Gay Men Plan Blood Ban Action

  • jc_online

    Posts: 487

    Jun 04, 2010 10:48 PM GMT
    The LGBT Center in Cleveland (for which I work) demonstrated today the waste of not taking blood from gay and bisexual men. see advocate.com article below; then post your thoughts.
    Have you been turned away from donating blood?
    Have you ever lied about having sex with men in order to give blood?
    -JC

    HIV-negative gay and bisexual men in Cleveland plan to donate blood late Friday afternoon and intentionally discard it in an action to demonstrate the urgent need to lift the Food and Drug Administration’s ban on their blood donations.

    “We wanted to highlight the human impact of the ban in very, very visceral terms,” said Earl Pike, CEO of the AIDS Taskforce of Greater Cleveland, in an interview with The Advocate. “We literally are pouring blood down the drain that could save lives. We have ten people donating blood and a phlebotomist destroying the blood.”

    Pike said that 10 men will donate two pints of blood, which translates to the potential to save six lives. Others will sign up to donate blood once the ban is lifted, in a sign of the need to educate an entire generation of gay and bisexual men about how to give blood.

    ”We want to get ready for when the community can save lives,” said Pike. “To start taking down names of people who are interested in giving blood.”

    The action arrives ahead of FDA hearings on lifting the ban scheduled for June 10 and 11 in Maryland. However, no immediate end to the ban is in sight, which frustrates Pike, given the professional consensus among advocates and health professionals in favor of changing the 27-year-old policy.

    “As everybody knows, the FDA is going to look at this issue again this week,” he said. “We’ll probably have another couple of days of expert testimony in which we revisit the same scientific information we’ve known for years and years and years.”

    Pike said that people interested in speeding up the process should check whether their U.S. senators were among the 18 that signed a recent letter to the FDA urging the agency to end the ban. If not, contact the senators and ask them to sign the letter.
  • jc_online

    Posts: 487

    Jun 05, 2010 12:39 AM GMT
    No one has a thought about this?
    Hmmm....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2010 1:37 AM GMT
    Statistically, gay men have a higher percentage of hiv than hetersexuals, consequently the ban. Why is there a higher percentage of hiv among gay men? I don't believe promiscuity is more prevelant among gay men, but it appears that hiv is transmitted more easily through anal sex than vagina. Also, safe sex is practiced more often among str8 couples who are not in a monogomous relationship to avoid pregnancy. The problem with removing the ban is that blood can be tested from a gay, however the test may give a negative reading when in actuality the blood may be infected with hiv and consequently given to someone else. Now, I suppose some one could say the same thing could happen with a str8 guy's blood. However, this has not been a problem in the past because statiscally the rise in hiv is among gay men, not hetersexuals. Could it happen, yes? Has it been happening, no. If the ban is removed and hiv is passed on by blood transfusion due to the fact that a gay man was infected when he gave blood, but the hiv test did not show it, I'm sure the ban will be reinstated. Perhaps a trial period is going to be given to see what happens, but one accident with hiv infected blood is no doubt going to bring a return to the ban. Allowing a gay to donate blood who is infected with hiv, but tests negative, will not save lives unfortutuately, but will be a giving a gift that will not be appreciated. It's a really touchy situation because if someone should get infected after lifting the ban, our government could be receiving lawsuits from the victims.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2010 1:57 AM GMT
    This whole topic is a bit tricky. We all tend to agree that when it comes to sex, you should assume every guy is positive. So, how can we automatically assume that negative guys are indeed negative, when it comes to giving blood?

    Blood is a lot more infectious than semen. Accepting donations from high-risk groups simply isn't worth the risk.

    Donating blood is the easy part. The real question is are you willing to RECEIVE a blood transfusion from a guy you just hooked up with or met at a bar? The whole concept of blood donations is scary as is. Even when it comes from straight people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2010 2:03 AM GMT
    Past experiences has contributed to this action, as how many children hemophiliacs where infected by the HIV virus from receiving infected blood. I myself find it hard because sexually I live the life of a saint and have done so long enough that I no longer need blood tests to see if I am still negative, yet I am still prohibited from donating blood; but I do understand.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2010 2:14 AM GMT
    SeaSon saidThis whole topic is a bit tricky. We all tend to agree that when it comes to sex, you should assume every guy is positive. So, how can we automatically assume that negative guys are indeed negative, when it comes to giving blood?

