Posted on 06/15/2016 7:51:20 PM PDT by Faith Presses On
Although MSM represent a small percentage of the U.S. male population (approximately 7% of men report that they have ever participated in MSM activity and approximately 4% of men report that they engaged in MSM activity in the last 5 years 1 ) (Ref. 26), they comprise a large proportion of adults in the United States with existing and newly diagnosed HIV infections. Among persons living with HIV in 2012, CDC estimates that 56% were MSM (including MSM who were also IDU) (Ref. 27).
MSM remain at increased risk of HIV infection. In 2010, the majority of new HIV infections were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact: 63% among all adults and 78% among men, indicating that male-to-male sexual contact remains associated with high risk of HIV exposure (Ref. 28).
* * *
Sex with an HIV-positive partner was associated with a 132-fold increase in risk (multivariable adjusted odds ratio) for being HIV-positive, and a history of male-to-male sexual contact was associated with a 62-fold increase in risk.
By comparison, the increase in risk for a history of multiple sexual partners of the opposite sex in the last year was 2.3-fold.
* * *
In addition, the compliance rate with the one-year MSM deferral among male donors in Australia following the policy change was >99.7% (Ref. 37).
Of note, donors in Australia must sign a declaration in the presence of blood center staff that they understand that there are penalties, including fines and imprisonment, for providing false or misleading information. No such declaration is required in the United States, nor are donors advised of penalties for providing false or misleading information.
* * *
However, some have argued that a five-year deferral would, in theory, add a safeguard by allowing time for intervention against an emerging infectious disease that might spread rapidly among MSM and be transmitted through blood transfusion.
* * *
Specifically, the rate of partner infidelity in ostensibly monogamous heterosexual couples and same-sex male couples is estimated to be about 25%, and condom use is associated with a 1 to 2% failure rate per episode of anal intercourse (Refs. 38, 39, 40, 41).
In addition, the prevalence of HIV infection is significantly higher in MSM with multiple male partners compared with individuals who have only multiple opposite sex partners (Ref. 28).
* * *
HIV testing on blood donated in the United States is currently implemented by assays including nucleic acid testing. Nucleic acid testing is generally performed on pools of 6 to 16 donor samples. Pooling of samples both markedly reduces the cost of testing and is associated with a reduced number of false positive samples.
The window period when recent HIV infection might be missed using this testing strategy is approximately 9 days. Given this, it has been suggested that no donor deferral is necessary, given the relatively low likelihood that a recently infected individual would give blood.
However, in the setting of the approximately 50,000 new HIV infections per year in the United States, conservative calculations performed by FDA estimate that this approach could potentially be associated with an approximately four-fold increase in HIV transmissions resulting from blood transfusions each year.
Such a policy, increasing the potential for the transmission of HIV infection, is not aligned with maintaining or improving the safety of the blood supply in the U.S.
* * *
In addition, self-report of monogamy cannot be relied upon because of the relatively high rate of infidelity between partners in any type of sexual relationship (Ref. 38). Even if a potential donor is truthful in providing responses regarding his or her own behavior, the response may not be meaningful if a partner has not been monogamous.
* * *
As a group, in the United States, MSM have the highest HIV risk: according to CDC, two-thirds of new HIV infections occur in the approximately 2% of the population who are MSM (Ref. 27). The risk of HIV among MSM is more than twenty-fold higher than that of men who have sex with multiple female partners and women who have sex with multiple male partners (Ref. 32).
Thus, absent another scientifically-validated way of identifying individuals at highest risk of transmitting HIV, a time-based deferral for MSM since last sexual encounter is the one deferral policy that has been demonstrated to be effective in a setting with similar HIV epidemiology to the United States.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3440453/posts
See more excerpts here:
Government workers have priority, by which I mean requirement.
The pedestrians should have a choice (one of a few)
.
It is really very simple. HIV has a latency period when there are not enough antibodies to be detected in the blood. Gays, bisexuals and iv drug abusers have the highest percentage of HIV infection. Statistically you have a greater chance of contracting Aids from blood of any of the above.
To put it simply you need blood to live. You have two choices. The first bag of blood is from a hetrosexual and the blood has been tested to be HIV free. The second bag of blood is from a gay and the blood has also tested HIV free. However if the second bag of blood is from someone that has been recently infected it will not have enough antibodies in it to test as HIV positive even though it has the HIV virus in it.
Which bag will you choose to run in your veins or the veins of your daughter or son or wife?
Anyone promoting the lifting of the ban is evil, has evil intentions. No way around it.
MSM?? Mainstream Media?
Men who have had sex with males.
There’s a very key word in your post.
Does this include all the boys who were raped and molested by homos? Because that may count as "participating" and would boost that figure.
If anyone should have been angry at the world it would have been this gentleman. He was gracious and courteous to the doctors and nurses until his death. I have also seen patients that have caught this disease by choice of their life style. Some are gracious as the above patient. Many are are obscene in their anger against those that are caring for them. I have seen instances of these patients deliberately trying to infect their health care workers but in honesty this is rare but it is real.
Choices in life have consequences. I choose to fly gliders at their limits of structural failure less 15%. If I make a mistake and pull a wing off it is totally my error and responsibility and my life insurance company will not be pleased. Society owes me nothing because I screwed up and pulled a wing off. Society owes nothing to groups whom life style puts them in danger of death by aids. In fact they owe my patient as their life style killed him just because he needed blood in San Francisco.
He was still sexually active and monogamous. Most fortunately his wife tested HIV negative. They lived two blocks down the street from me. I did not know them in my neighborhood. I knew him as a patient.
He was a nice man. He did not deserve what happened to him. He was a nice man.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.