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.
do you have any info concerning what percentage of blood banks use PCR as their first-line screening test? what is the window between initial infection and detectability using PCR or other amplification methods?
2 weeks. But even so it's easy to make a regulation that says if you have been tested but have also had sex within the past two weeks then come back in two weeks. Problem solved.
No need to discriminate against all gay men just because of a 2-week discrepancy period.
The currect PCR testing can detect infection within one week.
The reason this issue is raised again is that the blanket restrictions don't make any sense, and actually give a false sense of security that the blood is clean. If all blood is tested it should be a moot point. If donors are asked appropriate questions, such as have you had unprotected sex or used IV drugs within the last week, then sure defer them, but as it stands now, if a man has ever had sex with another man since 1977 he is banned. A man calling himself heterosexual who has unprotected anal intercourse with an HIV positive female only has to wait one year. But a man who has sex with a man in 1978, and nothing since is banned. Explain the logic in that.
We have a shortage of blood products, there has to be a better system in place.
...A man calling himself heterosexual who has unprotected anal intercourse with an HIV positive female only has to wait one year...
Because it is far easier to catch AIDS when you are a "catcher." Straight men only "pitch." Many gay men "catch."
Get it?
And from your own link:
"Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors (American Red Cross)."
"Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times higher than repeat blood donors."
"Men who have had sex with men account for the largest single group of blood donors who are found HIV positive by blood donor testing."
Because it is far easier to catch AIDS when you are a "catcher." Straight men only "pitch." Many gay men "catch."
Get it?
It's called "receptive" and "insertive", and yes transmission is higher if you are receptive, but people need to realize that both practices can result in transmission. That is how heterosexual males are infected with HIV positive females through vaginal intercourse don't forget.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avengerfire
And from your own link:
"Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors (American Red Cross)."
"Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times higher than repeat blood donors."
"Men who have had sex with men account for the largest single group of blood donors who are found HIV positive by blood donor testing."
It's called "receptive" and "insertive", and yes transmission is higher if you are receptive, but people need to realize that both practices can result in transmission. That is how heterosexual males are infected with HIV positive females through vaginal intercourse don't forget...
Of course, but the chance of a man getting AIDS from a woman through vaginal sex is only second lowest to a woman getting AIDS from a woman through vaginal sex.
By the way I think the term receptive is not the best. Anytime someone has consensual sex with another each party can be termed receptive in the true sense of the word.
I don't know what percentage use PCR. I believe a PCR test detects HIV within 7 days.
you as much as stated that they no longer use ELISA - which may be true - but how do you know?
i found a good article last night that i was going to post but can't seem to find it now; it involved a woman [heterosexual, you'll be relieved to know, but apparently quite promiscuous] who was a regular blood donor.
well, on one of her visits she tested HIV positive. they went back and tested the people who had received transfusions of her blood, and two of them were shown conclusively to have been infected by transfusions of her blood during the 'window' phase. OTOH, her 5 [!] current boyfriends remained uninfected
the FDA's take:
Quote:
Several scientific models show there would be a small but definite increased risk to people who receive blood transfusions if FDA's MSM policy were changed and that preventable transfusion transmission of HIV could occur as a result.
Gays just want to cry about anything and everything. What is the big deal if you can't give blood? Really, what is the issue? That they can't make a quick buck to sell their blood to get more drugs?
Gays just want to cry about anything and everything. What is the big deal if you can't give blood? Really, what is the issue? That they can't make a quick buck to sell their blood to get more drugs?
I'm gay and I've donated blood a number of times. I'm HIV-negative and simply lied about my sexual history, much as anyone, gay or straight, HIV+ or HIV- can do. But, because I'm clean and blood is tested anyway, there really wasn't any reason not to donate.
Never have I been paid for my blood. Though last week, had I participated in the blood drive at work, I could have gotten a free sub from Subway!
I no longer donate due to this discriminatory policy. In the past, I donated based on a concept of the greater good. The benefits of people receiving transfusions outweighed the discrimination in my opinion.
Any validity in your comment is pretty much negated by your outrageous bigotry anyway.
I support gay equality such as gay marriage, openly serving in the military, etc. but the facts remain that gay men account for a substantial majority of new HIV infection in this country and, recent studies indicate that of those infected, a high percentage don't know their HIV status. Although screening for the virus rather than the antibodies detects the virus sooner, there is still a "window" of at least 2 weeks in which someone is infected and tests negative. It simply is not worth the risk. I agree that ANYONE who is having sex outside of a monogomous relationship should not give blood but heterosexuals still have significantly lower hiv rates. HIV rates in among gay men continue to increase, not decrease with time. This is not a civil rights issue, its a public health issue.
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.