    Blood is a lot more infectious than semen. Accepting donations from high-risk groups simply isn't worth the risk.

    Donating blood is the easy part. The real question is are you willing to RECEIVE a blood transfusion from a guy you just hooked up with or met at a bar? The whole concept of blood donations is scary as is. Even when it comes from straight people.

    My dear uninformed dolt: ALL blood is screened for HIV and other infectious agents. It has to be, because some straight & gay donors will not be aware of their blood's status, and will not be identified as non-suitable during a pre-donation interview. All the self-reported answers in the world will not guarantee someone doesn't have an infectious agent in their blood they don't know about.

    So you have 2 choices: believe that all blood is contaminated, because of donors unaware of their infectious status, or else believe that tests of donated blood are effective. If the tests are effective, then the concern about gay donors is irrelevant -- HIV-poz blood will be caught. But barring gay men from donating blood accomplishes nothing, except to reduce the available blood donor supply.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2010 2:20 AM GMT

    You're fun of shit barefootdude- no wonder no one wants to fuck you. icon_evil.gif
  • jc_online

    Posts: 487

    Jun 05, 2010 2:45 AM GMT
    A reasonable amount of time since last sexual encounter man to man to ensure blood supply safety is OK, and there should be rules that are backed by science. However, currently men who have sex - even once - anytime since 1977 cannot give blood in the USA. Period. This current is not based on science, but based on prejudice and bigotry.

    Recently, the ban on HIV+ international travelers to the USA has been lifted. Another rule that may have had merit when it was implemented, but is not antiquated by our science knowledge. The absolute blood ban should also be lifted, and a new rule put in its place. One based on science, no?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2010 4:02 AM GMT
    Wilton saidMy dear uninformed dolt: ALL blood is screened for HIV and other infectious agents. It has to be, because some straight & gay donors will not be aware of their blood's status, and will not be identified as non-suitable during a pre-donation interview. All the self-reported answers in the world will not guarantee someone doesn't have an infectious agent in their blood they don't know about.

    So you have 2 choices: believe that all blood is contaminated, because of donors unaware of their infectious status, or else believe that tests of donated blood are effective. If the tests are effective, then the concern about gay donors is irrelevant -- HIV-poz blood will be caught. But barring gay men from donating blood accomplishes nothing, except to reduce the available blood donor supply.


    Wilton, don't call me a dolt :-)

    I know blood donations are screened for HIV, but as with normal HIV testing, there is a "window period". If a person donating blood was very recently infected, their infection wouldn't show up in any form of screening (PCR, Elisa, etc.). So, blood banks use a statistical probability strategy. They first take blood from people who aren't likely to have HIV (straight people), and then they run HIV tests to reduce the statistical probability of infection even further. Choosing the right candidates is an important part of the process.

    In other countries, blood donations are refused not just from gay people, but from people of African descent and those who take certain medications. No one is saying you have HIV and no one is denying you the right to receive blood, if you need it.
  • a2507

    Posts: 152

    Jun 05, 2010 4:27 AM GMT
    Gentlemen (and please, let's try to act like one....name calling is tempting but uncalled for....),

    The problem with the FDA ban, separate from whether it is medically and scientifically merited now, is that it is NOT applied uniformly to all high risk groups.

    The ban on gay men has its origins in the early days of HIV/AIDS when no one knew anything. It kind of made sense then.

    Now, there is much better screening but, sorry, SeaSon, there are other high risk groups which, using the logic of the FDA ban on "men who have sex with men," should also be banned but which aren't......

    Specifically, the HIV infection rate in minority women, Hispanic and African American compares with the risk level of MSM's. But those groups are not banned based on their membership in a class of people while MSM's are.....why?

