 to 95 of 95
Like Tree25Likes
  • 2 Post By mat5592
  • 1 Post By exchemist
  • 1 Post By exchemist
  • 1 Post By seagypsy
  • 1 Post By Paleoichneum
  • 1 Post By Neverfly
  • 1 Post By kojax
  • 1 Post By Tranquille
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana
  • 1 Post By Cogito Ergo Sum
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By billvon
  • 3 Post By Flick Montana
  • 4 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By Paleoichneum
  • 1 Post By wegs
  • 1 Post By John Galt

Thread: U.S. Ban on Gay Blood Donors

  1. #1 U.S. Ban on Gay Blood Donors 
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    Since the early 1980's (beginning of the HIV epidemic in the U.S.), men who have sex with men have not been able to donate blood. And, of course, there is a crowd of people calling this a discriminatory homophobic act and calling for a complete lift of the ban. I'm all for equal rights, but in this case, I see a reason for the ban.

    First, it's not a ban on gay people from donating blood, it's a ban on men who have sex with men from donating blood. Ergo, gay women can donate as can gay men who have not had a sexual encounter with another man. Doesn't seem very homophobic to me. Also, if the ban were put in place "just because of America's homophobic mentality," it would have been done long before the outbreak of HIV.

    The fact is, men who have sex with men have a lot higher risk of contracting HIV than others. They only make up 2% of the U.S. population, but accounted for 61% of HIV cases. And, unfortunately, there is still too large of a window period from the time of being infected to the time that it is detectable in our standard tests. The ban isn't about being gay, it's about risk factors, and gay people aren't the only ones being "discriminated" against.

    So, equality advocates, where is the movement to allow people from Niger, Cameroon, Chad, etc. to donate? Where is the movement to allow people from the UK and Europe to donate?

    I wholeheartedly agree the lifetime ban should be reduced to about 6 months (plenty of time for the virus to be detectable), but people need to stop making this a sociological issue.

    What do you all think?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3932001.html


    jrmonroe and MoonCanvas like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    It's another matter of education. We were so caught up in trying to find ways not to tell our heterosexual kids about protection that we completely forgot gay people are having sex, too.

    Wear protection, always. There. I took care of the problem.


    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,611
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Since the early 1980's (beginning of the HIV epidemic in the U.S.), men who have sex with men have not been able to donate blood. And, of course, there is a crowd of people calling this a discriminatory homophobic act and calling for a complete lift of the ban. I'm all for equal rights, but in this case, I see a reason for the ban.

    First, it's not a ban on gay people from donating blood, it's a ban on men who have sex with men from donating blood. Ergo, gay women can donate as can gay men who have not had a sexual encounter with another man. Doesn't seem very homophobic to me. Also, if the ban were put in place "just because of America's homophobic mentality," it would have been done long before the outbreak of HIV.

    The fact is, men who have sex with men have a lot higher risk of contracting HIV than others. They only make up 2% of the U.S. population, but accounted for 61% of HIV cases. And, unfortunately, there is still too large of a window period from the time of being infected to the time that it is detectable in our standard tests. The ban isn't about being gay, it's about risk factors, and gay people aren't the only ones being "discriminated" against.

    So, equality advocates, where is the movement to allow people from Niger, Cameroon, Chad, etc. to donate? Where is the movement to allow people from the UK and Europe to donate?

    I wholeheartedly agree the lifetime ban should be reduced to about 6 months (plenty of time for the virus to be detectable), but people need to stop making this a sociological issue.

    What do you all think?

    Gay Blood Donors Ban Endures In The U.S., Despite Lacking 'Sound Science'
    I was banned from giving blood for several decades, because I travelled to Asia, Africa and S America quite often on business. They clearly thought they had enough donors not to want the hassle of checking my blood out for what I might have picked up. Fair enough. It's the same logic with practising homosexual men. There is a segment of that population which is notoriously promiscuous, which inevitably raises the risk. But I'd have thought monogamous gays would be no more risky than monogamous heteros. Suppose it depends on the degree to which the docs trust the responses to their questionnaires.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    It's another matter of education. We were so caught up in trying to find ways not to tell our heterosexual kids about protection that we completely forgot gay people are having sex, too.

    Wear protection, always. There. I took care of the problem.
    Good point, the thought is probably something like "Well, there's no risk of getting pregnant, so....." Aren't condoms just as effective (maybe even more?) at preventing certain STDs as they are at preventing pregnancy?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Since the early 1980's (beginning of the HIV epidemic in the U.S.), men who have sex with men have not been able to donate blood. And, of course, there is a crowd of people calling this a discriminatory homophobic act and calling for a complete lift of the ban. I'm all for equal rights, but in this case, I see a reason for the ban.

    First, it's not a ban on gay people from donating blood, it's a ban on men who have sex with men from donating blood. Ergo, gay women can donate as can gay men who have not had a sexual encounter with another man. Doesn't seem very homophobic to me. Also, if the ban were put in place "just because of America's homophobic mentality," it would have been done long before the outbreak of HIV.

    The fact is, men who have sex with men have a lot higher risk of contracting HIV than others. They only make up 2% of the U.S. population, but accounted for 61% of HIV cases. And, unfortunately, there is still too large of a window period from the time of being infected to the time that it is detectable in our standard tests. The ban isn't about being gay, it's about risk factors, and gay people aren't the only ones being "discriminated" against.

    So, equality advocates, where is the movement to allow people from Niger, Cameroon, Chad, etc. to donate? Where is the movement to allow people from the UK and Europe to donate?

    I wholeheartedly agree the lifetime ban should be reduced to about 6 months (plenty of time for the virus to be detectable), but people need to stop making this a sociological issue.

    What do you all think?

    Gay Blood Donors Ban Endures In The U.S., Despite Lacking 'Sound Science'
    I was banned from giving blood for several decades, because I travelled to Asia, Africa and S America quite often on business. They clearly thought they had enough donors not to want the hassle of checking my blood out for what I might have picked up. Fair enough. It's the same logic with practising homosexual men. There is a segment of that population which is notoriously promiscuous, which inevitably raises the risk. But I'd have thought monogamous gays would be no more risky than monogamous heteros. Suppose it depends on the degree to which the docs trust the responses to their questionnaires.
    Yeah, there's a large list of places that a visit to will ban you permanently or for a long time. Mostly because screening tests for things that can be contracted in those areas just aren't practical on the large scale.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,611
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    It's another matter of education. We were so caught up in trying to find ways not to tell our heterosexual kids about protection that we completely forgot gay people are having sex, too.

    Wear protection, always. There. I took care of the problem.
    Good point, the thought is probably something like "Well, there's no risk of getting pregnant, so....." Aren't condoms just as effective (maybe even more?) at preventing certain STDs as they are at preventing pregnancy?
    This is off-topic, but the term "STD" always make me laugh. When I was a child in 1960s Britain, "STD" referred to something called "Subscriber Trunk Dialling", which was the name given to the then radical development of dialling long distance phone numbers yourself, as opposed to dialling an "operator" and being connected by her (it was always a woman). Some people wrote to the papers saying this was dehumanising communication.

    And now....STD is the name for the sort of lurgi you pick up from playing hide-the-sausage too recklessly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    It's another matter of education. We were so caught up in trying to find ways not to tell our heterosexual kids about protection that we completely forgot gay people are having sex, too.

    Wear protection, always. There. I took care of the problem.
    Good point, the thought is probably something like "Well, there's no risk of getting pregnant, so....." Aren't condoms just as effective (maybe even more?) at preventing certain STDs as they are at preventing pregnancy?
    Well, HIV is easily transmitted through anal sex. The prevalence of HIV among homosexual men is just another failure of sex education (whether you believe it to be on the part of the parents or the education system). Our America method of teaching abstinence is fine, but only when supplemented with teaching safe sex as well.

    I would imagine modern gay men are much more intelligent on the matter, but I don't have abundant insight into their sex lives.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    This is off-topic, but the term "STD" always make me laugh. When I was a child in 1960s Britain, "STD" referred to something called "Subscriber Trunk Dialling", which was the name given to the then radical development of dialling long distance phone numbers yourself, as opposed to dialling an "operator" and being connected by her (it was always a woman). Some people wrote to the papers saying this was dehumanising communication.

