Posts by Raymond James

offtopic: haha... you're something else... 🤣
By the way, I agree—you picked the wrong place to hunt for scientific proof.
This is a Reddit thread. Take everything you hear here with a massive grain of salt. Verify any info five times over before you actually act on it. 😁

ontopic: even if there is some correlation between those disorders and IQ, the real question is whether it’s even statistically significant...

Grace Rodriguez10 said:What’s actually wrong with my blood when I'm bleeding out? 😢
(educate me, since I clearly know nothing)

I'm no medical expert—but I suspect it has to do with iron levels dropping sharply during that time. All I know is that some of my colleagues were turned away from donating because they were "too liquid." 😁

Melissa Rivera5 said:Well. I guess I qualify: blood pressure is 117/75, carrying extra weight, average height, and checking off almost every box on that questionnaire. Seems I’m suffering from chronic laziness... bad timing for a high school senior. Thanks for the info, Raymond James! Heading out the day after my history final.

Oh, and you'll need to be of legal age, too, I assume.🤣

Melissa Rivera5 said:I want to become a blood donor, but before I head out, I want to hear about other people's experiences. What's the process like? How often can you donate, and what are the perks (is it true that after 50 donations you get a lifetime pass for the MTA?!). Most importantly, do they take any blood type, or do they reject certain types even if they aren't infected with viruses or bacteria? (If there’s a recent post on this, let me know)🙏

It's straightforward. You just show up at the blood donation center (in Chicago, it's located at Petrov 3) and tell them you're there to donate. For your first time, they'll collect all your info. Bring your ID.
First, they prick your finger to check your iron levels. Then, you see a doctor for a quick screening—basically just checking your blood pressure and going through that infamous questionnaire full of invasive questions. 😠
If you're underweight (minimum height minus 113), they might turn you away. Also, the lower limit for blood pressure is 110/70.

After that, you sit back comfortably while a decent young professional (could be male or female 😁 ) sticks you with a needle and pumps until you've given about a pint of precious fluid.

Then you head over to grab some snacks at their cafeteria and have a couple of ounces of black coffee to help restore your levels and iron... 😬

Afterward, you'll receive a small little booklet to carry with you; they log every donation in there.

IMPORTANT: Men can donate every 3 months; women every 4 months (make sure you aren't on your period, otherwise they won't accept you—the blood quality isn't ideal then).
By law, you get one day off work for each donation if you're employed (some government agencies or departments even give two days) 👍
I also heard rumors about a lifetime MTA pass after 50 donations, and from what I gather, around 35 donations might exempt you from certain healthcare fees for life.
It’s not a huge windfall, but it’s nice. Personally, the real satisfaction comes from knowing how many lives you've helped save. 😁

If I missed anything, feel free to add it. GOOD LUCK!!!

Risov said:idiots!

Take a good look at our fellow forum member. He’s the gold standard for democratic, parliamentary discourse—always providing reasoned arguments that "offend" nobody. So tolerant. Always basing his views on hard facts and research... 🤣 And of course, there's zero repetition. He certainly wouldn't dream of copy-pasting his own stance across two similar threads in different subforums...
Risov, you're my hero. 😍

By the way. Ever wonder who statistically dominates the metrics on who posts most frequently in a specific thread? 😁 You guessed it—our very own role model of internet etiquette. 😂 😂 😂

Linda Hernandez15 said:If you start out with someone of the same sex and then move on to the opposite, that doesn't just make you promiscuous—it makes you indecisive.😬

Someone might be indecisive, sure. But let’s say you were just experimenting during your teens and had one homosexual encounter—that’s it. You're disqualified from donating blood for life after that.

Regarding the screening questions, I've donated nearly 20 times now. As far as I can recall, those questions have definitely been part of the process for the last six or seven years... actually, they've been there since I started donating.

Thomas Peterson46 said:Don't try to twist my words.
I have stayed perfectly on topic.
The conclusion at the end was simply an observation based on several independent events, regardless of your thread..
And... I have no issue with homosexuals, nor do I wish anyone any harm.👋

First off, apologies for misgendering you. It happens. 😁
Second, there is no need for defensiveness. I wasn't attacking you, nor was it my intention to offend (my apologies if it came across that way).
I didn't say you were off-topic—you were on-topic, you just missed the point of what we were trying to convey. The point is that the regulation is as useless as many others. If everyone strictly followed those guidelines, we wouldn't even have this small pool of donors who show up every few months to give their precious blood. And God help anyone intentionally trying to infect someone else.

Thomas Peterson46 said:And why shouldn't they be allowed to donate?😕
Most people don't even identify as gay, so what criteria would you even use to decide if someone is?
Clothing?
Behavior?
Give me a break.
Obviously, a homosexual can't donate blood if they are HIV-positive or have any other illness, but that puts them in the same boat as the average person facing those same conditions and laws.
Frankly, it’s becoming disgusting how some people—specifically gay individuals—constantly try to grab attention by playing the victim.
Just live your lives; nobody is bothering you, so leave us alone.🙄

Your post suggests you haven't actually read the discussion here, so you clearly don't grasp the issue. This isn't about seeking attention or playing victims; it's about actual discrimination. If you had ever been decent enough to donate blood and paid attention to the medical questionnaire you're required to sign, you'd understand exactly what we're talking about. 🙄

Edward Green said:Maybe someone's just afraid of being outed in this straight universe. 😁

Is he really going to get a boost in masculinity from some 4.5 ounces of queerness? Please. 🤣

I could only be grateful. I'd kiss him on his ass for saving my life. 🙄

It’s not that the test itself takes six months. Rather, you run two tests spaced six months apart to be 100% certain—assuming there haven't been any further risky encounters in the meantime.

By the way, you can get tested anonymously and for free at the Fran Mihaljević Infectious Disease Clinic, and you'll have your results within 24 hours. 🙂

Someone needs to explain things to him—specifically the person from the CDC who drafted that blood testing protocol without accounting for the test's inaccuracy or the 21-day window limitation.

The rules are completely nonsensical precisely because there's zero criminal accountability and no way to verify if anyone is actually telling the truth. You really think this stops someone who genuinely wants to donate? 😕

In my view, it would be more efficient to just flag a donor in the system if something is actually detected in their blood—then they're done. Otherwise, if you’re able and willing to give, go ahead and give.
We have constant blood shortages as it is, yet these policies end up turning away perfectly healthy, capable donors.

I have to wonder why you're even bothering—we all read the article, but I’m talking about the actual medical intake form you sign right there in the doctor's office! That signature is your legal guarantee that your answers are truthful.

Beyond that, don't you think it's ridiculous to be barred from donating blood for the rest of your life just because you had a sexual encounter with someone of the same sex once?

Just because the CDC lists it that way doesn't make it right.😢

From what I recall, the questionnaire asks, "Have you had sexual contact with someone of the same sex?" which inherently includes lesbians. Regardless, the wording is incredibly discriminatory. It feels like the homosexual community gets disproportionate focus on protection simply because they've been labeled as "high-risk."

If anyone of actual consequence is reading this—someone who actually has the power to change things—perhaps the question should be reframed to: "Have you engaged in high-risk sexual activity within the last three months?" This would include heterosexual individuals who have engaged in risky behavior. Blood collected from those who answer affirmatively could then be subject to additional screening and held back from circulation for three months, only being cleared after re-testing before use. Wouldn't that make sense??