Temporary Venting Thread

[Nerdanel]

i understand that you think so, but i don't think it's acceptable that such an important organisation thinks so too.

[Lotesse]

Nerdanel, was that to me or to Lief? I think we all may have cross-posted.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

L
But they screen for HIV and/or aids, and hep-c and a host of other things, before blood is accepted, don't they?

One of the methods of screening is "subject deferral", the prohibiting of people from donating who have increased likelihood of having contaminated blood. The blood is tested, after it is given, for infections. At present, about ten people come down with HIV from blood donations a year, in the United States. That number would increase greatly if homosexuality was removed as a restriction for the donation of blood. At present the AIDS comes from people that slip through the process, men that lie during screening and whose blood passes the inspection process. I don't think that it's a massive number of men that lie when put to the question. If homosexual men were allowed through, the number of people infected by AIDS through blood transfusion would multiply rapidly.

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Nerdanel, was that to me or to Lief? I think we all may have cross-posted.

It was to me.

[Lotesse]

.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

At present, about ten people come down with HIV from blood donations a year, in the United States..

Now THAT is very scary.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

.


Now THAT is very scary.

Ten people infected by those homosexuals that lie in the screening process and donate regardless of what the regulation says. Do you think that hte number of law flouters is massive? I'm assuming it's a relatively small number, that most homosexuals probably would be truthful and screened out. If none of them are screened out, as I said before, the danger will increase dramatically.

[Nerdanel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Ten people infected by those homosexuals that lie in the screening process and donate regardless of what the regulation says. Do you think that hte number of law flouters is massive? I'm assuming it's a relatively small number, that most homosexuals probably would be truthful and screened out. If none of them are screened out, as I said before, the danger will increase dramatically.

Are you saying that only homosexual men have AIDS? It is tragic that so many get that awful disease in the US from blood transfusion, but what makes you think that the infection comes from evil homosexuals who have lied in the screening process?

Please let me know if I understood you completely wrong, I hope I did.

[Nerdanel]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Nerdanel, was that to me or to Lief? I think we all may have cross-posted.

Lief is right, it was to him. Sorry, I'll quote the message I reply to from now on.

[Rána Eressëa]

Ack. College starts in less than two weeks.

No, no, I don't wanna go!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

Are you saying that only homosexual men have AIDS? It is tragic that so many get that awful disease in the US from blood transfusion, but what makes you think that the infection comes from evil homosexuals who have lied in the screening process?

Please let me know if I understood you completely wrong, I hope I did.

The statistic comes from this source http://www.thebody.com/gmhc/issues/novdec00/blood.html, as does this other point:

The FDA proposed changing the lifetime ban to five years, bringing the gay ban in line with the length of time organ or tissue transplant recipients are barred from blood donation. In other words, any man who has had sex with another man during the last five years would be barred from donating. The blood bank association urged a one-year ban, putting the gay ban in line with that for visiting a prostitute, and the gay doctors made a similar proposal. Any of these approaches are unlikely to feel less discriminatory, and are unlikely to have much practical effect for the majority of gay-identified men. The only men who may be included in the donor pool as a result of such a change would be those who had their last homosexual experience five or more years ago.

The committee seemed poised to recommend a change in the gay donation policy, but then the slides on herpes virus 8 were presented. Human herpes virus 8 (HHV-8) is a newly discovered virus thought to be the cause of Kaposi's sarcoma (KS). HHV-8 is also widespread among gay men, which helps explain the early, baffling concentration of KS among gay AIDS patients but not heterosexual ones. Although KS in gay men is almost always the result of infection with both HIV and HHV-8, there have been a few isolated cases of KS in gay men with HHV-8 alone. Data emerging on HHV-8 show that it shares a similar epidemiological profile with HIV. Gay men begin acquiring HHV-8 during late adolescence when sexual activity begins, and its incidence accelerates through early adulthood. By age 40, about one-third of gay men seem to be infected with HHV-8. The virus appears rarely in the U.S. heterosexual population.

HHV-8 is most likely transmitted orally, but no blood test is routinely available to detect those who have it. In Africa, where HHV-8 is endemic, the virus seems to be acquired in childhood. HHV-8 has also been transmitted through kidney transplants and dialysis procedures. Can HHV-8 be transmitted through a blood transfusion? No one knows. Faced with this uncertainty, the committee changed its mood, and declined to recommend a specific revision of the gay blood donation policy.

After deciding not to alter the policy, the committee outlined a series of research questions for the FDA that may help the agency revisit the issue at a later date:

How many gay men abstain from sex for one, two and five years?
How many gay men are there in the United States?
How does HIV incidence vary among sub-groups of gay men?
How is HHV-8 transmitted?
Can gay men with a higher risk of having HIV be identified more precisely in the screening questionnaires?
All of these are fascinating and important questions, and answers to each could have a broader use in fighting the epidemic. However, given the paucity of epidemiological data generated about gay men after 15 years of research, these questions are unlikely to be answered soon, if ever.