    And now....STD is the name for the sort of lurgi you pick up from playing hide-the-sausage too recklessly.
    Off-topic reply; I heard on a rather famous car show that the Ford Focus ST is a bit of a laugh for Brits as ST stands for a feminine hygiene product. Amazing how much is lost in translation between two languages that don't need to be translated.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,611
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    This is off-topic, but the term "STD" always make me laugh. When I was a child in 1960s Britain, "STD" referred to something called "Subscriber Trunk Dialling", which was the name given to the then radical development of dialling long distance phone numbers yourself, as opposed to dialling an "operator" and being connected by her (it was always a woman). Some people wrote to the papers saying this was dehumanising communication.

    And now....STD is the name for the sort of lurgi you pick up from playing hide-the-sausage too recklessly.


    Off-topic reply; I heard on a rather famous car show that the Ford Focus ST is a bit of a laugh for Brits as ST stands for a feminine hygiene product. Amazing how much is lost in translation between two languages that don't need to be translated.
    Even worse: I proudly drove for 3 years, in Dubai, an off-road vehicle called the Mitsubishi "Pajero", only to discover later from Spanish-speaking colleagues it means wanker in colloquial Spanish. It's called the Shogun now in many markets.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    I don't know. That's funny enough that I might have enjoyed driving it a around.

    "Where you going?"

    "Taking the old wanker out to the desert."
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,611
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    I don't know. That's funny enough that I might have enjoyed driving it a around.

    "Where you going?"

    "Taking the old wanker out to the desert."
    The Japanese have a real knack of screwing up car names, though. At the same time (while I was in Dubai in the 80s), there was a Toyota "Cedric", when Cedric is a joke name, associated only with senile and/or fussy old men. And then they had the Mitsubishi Colt (with a horse logo) and introduced a sports version which they called the "Starion". I can't be the only person to suspect they meant "Stallion". Hopeless.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post

    This is off-topic, but the term "STD" always make me laugh. When I was a child in 1960s Britain, "STD" referred to something called "Subscriber Trunk Dialling", which was the name given to the then radical development of dialling long distance phone numbers yourself, as opposed to dialling an "operator" and being connected by her (it was always a woman). Some people wrote to the papers saying this was dehumanising communication.

    And now....STD is the name for the sort of lurgi you pick up from playing hide-the-sausage too recklessly.
    Annoyingly these three letters were my username and email address (STD@...) as an undergrad. In their infinite wisdom the IT department thought giving everyone email addresses consisting of the first two letters of the surname followed by first initial made sense. (and would they allow you to change it? -- have a guess). Or maybe they just didn't like me...

    And every time students and teachers opened your email, they expected a virus?

    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    The fact is, men who have sex with men have a lot higher risk of contracting HIV than others. They only make up 2% of the U.S. population, but accounted for 61% of HIV cases. And, unfortunately, there is still too large of a window period from the time of being infected to the time that it is detectable in our standard tests. The ban isn't about being gay, it's about risk factors, and gay people aren't the only ones being "discriminated" against.

    Does the other 39% of the HIV infected population not also impose a risk on donating contaminated blood?
    Last edited by Cogito Ergo Sum; September 16th, 2013 at 03:22 PM.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    It's another matter of education. We were so caught up in trying to find ways not to tell our heterosexual kids about protection that we completely forgot gay people are having sex, too.

    Wear protection, always. There. I took care of the problem.
    Well anytime one is having sex with another person. I wouldn't insist on wearing protection just to go get your taxes done or anything like that.


    *runs away fast before flick hits her with something
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    who sees through things
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    UK now, US before
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post


    Well, HIV is easily transmitted through anal sex.
    As if only gay men have anal sex or gay men only have anal sex.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    The fact is, men who have sex with men have a lot higher risk of contracting HIV than others. They only make up 2% of the U.S. population, but accounted for 61% of HIV cases. And, unfortunately, there is still too large of a window period from the time of being infected to the time that it is detectable in our standard tests. The ban isn't about being gay, it's about risk factors, and gay people aren't the only ones being "discriminated" against.

    Does the other 39% of the HIV infected population not impose a risk on contaminated blood?
    Why yes, yes it does. There are risks associated with anyblood donation. It is the FDA's job to reduce those risks by as much as possible though, and one way of doing that is by deferring the higher risk populations. Men who have sex with men are 60 times more likely to contract HIV than others. The deferral isn't just limited to that demographic, though. There's a long list.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Alec Bing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post


    Well, HIV is easily transmitted through anal sex.
    As if only gay men have anal sex or gay men only have anal sex.
    Exactly.

    It's an easy pathway for the spread of HIV, but to suggest that gay men are more LIKELY to do it unprotected and thus contract HIV seems like a pretty big step for me.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,586
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Since the early 1980's (beginning of the HIV epidemic in the U.S.), men who have sex with men have not been able to donate blood. And, of course, there is a crowd of people calling this a discriminatory homophobic act and calling for a complete lift of the ban. I'm all for equal rights, but in this case, I see a reason for the ban.

    First, it's not a ban on gay people from donating blood, it's a ban on men who have sex with men from donating blood. Ergo, gay women can donate as can gay men who have not had a sexual encounter with another man. Doesn't seem very homophobic to me. Also, if the ban were put in place "just because of America's homophobic mentality," it would have been done long before the outbreak of HIV.

    The fact is, men who have sex with men have a lot higher risk of contracting HIV than others. They only make up 2% of the U.S. population, but accounted for 61% of HIV cases. And, unfortunately, there is still too large of a window period from the time of being infected to the time that it is detectable in our standard tests. The ban isn't about being gay, it's about risk factors, and gay people aren't the only ones being "discriminated" against.

    So, equality advocates, where is the movement to allow people from Niger, Cameroon, Chad, etc. to donate? Where is the movement to allow people from the UK and Europe to donate?

    I wholeheartedly agree the lifetime ban should be reduced to about 6 months (plenty of time for the virus to be detectable), but people need to stop making this a sociological issue.

    What do you all think?

    Gay Blood Donors Ban Endures In The U.S., Despite Lacking 'Sound Science'
    The ban was put in place at the height of the AIDS epidemic. Its quite homophobic as it specifically targets Gay men. In the 80s there was no admission that bi men existed, and so the "only" men that would be having sex with men were gay.
    There has never been a life long ban for men or women that pay for sex, just a short deferral.

    As for your stats, the last time the FDA and CDC stats were updated was in 2010 off studies done prior to that, meaning the data being presented is over 6 years old. Currently the group with the fastest rising HIV/AIDS infection rate is women, not MSM men. Also it needs to be stressed that the LGBT community has A massive awareness of STDs and numerous active campaigns for getting regular testing. Thus we in the gay community are much more likely to be aware of any std status then the heterosexual community, resulting in a disproportionate number of cases being attributed to us.

    It is a social issue as AIDS is still regarded as "the gay disease" and that gay people need to be shunned because of it.

    Canada has already chucked their life ban and England is looking at theirs now.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,586
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    The fact is, men who have sex with men have a lot higher risk of contracting HIV than others. They only make up 2% of the U.S. population, but accounted for 61% of HIV cases. And, unfortunately, there is still too large of a window period from the time of being infected to the time that it is detectable in our standard tests. The ban isn't about being gay, it's about risk factors, and gay people aren't the only ones being "discriminated" against.

    Does the other 39% of the HIV infected population not impose a risk on contaminated blood?
    Why yes, yes it does. There are risks associated with anyblood donation. It is the FDA's job to reduce those risks by as much as possible though, and one way of doing that is by deferring the higher risk populations. Men who have sex with men are 60 times more likely to contract HIV than others. The deferral isn't just limited to that demographic, though. There's a long list.
    Not 60 time more likely, just more likely to actually get tested on a regular basis.
    Lynx_Fox likes this.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post

    The ban was put in place at the height of the AIDS epidemic. Its quite homophobic as it specifically targets Gay men. In the 80s there was no admission that bi men existed, and so the "only" men that would be having sex with men were gay.
    There has never been a life long ban for men or women that pay for sex, just a short deferral.

