FDA ends lifetime ban on gay men donating blood

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

It sickens me that people think that the negligible risk of HIV blood transfusions after a respectable window of 25 days to a month given the proper procedures is significant enough to block donations to a blood supply that is almost always in shortage. 

[Seeka 12,372]

29 minutes ago, just4fun said:

What percentage of gay men doesn't engage in ánál sex? Because I can tell you that over 60 percent of new HIV cases in the US are gay men and we are only 2 percent of the population. 

First off, are there people in every gay man's bedroom, watching how they have sex? No. These things are done through surveys and other really stupid things non one actually cares about.

Plus also, cause does not equal correlation. Please take some time out of your life to watch Penn and Teller: Bullsh!t: Numbers. It will show you how numbers mean nothing. That they can be fudged, especially by people and places we trust, like our stupid government, or homophobic places like the FDA., and i do think the Red Cross, while it does not suffer homophobia, it is not a great place to send your money too for donations.

Anyone can say anything, and if they're trusted, they can get away with it. many places still fearmonger homosexuality. You would do well to ignore statistics and learn that before you trust anything you read online.

But unless we're suddenly living in Nightvale or Danganronpa, there's no way in hell to know that many homosexual men are particpating in **** sex.

And if there is, you seem to be totally ignoring the existence of dildos.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

I heard 100% of people who breathe Oxygen die. Time to outlaw it.

[DrewStevens 5,249]

1 hour ago, just4fun said:

While the gay men account for 2% of the U.S. population, they account for over 60 percent of all the new AIDS cases in the U.S. Maybe we should take a look at ourselves and our behaviors before we force a change in blood donation policies. If we force this and then HIV cases from blood transfusions rises the backlash against the gay community will be horrible. 

I know that and I stated that in my post. 

What I said is that the race that has the largest percentage of infected people are Afro-Americans but there are no restrictions for them because it would probably be considered racist. Only taking donations from white straight people would be the safest option but organizations are not going to do that.

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

1 hour ago, LebaneseDude said:

Stop throwing statistics around like a moron.

You can have only 5 AIDs cases. 60% of gay men having AIDS is still 3 people only. Another 40% you are content to ignore are from straight people. This is actually the correct proportion in real life.

Refer to my lengthy statistics post if you want an accurate portrayal of how statistics work.

The US population is 328 million and gay men is 2% of that which is 6,560,000. 

Of 322,500,000 straight people, 11,600 get HIV a year.

Of 6,560,000 gay men 28,500, get HIV a year. 

This means 4 out of every 1,000 gay men in the US will get HIV every year. 

While only 3 out of every 100,000 straight people in the US will contact HIV. 

Calling numbers insignificant doesn't make them insignficant.

1 out of every 250 gay men will contract HIV within the year. There is still cause for concern within our own community and with donating blood. Try finishing the math equation you started before calling me a moron.

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

22 minutes ago, DrewStevens said:

I know that and I stated that in my post. 

What I said is that the race that has the largest percentage of infected people are Afro-Americans but there are no restrictions for them because it would probably be considered racist. Only taking donations from white straight people would be the safest option but organizations are not going to do that.

Right ok well there is 38 million African Amercans they account for 8,000 of new HIV cases a year. 

There is 6.5 million gay men in the US and we account for 28,500 a year. 

Your analogy would be spot on if both the population and new HIV cases were the same for both groups but they are not.

[Haroon 49,685]

Yay improvement  Although I hope they subject heterosexual people to the 12 month wait thing too if they've had **** sex  

edit: The censored part is basically when it's up where the good Lord split you  

[DrewStevens 5,249]

56 minutes ago, just4fun said:

Right ok well there is 38 million African Amercans they account for 8,000 of new HIV cases a year. 

There is 6.5 million gay men in the US and we account for 28,500 a year. 

Your analogy would be spot on if both the population and new HIV cases were the same for both groups but they are not.

Your stats are wrong. There were 19,700 new HIV infections on African Americans in a year (10,600 black gay men, 5,300 black heterosexual women, 2,700 black heterosexual men and 1,100 black injection drug users).

