Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the blood is clean and O+, stick it in me. I'm not a JW, I could care less concerning its source.
The problem is that blood tests can in fact miss deceases at the very early stages of incubation. So, while a virus may already be in the donated blood, only a very small sample of the blood is tested and there is a chance that the sample won't contain the virus. Now, in the case of a normal rate of incubation after a certain period of time, more than likely there will be enough viruses in the donated blood for a small sample to show the decease. With most deceases, it takes several blood tests in a certain period of time for determining if one has contracted the decease. There are false positive and false negative tests results taking place all the time. Another example: a nurse who gets pricked by a needle at the operating room usually goes through a series of tests, and these tests are repeated in a certain period of time. The first and even second test may not mean anything, and sometimes it can take months before the lab can determine if the nurse did not contract some decease from the patient.
"Women in Western countries are less likely to continue HIV infectivity chains than are males engaging in same-gender anal intercourse."
The actual act of anal coitus is the same risk, what is being discussed, not the perpetuation of HIV.
Quote:
Anal intercourse carries an AIDS risk for women greater than that for vaginal coitus, just as receptive anal intercourse carries a very high risk for males.
The problem is that blood tests can in fact miss deceases at the very early stages of incubation. So, while a virus may already be in the donated blood, only a very small sample of the blood is tested and there is a chance that the sample won't contain the virus. Now, in the case of a normal rate of incubation after a certain period of time, more than likely there will be enough viruses in the donated blood for a small sample to show the decease. With most deceases, it takes several blood tests in a certain period of time for determining if one has contracted the decease. There are false positive and false negative tests results taking place all the time. Another example: a nurse who gets pricked by a needle at the operating room usually goes through a series of tests, and these tests are repeated in a certain period of time. The first and even second test may not mean anything, and sometimes it can take months before the lab can determine if the nurse did not contract some decease from the patient.
Do I need to restate that? If the blood is clean, and it's O+, I could care less about its source.
Tell me you read that entire thing? AUM's point is that if the blood is being tested, it doesn't matter where the source is because HIV can be rooted out. If the complaint is that gay men are high-risk, so are black women with a 22x higher risk of HIV.
The CDC study takes special note of why there is such a predominance of gay men in those with HIV: because they don't know. And why do they not know? Among the given reasons, social discrimination.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