Originally Posted by Rána Eressëa

Ack. College starts in less than two weeks.

No, no, I don't wanna go!

I'm excited about some of my classes, but others-Biology this semester, French next semester-I'm more concerned about.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

i was donating blood today.. my Hb was almost too low, so they gave me some iron pills. i hate pills. i don't want pills. *mutters*
but what really pisses me off is that still, in the year 2005, gay men cannot donate blood. *sighs*

I could be wrong but I don't think that prohibition is in effect in Belgium, although they can deny to take your blood based on the questions about your lifestyle (e.g. unprotected sex, certain deseases ect..) My vent is that I'm too light-weight to give blood. I can't even give the minimum dose. *sigh*

[Nerdanel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The statistic comes from this source http://www.thebody.com/gmhc/issues/novdec00/blood.html, as does this other point:

Thank you for the article. But what struck me most about your post, was that you sound so certain that it is from gay men the virus has come, when a person who got a blood transfusion has got AIDS. Do you think it's more likely that gay men with AIDS go donate blood and lie, than that the infection comes from a heterosexual? At least here in Finland, the cases of AIDS/HIV are very few, and the emphasis more and more move towards straight people, though gay men still have the higest risk to become infected. It's not a disease only for homosexuals.

[Grey_Wolf]

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

Thank you for the article. But what struck me most about your post, was that you sound so certain that it is from gay men the virus has come, when a person who got a blood transfusion has got AIDS. Do you think it's more likely that gay men with AIDS go donate blood and lie, than that the infection comes from a heterosexual? At least here in Finland, the cases of AIDS/HIV are very few, and the emphasis more and more move towards straight people, though gay men still have the higest risk to become infected. It's not a disease only for homosexuals.

You're quite right there, it's also transmitted by people who do not use condoms during sexual intercourse (people who's been, more often than not, abroad.). The pure idiocy of it is quite beyond me. Why would anyone want HIV/AIDS?

[brownjenkins]

US statistics from www.avert.org about how AIDS is contracted (2003):

Men (315,113)

58% were men who had sex with men (MSM)
22% were injection drug users (IDU)
11% were exposed through heterosexual contact
8% were both MSM and IDU.

Women (88,815)

63% were exposed through heterosexual contact
35% were exposed through injection drug use

Children (1,998)

there have also been many surveys trying to establish what portion of the population in the US is homosexual... the studies are fairly detailed, with some guesswork, but the numbers come in at around ten million (with about 3 million of those living together in committed relationships)... this means that only 4% of all homosexuals have AIDs... so while it is certainly more common in homosexuals, calling it a "gay disease" is quite inaccurate

[brownjenkins]

btw... it is interesting to note that the safest form of sexual relations, as far as HIV contraction is concerned, is actually between two women

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I could be wrong but I don't think that prohibition is in effect in Belgium, although they can deny to take your blood based on the questions about your lifestyle (e.g. unprotected sex, certain deseases ect..) My vent is that I'm too light-weight to give blood. I can't even give the minimum dose. *sigh*

Well, better than being heavy-weight .

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

there have also been many surveys trying to establish what portion of the population in the US is homosexual... the studies are fairly detailed, with some guesswork, but the numbers come in at around ten million (with about 3 million of those living together in committed relationships)... this means that only 4% of all homosexuals have AIDs... so while it is certainly more common in homosexuals, calling it a "gay disease" is quite inaccurate

In the article I quoted, the number of infected homosexuals in the US was put at more like 15%.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

btw... it is interesting to note that the safest form of sexual relations, as far as HIV contraction is concerned, is actually between two women

There are sexually transmitted diseases that can affect these women as well. Also, if as I believe, homosexuals or lesbians are often more promiscuous than heterosexuals, then lesbians might well be at increased risk also. If a woman switches partners several times in her lifetime, if any one of them is infected with a disease, that first woman will get infected. So there's danger there too.

I know just about everyone who reads this post is going to disagree with me about homosexuals or lesbians being more promiscuous, and their experience of knowing these people leads them to believe that way. My experience with homosexuals and lesbians leads me to believe differently. It's a difference that's due to different experience, and I don't think anyone will make any headway continuing to converse in this vein.

[Andúril]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

btw... it is interesting to note that the safest form of sexual relations, as far as HIV contraction is concerned, is actually between two women

Or, even safer: just one woman.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Andúril

Or, even safer: just one woman.

any combo of relationships (hetero or homo) where both partners are, and always have been, exclusive is just as safe as another... my point is which is safer if that is not the case

[Lotesse]

I'm surprised this thread's discussion has so far slipped past the mods, or whatever, since it turned from a venting thread into a discussion about AIDS. Which is a very interesting discussion, don't get me wrong, it just seems like it deserves a thread of its own.

[brownjenkins]

my lot in life is to champion the battle against on-topic threads throughout the 'net

[Lotesse]

lol! well, carry on then, my friend...