tpe42 saidI was recently at a blood drive and one of the notes on the little rules and guidelines they make you read irked me. Basically, it said "Do not donate if you are male and had sexual contact with another male, even once". Really, the whole vibe made it sound derogatory towards gay men. My main concern is why does this rule exist? Is it really just a health precaution? Or is it meant to scare potential donors from having gay sex?
PolaroidSwinger saidtpe42 saidI was recently at a blood drive and one of the notes on the little rules and guidelines they make you read irked me. Basically, it said "Do not donate if you are male and had sexual contact with another male, even once". Really, the whole vibe made it sound derogatory towards gay men. My main concern is why does this rule exist? Is it really just a health precaution? Or is it meant to scare potential donors from having gay sex?
The reason they've given for the restriction is the higher incidence of HIV infection among MSM in the US.
Medjai saidIt's also an old law that no longer applies...
paulflexes saidIt means that they are too lazy to test the blood of donors for deadly diseases.
Keep this in mind if you're ever in a situation where YOU need blood.
BTW, I've needed blood. Fortunately it wasn't tainted.
Medjai saidCitation?paulflexes saidIt means that they are too lazy to test the blood of donors for deadly diseases.
Keep this in mind if you're ever in a situation where YOU need blood.
BTW, I've needed blood. Fortunately it wasn't tainted.
Uh, no... All blood is tested regardless of risk.
paulflexes saidMedjai saidCitation?paulflexes saidIt means that they are too lazy to test the blood of donors for deadly diseases.
Keep this in mind if you're ever in a situation where YOU need blood.
BTW, I've needed blood. Fortunately it wasn't tainted.
Uh, no... All blood is tested regardless of risk.
Medjai saidpaulflexes saidIt means that they are too lazy to test the blood of donors for deadly diseases.
Keep this in mind if you're ever in a situation where YOU need blood.
BTW, I've needed blood. Fortunately it wasn't tainted.
Uh, no... All blood is tested regardless of risk.
paulflexes saidCitation?
thadjock saidit can take up to three months for a person who's infected with HIV before they'll test positive,
what if they give blood in that period of time and their blood tests negative too, even though it's infected?
Medjai saidthadjock saidit can take up to three months for a person who's infected with HIV before they'll test positive,
what if they give blood in that period of time and their blood tests negative too, even though it's infected?
Blood services doesn't test for antibodies. They test for the virus directly, using the NAT testing method.
thadjock saidso why don't they test a person for HIV by taking their blood and checking for the virus directly?
wouldn't that eliminate the limbo period where guys test neg and they're really not? and prevent potential spread of the virus?
PolaroidSwinger said
Even RNA tests still have a window period of 9-11 days, and false positives are not uncommon; sometimes even false negatives (especially when running batched samples).
NAT tests are not a reliable substitute for antibody tests, and the latter is required to double-check any positive results that are delivered by NAT anyway.
Copyright © 2006-2016 Family Powered Networks. All rights reserved