    As for your stats, the last time the FDA and CDC stats were updated was in 2010 off studies done prior to that, meaning the data being presented is over 6 years old. Currently the group with the fastest rising HIV/AIDS infection rate is women, not MSM men. Also it needs to be stressed that the LGBT community has A massive awareness of STDs and numerous active campaigns for getting regular testing. Thus we in the gay community are much more likely to be aware of any std status then the heterosexual community, resulting in a disproportionate number of cases being attributed to us.

    It is a social issue as AIDS is still regarded as "the gay disease" and that gay people need to be shunned because of it.

    Canada has already chucked their life ban and England is looking at theirs now.
    People who receive payment for sex are permanently deferred, but the people who pay for the sex are not, which is dumb. Canada and the UK still have deferral periods, it just isn't life-long. It's still too long, honestly. 5 years (and even 1 year) is unnecessary, there would be more than enough virus to detect after only a month.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,586
    When I was donating blood in highschool (late 90's) the deferment was 1 year i think for paying for sex. Also it is important to note that the deferment for women who have sex with msm men is only 1 year, which shows the strange thinking behind the ban.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    When I was donating blood in highschool (late 90's) the deferment was 1 year i think for paying for sex. Also it is important to note that the deferment for women who have sex with msm men is only 1 year, which shows the strange thinking behind the ban.
    Here's another one for ya: having sex with someone you know has HIV is only a 1 year deferral. Ridiculous!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,586
    Do you still claim that its not a social issue that is specifically targeted at gay men?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Political correctness should not be such a strong influence.

    How do you contend with the numbers which show "They only make up 2% of the U.S. population, but accounted for 61% of HIV cases."

    Those are the numbers. You can not like them; you can get upset at the very idea that poor gays are being picked on until you're blue in the face- it won't change the numbers.
    They ARE the biggest risk factor and have been for over twenty years. Denial is unscientific.

    Now, I have no real opinion on the ban since I don't know much about it. But your denial and acting "oh so offended" at the facts being discussed really needs a slap upside the head.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,586
    Who said anything about political correctness?

    The numbers, as I already noted are over 6 years out of date and reflect the high state of testing that exists in the gay community.

    Also as I noted, worldwide, straight women are the fastest growing group to be contracting HIV/AIDS.

    Risk is one thing, but the entire blood pool is systematically double tested for STDs including HIV/AIDS and the other half of the cases are NOT prevented from donating, so why target the one community that actively tests regularly?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Are you saying that a difference as large as 60% is being thrown off by testing practices? You Do realize that straight women and men get tested and have been getting tested from regular doctor visits, pre-natal care and the like, right? Yet, you're trying to claim that a difference as huge as 60% is getting missed? I've been tested many, many times, in fact.

    60% is a statistical error? Highly unlikely.

    Rather, you appear very biased on this topic because you take it personally.

    Too Bad.

    Blood donations are there to save lives.


    And if a group is being "picked on" because their noted Very High Infection rate excludes them: too freaking bad. All the "awareness" has made very little difference in recent years. They still aren't sticking rubbers on.
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,586
    Do you have valid medical evidence that the testing procedures that are currently in place are not capable of identifying infections and removing those donations from the system?

    You really need to learn how to discuss without immediately attacking the person you are discussing with. I have been cordial, you are attacking me for noting information on the subject and accusing me of bias.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Do you have valid medical evidence that the testing procedures that are currently in place are not capable of identifying infections and removing those donations from the system?
    No, I don't. I also said I have no opinion on the ban as I don't know enough about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    You really need to learn how to discuss without immediately attacking the person you are discussing with. I have been cordial, you are attacking me for noting information on the subject and accusing me of bias.
    I am attacking what you have expressed because the bias you have expressed suggests that gay men are being excluded out of fear, hate or confusion.
    This is simply not so.
    They are being excluded.
    Because their behaviors have made them a threat to others. Very- High- Infection- Rate.

    No one pinned them all down and forced them. They went out and got infected and the reason why the gay crowd has slightly more awareness of the need to get tested regularly is because of the behaviors leading to the very high infection rate.
    It is not because they are gay- it is because of the choices they make and the results of those choices- The Numbers speak for them.

    Now you may have a valid point about blood testing procedures; if they are adequate then there is no need to exclude anyone from donating- right?
    But one might ask, why take unnecessary risk? Either way, even if that point is valid, the denials you put forth do not ring with a basic reality check: The numbers show them to be very high risk and claiming that it is a statistical fluke deserves to be attacked.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,586
    So you are attacking comments on something you don't actually have any in-depth knowledge of?

    Why exclude people like me who ahve not had multiple partners, only one past BF and have a high demand blood type? The testing procedures in place already catch the undocumented cases of HIV/AIDS in straight men and women. I have not said its a statistical fluke I have noted the reason that the reporting rate is so high.

    Can you show that overall the straight community is testing as high as that of the gay community. You note testing for pregnancy, what about single straight people?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Why exclude people like me who ahve not had multiple partners, only one past BF and have a high demand blood type?
    Same reason they exclude me - just because I have been to Seoul, South Korea. They operate on the "better safe than sorry" principle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    So you are attacking comments on something you don't actually have any in-depth knowledge of?
    No. But what you just said is the kind of "Spin" and distortion that I am attacking. I said I do not know much about the ban.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    I have not said its a statistical fluke I have noted the reason that the reporting rate is so high.
    Which is a Statistical Fluke if you are actually saying that across a given populace a difference as large as 60% is being missed.
    Even an error margin as high as 5% would be humongous.
    You just said it here: "The reason the reporting rate is so high."

    So why exclude all these poor people?

    If you feel the need to distort the argument into one of persecution of an innocent group in spite of the statistical numbers that you have not really disputed, you are also seeking to endanger other people who require transfusions. Because in spite of general testing, transfusion infection still happens.
    Transmission of HIV by Blood, Blood Products, Tissue Transplantation, and Artificial Insemination
    It's been seriously mitigated but has been brought down so low (But not fully eliminated) in part due to excluding people who are considered high risk.
    HIV Transmission Through Transfusion --- Missouri and Colorado, 2008

    So, if you feeling offended and slighted is the price we pay to help prevent accidental and harmful infection of people visiting the hospital for care- I'm totally good with that price.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Why exclude people like me who ahve not had multiple partners, only one past BF and have a high demand blood type?
    Do you know who your boyfriend has been with? Are you willing to risk someone else's life on it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Do you have valid medical evidence that the testing procedures that are currently in place are not capable of identifying infections and removing those donations from the system?
    The current best test we use (HIV Nucleic Acid Testing) has a window period of 9 days, and I'm not sure if that's with or without pooling. We pool multiple specimens and test them all at once to be cost efficient, but it reduces sensitivity. Regardless, a 9 day window period leaves room for error.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Do you still claim that its not a social issue that is specifically targeted at gay men?
    No, I do not think it is some act of bigotry. Again, permanent deferrals are not limited to gay men. People from Chad, Congo, Niger, etc. are permanently deferred from donating. What did they do? People who lived in the UK and Europe through the 80's and 90's are also permanently deferred. Again, what did they do? These are just groups that are at higher risk than others for certain diseases. For example, the people from the UK are deferred because of the chance of transfusing someone with CJD....I mean really, what's the chances of that happening? Not likely, actually entirely less likely than transfusing someone with HIV and not catching it, yet they are deferred because they are higher risk, albeit pretty insignificantly. The rules may be dumb in certain aspects, but no, I don't think it's fueled by hate for gay people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,586
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Why exclude people like me who ahve not had multiple partners, only one past BF and have a high demand blood type?
    Same reason they exclude me - just because I have been to Seoul, South Korea. They operate on the "better safe than sorry" principle.
    But is this principle backed by the modern medical technology that is in use? Double testing of the blood has resulted in how many errors?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,586
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Do you have valid medical evidence that the testing procedures that are currently in place are not capable of identifying infections and removing those donations from the system?
    The current best test we use (HIV Nucleic Acid Testing) has a window period of 9 days, and I'm not sure if that's with or without pooling. We pool multiple specimens and test them all at once to be cost efficient, but it reduces sensitivity. Regardless, a 9 day window period leaves room for error.
    This is why the blood is tested multiple times, to catch STDs and other blood diseases that have incubation periods.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Why exclude people like me who ahve not had multiple partners, only one past BF and have a high demand blood type?
    Do you know who your boyfriend has been with? Are you willing to risk someone else's life on it?
    Harold, you do realize how offensive that assertion is right? I will state now I and my partner were both tested, and are both as clean as you or anyone else.

