What is Digg?239 Comments
- Strider817, on 10/12/2007, -36/+137Although it is arguably not right for them to deny his blood based solely on this, according to many sources the AIDS virus originated in homosexual men, and I believe AIDS is still most commonly found in homosexual men (though surely not the cause).
Regardless of the this though Red Cross is quite picky on this subject. Here is a excerpt from their web page:
HIV, AIDS
You should not give blood if you have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test, or if you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV.
You are at risk for getting infected if you:
* have ever used needles to take drugs, steroids, or anything not prescribed by your doctor
* are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977
* have ever taken money, drugs or other payment for sex since 1977
* have had sexual contact in the past 12 months with anyone described above
* received clotting factor concentrates for a bleeding disorder such as hemophilia
* were born in, or lived in, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea,Gabon, Niger, or Nigeria, since 1977.
* since 1977, received a blood transfusion or medical treatment with a blood product in any of these countries, or
* had sex with anyone who, since 1977, was born in or lived in any of these countries. Learn more about HIV Group O, and the specific African countries where it is found.
I don't think this is as anti-gay based as some would lead you to believe. - devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -20/+91You're right, strider - I had this argument with someone before. They're not being excluded simply because they're gay; gay people are a population with an inordinately high proportion of HIV infection. The Red Cross is just eliminating high-risk groups, and gay people are just one of those.
- codballs, on 10/12/2007, -9/+58It's unfortunate but I wasn't allowed to give blood after I got my tattoo. As has been said, it's best to exclude groups with an unusually high number of infected blood.
Doesn't make it right, but at least understandable. - Kytin, on 10/12/2007, -9/+33Damn that soy
- ZackScott, on 10/12/2007, -10/+33In reference to Strider817's post.
I bet you could still be gay and answer no to all of those questions and give blood. A gay virgin maybe? - RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -6/+28It is amazing to think that many of Digg's users are younger than HIV. By that I mean the HIV pandemic was recognized in 1981 and its cause isolated in 1983. What some might not know is that in the early days, the disease was first thought to be limited to the homosexual population. While this myth has been dispelled by science, it is still true that through 2004, the estimated number of HIV infections in America fell as follows. What I suspect the Red Cross is doing is simply narrowing the pool because it is impractical to test all blood, or more likely, hold blood for 6 months and then test the donor for HIV as it takes that long for virus levels to become detectable.
Male-to-male sexual contact: 441,380
Injection Drug Use: 248,813
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use: 64,833
Heterosexual contact: 159,114
Other: 20,721
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm - aurrea, on 10/12/2007, -14/+35"* have ever taken money, drugs or other payment for sex since 1977"
Doesn't every woman fall into this category? I can't even begin to count how many women I have had to take out to dinner to sleep with... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Good Lord! Why the whining about this being a gay issue since it is NOT.
As was previously stated, if you have had a tattoo within a certain timeframe, they don't want your blood. You don't hear folks with tattoos bitching about it. If they don't want my blood, ***** 'em. I've got one of the most sought after blood types but am a pariah since I have been 'inked'. Like I said, ***** 'em. I don't lose sleep over it. Why would someone whine who can't give blood unless they want to piss, moan and make a political issue of it?
Every time I turn around someone is screaming and crying about something that is a non-issue except in their mind. If you are willing to give blood and they don't want it, it's their loss. - Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23449,000 ***** vs 159,000 hetero.
I'd call that a significantly higher rate. - matt0ne, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16nothing about being gay - just high-risk! There are inherent risks involved with regular anal sex!
- Endoquixote, on 10/12/2007, -24/+36Where is your mind on this? AIDS is serious, if gay people want to take the risk with it no one can stop them, but we should not allow our compassion for them to put others at risk. Barring gays from donating blood is a valuable buffer for the safety of people who do not choose to put themselves at risk. This has nothing to do with being homophobic or intolerant, it has to do with disease control. Why must homosexuals complain so much, where are the prostitutes and intravenous drug users protesting? This is common sense. Descrimination is not a bad thing when it is valid, insistance on political correctness is rediculous if it endangers the life of anyone.
- Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19As discuss above, it's NOT stupid. It's smart and it's saving lives.
- venicerocco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11That's quite a visual there: You laid out on a freeway, bleeding, barely conscious and mumbling something about "no butt sex or prostitutes" as the doctor inserts a needle into your arm...
- Louis11, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Witches aren't real, gay guys are
- Dallas70, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Don't feel bad Ronnie, I too can't give blood but for a different odd reason. I lived in Europe for 6 months and one week back in 1980 and am now ineligible due to fears of a Mad Cow disease (Supposedly if you lived for more than 6 months in Europe between 1980-1996 you're automatically disqualified).
- Raian, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15because he's attracted to guys?
- aaronm67, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13@groovieken
There are FAR more black people in America then there are gay people.
Blacks represent close to 15% of the population. The gay population is well under 10% (though it's harder to find reliable statistics).