    It's not science but politics.....and maybe federal law in that discrimination based on gender or race or ethnicity are illegal but similar discrimination based on sexual orientation is not.

    It is fair and appropriate for bi and gay men to insist that the FDA apply their "science" uniformly. If there's no need to ban those other high risk groups, then don't ban MSM's, or if you ban MSM's then ban all high risk groups, including all straights who have unprotected sex (which is most of them I suspect...) but that would shut down the blood system.

    Again this is much more now about politics than science.....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2010 5:00 AM GMT
    Wilton said
    SeaSon saidThis whole topic is a bit tricky. We all tend to agree that when it comes to sex, you should assume every guy is positive. So, how can we automatically assume that negative guys are indeed negative, when it comes to giving blood?

    Blood is a lot more infectious than semen. Accepting donations from high-risk groups simply isn't worth the risk.

    Donating blood is the easy part. The real question is are you willing to RECEIVE a blood transfusion from a guy you just hooked up with or met at a bar? The whole concept of blood donations is scary as is. Even when it comes from straight people.

    My dear uninformed dolt: ALL blood is screened for HIV and other infectious agents. It has to be, because some straight & gay donors will not be aware of their blood's status, and will not be identified as non-suitable during a pre-donation interview. All the self-reported answers in the world will not guarantee someone doesn't have an infectious agent in their blood they don't know about.

    So you have 2 choices: believe that all blood is contaminated, because of donors unaware of their infectious status, or else believe that tests of donated blood are effective. If the tests are effective, then the concern about gay donors is irrelevant -- HIV-poz blood will be caught. But barring gay men from donating blood accomplishes nothing, except to reduce the available blood donor supply.


    The fact remains that hiv infected blood can receive a neg result from anywhere's up to 3-6 months. A gay who gives blood, if he just became infected may not show up on a test for 3- 6 months later. So if his blood is used, 3- 6 months later they may find out his blood was infected and now the person who received it is also infected. Not a pretty scenario, but it is the truth regarding hiv.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2010 5:04 AM GMT
    A1EX said
    You're fun of shit barefootdude- no wonder no one wants to fuck you. icon_evil.gif


    This isn't shit. This is the truth regarding hiv testing. There is no definitive way to be sure that any one's blood is not infected. That's why the ban has been in place on a high risk group like gays.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2010 5:12 AM GMT
    a2507 saidGentlemen (and please, let's try to act like one....name calling is tempting but uncalled for....),

    The problem with the FDA ban, separate from whether it is medically and scientifically merited now, is that it is NOT applied uniformly to all high risk groups.

    The ban on gay men has its origins in the early days of HIV/AIDS when no one knew anything. It kind of made sense then.

    Now, there is much better screening but, sorry, SeaSon, there are other high risk groups which, using the logic of the FDA ban on "men who have sex with men," should also be banned but which aren't......

    Specifically, the HIV infection rate in minority women, Hispanic and African American compares with the risk level of MSM's. But those groups are not banned based on their membership in a class of people while MSM's are.....why?

    It's not science but politics.....and maybe federal law in that discrimination based on gender or race or ethnicity are illegal but similar discrimination based on sexual orientation is not.

    It is fair and appropriate for bi and gay men to insist that the FDA apply their "science" uniformly. If there's no need to ban those other high risk groups, then don't ban MSM's, or if you ban MSM's then ban all high risk groups, including all straights who have unprotected sex (which is most of them I suspect...) but that would shut down the blood system.

    Again this is much more now about politics than science.....


    Most straights don't have unprotected sex unless they are in a committed relationship wanting a baby. There would be a lot more pregnancies I'm sure, if str8's weren't using protectioin.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2010 5:15 AM GMT
    A1EX said
    You're fun of shit barefootdude- no wonder no one wants to fuck you. icon_evil.gif


    I have enough men wanting to fuck, but I'm already in a relationship, so not good to screw around. Even though my profile indicates that, I still get asked often.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2010 5:22 AM GMT
    a2507 saidGentlemen (and please, let's try to act like one....name calling is tempting but uncalled for....),

    The problem with the FDA ban, separate from whether it is medically and scientifically merited now, is that it is NOT applied uniformly to all high risk groups.

    The ban on gay men has its origins in the early days of HIV/AIDS when no one knew anything. It kind of made sense then.

    Now, there is much better screening but, sorry, SeaSon, there are other high risk groups which, using the logic of the FDA ban on "men who have sex with men," should also be banned but which aren't......

    Specifically, the HIV infection rate in minority women, Hispanic and African American compares with the risk level of MSM's. But those groups are not banned based on their membership in a class of people while MSM's are.....why?

    It's not science but politics.....and maybe federal law in that discrimination based on gender or race or ethnicity are illegal but similar discrimination based on sexual orientation is not.

    It is fair and appropriate for bi and gay men to insist that the FDA apply their "science" uniformly. If there's no need to ban those other high risk groups, then don't ban MSM's, or if you ban MSM's then ban all high risk groups, including all straights who have unprotected sex (which is most of them I suspect...) but that would shut down the blood system.

    Again this is much more now about politics than science.....



    I was about to post this.
    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/resources/factsheets/aa.htm
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2010 5:27 AM GMT
    The rules that would have to be in place for gays to donate blood would have to be that you have not had sex for at least 6 months prior to donating or that you are in a monogomous relationship with a partner. That would eliminate as much risk as it does for str8's. But how many gays are in a monagamous relationship or have not had sex within the past 6 months? This would still ban a lot of gays from donating blood, but it would allow some to.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2010 5:57 AM GMT
    ROFL barefootdude said, "Most straights don't have unprotected sex unless they are in a committed relationship wanting a baby."

    Really, so how does that explain all the abortions you foam at the mouth over? As well, there are drugs girls take, they're called oral contraceptives.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_contraceptive_pill


    OMG are you for real? icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 07, 2010 12:02 AM GMT
    barefootdude said
    A1EX said
    You're fun of shit barefootdude- no wonder no one wants to fuck you. icon_evil.gif


    I have enough men wanting to fuck, but I'm already in a relationship, so not good to screw around. Even though my profile indicates that, I still get asked often.


    QFT.
  • BeingThePhoen...

    Posts: 1157

    Jun 07, 2010 12:11 AM GMT
    barefootdude said
    a2507 saidGentlemen (and please, let's try to act like one....name calling is tempting but uncalled for....),

    The problem with the FDA ban, separate from whether it is medically and scientifically merited now, is that it is NOT applied uniformly to all high risk groups.

    The ban on gay men has its origins in the early days of HIV/AIDS when no one knew anything. It kind of made sense then.

    Now, there is much better screening but, sorry, SeaSon, there are other high risk groups which, using the logic of the FDA ban on "men who have sex with men," should also be banned but which aren't......

    Specifically, the HIV infection rate in minority women, Hispanic and African American compares with the risk level of MSM's. But those groups are not banned based on their membership in a class of people while MSM's are.....why?

    It's not science but politics.....and maybe federal law in that discrimination based on gender or race or ethnicity are illegal but similar discrimination based on sexual orientation is not.

    It is fair and appropriate for bi and gay men to insist that the FDA apply their "science" uniformly. If there's no need to ban those other high risk groups, then don't ban MSM's, or if you ban MSM's then ban all high risk groups, including all straights who have unprotected sex (which is most of them I suspect...) but that would shut down the blood system.

    Again this is much more now about politics than science.....


    Most straights don't have unprotected sex unless they are in a committed relationship wanting a baby. There would be a lot more pregnancies I'm sure, if str8's weren't using protectioin.

    You have got to be shitting me with this, right? I have tons of straight friends and associates and the largest majority of them have openly admitted that they refuse to wear a condom. Granted, several of my gay friends refuse to wear a condom as well, but on the average, I believe more gays these days use protection than straights.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 07, 2010 1:48 AM GMT
    lol BeingThePhoenix, ask barefootdude how many abortions occurred in the last year. I suppose they must have been all gay people getting abortions. icon_lol.gif


    Dayum them gays, eh?
  • BeingThePhoen...

    Posts: 1157

    Jun 07, 2010 1:53 AM GMT
    meninlove saidlol BeingThePhoenix, ask barefootdude how many abortions occurred in the last year. I suppose they must have been all gay people getting abortions. icon_lol.gif


    Dayum them gays, eh?

    Damn...as long as I've wanted a child and I haven't gotten prego and I haven't gotten hubby prego. Maybe we just aren't doing it right. icon_biggrin.gif
  • BlackBeltGuy

    Posts: 2609

    Jun 07, 2010 2:06 AM GMT
    they still dump it, don't let them kid you. if you say gay or tattoo with in a year even though its a 6 month thing they still dump it. they still run PCR DNA on all blood samples, which i dont get
  • jlly_rnchr

    Posts: 1759

    Jun 07, 2010 2:18 AM GMT
    KARATE1974 saidthey still dump it, don't let them kid you. if you say gay or tattoo with in a year even though its a 6 month thing they still dump it. they still run PCR DNA on all blood samples, which i dont get


    Do you think the Red Cross is going to mark your blood bag with a rainbow sticker so they know to chuck it into a biohazard bin?

    The Red Cross is run like a bee hive. All the employees are trained to do one job, and move on, with as little subjectivity as possible (no offense to them). Post donation, nothing distinguishes one product from another except a 2-letter, 5-digit barcode.

    If the FDA says to allow donations from gay men who've abstained from sex for six months, then the blood banks are covered. They profit from donations, I don't think they'll waste perfectly legal donations.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 07, 2010 2:22 AM GMT
    barefootdude saidThe fact remains that hiv infected blood can receive a neg result from anywhere's up to 3-6 months. A gay who gives blood, if he just became infected may not show up on a test for 3- 6 months later. So if his blood is used, 3- 6 months later they may find out his blood was infected and now the person who received it is also infected. Not a pretty scenario, but it is the truth regarding hiv.

    But your scenario would apply to ALL donated blood, not just to gay men. ANYONE could be HIV poz without knowing it, therefore ALL of the blood supply would be unsafe. Is that not true?

    I THOUGHT blood banks were using tests that looked for the HIV virus itself, not at the antibody markers in the blood that other tests use, that take some time before they appear. Anyone with medical training & knowledge on this topic care to comment?

    In any case, any argument you use against gay men donating blood because of the potential presence of HIV can be used against the general population. My question for you is why are you taking this gay-hostile position? Why are you not on the side of gays? Are you one of these anti-gay "plants" we're increasingly seeing at gay online sites?

    Please explain why you routinely take positions hostile to gay interests, and hostile to gays in general. Things like your opposition to this blood donation issue do beg the question.
  • neosyllogy

    Posts: 1714

    Jun 07, 2010 2:24 AM GMT
    Gays don't gays need "gay blood" and therefore aren't being disproportionately hurt.
    The only things that pertain to the decision to lift or change the ban are issues of statistics impacting the projected health of recipients.

    Should other high risk groups also be banned? Perhaps.
    Is the rate of HIV+ people high enough that the likely harm outweighs the benefit of additional blood? Perhaps. (Tests are not 100% accurate, there is always a false negative rate -- if you have, let's say, 1 in 10,000 false negative chance (high, but plausible), and 1 in 100 gays that donates is HIV+ that's still a very real chance of someone being infected with HIV when we're talking about a nation-wide medical system operating over many years. (1 in 1,000,000 chance at >200,000 pints per year --> new infection every ~5 years if they're all used. The raw numbers are hopefully much more favorable... but this is the kind of issue (much simplified) health officials have to deal with.))
    Should the ban be better targeted than just man-to-man sex? Perhaps.

    I would love to get some good numbers to address the above, but without them I don't feel like there's much to talk about (except maybe requesting someone get those numbers).
    This is not a discrimination issue in the sense that I feel many people are discussing it.