    We have testing specifically to catch those who dont know they have something.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,586
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Do you still claim that its not a social issue that is specifically targeted at gay men?
    No, I do not think it is some act of bigotry. Again, permanent deferrals are not limited to gay men. People from Chad, Congo, Niger, etc. are permanently deferred from donating. What did they do? People who lived in the UK and Europe through the 80's and 90's are also permanently deferred. Again, what did they do? These are just groups that are at higher risk than others for certain diseases. For example, the people from the UK are deferred because of the chance of transfusing someone with CJD....I mean really, what's the chances of that happening? Not likely, actually entirely less likely than transfusing someone with HIV and not catching it, yet they are deferred because they are higher risk, albeit pretty insignificantly. The rules may be dumb in certain aspects, but no, I don't think it's fueled by hate for gay people.
    I do not know what the testing quality is for CJS or the reasoning for the location bans. I do know that modern testing for HIV is very accurate and the window for it not being caught is very small at this point.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    So you are attacking comments on something you don't actually have any in-depth knowledge of?
    No. But what you just said is the kind of "Spin" and distortion that I am attacking. I said I do not know much about the ban.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    I have not said its a statistical fluke I have noted the reason that the reporting rate is so high.
    Which is a Statistical Fluke if you are actually saying that across a given populace a difference as large as 60% is being missed.
    Even an error margin as high as 5% would be humongous.
    You just said it here: "The reason the reporting rate is so high."

    So why exclude all these poor people?

    If you feel the need to distort the argument into one of persecution of an innocent group in spite of the statistical numbers that you have not really disputed, you are also seeking to endanger other people who require transfusions. Because in spite of general testing, transfusion infection still happens.
    Transmission of HIV by Blood, Blood Products, Tissue Transplantation, and Artificial Insemination
    It's been seriously mitigated but has been brought down so low (But not fully eliminated) in part due to excluding people who are considered high risk.
    HIV Transmission Through Transfusion --- Missouri and Colorado, 2008

    So, if you feeling offended and slighted is the price we pay to help prevent accidental and harmful infection of people visiting the hospital for care- I'm totally good with that price.
    I am not distorting, and I take offence at your assertion that I am. \

    The two links you have provided are very out of date, the second being from over 10 years ago, and the first being almost 6. Show statistics for Current accidental HIV transition. There are currently 17 countries with either no ban or a 1 to 5 year deferral.

    I am not "Seeking to endanger" anyone.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_ma...or_controversy
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    I am not distorting, and I take offence at your assertion that I am. \
    Yeah well, no one is granted the right to go through life unoffended. When you make a claim like "the reason the reporting rate is so high..." is distortion no matter how offended you get at that being pointed out.
    Seriously.
    You're claiming that a very, very, very large statistical margin is a fluke.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    The two links you have provided are very out of date, the second being from over 10 years ago, and the first being almost 6. Show statistics for Current accidental HIV transition. There are currently 17 countries with either no ban or a 1 to 5 year deferral.
    Valid enough- I cannot find anything very current- if you can, please present it.

    And as to
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    I am not "Seeking to endanger" anyone.
    I agree that I was out of line by being that blunt. I am certain you are not seeking to endanger anyone. However, if we examine the statistics where 2 percent of the population shows 61% of the cases of HIV infection... and we decide that the risk is too great to let them donate blood; to refute that would require Strong Evidence that there is no risk. If one is willing to beat around it with 'statistical fluke' accusations, I think they are allowing their feelings of offense to influence their better judgement.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    When I was donating blood in highschool (late 90's) the deferment was 1 year i think for paying for sex. Also it is important to note that the deferment for women who have sex with msm men is only 1 year, which shows the strange thinking behind the ban.
    Here's another one for ya: having sex with someone you know has HIV is only a 1 year deferral. Ridiculous!
    I think this is because blood donations in the US are tested for HIV antibodies anyhow, but it can take a few months for them to show up. A year is a very conservative time...it could probably be reduced to six months without increasing risk in the blood supply.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    When I was donating blood in highschool (late 90's) the deferment was 1 year i think for paying for sex. Also it is important to note that the deferment for women who have sex with msm men is only 1 year, which shows the strange thinking behind the ban.
    Here's another one for ya: having sex with someone you know has HIV is only a 1 year deferral. Ridiculous!
    I think this is because blood donations in the US are tested for HIV antibodies anyhow, but it can take a few months for them to show up. A year is a very conservative time...it could probably be reduced to six months without increasing risk in the blood supply.
    Yes, I agree. The ridiculous part is that a man who has sex with a man that may or may not have HIV is permanently banned, while a person that knowingly has sex with someone that is HIV positive is only deferred for one year.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    When I was donating blood in highschool (late 90's) the deferment was 1 year i think for paying for sex. Also it is important to note that the deferment for women who have sex with msm men is only 1 year, which shows the strange thinking behind the ban.
    Here's another one for ya: having sex with someone you know has HIV is only a 1 year deferral. Ridiculous!
    I think this is because blood donations in the US are tested for HIV antibodies anyhow, but it can take a few months for them to show up. A year is a very conservative time...it could probably be reduced to six months without increasing risk in the blood supply.
    Yes, I agree. The ridiculous part is that a man who has sex with a man that may or may not have HIV is permanently banned, while a person that knowingly has sex with someone that is HIV positive is only deferred for one year.
    It's been my understanding that anyone who has unprotected sex, regardless of sexual preference, is not allowed to donate until and unless they have been tested at least 3 months after their last encounter and have been abstinent for at least 6 months since the test. I could be wrong though.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    When I was donating blood in highschool (late 90's) the deferment was 1 year i think for paying for sex. Also it is important to note that the deferment for women who have sex with msm men is only 1 year, which shows the strange thinking behind the ban.
    Here's another one for ya: having sex with someone you know has HIV is only a 1 year deferral. Ridiculous!
    I think this is because blood donations in the US are tested for HIV antibodies anyhow, but it can take a few months for them to show up. A year is a very conservative time...it could probably be reduced to six months without increasing risk in the blood supply.
    Yes, I agree. The ridiculous part is that a man who has sex with a man that may or may not have HIV is permanently banned, while a person that knowingly has sex with someone that is HIV positive is only deferred for one year.
    It's been my understanding that anyone who has unprotected sex, regardless of sexual preference, is not allowed to donate until and unless they have been tested at least 3 months after their last encounter and have been abstinent for at least 6 months since the test. I could be wrong though.
    That should be the case, but I don't see that indicated on the Donor History Questionnaire. And it would probably eliminate a large percentage of the donor population, lol. Previous testing isn't required either, but tests for HIV 1/2, HCV, HBV, HTLV 1/2, Syphilis, Trypanosoma cruzi, and West Nile Virus are performed on every blood donation before being transfused. There are many other things like malaria and babesia that we don't have practical tests for, so our only way of filtering these out is to have people answer honestly on the questionnaire. There aren't really even screening questions for babesia, though (it can be acquired from ticks in the U.S.), and not surprisingly, it is the leading cause of death in transfusion acquired infections. Most adverse transfusion reactions are due to other complications and have nothing to do with viruses/parasites/bacteria. The number of all pathogens transfused combined is actually really low.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    When I was donating blood in highschool (late 90's) the deferment was 1 year i think for paying for sex. Also it is important to note that the deferment for women who have sex with msm men is only 1 year, which shows the strange thinking behind the ban.
    Here's another one for ya: having sex with someone you know has HIV is only a 1 year deferral. Ridiculous!
    I think this is because blood donations in the US are tested for HIV antibodies anyhow, but it can take a few months for them to show up. A year is a very conservative time...it could probably be reduced to six months without increasing risk in the blood supply.
    Yes, I agree. The ridiculous part is that a man who has sex with a man that may or may not have HIV is permanently banned, while a person that knowingly has sex with someone that is HIV positive is only deferred for one year.
    It's been my understanding that anyone who has unprotected sex, regardless of sexual preference, is not allowed to donate until and unless they have been tested at least 3 months after their last encounter and have been abstinent for at least 6 months since the test. I could be wrong though.
    That should be the case, but I don't see that indicated on the Donor History Questionnaire. And it would probably eliminate a large percentage of the donor population, lol. Previous testing isn't required either, but tests for HIV 1/2, HCV, HBV, HTLV 1/2, Syphilis, Trypanosoma cruzi, and West Nile Virus are performed on every blood donation before being transfused. There are many other things like malaria and babesia that we don't have practical tests for, so our only way of filtering these out is to have people answer honestly on the questionnaire. There aren't really even screening questions for babesia, though (it can be acquired from ticks in the U.S.), and not surprisingly, it is the leading cause of death in transfusion acquired infections. Most adverse transfusion reactions are due to other complications and have nothing to do with viruses/parasites/bacteria. The number of all pathogens transfused combined is actually really low.
    There is also no way to sufficiently trust that the person answering questions on the questionnaire is telling the truth. People who are hard up for cash and will "donate" blood for a measly $20 will lie their butt off to get the money. It is pretty common that people selling their blood will go to several different donation locations and donate 2-3 times a day even though you are only officially allowed to give blood once a day. Homeless people sell their blood and/or plasma all the time. I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of our country's blood supply isn't donated by homeless people on the street who would, out of desperation to survive, would say whatever they had to in order to be allowed to "donate".