Just to put that in a little perspective, that means that around .9% of the black population has AIDS (from wikipedias and your numbers) while around 2% of the gay population does (again, using numbers from a seemingly reliable website, just to get a little idea of the number). That means you are more then twice as likely to have AIDS as a homosexual person then as a black person. - msprout, on 10/12/2007, -10/+18You're all ignoring an even greater risk to the Red Cross.
Vampires. - grooviekenn, on 10/12/2007, -15/+22@Strider817's comment
Where do you draw the line? According to http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#aidsrace 379,278 blacks non hispanics contracted Aids through 2004... pretty close to the 441,380 gays.... Should blacks be banned from donating blood too?!
@codballs comment: You had a choice to get your tattoo; being gay is NOT a choice. - tweak50, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9That is the most stupid ***** comment i've ever heard.
Since when did internet access reach that far back in the trailer park? - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8There's a lot better chance the Red Cross gets advice from medical experts than there is a chance some Digger talking out his ass knows what's a good idea.
- 5hop4orce, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14As soon as male-on-male sex is no longer a risk factor for HIV, gays can give blood.
- davodavo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6""We count on students because they're so healthy," O'Brien said."
ROFL. - Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13Wait, you're upset that someone won't take something from you? Sounds like its something you think should be their loss. Get over it. The blood supply doesn't allow drug addicts or Haitian prostitutes to donate either, and its not a moral judgement, its to lower the false-negative rate on the downstream tests (ie., that people die from tainted blood that makes it through the batch antibody testing). If there's evidence to suggest that it doesn't lower it, link it.
- thatsmyaibo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9AIDS is also a disease that can stay dormant for many years. I'm sure they wouldn't take blood from prostitutes either. The fact is, it is just people who have a higher risks of obtaining the disease that are barred from donating. These steps are necessary. 20 years ago, people were getting AIDS and other diseases through blood transfusions all too often.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11@NikoKun: "More gay men should donate blood... but just not tell them their gay... XD that'll show those gay hating blood donation organizations... XD"
Why do people donate blood? To help people isn't it?
Why the hell would you or anyone lie to possibly contaminate the blood supply. To infect an 8 year hemophiliac or 20 year old trauma patient just to make a point?
There's a fricking blood shortage and the only major blood supply system is via the Red Cross and we all know how anti-gay the Red Cross is (sarcasm) - venicerocco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I'm not allowed to give blood in th U.S. cos I'm British.
- similar situation to Dallas70 - greymaxcat, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12On a related note: Gays in the U.S. still forbidden from taking blood as well.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I went to a malarial area. They didn't want my blood for a long time either. Even if you only take anti-malarial drugs and don't even leave the country they don't want your blood.
I'm okay with this. If we aren't running short on blood, then we should take the safest blood possible. And statistically, gay blood is a bit more risky, just like other varied segments of the population are more risky than average. - siszam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5So premeditated murder can be added to your list of sins? Nice. You're a waste of oxygen.
- unloud, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12I think the main problem I have with excluding gays is this: All of the blood is tested by HIV any way so why can't they let the gay people who know they won't be positive give blood just because other people who are like them are more likely to have AIDS?
- ianesque, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This is a purely medical issue, people. Homosexual men have over 4X the risk of contracting HIV/AIDS than heterosexuals. At present time it's all but impractical to perfectly screen blood donations for HIV, because it can remain dormant for long periods of time, so they eliminate high-risk demographics.
People with a new tattoo in the last 6 months, someone who is a self-admitted intravenous drug user, or even a person who has simply visited high-risk geographic regions (like myself) -- none of them can donate blood either.
Take a deep breath and get off your anti-discrimination soapbox long enough to read the statistics:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm - DNABeast, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@NikoKun: I thought logical people here knew that gay people don't get aids,(or other STDs) any more often than straight people... -_-
Not the case. Gay men have a lot more anal sex than other couples. Anal sex creates some blood vessel breakage because that particular orifice only evolved to have movement from inside to outside. The potentially infected semen then makes contact with the blood of the non-carrier.
Women are at slightly greater risk than men when it comes to vaginal sex because they receive more potentially infected fluid.
Ejaculating in someone is a less dangerous pastime to you, but more dangerous to them?
Basically they're not being bigoted. Unless it's bigoted to only allow people 'This tall and up' on the rollarcoaster. Same thing. - vvargoal, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I honestly see no problem with this. This isn't an issue of discrimination, but one of cold hard statistics. There is a higher prevalence of aids in homosexuals than in heterosexuals, so it is safer to get blood from heterosexuals. If there was a higher risk of hiv-tainted blood in middle class straight white males, then they should be barred. Safety should not be sacrificed just to satisfy the politically correct.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@NikoKun:
Blood cost about $150-$275 per unit testing cost with a final cost of $500-800/unit depending on what is ultimately done to it (Leuco reduced etc.). A person will get 2-4 units for non-trauma up to 8+units for trauma.
So by allowing gay men to donate for political correctness, you're going to add an extra $100 of testing to all blood units tested. Millions of units are tested each year, so you're going to add millions to billions to the blood cost to make a minority feel good about blood donation? You donate blood to save lives, not make other people feel better about donating. - milomilomilo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5what is pretty sad is that although yes since I am gay I am in a high risk group, the blood is tested for diseases, so the policy is pointless.
