Posts by rapidwalker7

Edward Green said:Anyone who has had a risky encounter or been exposed to someone else's blood within the last few weeks is considered high-risk. If someone was exposed prior to that window and is infected, it will show up. If they aren't, there should be no issue with donating blood.

How hard is it to grasp this concept?

👍 👍

robybaggio said:I’m talking about the first group. So many gay men come into contact with them, and that alone is why there are restrictions on blood donations. That's all there is to it.

Which "first group" are you even referring to? Men? Does that mean we should ban all men from donating blood because they might be promiscuous... and then by extension, their partners too? Where does it end?!?

With my statement, I simply meant that the percentage of promiscuous gay men is roughly equal to that of promiscuous straight men...

nimblemarlin17 said:I think it’s pretty easy to draw that conclusion. It’s basically one of the defining traits. Just look at the sheer volume of ads online or the signs you see all over the West. Don't worry, you aren't going to see any "I'm a hot girl, call 555-100 if you want to hook up" posts. Women only do that for the money.

I believe that is a somewhat misguided perception regarding gay men. While it is true that many are promiscuous, that isn't because they are gay; it is simply because they are men.

On the other hand, there are plenty who are not promiscuous and maintain long-term, committed relationships. Take my own situation: I am 29 years old and have been in a relationship with my boyfriend for a long time; we even live together. We both went to get tested five months ago—not because we engaged in anything risky, but because we were supporting a friend, so we decided to do it ourselves while it was anonymous and free. Now the question arises: am I allowed to donate blood? Current laws won't permit it... Do you think there should be a change here? Because I have the desire to help, and I feel that what I am doing is something good and noble...

As for the online ads and classifieds... have you considered how we are even supposed to find partners? Classifieds and the internet are just the easiest ways to connect, which is why there are so many of us there. If we were to approach someone at a bar or a club (the way those guys approach women), we would just be risking getting beaten up.😬

placidsurfer86 said:I doubt those numbers; a 40% rate seems incredibly inflated. I see this data comes from an advocacy group. Personally, I’d much rather see official figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
No, if that were true, it would be deeply concerning for the gay community.
It honestly makes no sense to me: how can someone be so reckless as to contract HIV??!! It’s infuriating. Because of individual negligence and carelessness, an entire segment of society ends up facing public lynching. As if that group doesn't have enough of its own struggles without also being subjected to public shaming. It's pathetic.

It seems a bit exaggerated to me too, but they claim it's based on CDC statistics.

Perhaps such results can be justified to some extent. It seems to me that gay men are far more aware of HIV/AIDS precisely because they are identified as a high-risk group. Consequently, they get tested more frequently, making infections easier to detect. My boyfriend and I went to get tested even though we had both always used protection before meeting. In fact, half of my closest friends have been tested within the last year.
On the other hand, the straight population often views AIDS as a "gay disease," so they assume they don't need to get tested, which means the illness goes undetected in them much longer.

And now, how can someone be so careless as to contract HIV?!? That’s what I keep asking myself... But there will always be a certain percentage of people who are promiscuous and reckless. It's just sad that the general public stigmatizes an entire community because of them...

Risov said:that it's only partially....
but statistics are statistics!

The stats from last year...
http://www.cdc.gov/index.php?option...id=100&Itemid=

Jose Miller3 said:that was due to Mad Cow Disease, though I believe they lifted it...

I wasn't sure what the reasoning was, but I think that rule was still in effect about three months ago...

I always assumed Mad Cow Disease wasn't bloodborne... didn't it require specific nervous system cells or something like that?

Jose Miller3 said:Yeah, it's prohibited.

http://www.redcross.org/index.asp?id=41#1, under the section "Who Cannot Donate Blood" (this is their error, not mine), it clearly lists everyone who is ineligible to donate.

It’s all laid out there; basically, most people whose behavior falls under "high risk" are included.

I have to admit, as much as I dislike it, I agree with them and fully understand their reasoning.

When it recently happened that a man contracted HIV from a donor, everyone was outraged, wondering how that was even possible. It was explained quite clearly that HIV cannot be detected in the blood within 3-4 months of infection. If a donor gives blood during that specific "window"—right when they become infectious—it is impossible to detect such a thing.

They are simply trying to further reduce the relatively small probability of such an occurrence happening.

Dana Allen3, you're a smart guy, so you should realize that determining "who is healthy" isn't exactly a trivial task.

I heard from my aunt at Mayo Clinic that they have tests at the Petrov facility that can detect HIV within 21 days of infection... whereas the tests at Mayo Clinic detect infection within 3 months of exposure...

In my opinion, the more logical question would be whether you had high-risk sexual contact within that timeframe (whatever that might have been), rather than asking if you had sex with someone of the same gender... people would likely be a bit more honest that way since they wouldn't have to explicitly confirm they are gay.

I believe they even prohibit blood donations from people who spent more than three months in the United Kingdom during a certain period (I think it was back in the eighties)... 🙂

Daniel Diaz6 said:I honestly find it hard to believe they even prohibit that🤔...
...but regardless, they run all those essential screenings on every single unit of donated blood anyway. 🙄

When you see the doctor for your pre-donation exam, you have to sign a statement confirming you haven't had sexual contact with someone of the same sex...
If you aren't willing to sign that, I assume they won't let you donate.

I donate because I just shrug my shoulders at that statement and sign it dutifully every time. 😁

Is it just because they’re classified as a high-risk group? Or is there some other reason at play?

As a gay man, I donate blood regularly every three months. I sign that medical disclosure without any hesitation or shame, because I truly believe I'm doing something good for others.
I’ve tested negative for HIV, and I’m not promiscuous... So, is there an actual, specific reason why I shouldn't be able to donate?