Posted on 07/26/2016 8:08:34 PM PDT by PROCON
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration opened the door on Tuesday to a change in its blood donor deferral recommendations, which currently prohibit donations from gay men for a year following their last sexual encounter in order to reduce the risk of transmitting HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
In December the FDA overturned a 30-year ban on all blood donations from men who have sex with men, saying the change was based on science showing an indefinite ban was not necessary to prevent transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus.
The FDA is now signaling it may go further.
Gay rights advocates say the latest update did not go far enough and that the agency's recommendations should move closer to individual risk assessments, which could, for example, look at whether an individual has been in a monogamous relationship. Their criticism intensified in the wake of a mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, in June, which saw many gay men unable to donate blood even as blood banks put out calls for donors.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
I'm pretty sure the blood banks are not testing for Zika...
Zika itself can be transmtted thru semen, etc...
I’m pretty sure the blood banks are not testing for Zika...
Boy this is spot on...This needs to be addressed!
So let me if I have this right, heterosexual patients that go in for let’s say, a hip, knee, or whatever surgery, and need a blood transfusion, might get HIV infected blood from a homosexual donor? This is all in the name of equality & diversity & non discrimination? So exposing heteros to deviant diseases is the new norm?
Will someone please wake me up from this PC on steroids nightmare, please?
There is a latency period between infection and enough antibodies in the blood to test positive for HIV. You can be infective but test negative for HIV.
This is insane.
Question: Your child is dying and needs blood to survive. You have the choice between two units of blood. One is from a heterosexual and the other from a homosexual or iv drug abuser. Both bags of blood test negative for HIV. Which bag of blood will you choose to put in your child’s body?
The bag from the heterosexual will not give you aids. The bag from the homosexual or iv drug abuser probably will not give you aids, but it might!
Which bag do you choose?
Years later he died of AIDs. Fortunately he did not pass it on to his wife.
Yes, it’s nothing but pure PC, feel-good MADNESS; Hell we’ll ALL be diseased and extinct in a few generations with this crap.
>> BS, there is no real Science in this country anymore.
And the Leftist wackos always proclaim the superiority in science.
They are truly ass-clowns.
I wonder what Arthur Ashe would say about letting gays donate.
Unfortunately, gay blood killed him.
Yes. If you look into the writings of the crazies who want to reduce human population by literally billions in the name of Gaia (without volunteering to commit suicide themselves of course), it all begins to make macabre sense.
As I watch this Communist political convention in Philadelphia I'm reminded that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro and a few other like-minded Marxist totalitarians who murdered millions, made what our Leftist leadership probably thinks was "a good start."
And when I demand that the blood they give me is definitely NOT from a gay man?
When I was away from FR for about a year, I had computer problems and lost them. Wagglebee hasn’t been around to ask, and the person who I thought had them has not answered my freepmails.
I did start a vanity to see if anyone wanted to add their names to new ping lists, but only a few responded. IIRC, you were one.
I suppose I could find that thread and bump it up. A shame there are no pings for either now, certainly enough material.
I've been donating blood regularly for 45 years.
Here in Seattle, they have been reducing restrictions on donors for several years now.
About one year ago we had a full day of gay protests where dozens of gay donors showed up at blood centers and tried to donate.
Also, I have totally lost confidence in the “sterile” procedures followed by the blood centers.
Before the stick, the phlebotomists probe your veins with ungloved fingers. Who knows where those fingers have been before they started touching your skin? And the fallback excuse is always the same: “The antiseptic before the stick will kill everything.”
Sorry - I don't believe that.
Even worse, before they remove the needle, they fish around bare handed in their glove stuffed pockets, pull out two unsterilized gloves, then fold the gauze that will be placed directly on your needle wound. Who knows what kinds of microbes get transferred to your gauze?
I get emails several times a month begging me to donate because I have some unusual blood factors that are rare and very useful.
Sorry - as far as I'm concerned, the donation health risks have become completely unacceptable to me.
Ridiculous that the gay men get back into the blood donation biz when people who lived in Europe are banned for life. I didn’t do anything risky. I didn’t eat meat from England. Yet my blood isn’t good enough.
DAMN them, how about “blood recipient rights”??????
WE THE PEOPLE have the right to receive necessary blood donations without unnecessary risks of HIV, hepatitis, etc.
No one has a “right” to infect other people with their blood borne illnesses!!!!!
It’s interesting to read this thread since it is being insinuated on another thread that I’m a bit of a homophobe for resisting the charms of Milo Yiannopolis. Some freepers are so desperate to believe that leftist communities like gays are becoming Republicans because one gay guy supports Trump and some guys were tragically murdered in Orlando.
Meanwhile, their leaders have managed to pull this stunt with the nation’s blood supply.
Because everyone has the right to get AIDS.
What could go wrong? Absolutely nothing if you’re a self-designated ‘elite snob,’ meaning a global socialist looking to dramatically reduce the world’s population. Bertrand Russell once said that if something like the black plague could be unleashed among the masses every so often it would take care of over-population.
My 20 yr old daughter required blood after being shot. I am extremely worried because I work in immunology and have since 1988. I remember the everyday children, grandmas, fathers and extremely ill people, particularly chronic blood recipients, who got AIDs.. Wait until the Cuban Variant hits. I remember the dire predictions of the numbers of people infected and the death rates being pushed. I guess these scientists just want to prove they were right. Makes me wonder how they will actually melt the Himalayas to make that prediction come true also, o wait, that was a math error.
I forgot to add to my post. There are lots of medications, that are lowering our ability to obtain true positives, particularly with HCV. I am worried that even our advanced testing is not going to detect HIV and HCV with the advanced meds. That doesn’t mean you won’t be exposed to it with a donation, that just means, no one will have evidence that you were exposed to it through blood.
I just don’t understand, we can’t have life saving and advanced diagnostics and pharms without the FDA cash cycle, but we can be exposed to numerous and now, less detectable, viruses. That is why the Donor questionnaire was created, to detect known risk behaviors that will not necessarily translate into true positives. I wonder what the false negative rate for HCV, HIV are? I mean the real numbers, not the white papers published by faux scientists who believe the Himalayas will melt by 2035.
IT’s because they believe that ‘science’ isn’t really trying to cure AIDS because we all hate homos. They think if AIDS becomes a pandemic, ‘science’ will get serious about it. In their belief it is the commitment of money that will solve THEIR problem.
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.