On a side note, digg has really gone down the ***** due to it's comment mod system. Looking back a few months ago most bigotry and intolerance was dugg down and the dugg-downee was giving a nice brow beating. Now, it's tough to comment on any story without first having to sift through disgusting comments such as " No ***** buttsexx=no aids" or "Thankfully the fags will be eliminated from the gene pool" that end up with +47 diggs.
This is what happens when you leave comment moderation to the bigoted masses. - RandomGuySteve, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I can't give blood because I was born in the UK.
From January 1, 1980, through December 31, 1996, you spent (visited or lived) a cumulative time of 3 months or more, in the United Kingdom (UK) - 5hop4orce, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8"July 2006
"In the United States, HIV infection and AIDS have had a tremendous effect on men who have sex with men (MSM). MSM accounted for 70% of all estimated HIV infections among male adults and adolescents in 2004 (based on data from 35 areas with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting*), even though only about 5% to 7% of male adults and adolescents in the United States identify themselves as MSM [1,2]. The number of HIV diagnoses for MSM decreased during the 1980s and 1990s, but recent surveillance data show an increase in HIV diagnoses for this group [3, 4]. This increase points to a continued need for culturally appropriate prevention and education services."
...
"'Transmission categories of male adults and adolescents living with AIDS, 2004'
"Male-to-male sexual contact: 65%
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use: 5%
Injection drug use: 14%
Heterosexual contact: 16%
Other: 1%"
Center for Disease Control:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/msm.htm
Now will you report this submission lame and bury it? - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3tdhurst:
The ban is on those who have had homosexual sex, not gays.
My point stands.
Yes, I think giving up sex would be a ***** tradeoff for being able to give blood. But then again, I don't get riled over it in the first place. I already can't give blood (for other reasons) and my life isn't any the worse for it. - viscousplatypus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The Red Cross is not run by public health experts.
http://www.redcross.org/aboutus/ - AnteChronos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@andonecody
"I wouldnt want no queers blood in me"
If your choice were either that or dying due to excessive blood loss, I have a feeling that you'd change your tune pretty quickly.
And you obviously didn't want no English teacher's education in you, either. Double negatives FTL. - venicerocco, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6And Saddam had WMDs - yeah we know, we know...
- donsherio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ Louis11
So God also doesn't have an accurate Gaydar eh? cause there seems to be an awful lot of children, and heterosexual people out there with HIV and AIDS. He missed i guess. - HappyMax, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Here's a weird idea. Why don't we let the doctors and scientists who are public health experts decide our blood donation policy instead of "outraged" political activists.
- custerfluck, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7me. you dumbass.
- aaronm67, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Well, I'm willing to bet your life on anything really. I don't know you, and will probably never see you. But yeah, I see what you're saying. I wouldn't bet MY life on the testing equipment ;)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Why would you do such an irresponsible thing? The HIV test is not 100%. So by lying you're risking contaminating the blood supply. Look at my post further up for the statistical reason that the Red Cross has this policy.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Alright let me try to clear up the whole Red Cross blood testing issue and throw the statistical reasoning behind it.
Testing blood for HIV is around 99% sensitive(it will miss 1/100 HIV case) because there's a small window period before antibodies show up in the test.
I'm not a HIV doc so, okay I'm making up some numbers: If the total US population has a HIV rate of 0.1%, the HIV test will miss 0.0001% or 1 in 10000 regular blood doners (the miss rate is actually much lower so the real miss rate is actually much rarer).
In the Gay population, the HIV rate is higher...say 2% so the miss rate will rise 1 in 500 gay doners.
Usually blood is actually pooled, when you receive blood, the blood is pooled with other similar blood types to dilute the possible HIV virus. - compman85, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I was stopped from giving blood in High School for a blood drive, because of the fact that I'm gay. I waited in line for 5 hours to give blood. They did the pre-screening interview, and asked if I had ever had sex with a male. I answered honestly, and told that I couldn't give blood and that I would be red flagged in the system. Preventing me from trying to give blood again in the future for at least 5 years. I was so upset that I couldn't give blood, that I cried, because I felt I was denied the right to help someone else out. My belief, if they are afraid of ST D's or something like that, they should test the blood they take. They should test the blood for STDs and other viral bugs that they take, regardless of who it is from, and if they have had sex with someone of the same sex. I think this is something that needs to change. And honestly, I could have just lied to insure that I could give blood, and I'm sure there are many people that do. When I got home, and told my mom about it, she told me that I should have lied about it. I was staying true to my character, and decided that it was best for me to be honest. I don't feel it is fair. If they are too damn lazy to test for BBPs (Blood Bore Pathogen's), for the safety of their patients, they shouldn't be taking the blood anyways.
- custerfluck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I just wanted to start a new comment on not being able to give blood having lived in Europe for a while on account of mad cow. Obviously mad cow has made us incapable of clicking reply :)
-
Show 51 - 100 of 235 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is