    They can't exactly hook you up to a lie detector machine and be certain that you are telling the truth on that questionnaire. I have never given blood. But I did read the questionnaire once as it was passed out in health class in high school. I remember a lot of people that I knew as a teen, used to think it was OK to use "donating blood" as a means to get tested for HIV without officially going in for the test. They assumed if it came back positive, then they would be contacted. I don't know why they assume that, maybe it is true. I have never heard from any official sources that that is the case though.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I'm surprised that anyone considers it a civil rights issue to donate blood. Voluntary donating of blood during a Red Cross blood drive isn't a very valuable right (actually would prefer to have a good excuse not to). Having the ability to donate plasma for money is important though, I guess, if you need the money.

    I think the reason so many heterosexual people are allowed to donate after doing various things that put them at risk is because if they banned them all there would be too few people to get blood from. I'm sure those people would be banned too if the blood supply were sufficiently large.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    I used to give blood but was out of country so often the past ten years that was never eligible--usually came down to have you been out of country....yes....was it one of these...and a couple would be on the list that made me ineligible.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,276
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    The fact is, men who have sex with men have a lot higher risk of contracting HIV than others.
    [citation needed]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    When I was donating blood in highschool (late 90's) the deferment was 1 year i think for paying for sex. Also it is important to note that the deferment for women who have sex with msm men is only 1 year, which shows the strange thinking behind the ban.
    Here's another one for ya: having sex with someone you know has HIV is only a 1 year deferral. Ridiculous!
    I think this is because blood donations in the US are tested for HIV antibodies anyhow, but it can take a few months for them to show up. A year is a very conservative time...it could probably be reduced to six months without increasing risk in the blood supply.
    Yes, I agree. The ridiculous part is that a man who has sex with a man that may or may not have HIV is permanently banned, while a person that knowingly has sex with someone that is HIV positive is only deferred for one year.
    It's been my understanding that anyone who has unprotected sex, regardless of sexual preference, is not allowed to donate until and unless they have been tested at least 3 months after their last encounter and have been abstinent for at least 6 months since the test. I could be wrong though.
    That should be the case, but I don't see that indicated on the Donor History Questionnaire. And it would probably eliminate a large percentage of the donor population, lol. Previous testing isn't required either, but tests for HIV 1/2, HCV, HBV, HTLV 1/2, Syphilis, Trypanosoma cruzi, and West Nile Virus are performed on every blood donation before being transfused. There are many other things like malaria and babesia that we don't have practical tests for, so our only way of filtering these out is to have people answer honestly on the questionnaire. There aren't really even screening questions for babesia, though (it can be acquired from ticks in the U.S.), and not surprisingly, it is the leading cause of death in transfusion acquired infections. Most adverse transfusion reactions are due to other complications and have nothing to do with viruses/parasites/bacteria. The number of all pathogens transfused combined is actually really low.
    There is also no way to sufficiently trust that the person answering questions on the questionnaire is telling the truth. People who are hard up for cash and will "donate" blood for a measly $20 will lie their butt off to get the money. It is pretty common that people selling their blood will go to several different donation locations and donate 2-3 times a day even though you are only officially allowed to give blood once a day. Homeless people sell their blood and/or plasma all the time. I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of our country's blood supply isn't donated by homeless people on the street who would, out of desperation to survive, would say whatever they had to in order to be allowed to "donate".

    They can't exactly hook you up to a lie detector machine and be certain that you are telling the truth on that questionnaire. I have never given blood. But I did read the questionnaire once as it was passed out in health class in high school. I remember a lot of people that I knew as a teen, used to think it was OK to use "donating blood" as a means to get tested for HIV without officially going in for the test. They assumed if it came back positive, then they would be contacted. I don't know why they assume that, maybe it is true. I have never heard from any official sources that that is the case though.
    Yes, the FDA requires that donors be notified if they test positive on any of the tests. I wouldn't recommend donating just to get tested though!

    Also you bring up a good point. A while ago, all sorts of people would give blood for money, especially those at high risk seeking money for their IV drugs. That's why the Red Cross only accepts donated blood now, and they make up 50% of the blood supply in the U.S. I'm not sure that other organizations are the same though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    The fact is, men who have sex with men have a lot higher risk of contracting HIV than others.
    [citation needed]
    CDC ? Fact Sheet - Gay and Bisexual Men ? Gender ? Risk ? HIV/AIDS
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    I wonder if the higher rate of HIV for gay males is because they are tested for HIV more regularly, after the scares of the 80's, where HIV/AIDS hit the gay community so hard?

    And if straight people are a bit too complacent, because of the belief that HIV is a gay person's disease?

    For example, in 2010, black Americans account for around 44% of HIV infections. An astounding figure. However, when you look at this:

    For example, Blacks and Latinos are significantly more likely to report having been tested for HIV than whites (see Figure 1).
    So is this a case of gays getting tested more often after the epidemic of the 80's compared to straight people who may be a tad complacent?

    More than half (54%) of U.S. adults, aged 18-64, report ever having been tested for HIV, including 22% who report being tested in the last year. The share of the public saying they have been tested for HIV at some point increased between 1997 and 2004, but has remained fairly steady since then.

    Of those U.S. adults, aged 18-64, who say they have never been tested for HIV, nearly 6 in 10 (57%) say it is because they do not see themselves as at risk.
    Or are they contracting HIV because they have become so complacent about the risks involved in unprotected sex?

    Either way, I find the ban bizarre. While yes, they do make up a large chunk of the male population with HIV, I do think that they need to study why. And most importantly, the health departments need to re-implement the safe sex message towards kids who are starting to experiment and towards adults.
    Paleoichneum likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    I'm not so sold on the argument that the numbers are that high due to being more likely to be tested. Gay males also make up the majority of the people who die from AIDS.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    I wonder if the higher rate of HIV for gay males is because they are tested for HIV more regularly, after the scares of the 80's, where HIV/AIDS hit the gay community so hard?

    And if straight people are a bit too complacent, because of the belief that HIV is a gay person's disease?

    For example, in 2010, black Americans account for around 44% of HIV infections. An astounding figure. However, when you look at this:

    For example, Blacks and Latinos are significantly more likely to report having been tested for HIV than whites (see Figure 1).
    So is this a case of gays getting tested more often after the epidemic of the 80's compared to straight people who may be a tad complacent?

    More than half (54%) of U.S. adults, aged 18-64, report ever having been tested for HIV, including 22% who report being tested in the last year. The share of the public saying they have been tested for HIV at some point increased between 1997 and 2004, but has remained fairly steady since then.

    Of those U.S. adults, aged 18-64, who say they have never been tested for HIV, nearly 6 in 10 (57%) say it is because they do not see themselves as at risk.
    Or are they contracting HIV because they have become so complacent about the risks involved in unprotected sex?