Anyway the point is that HIV is already a minor risk for blood transfusions and even Hepatitis B and C are more likely to be transmitted and there are more cases of those infections than HIV infections. I'm not against being cautious but is it really functional to just ask and believe people? How many straight men would accept to have had sex with a prostitute or another man? Probably not even 1 in a million. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

45 minutes ago, Haroon said:

Yay improvement  Although I hope they subject heterosexual people to the 12 month wait thing too if they've had **** sex  

edit: The censored part is basically when it's up where the good Lord split you  

Last I check they don't, its just men who have sex with men   even though iirc **** sex between men and women still transmits HIV, and **** sex between men and women IS on the rise in the general public. People lie though, as people who have sex with sex workers (or sex workers themselves) are not allowed to donate blood for 12 months (and for life if you are a commercial sex worker I believe)

Someone fact check me on the ban on straight people who engage in **** sex with the opposite sex, a quick google search didnt find anything for me  

 

 

[Didymus 34,380]

7 hours ago, DrewStevens said:

You may want to educate yourself before spreading misinformation about such a serious topic.

According to the Red Cross there is a 1 in 2 million chance that donated blood will carry HIV and infect a person. You are more likely to get infected with Hepatitis B and C (both life-threatening) than with HIV.

I wasn't talking about that You didn't read well.

It was a response to someone implying that HIV was no big deal, not in sexual intercourse nor in (infected) blood donations, compared to other STD's. The 90% chance was about what happens when HIV is actually in the blood that's being transmitted in one way or another.

The FDA actually defends this 12-month rule because they believe the chance of getting HIV infected blood will become higher than 1 in 2 million if more gay men are allowed to donate blood. I'm not saying that's true but just separating the topics.

I don't agree that Hepatitis B and C are larger risks than HIV (if that's what you're implying). After the age of 5, B is not that dangerous and even if it persists chronically (which only happens rarely), no symptoms arise until complications develop that can be treated separately. Same for C. HIV is that much more annoying because it demands immediate (expensive) treatment that carries lots of side effects and you can't get a vaccine for it (note that successful vaccines completely eliminate the risk of getting B and for C there are cures now that treat up to 90% of the ones chronically infected). I don't blame anyone for being more concerned with HIV than Hepatitis B/C.

[DrewStevens 5,249]

1 hour ago, Didymus said:

I wasn't talking about that You didn't read well.

It was a response to someone implying that HIV was no big deal, not in sexual intercourse nor in (infected) blood donations, compared to other STD's. The 90% chance was about what happens when HIV is actually in the blood that's being transmitted in one way or another.

The FDA actually defends this 12-month rule because they believe the chance of getting HIV infected blood will become higher than 1 in 2 million if more gay men are allowed to donate blood. I'm not saying that's true but just separating the topics.

I don't agree that Hepatitis B and C are larger risks than HIV (if that's what you're implying). After the age of 5, B is not that dangerous and even if it persists chronically (which only happens rarely), no symptoms arise until complications develop that can be treated separately. Same for C. HIV is that much more annoying because it demands immediate (expensive) treatment that carries lots of side effects and you can't get a vaccine for it (note that successful vaccines completely eliminate the risk of getting B and for C there are cures now that treat up to 90% of the ones chronically infected). I don't blame anyone for being more concerned with HIV than Hepatitis B/C.

I apologize if that's not what you meant but when you only write "HIV being a minor risk for blood transfusions" it only reads as if you're talking about blood transfusions which has nothing to do with sexual intercourse. Blood transfusion is a procedure, not a the act of sharing blood.

I didn't imply that Hepatitis B and C were worse or more deadly, I only mentioned that getting infected with Hepatitis B and C is more common than getting infected with HIV and that both are life-threatening. Hepatitis C is way more dangerous than Hepatitis B and it's only treatable. More than 75% of people who become infected with Hepatitis C virus develop chronic infection. Also Hepatitis C surpassed HIV as cause of death in US a few years back because it is less treatable.

[Didymus 34,380]

1 minute ago, DrewStevens said:

I apologize if that's not what you meant but when you only write "HIV being a minor risk for blood transfusions" it only reads as if you're talking about blood transfusions which has nothing to do with sexual intercourse. Blood transfusion is a procedure, not a the act of sharing blood.

