FOR FRAK'S SAKE THIS IS GOING TOO PEECEE FRAKKING FAR!!

We can only hope. Then no doctors office has to ever get a shortage.

And why is that bad to me, according to you?

Hey leathercunt, why don't you respond to my challenge first?

Just like I suspected, she runs for the hills like a cowardly dry leathercunt.

Say what?

If you'd like to see some statistics you can go to the WHO or CDC or UNAIDS websites. And here's link to a good current paper on the subject

The paper I've cited concludes (I've bolded the salient point):
"The general public may be idealistic in their belief that risk-free blood products are achievable in today's world...Nevertheless, the goal of a safe and affordable blood supply that can meet the growing global demands may be reached by the coordinated optimization of each step in the transfusion chain, including the careful consideration of donor eligibility criteria..."

Since mostlyharmless brought up the fact sheet on HIV infection in the African American population, it's only fair that you also review the CDC fact sheet on the population of men who have sex with men, which reports that gay men account for an astounding 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents in 2005.

Important note: the HIV infection rate in gay men is actually increasing, now - not decreasing.

The fact sheet reports:
"Having anal sex without a condom continues to be a significant threat to the health of [gay men]. Unprotected anal sex (barebacking) with casual partners is an increasing concern. Not all the reasons for an apparent increase in unprotected anal intercourse are known, but research points to the following factors: optimism about improved HIV treatment, substance use, complex sexual decision making, seeking sex partners on the Internet, and failure to practice safer sex."

So gay men continue to be a high risk group, which is why they continue to be excluded from the donor pool. If you think African Americans should be excluded from the donor pool, then you can take the same advice I gave garamet - get yourself some funding and do your own study, and take it to the FDA.

See? I answer to you logically yet you behave like the leathercunt you are.

Say what?

Last time Garamet, and I ask you politely, will you, or won't you, back up your claims that I made disparaging remarks, about gays, in large letters, in this thread?

Yes or no?

Yep. You still get a sticker, and cookies and coke.

Diacanu disagrees: Blocking, cuz JCD is made of ka-ka.

And you are made of fucking fail and forever virginity, Diac. At least JCD gets laid every night with his wife, YOU will die a virgin, probably by a bullet you'll take in yourself because your life is nothing but a piece of pathetic loose shit.

Goggles, bitch.

I am not refuting anything you say here. It is true that the HIV rate among the demographic of gay men is on the rise, and I think that is horrific. It is one of the reasons I advocate marriage and monogamy for everyone, and wish to see marriage become the societal norm for gay people. While it won't eliminate risky behavior, I do believe it will reduce it significantly.

But the FDA already HAS access to multiple studies conducted by the CDC and other agencies that show black people in general, and black women in particular are ALSO a high risk group, yet they are not prohibited from donating blood. That is why I am of the opinion that it is politics, more than health issues, behind the Red Cross classification of "high risk groups".

Again, the information you site refers to high risk BEHAVIORS, i.e. unprotected sex, multiple sex partners, and intravenous drug use. It would make far more sense to screen for these BEHAVIORS, and prohibit the people who engage in such behavior, than to exclude ALL from that group, be it gay or black.

Can't disagree with that.

Can't disagree with that, either. I would note, however, that unprotected sex if you do not have multiple partners and never have, and your partner does not either, does not constitute high-risk behavior.

Some hard statistics would be interesting, though probably difficult to obtain.

• What percentage of homosexual men engage in high-risk behavior? This would show whether or not a significant proportion of safe blood donors are being excluded.

• What is the contamination rate among homosexual men who do not engage in high-risk behavior, as opposed to those in the general population who do not? This would show if there is any more reason to exclude as blood donors homosexual men who do not engage in risky behavior than to exclude everyone (which would of course be nonsensical).

• What is the HIV rate among homosexual men who are not intravenous drug users, who never have unprotected sex, but who do have multiple partners and/or have a partner who has multiple partners? This would show if high-risk behavior should be defined as "unprotected sex or multiple partners" or "unprotected sex and multiple partners."