    Either way, I find the ban bizarre. While yes, they do make up a large chunk of the male population with HIV, I do think that they need to study why. And most importantly, the health departments need to re-implement the safe sex message towards kids who are starting to experiment and towards adults.
    To all ages. Middle aged heterosexual women are a group that is getting infected at a disproportionately growing rate. Probably because they are becoming widows or divorcing late in life and then hitting the town not realizing that their age does not in any way mean they aren't likely to catch it.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post

    To all ages. Middle aged heterosexual women are a group that is getting infected at a disproportionately growing rate. Probably because they are becoming widows or divorcing late in life and then hitting the town not realizing that their age does not in any way mean they aren't likely to catch it.
    Is it lack of education campaigns to educate the populace about the dangers of unprotected sex and sharing needles? I know in Australia and QLD in particular, there was a rise in HIV infection rates and this was after what seemed like over a decade of no ads on TV or elsewhere telling people about those dangers. Those ads have now resurfaced here.

    While I feel sorry for gays who do take precautions and they are prevented and banned for giving blood, perhaps they should start lobbying for further education programs in gay communities about the importance of safe sex and getting checked every few months if they are not in a relationship. And that should also apply to straight people as well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    It's another matter of education. We were so caught up in trying to find ways not to tell our heterosexual kids about protection that we completely forgot gay people are having sex, too.

    Wear protection, always. There. I took care of the problem.
    Good point, the thought is probably something like "Well, there's no risk of getting pregnant, so....." Aren't condoms just as effective (maybe even more?) at preventing certain STDs as they are at preventing pregnancy?

    Condom's can break. Period.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    It's another matter of education. We were so caught up in trying to find ways not to tell our heterosexual kids about protection that we completely forgot gay people are having sex, too.

    Wear protection, always. There. I took care of the problem.
    Good point, the thought is probably something like "Well, there's no risk of getting pregnant, so....." Aren't condoms just as effective (maybe even more?) at preventing certain STDs as they are at preventing pregnancy?

    Condom's can break. Period.
    That's hardly a reason not to use them.
    Cogito Ergo Sum likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    It's another matter of education. We were so caught up in trying to find ways not to tell our heterosexual kids about protection that we completely forgot gay people are having sex, too.

    Wear protection, always. There. I took care of the problem.
    Good point, the thought is probably something like "Well, there's no risk of getting pregnant, so....." Aren't condoms just as effective (maybe even more?) at preventing certain STDs as they are at preventing pregnancy?

    Condom's can break. Period.
    That's hardly a reason not to use them.

    As a friend of mine once stated:
    Without wearing a bag, you must not enter a vag.
    seagypsy likes this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    It's another matter of education. We were so caught up in trying to find ways not to tell our heterosexual kids about protection that we completely forgot gay people are having sex, too.

    Wear protection, always. There. I took care of the problem.
    Good point, the thought is probably something like "Well, there's no risk of getting pregnant, so....." Aren't condoms just as effective (maybe even more?) at preventing certain STDs as they are at preventing pregnancy?

    Condom's can break. Period.
    That's hardly a reason not to use them.
    I was just stating the fact that they can break. I was not discouraging in ANY sense the use of them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    It's another matter of education. We were so caught up in trying to find ways not to tell our heterosexual kids about protection that we completely forgot gay people are having sex, too.

    Wear protection, always. There. I took care of the problem.
    Good point, the thought is probably something like "Well, there's no risk of getting pregnant, so....." Aren't condoms just as effective (maybe even more?) at preventing certain STDs as they are at preventing pregnancy?

    Condom's can break. Period.
    That's hardly a reason not to use them.

    As a friend of mine once stated:
    Without wearing a bag, you must not enter a vag.
    I simply told my son to WRAP IT UP!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post

    That's hardly a reason not to use them.
    I was just stating the fact that they can break. I was not discouraging in ANY sense the use of them.
    To a broader point, I doubt condoms break often enough to impact the number of STDs and pregnancies they prevent.

    Obviously, there's no way to get numbers on that, but I'm guessing the percentage of breaks is low single digit percentages.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    To a broader point, I doubt condoms break often enough to impact the number of STDs and pregnancies they prevent.
    Whatever the number might be, it would be absolutely swamped by the numbers of pregnancies and STDs resulting from ineffective use of condoms. You'd think it would be fairly simple, but apparently it's not. Yet again, good safe sex education is the best start.
    babe likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post

    That's hardly a reason not to use them.
    I was just stating the fact that they can break. I was not discouraging in ANY sense the use of them.
    To a broader point, I doubt condoms break often enough to impact the number of STDs and pregnancies they prevent.

    Obviously, there's no way to get numbers on that, but I'm guessing the percentage of breaks is low single digit percentages.
    It only takes ONE!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    I visited the FDA lab that tests condoms and lab/medical gloves for leaks "out of the box" — that is, without ever using them, and the acceptable rate of failure for the gloves is about 1% (1 or 2 failures in 125 gloves, I forget which). I don't know what it is for condoms.

    I would never carefully and diligently dip my gloved fingers into a container of AIDS, and I very seriously doubt that any medico/pharma/research company would require a lab person to do so because it is so insanely dangerous and the resulting lawsuits would soon put them out of business.

    There are people and organizations who actually believe the extraordinarily deadly myth that a condom can be used to reasonably ensure that no STDs are transmitted.

    The last time I wore a condom, I don't remember experiencing myself, while in the moment of extreme ecstasy, thinking, "Let's see, is the condom still in one integral piece? Yup, okay, let's continue." That's like, at that blissful moment, wondering if you left the stove on or the back door unlocked. No one [normal] does.

    And AIDS isn't the worst that can happen because there are drugs that do well in controlling it. It's Hepatitis C that's nasty, nasty, nasty. I once watched a neighbor go, in five months, from a extremely healthy and fiercely muscular man to a listless wimp with a bulging abdomen. He soon went into the hospital, and then he was gone. He was honest, and he admitted that he had done IV drugs many years ago, but that he hadn't done IV drugs or anything else that could have transmitted Hep C in many years.

    You can get Hep C and feel perfectly fine. Many years later, it can simply rise up seemingly out of nowhere and strike you down — and there's nothing you can do. In the meantime, how many other people get it from you?
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,989
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    There are people and organizations who actually believe the extraordinarily deadly myth that a condom can be used to reasonably ensure that no STDs are transmitted.
    Statistically, they are. That's why their use is urged. They are not foolproof, of course; they just greatly reduce your odds of HIV infection.
    seagypsy likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    ...And AIDS isn't the worst that can happen because there are drugs that do well in controlling it....
    I don't know about everything else you said, but on this one point I certainly agree. At least in developed countries, how well or poorly you live wiith HIV is ultimately up to the patient.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    I visited the FDA lab that tests condoms and lab/medical gloves for leaks "out of the box" — that is, without ever using them, and the acceptable rate of failure for the gloves is about 1% (1 or 2 failures in 125 gloves, I forget which). I don't know what it is for condoms.

    I would never carefully and diligently dip my gloved fingers into a container of AIDS, and I very seriously doubt that any medico/pharma/research company would require a lab person to do so because it is so insanely dangerous and the resulting lawsuits would soon put them out of business.

    There are people and organizations who actually believe the extraordinarily deadly myth that a condom can be used to reasonably ensure that no STDs are transmitted.

    The last time I wore a condom, I don't remember experiencing myself, while in the moment of extreme ecstasy, thinking, "Let's see, is the condom still in one integral piece? Yup, okay, let's continue." That's like, at that blissful moment, wondering if you left the stove on or the back door unlocked. No one [normal] does.

    And AIDS isn't the worst that can happen because there are drugs that do well in controlling it. It's Hepatitis C that's nasty, nasty, nasty. I once watched a neighbor go, in five months, from a extremely healthy and fiercely muscular man to a listless wimp with a bulging abdomen. He soon went into the hospital, and then he was gone. He was honest, and he admitted that he had done IV drugs many years ago, but that he hadn't done IV drugs or anything else that could have transmitted Hep C in many years.

