This chart makes it obvious why the ban is in place. I was surprised, though, at the numbers in the black heterosexual population.
Posted on 12/03/2013 7:12:26 PM PST by massmike
Should homosexual men – a group with the highest HIV-infection rates in the nation – be allowed to donate blood?
That’s the question the federal government is considering this week as it re-evaluates whether it should lift the 30-year ban on homosexual blood donation.
“CDC estimates that MSM represent approximated 4 percent of the male population in the United States, but male-to-male sex accounted for more than three-fourths (78 percent) of new HIV infections among men and nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of all new infections in 2010.”
The American Red Cross warns: “HIV antibodies may take a few weeks to develop after infection with the virus. If you were recently infected, you might have a negative test result, yet be able to infect the recipient of your donation. That is why you must not give blood if you are at risk of getting AIDS or other infectious diseases.”
Nonetheless, a petition a WhiteHouse.gov, created in November by students at the University of Michigan, claims the FDA policy is “discriminatory and inadequate.”
Dr. Jay Brooks, an expert in blood banking and transfusion at the University of Florida’s College of Medicine, told WND, “Yes, people need blood, but taking blood from men who’ve had sex from men since 1977 is not going to increase the blood supply substantially.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
What difference, at this point, does it make? The commoners don’t need blood transfusions, anyway.
Bug-chasing, of a sort.
Also “spreading the gift”.
Sick. Demonic.
Now people are claiming the “right” to donate blood. And they are taken seriously. What an odd country we are becoming.
A couple of quick thoughts here:
-HIV is the focus here, but it should be noted that the CDC’s numbers for gay/bi men regarding syphilis are almost identical to those for HIV. Syphilis can be just as much a killer as HIV.
-I would answer the argument for the justification for lifting the ban (i.e. we know more about the HIV virus, and can test for it better) with this question. If we allow gay men to donate blood when they are so high-risk, why not drop ALL restrictions? I mean, we can test the blood of shared needle drug users, men who have paid prostitutes for sex, and people who hail from certain sub-Saharan African nations (all three of which are forbidden to donate for the same basic reasons as gay men) just as easily as that of a gay man. Somehow, I think the advocates would be hard-pressed to come up with a good answer for that one.
-If it were really about anti-gay discrimination, the ban would extend to lesbians. It does not, as lesbians present a very low HIV risk. The bias argument holds no merit except in the minds of gay activists and brainwashed students who think diversity should trump sound medical policy.
There's a list of people signing up for the gay blood bank.
While other advocates of homosexual blood donation have argued that MSM should be allowed to donate if they say they haven’t had sex with men in at least one to five years – the current guidelines in Britain and Canada – Brooks said any such deferral period presents yet another complication.
“Part of the problem, to me, is you’re asking gay men to be celibate for a year to donate blood – or five years,” he said. “I don’t think that’s going to happen. It’s certainly been documented in the medical literature that if we went to a one-year deferral period, it would not significantly add to the blood supply.”
The only stigma that homosexual men face is having to duck out of the workplace blood drives. Shouldn't be too hard. If they feel drawn to do public service, there are many other opportunities.
Being celibate or monogamous would probably be the biggest public service they could do, as a group. Not gonna happen.
Not odd, but only suicidal.
I’m working on my 11th gallon go good old American red blood. If they let homosexuals contaminate the supply, I’ll quit giving.
In related news...
CDC: 62 Percent Of HIV-Positive Men Have Unprotected Sex
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3097846/posts
Wisconsin DNR Struggling To Curb Sex At Nude Beach
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3097583/posts
Gay men push to end 30-year blood donation ban
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3097348/posts
In fact, “CDC estimates that MSM represent approximated 4 percent of the male population in the United States, but male-to-male sex accounted for more than three-fourths (78 percent) of new HIV infections among men and nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of all new infections in 2010.”
I will stop donating, also. The reason why this is being pushed is because the number of people donating blood has been dropping over the years.
Blood donations lowest in 15 years, Red Cross says
30JUL2012
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/blood-donations-lowest-15-years-red-cross-says-916587
HHS report shows a decrease in blood supply but also a drop in demand
1DEC2013
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/1/hhs-report-shows-a-decrease-in-blood-supply-but-al/
I remember reading about this in the news a couple of years ago.
putting politics before the good of the country as usual.
There is absolutely no medical evidence that the human body is designed to lose blood or that this is good for us. Leeches work sometimes for entirely different reasons. I doubt that an urgent need to divest themselves of excess blood is what makes some gay men wish to contribute to the blood supply.
Only because we say they can’t. Homosexuals are developmentally stunted, they are stuck at the stage when kids want to break every rule just to be defiant.
Yeah, we’re all going to need our own blood to freeze in case we get hurt and need an uncontaminated supply.
If someone was intent on massively spreading HIV throughout the population in this country - this is the way you would do it - by infecting the blood supply.
Some nutritionists are saying red meat is good to eat but can leed to too much iron due to lack of bleeding.
Also donating blood temporarily causes about 1 lb of weight loss and lower blood pressure.
For people genetically disposed to excess iron, periodic blood letting is prescibed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_overload
from wiki: “Routine treatment in an otherwise-healthy person consists of regularly scheduled phlebotomies (bloodletting). When first diagnosed, the phlebotomies may be fairly frequent, perhaps as often as once a week, until iron levels can be brought to within normal range. Once iron and other markers are within the normal range, phlebotomies may be scheduled every other month or every three months depending upon the patient’s rate of iron loading.”
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.