• What is the contamination rate from transfusions with blood from homosexual men who stated they do not engage in high-risk behavior? This would be more germane to the discussion than the mere fact that "there is a high percentage of contamination among homosexual men."

I'm pretty sure that if you lived in Europe for more than 6 months you're also banned from donating for life, due to mad cow disease. So I'm not seeing where it is a problem to ban pillow-biters. They just want to be really, really careful about the blood pool.

Well, as Linda R. pointed out upthread, that's equally discriminatory if you live in England and happen to be a vegetarian.

I think the point is that scientific method has been muddied up with societal preconceptions here.

That assertion has been demonstrated in-fucking-correct enough times now. You must be willfully refusing to acknowledge it.

The scientific method is fine. It's the humen execution of it that isn't 100% infallible. So we supplement it with broad-category screening of known high-risk groups. It's not preconceptions, but verifiable, proven facts that are easier to apply wholesale than at the individual level.

No.

Just can't accept being reduced to your own unsupportable opinions, can you?

"It's preconceptions! You're pretending gay=AIDS!"

No, I've decided that your definitions don't alter reality, no matter how much you shout, so the only reasonable response is "no."

The reality is that you tried to paint pragmatism as bigotry, failed utterly, and can't handle being so soundly refuted that your ass still stings three days later.

That's what I get for posting before reading the whole thread. If I'd have known this was a monkey-poop-throwing-fight thread, I would've just skipped posting in it.

Why? This thread generated far better discussion than the other ten threads in the RR.

Garamet still hasn't responded to my challenge it seems. Failure, as she is, has seeped into the next generation of her DNA as well.

So, Garamet is content with the knowledge that she is a lying, cheating, stupid leatherycunt bitch who cannot backup ANY claims that she makes here?

Good. I'll make sure I put it in my signature.

[action=garamet]wonders how much longer Megatron will try to get my attention by calling me names before he figures out what he's doing wrong...[/action]

Well, I can't seem to get my point across by stating the scientific reasons for restricting the donor pool, which are clear and irrefutable. So I'll go with the more obvious point, which really sort of negates the whole discussion.

That is: BLOOD DONATION IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHT

It is not a personal slight. It is not a public humiliation, and it is not a judgment on you, as a person, to be turned away from donating blood.

I don't understand why anyone thinks it's "discrimination" when you're turned away from the Red Cross Bloodmobile for getting a tattoo, or fucking a Thai hooker, or getting a blood transfusion in the UK, or recreationally injecting yourself with methamphetamine, or having hot sweaty man-on-man butt-sex. It's not discrimination because YOU'RE NOT BEING DENIED ANYTHING!

In short, what you think of the screening process does not matter. You don't get to vote on it. The blood supply is strictly regulated by people that have spent many years in school and many years doing careful research, and who know a shit-ton more about the process than anybody here. And certainly the FDA and the American Red Cross know more about it than some yahoo at San Jose State trying to make a point by playing with people's lives.

^I guess it's because I see it as arbitrary. It varies from state to state, and from blood center to blood center.

I personally, never claimed it was. I just said it would be a better, more sensible policy to screen applicants according to their behavior.

It is discrimination.
But don't get me wrong, some discrimination is sensible and good. For example, the Red Cross SHOULD have a policy that discriminates against people who engage in high risk behavior.

I agree. The FDA AND American Red Cross DO know more. But that doesn't mean they don't make some decisions based on politics rather than science.

What I am doing wrong is actually believing you have an ounce of self-respect left after blatantly LYING about what I posted in this thread and when called upon you COMPLETELY ignored it and STILL think you are somehow better than me. You KNOW you can't prove shit to whatever you proclaim so you hide like the stupid idiot that you are.

And you proudly proclaim that you raised two healthy children, eh? If their mother is to go by anything, I am pretty sure they are both farked up beyond recognition and ASHAMED that your hellcunt spawned them.

[action=garamet]notes that Megatron still hasn't figured it out and will keep bumping the thread indefinitely...[/action]