    You can get Hep C and feel perfectly fine. Many years later, it can simply rise up seemingly out of nowhere and strike you down — and there's nothing you can do. In the meantime, how many other people get it from you?
    I know. I don't know how the person I know got it, and doubt it was from drugs. He never did them, but he got it...and damn he was sick last. He is fine, for now and I hope with all my heart he remains so. He is an honest, kind, wonderful man and we have befriended his sons.....old Hawai'ian family...good family, wonderful sons.....and a new grandpa......
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    ...And AIDS isn't the worst that can happen because there are drugs that do well in controlling it....
    I don't know about everything else you said, but on this one point I certainly agree. At least in developed countries, how well or poorly you live wiith HIV is ultimately up to the patient.
    I know several AIDS patients that are in treatment and will probably live to a ripe old age. Years ago that was not true. I lost 3 to AIDS. I am grateful that they are finding ways to control it as well as possible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    I feel sorry for people who get hiv/aids because of some people do not have any control at all...lack of moral etc...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    I feel sorry for people who get hiv/aids because of some people do not have any control at all...lack of moral etc...
    What the hell does a lack of morals have to do with AIDS?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    I feel sorry for people who get hiv/aids because of some people do not have any control at all...lack of moral etc...
    What the hell does a lack of morals have to do with AIDS?
    everything
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    I feel sorry for people who get hiv/aids because of some people do not have any control at all...lack of moral etc...
    What the hell does a lack of morals have to do with AIDS?
    everything
    Let me guess, this is another one of those things you completely understand, but for which you have no supporting evidence or even basic rationale.

    AIDS can be transmitted through infected medical equipment or through the consumption of bushmeat, so I know you're not suggesting immoral sexual behavior is the reason for AIDS. At least try to use more than three brain cells on your answer to my next question. Ready for deja vu?

    What does a lack of morals have to do with getting AIDS?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    yes im the offensive guy of this forum
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    I feel sorry for people who get hiv/aids because of some people do not have any control at all...lack of moral etc...
    What the hell does a lack of morals have to do with AIDS?
    everything
    Let me guess, this is another one of those things you completely understand, but for which you have no supporting evidence or even basic rationale.

    AIDS can be transmitted through infected medical equipment or through the consumption of bushmeat, so I know you're not suggesting immoral sexual behavior is the reason for AIDS. At least try to use more than three brain cells on your answer to my next question. Ready for deja vu?

    What does a lack of morals have to do with getting AIDS?
    you sure you have learned to read??? feel sorry for people who get hiv/aids because of some people do not have any control at all...lack of moral etc... so what you are saying is just confirmation of what im saying
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    who see see who know know let the rest play withthemselfs
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,173
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    I feel sorry for people who get hiv/aids because of some people do not have any control at all...lack of moral etc...
    MOD WARNING : Equating suffering from AIDS with a lack of morals is not acceptable in the "Health" section of a science forum, and I consider it offensive to those members and readers here who continue to live their lives with this condition; one more such comment, and you will find yourself on an involuntary vacation. This is an official warning. You are entitled to your opinions and moral judgements, but you are not entitled to spread them wherever you like.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    I feel sorry for people who get hiv/aids because of some people do not have any control at all...lack of moral etc...
    What the hell does a lack of morals have to do with AIDS?
    everything
    Let me guess, this is another one of those things you completely understand, but for which you have no supporting evidence or even basic rationale.

    AIDS can be transmitted through infected medical equipment or through the consumption of bushmeat, so I know you're not suggesting immoral sexual behavior is the reason for AIDS. At least try to use more than three brain cells on your answer to my next question. Ready for deja vu?

    What does a lack of morals have to do with getting AIDS?
    you sure you have learned to read??? feel sorry for people who get hiv/aids because of some people do not have any control at all...lack of moral etc... so what you are saying is just confirmation of what im saying
    A lack of control has nothing to do with a lack of morals. Furthermore, a lack of morals has nothing to do with someone eating bushmeat or being injected with an infected needle.

    I'm not sure what your point is, but you may want to clarify it before myself and other chalk up "bigot" to your list of attributes.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    I feel sorry for people who get hiv/aids because of some people do not have any control at all...lack of moral etc...
    MOD WARNING : Equating suffering from AIDS with a lack of morals is not acceptable in the "Health" section of a science forum, and I consider it offensive to those members and readers here who continue to live their lives with this condition; one more such comment, and you will find yourself on an involuntary vacation. This is an official warning. You are entitled to your opinions and moral judgements, but you are not entitled to spread them wherever you like.
    I dint know I in middle of dictatorship where you may not even give your opinion with no rights at all... but do not think that this forum for anyone is more worth than their thoughts we aint sheeps we think and we have our opinions and in the end I didn't open any tread regarding to gay people(so no propaganda or advert) I just gived my opinion when they came to the subject...now you can think which way... you want this forum to go and what kinda of people are here unwelcome... and keep that in mind the next time you give a warning... you aint here for your personal opinions... to moderate
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    I feel sorry for people who get hiv/aids because of some people do not have any control at all...lack of moral etc...
    What the hell does a lack of morals have to do with AIDS?
    everything
    Let me guess, this is another one of those things you completely understand, but for which you have no supporting evidence or even basic rationale.

    AIDS can be transmitted through infected medical equipment or through the consumption of bushmeat, so I know you're not suggesting immoral sexual behavior is the reason for AIDS. At least try to use more than three brain cells on your answer to my next question. Ready for deja vu?

    What does a lack of morals have to do with getting AIDS?
    you sure you have learned to read??? feel sorry for people who get hiv/aids because of some people do not have any control at all...lack of moral etc... so what you are saying is just confirmation of what im saying
    A lack of control has nothing to do with a lack of morals. Furthermore, a lack of morals has nothing to do with someone eating bushmeat or being injected with an infected needle.

    I'm not sure what your point is, but you may want to clarify it before myself and other chalk up "bigot" to your list of attributes.
    im fine with it if you wanna put me on bigot list... I reread it and I think im pretty clear in what I was saying for sure with the second post...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    blackscorp

    I should remind you of the forum guidelines at this point. In particular Section 6

    "We do not mind users messaging us about our decisions as Moderators, however we will not tolerate questioning on the forums."

    If you dislike Markus's warning, take it to a PM.
    John Galt likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    blackscorp

    I should remind you of the forum guidelines at this point. In particular Section 6

    "We do not mind users messaging us about our decisions as Moderators, however we will not tolerate questioning on the forums."

    If you dislike Markus's warning, take it to a PM.
    why does this again reminds me of dictatorship... do what you cant let go...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,586
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    I feel sorry for people who get hiv/aids because of some people do not have any control at all...lack of moral etc...
    Your assertion is utter bullshit. What is your basis for this assertion?
    seagypsy likes this.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    You have contributed nothing to the forum and now you have the gall to complain that you're not allowed to exercise your bigotry here? There is no first amendment protection on this forum.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,925
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    I feel sorry for people who get hiv/aids because of some people do not have any control at all...lack of moral etc...
    MOD WARNING : Equating suffering from AIDS with a lack of morals is not acceptable in the "Health" section of a science forum, and I consider it offensive to those members and readers here who continue to live their lives with this condition; one more such comment, and you will find yourself on an involuntary vacation. This is an official warning. You are entitled to your opinions and moral judgements, but you are not entitled to spread them wherever you like.
    I dint know I in middle of dictatorship where you may not even give your opinion with no rights at all... but do not think that this forum for anyone is more worth than their thoughts we aint sheeps we think and we have our opinions and in the end I didn't open any tread regarding to gay people(so no propaganda or advert) I just gived my opinion when they came to the subject...now you can think which way... you want this forum to go and what kinda of people are here unwelcome... and keep that in mind the next time you give a warning... you aint here for your personal opinions... to moderate
    Why don't you take his warning as a teachable moment for you? Instead of becoming defensive, take a step back and reflect as to how you have come across with your comment about people who have HIV/AIDS. Forget about the forum for a moment, even if you disagree with what is being said here...try to be compassionate for those who have crosses to bear, that maybe you don't.
    John Galt likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    I feel sorry for people who get hiv/aids because of some people do not have any control at all...lack of moral etc...
    MOD WARNING : Equating suffering from AIDS with a lack of morals is not acceptable in the "Health" section of a science forum, and I consider it offensive to those members and readers here who continue to live their lives with this condition; one more such comment, and you will find yourself on an involuntary vacation. This is an official warning. You are entitled to your opinions and moral judgements, but you are not entitled to spread them wherever you like.
    I dint know I in middle of dictatorship where you may not even give your opinion with no rights at all... but do not think that this forum for anyone is more worth than their thoughts we aint sheeps we think and we have our opinions and in the end I didn't open any tread regarding to gay people(so no propaganda or advert) I just gived my opinion when they came to the subject...now you can think which way... you want this forum to go and what kinda of people are here unwelcome... and keep that in mind the next time you give a warning... you aint here for your personal opinions... to moderate
    Why don't you take his warning as a teachable moment for you? Instead of becoming defensive, take a step back and reflect as to how you have come across with your comment about people who have HIV/AIDS. Forget about the forum for a moment, even if you disagree with what is being said here...try to be compassionate for those who have crosses to bear, that maybe you don't.
    im not here for other people... just for my self like everybody...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,925
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    I feel sorry for people who get hiv/aids because of some people do not have any control at all...lack of moral etc...
    MOD WARNING : Equating suffering from AIDS with a lack of morals is not acceptable in the "Health" section of a science forum, and I consider it offensive to those members and readers here who continue to live their lives with this condition; one more such comment, and you will find yourself on an involuntary vacation. This is an official warning. You are entitled to your opinions and moral judgements, but you are not entitled to spread them wherever you like.
    I dint know I in middle of dictatorship where you may not even give your opinion with no rights at all... but do not think that this forum for anyone is more worth than their thoughts we aint sheeps we think and we have our opinions and in the end I didn't open any tread regarding to gay people(so no propaganda or advert) I just gived my opinion when they came to the subject...now you can think which way... you want this forum to go and what kinda of people are here unwelcome... and keep that in mind the next time you give a warning... you aint here for your personal opinions... to moderate
    Why don't you take his warning as a teachable moment for you? Instead of becoming defensive, take a step back and reflect as to how you have come across with your comment about people who have HIV/AIDS. Forget about the forum for a moment, even if you disagree with what is being said here...try to be compassionate for those who have crosses to bear, that maybe you don't.
    im not here for other people... just for my self like everybody...
    But, maybe this moment in time could serve you well, if you wish to see it that way. Caring about others, even those whom you'll never meet...why, that is what makes life worth living. Anyway....just my two cents. For what it's worth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,925
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Since the early 1980's (beginning of the HIV epidemic in the U.S.), men who have sex with men have not been able to donate blood. And, of course, there is a crowd of people calling this a discriminatory homophobic act and calling for a complete lift of the ban. I'm all for equal rights, but in this case, I see a reason for the ban.