I didn't imply that Hepatitis B and C were worse or more deadly, I only mentioned that getting infected with Hepatitis B and C is more common than getting infected with HIV and that both are life-threatening. Hepatitis C is way more dangerous than Hepatitis B and it's only treatable. More than 75% of people who become infected with Hepatitis C virus develop chronic infection. Also Hepatitis C surpassed HIV as cause of death in US a few years back because it is less treatable.

Still. I referred to what another user was saying in the same sentence, so you not going back to see what I was replying to surely didn't help.

I'm not a doctor or anything, but the last I heard was that Hepatitis C is cured 90% of the times in people with the chronic infection. And again, symptoms only appear after many years while HIV has to be treated immediately and consistently with no chance of cure ever.

But anyway, I don't think either of us trying to pit these horrid diseases against each other. I think my point in this thread is clear: this is progress for the FDA and more awareness/prevention of HIV is bound to lead to more progress - to that I add(ed) that crying about discrimination is less productive than making sure less gay men are actually infected.

[DrewStevens 5,249]

7 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Still. I referred to what another user was saying in the same sentence, so you not going back to see what I was replying to surely didn't help.

I'm not a doctor or anything, but the last I heard was that Hepatitis C is cured 90% of the times in people with the chronic infection. And again, symptoms only appear after many years while HIV has to be treated immediately and consistently with no chance of cure ever.

But anyway, I don't think either of us trying to pit these horrid diseases against each other. I think my point in this thread is clear: this is progress for the FDA and more awareness/prevention of HIV is bound to lead to more progress - to that I add(ed) that crying about discrimination is less productive than making sure less gay men are actually infected.

I did read the other post but I just noticed that you comment about blood transfusions had nothing to do with what the other user said. Now that you explained what you meant it does make sense but it didn't in your original post.

Hepatitis C is not curable, I don't know where did you read that but there's not a cure, there's only a treatment. One of my friends has Hepatitis C and he has been struggling with it for years. The symptoms and the cycle of the infection always depend on the type of Hepatitis C you have. Both Hepatitis C and HIV should be treated as soon as possible to prevent complications such as liver failure and AIDS and both are equally treatable.

I do agree that being safe is better than being sorry. I just don't agree with spreading misinformation that promotes stigmas about HIV and AIDS.

[Didymus 34,380]

5 minutes ago, DrewStevens said:

Hepatitis C is not curable, I don't know where did you read that but there's not a cure, there's only a treatment. One of my friends has Hepatitis C and he has been struggling with it for years. The symptoms and the cycle of the infection always depend on the type of Hepatitis C you have. Both Hepatitis C and HIV should be treated as soon as possible to prevent complications such as liver failure and AIDS and both are equally treatable.

"In late 2013, The Food and Drug Administration approved two new direct acting antiviral drugs, Sofosbuvir (Sovaldi™) and Simeprevir (Olysio™) to treat chronic HCV infection. [...] Clinical trials have shown that these new medications achieve SVR in 80%-95% of patients after 12-24 weeks of treatment."

(http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/hcv/hcvfaq.htm#section4)

Also curious:

"Approximately 15%–25% of persons clear the virus from their bodies without treatment and do not develop chronic infection; the reasons for this are not well known."

Wikipedia also uses the term "cured" in relation to it, so that's the best I can do to back up what I heard with what I find online.

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

5 hours ago, DrewStevens said:

Your stats are wrong. There were 19,700 new HIV infections on African Americans in a year (10,600 black gay men, 5,300 black heterosexual women, 2,700 black heterosexual men and 1,100 black injection drug users).

Anyway the point is that HIV is already a minor risk for blood transfusions and even Hepatitis B and C are more likely to be transmitted and there are more cases of those infections than HIV infections. I'm not against being cautious but is it really functional to just ask and believe people? How many straight men would accept to have had sex with a prostitute or another man? Probably not even 1 in a million. 

I'm getting my stats from the CDC. I Am not counting gay black males. Gay black males account for more than 10,600 of the HIV cases in the African American community which is about 60% of the cases in th AA community. So the problem still lies with the gay part of that community.