    First, it's not a ban on gay people from donating blood, it's a ban on men who have sex with men from donating blood. Ergo, gay women can donate as can gay men who have not had a sexual encounter with another man. Doesn't seem very homophobic to me. Also, if the ban were put in place "just because of America's homophobic mentality," it would have been done long before the outbreak of HIV.

    The fact is, men who have sex with men have a lot higher risk of contracting HIV than others. They only make up 2% of the U.S. population, but accounted for 61% of HIV cases. And, unfortunately, there is still too large of a window period from the time of being infected to the time that it is detectable in our standard tests. The ban isn't about being gay, it's about risk factors, and gay people aren't the only ones being "discriminated" against.

    So, equality advocates, where is the movement to allow people from Niger, Cameroon, Chad, etc. to donate? Where is the movement to allow people from the UK and Europe to donate?

    I wholeheartedly agree the lifetime ban should be reduced to about 6 months (plenty of time for the virus to be detectable), but people need to stop making this a sociological issue.

    What do you all think?

    Gay Blood Donors Ban Endures In The U.S., Despite Lacking 'Sound Science'
    Thanks for posting this, mat. Particularly interesting, is the comment by 'James Paisley,' below the article. I think the lifetime ban doesn't make much sense, in most cases.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    I feel sorry for people who get hiv/aids because of some people do not have any control at all...lack of moral etc...
    MOD WARNING : Equating suffering from AIDS with a lack of morals is not acceptable in the "Health" section of a science forum, and I consider it offensive to those members and readers here who continue to live their lives with this condition; one more such comment, and you will find yourself on an involuntary vacation. This is an official warning. You are entitled to your opinions and moral judgements, but you are not entitled to spread them wherever you like.
    I dint know I in middle of dictatorship where you may not even give your opinion with no rights at all... but do not think that this forum for anyone is more worth than their thoughts we aint sheeps we think and we have our opinions and in the end I didn't open any tread regarding to gay people(so no propaganda or advert) I just gived my opinion when they came to the subject...now you can think which way... you want this forum to go and what kinda of people are here unwelcome... and keep that in mind the next time you give a warning... you aint here for your personal opinions... to moderate
    Why don't you take his warning as a teachable moment for you? Instead of becoming defensive, take a step back and reflect as to how you have come across with your comment about people who have HIV/AIDS. Forget about the forum for a moment, even if you disagree with what is being said here...try to be compassionate for those who have crosses to bear, that maybe you don't.
    im not here for other people... just for my self like everybody...
    But, maybe this moment in time could serve you well, if you wish to see it that way. Caring about others, even those whom you'll never meet...why, that is what makes life worth living. Anyway....just my two cents. For what it's worth.
    I can do when I think I should do it or it needs to be done... not when you like to see it...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    I feel sorry for people still trapped in medieval philosophies that try to attribute and vilify people for diseases they get instead of more appropriately recognizing and attributing the disease to rapid evolution of a viral species doing what all life does..surviving, multiplying and adapting. Except for the exceeding rare cases where people knowingly infected others, there's no moral argument that can be made--and the numbers that did that were exceedingly small and insignificant compared to the total numbers of people infected.

    The more recent adaptions of HIV virus has been to slow down death of its host, no doubt providing an evolutionary fitness advantage because of more time to spread--current strains are much slower acting than the 80's strains.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    im not here for other people... just for my self like everybody...
    I can quite understand you wanting to do something for yourself and nobody else.

    But I'm a bit nonplussed at the notion that everybody is just like you. Surely you believe that we're all individuals. People can have different, opposite or mixed reasons for doing things and that can turn out to be not-at-all-like-you.

    Or do you think we're all exactly the same with exactly the same motivations and feelings?
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    im not here for other people... just for my self like everybody...
    I can quite understand you wanting to do something for yourself and nobody else.

    But I'm a bit nonplussed at the notion that everybody is just like you. Surely you believe that we're all individuals. People can have different, opposite or mixed reasons for doing things and that can turn out to be not-at-all-like-you.

    Or do you think we're all exactly the same with exactly the same motivations and feelings?
    I think we are all grown ups and we came to forum for ourselves... that makes us part of this community...you get answer you give answers or not but none of us is in any debt...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I feel sorry for people still trapped in medieval philosophies that try to attribute and vilify people for diseases they get instead of more appropriately recognizing and attributing the disease to rapid evolution of a viral species doing what all life does..surviving, multiplying and adapting. Except for the exceeding rare cases where people knowingly infected others, there's no moral argument that can be made--and the numbers that did that were exceedingly small and insignificant compared to the total numbers of people infected.

    The more recent adaptions of HIV virus has been to slow down death of its host, no doubt providing an evolutionary fitness advantage because of more time to spread--current strains are much slower acting than the 80's strains.
    so what are you saying??? all our choices doesn't matter we should look forward and make them right on the backs of the other people???
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    I think we are all grown ups and we came to forum for ourselves... that makes us part of this community...you get answer you give answers or not but none of us is in any debt...
    I am indebted to a great many member for their questions, answers, observations and anecdotes. Thank you all.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    I think we are all grown ups and we came to forum for ourselves... that makes us part of this community...you get answer you give answers or not but none of us is in any debt...
    I am indebted to a great many member for their questions, answers, observations and anecdotes. Thank you all.
    no thanks
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    I feel sorry for people who get hiv/aids because of some people do not have any control at all...lack of moral etc...
    What the hell does a lack of morals have to do with AIDS?
    everything
    That is IGNORANCE PERSONIFIED!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,276
    Well, I guess it just sucks to be one of the people who contracted HIV through a blood transfusion then, huh?

    It's a good thing that rapists never have HIV or any other kind of STD/STI, either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Well, I guess it just sucks to be one of the people who contracted HIV through a blood transfusion then, huh?

    It's a good thing that rapists never have HIV or any other kind of STD/STI, either.
    It is tragic, period.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 1st, 2012, 11:02 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 16th, 2011, 03:03 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 1st, 2010, 05:16 PM
  4. Gay Marriage
    By gravitywell in forum Politics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: May 12th, 2008, 01:58 PM
  5. a gay gene?
    By clerval in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2007, 04:56 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •