Fight to allow gay blood donors

Chunky Monkey

Just read this article on BBC news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7347108.stm

Pity they don't provide a link for the petition but did a search and signed it: http://bloodban.co.uk/

It's a UK one but hey gotta start somewhere.

Zee Deveel

Thanks for that, will try pass that one around a bit, hopefully will come into the UK soon enough, and Ireland will follow...

...why do we always have to be the followers though? :rolleyes:

useful_contacts

huh?

i didnt know gay people wernt allowed donate blood

Zee Deveel

Yep, it's the same in Ireland too. Discriminatory but, I suppose, fair enough at first. People knew next to nothing about HIV/AIDS, and it just seemed to be a 'gay disease'. But now, it's just ridiculous, particularly when you look at the people who are allowed to give blood..

A straight man who has sex with a different girl every weekend can give blood TODAY.
Intravenous Drug users can give blood after 1 year.
Prostitute users can give blood after 1 year.
Those who have had sex abroad in a high risk HIV country can give blood after 18 months.

Gay men are banned FOR LIFE, even if they've only ever had sex with one partner and they used protection.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Zee Deveel wrote: »

Intravenous Drug users can give blood after 1 year.

Not in Ireland

from irish blood transfusion service http://www.ibts.ie/generic.cfm?mID=2&sID=79

Never give blood if:

* You have received a blood transfusion (other than an autologous transfusion) in the Republic of Ireland on or after the 1st January 1980
* You received a blood transfusion (other than an autologous transfusion) outside the Republic of Ireland at anytime
* You have spent 1 year or more, in total, in the UK in the years 1980 to 1996
* You are a male who has ever had anal or oral sex with another male, even if a condom or other form of protection was used
* You have ever used a needle to take unprescribed drugs, this includes body building drugs
* You or your partner is HIV positive
* You have had jaundice of uncertain cause after the age of 13 years
* You have had hepatitis B or C

As for prostitutes I'd rather see them banned for life than take in another high risk group. Most of them are probably intravenous drug users anyhow. Sub-Saharan Africans & their partners should be there too.

johnnyskeleton

I don't think you can claim a right to give blood, and this sounds like political nonsense to me. Gay rights lobbyists find themselves redundant in a society which by and large is tolerant of homosexuals, so take on these obscure causes.

The groups that are excluded are high risk groups, and include, for example, people who have had acupuncture, people who have casual sex or who have visited certain countries recently.

You can understand their caution, seeing as how thousands of Irish people caught an awful disease from unmonitored blood transfusions during the 80s and early 90s.

High risk groups are excluded for 2 reasons:
1) it is very expensive to take, preserve and test blood donations, and refusing high risk groups, even though there will be much more clean samples than infected, is too expensive to justify the risk;
2) more importantly, mistakes can be made, and if someone messes up the test, or it slips through somehow, someone could contract a life threatening highly infectious disease.

So rather than this being discrimination on the blood transfusion service's part, I see this as selfishness and self-righteousness from the gay rights people. No other high risk group claims discrimination, and to be honest, do people really care whether or not they give blood?

The Blood Transfusion Service can do what they damn well like, and they are doing it out of a desire to save lives, not to discriminate against gays.

L1011

Theres a few problems with it that make it discrimination - namely that other high risk groups are exempted for a period of time, whereas me who have had sex with men are excluded forever. No accounting for when the (allegedly) 'risky' activity ended, unlike virtually ever other group.

Excluding high risk groups to reduce the effort of testing the blood is an absolutely horrendously dangerous thing to do, anyway - its almost more likely to cause someone to catch something than not.

The_Minister

MYOB wrote: »

Excluding high risk groups to reduce the effort of testing the blood is an absolutely horrendously dangerous thing to do, anyway - its almost more likely to cause someone to catch something than not.

Explain.
Surely, since all tests have a certain failure rate, reducing the number of infected samples makes sense?

L1011

They claim that by reducing the number of 'risky samples' it reduces the cost of testing - ergo they're using less reliable testing. Which won't nessacerily catch something in 'non risky' blood.

Annasopra

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The Blood Transfusion Service can do what they damn well like, and they are doing it out of a desire to save lives, not to discriminate against gays.

And yet - they openly admit that this is a discriminatory practice

johnnyskeleton

MYOB wrote: »

Theres a few problems with it that make it discrimination - namely that other high risk groups are exempted for a period of time, whereas me who have had sex with men are excluded forever. No accounting for when the (allegedly) 'risky' activity ended, unlike virtually ever other group.

See the sagely post of Bottle of Smoke above. In any case, I don't think sexual orientation is something that people ever stop, is it?

MYOB wrote: »

Excluding high risk groups to reduce the effort of testing the blood is an absolutely horrendously dangerous thing to do, anyway - its almost more likely to cause someone to catch something than not.

MYOB wrote: »

They claim that by reducing the number of 'risky samples' it reduces the cost of testing - ergo they're using less reliable testing. Which won't nessacerily catch something in 'non risky' blood.

It's not to reduce the effort of testing, nor is it to use less reliable testing. See the two reasons I posted above. Just to be clear, if they exclude high risk categories, that means that they will waste less money taking samples that they can't use (due to being infected), and also there is always a risk, no matter how scrupulous the testers are, that a mistake will be made.

Johnnymcg wrote: »

And yet - they openly admit that this is a discriminatory practice

A justified one I think. I imagine they can get around the legislation by simply saying that they are not providing a service - rather blood donors are providing a service to them.

sunnyjim

All laboratories, especially those involved directly in human healthcare - as opposed to pharma-science - are heavily regulated by different bodies, such as the ISO. Laboratory regulation is the strictest going. Every test is documented, every mistake recorded.

There is absolutely no way you could say that limiting the high risk groups from donating is taking the easy way out. The problem is that each group carries a higher risk of carrying a life-threatening (at best) disease. The tests carried out in the lab would need to have an unbelievably high detection rate to get ISO accreditation.

The fact is that they found a pattern to HIV cases and sexuality, and it happened to coincide with sexuality. And so, to protect the greater good of the receiving customer, this group has been refused.

People who have lived in Britain for certain periods are also banned for life, as have others for living in tropical climates. Sexuality isn't the only reason they refuse people, so get over it.

Chunky Monkey

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I don't think you can claim a right to give blood, and this sounds like political nonsense to me. Gay rights lobbyists find themselves redundant in a society which by and large is tolerant of homosexuals, so take on these obscure causes.

The groups that are excluded are high risk groups, and include, for example, people who have had acupuncture, people who have casual sex or who have visited certain countries recently.

You can understand their caution, seeing as how thousands of Irish people caught an awful disease from unmonitored blood transfusions during the 80s and early 90s.

High risk groups are excluded for 2 reasons:
1) it is very expensive to take, preserve and test blood donations, and refusing high risk groups, even though there will be much more clean samples than infected, is too expensive to justify the risk;
2) more importantly, mistakes can be made, and if someone messes up the test, or it slips through somehow, someone could contract a life threatening highly infectious disease.

So rather than this being discrimination on the blood transfusion service's part, I see this as selfishness and self-righteousness from the gay rights people. No other high risk group claims discrimination, and to be honest, do people really care whether or not they give blood?

The Blood Transfusion Service can do what they damn well like, and they are doing it out of a desire to save lives, not to discriminate against gays.

BS. The doctor in charge of the service said that 60% of those tested positive for HIV are gay. What about the other 40%? That doesn't make them a high risk group, that makes them slightly higher than heterosexuals. And why is the fact that HIV is still a very taboo subject and that it is still linked to homosexuality meaning that many heterosexuals who may be positive aren't going to get tested not being considered? The 'pattern' that you claim they have found may indeed be false.

You also have to take into consideration the long incubation period that the virus often has ie no development into AIDS until a few years after someone has become infected (even almost 20 years in some cases). Before STDs such as this became well known to the public, gay men had sex without protection because they don't have the risk of getting pregnant. Now that people are being made aware, more are being careful and the ratio is steadily shifting in the other direction.

http://www.thebody.com/content/art10433.html According to this article, in 2003, 60% of newly diagnosed cases in Ireland were in heterosexuals. Using the same logic as the UK doc, you could say that heterosexuals are a high risk group.

Look at what Bottle of Smoke quoted. Even if men use protection, they aren't allowed to donate. Tell me how that makes sense.

This isn't about being politically correct and self righteous. This is about challenging a rule that is archaic and unjustified.

dermo88

This is an awkward one. I have tried to word this carefully, and avoid causing offence. But lets face facts

Unfotunately, even though I am a gay man, I beg to differ. It might sound like old fashioned bigotry to even suggest it, but when we look at the HIV/AIDS infection figures from M.S.M in cities such as San Francisco (1 in 3), London (1 in 6), Bangkok (1 in 4), Kuala Lumpur (1 in 10 in 2007, and predicted to rise to 1 in 4 by 2020 unless action is taken), Dublin (1 in 15), Sydney (1 in 20), and these are at least 10 times larger than the equivalent infection rates amongst purely heterosexual groups. We constitute between 3% and 10% of the population, and purely gay men constitute around 5%....mind, no truly accurate figures are available.

Most of us have our eyes wide open about this, carry condoms, get tested, and do not take chances, but we have to acknowledge that there are a lot who, by the same token, party their tits off, snort copious amounts of Amyl Nitrate, and enjoy/destroy themselves with hedonistic excess. There are many avenues for the Retroviral disease, but because of the absorbative nature of the particular tissues involved with some forms of gay (specifically anal) sex, we are still a high risk group. Condoms can be used, and they are proven to be effective at combating this. However, since 2000, I have noticed a dangerous complacency begin to take hold. The first wave of infections/deaths from 1982-1995 has been forgotten amongst many young gay men, and riskier sexual behaviours have taken hold. Modern pornographic movies seem to glamourise and glorify this. Lets face it, if the average young gay man, actually did see anyone in the final stages of the bug, I can assure you they would carry condoms all the time, use them all the time. But most have'nt. Whats more, HIV is still stigmatised in the gay community where if anyone has it, you will see mouths behind hands if that anyone turns up at their local pub, and I saw that in the UK. Philadelphia starring Tom Hanks is now just a sad movie, rather than the story (albeit fictitious), of those terrible times, and some young guys say "Hey just take a few tablets everyday and its fine"...so its perceived as manageable....treatable....but realities are ignored.

I also have to point out that infection rates have risen significantly in recent years, thankfully Dublin/Ireland has been largely spared from that scourge. This is because of:

(a) More effective drug treatment regimens for the virus itself.
(b) More people are willing to be tested, as the fear factor is removed and the illness itself is demystified.
(c) We tend to be more restrained than other cities, such as London, San Francisco etc
(d) We never had a large "pool" of infected individuals in the first place, as the virus was "checked", or slowed down in the early-mid 1990's, plus the virus was initially amongst IDU's in Ireland rather than MSM.
(e) Gay life in Ireland bore more similarities to large provincial towns in the UK or US, so we were somewhat more insular

We do not know what other pathogens are out there. The Blood transfusion board are learning from past events. The next avenue for a blood transmitted pathogen could easily be 50 year old Leitrim schoolmasters who got infected by chalkdust (who knows). In the meantime, its best to err on the side of caution.

This whole "discrimination", can lead to obscurantist doctrines and lack of common sense, which can be used to justify all kinds of activities both good and bad. Sound judgement and caution can go out the window, and everyone, beyond the small groups affected suffer. There is a time, and a place to combat discrimination and injustice. This is not one of them. Its regrettable, but true.

Its a very much a "catch all" piece of wording that is unfair, because every donor is an individual. Its a moral decision on the part of an individual. A gay man can have slept with 1 man all his life, and the couple have tested before deciding to ditch the rubbers, and it will be safe for them to donate. On the other hand, you can have very promiscuous men, who have gone to excess. They won't admit it, and where there is shame, embarrassment, shyness, reticence, then the door is open to that accursed virus. We would be wise to acknowledge that we can be randy sods at the best of times, and thats a problem in some ways. It just makes us colourful as well....in some ways.

The_Minister

Chunky Monkey wrote: »

BS. The doctor in charge of the service said that 60% of those tested positive for HIV are gay. What about the other 40%?

Except that homosexuals are only about 5% of the population, and not all of them are active, so them having 60% of all HIV makes then a gigantic risk group (I had never heard the 60% figure before - that is massive).


EDIT:@dermo 1 in 15 in Dublin???? Can I ask where you source these figures?

dermo88

The statistical information can be found at a number of Irish gay websites, such as www.gcn.ie www.outhouse.ie and the most reliable source is the Department of Health and Eastern Healthboard websites.

Also, I do take into account that one third of infections do not know they are infected, but that number is falling as people are:

(a) more willing to be tested.
(b) treatments are better, therefore there is less fear of being tested.
(c) infection rates are likely to increase as people with HIV now have close to normal lifespans with current treatment regimen, someone infected today can expect to last 25-30 years provided they live a healthy lifestyle.

The fact that "not all gay people are active" is a point we would do well to remember. We would also do well to remember, that there are cases of men who have been monogamous for more than two years, in perfect health, who decided to ditch the condoms after that two year period WITHOUT being tested because they were scared of the test result in front of their partners, and the consequences were tragic. I do have knowledge of designing prevention strategies, and Ireland has been quite good at prevention and treatment. FYI I currently live in Malaysia, which is what I would call a multiracial liberal predominantly Muslim country, and that can hamper prevention efforts due to stigma, fear and a conservative climate, somewhat similar to pre 1990 Ireland

Statistically, gay receptive anal sex, without condoms, is 58 times riskier than heterosexual sex. Thats an incredibly high figure. (source www.cdc.com - Centre of Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia). Yes, right wingers can use these statistics against us, but unfortunately, there is no denying that the infection rates amongst the gay community approach sub saharan african levels. Thats not being melodramatic.

Other sources: www.tht.co.uk www.pinktriangle.com.my

Irish infection rates are relatively low compared to other European cities. BUT, Dublin did have a syphillis outbreak in late 2002 to early 2003 and a second surge of syphillis in 2006 (Syphillis is a lot more easily transmitted than HIV, and HIV is a relatively "weak" virus outside of the blood/seminal fluid environment). A syphillis outbreak is usually indicative of a future surge in HIV infections further down the line.

I wish I could say it was different. I wish it was'nt like that. But thats just the way it is, and I do not mean to scare anyone. In the meantime, "if you can't be good, be clever, and that means bringing raincoats when you get randy". People can and do slip up under the influence of too much booze, drugs, who get caught up in the heat of passion, again, there are measures to rectify silly acts like that called PEP or Post Exposure Prolaxis (Not sure of the exact term here).

If you do have a partner, a long term partner, get tested together if/when you do decide to ditch the raincoats, and promise to love each other irrespective of the result. That sounds all "wishy washy", but where there is fear, stigma, denial, this illness will continue to thrive and destroy. Knowledge is power, awareness is safety, love conquers all.

Take care

L1011

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

See the sagely post of Bottle of Smoke above. In any case, I don't think sexual orientation is something that people ever stop, is it?

Sexual *activity* is something people frequently do stop - be it due to not having anyone to do it with or personal choice. Someone who's not having sex who happens to have had it in the past has, quite obviously, got a 0% chance of catching an STI they didn't already have.

Ergo this is exactly the same as the prostitutes rule - which times out after 12 months.

pwd

I don't percieve it as discrimination at all. I think it is sensible.
As well as known and detected diseases, there is the possibility of new/unknown diseases.
There was a lot of infected blood used in this country before 1984 because they were importing blood from the USA from prisoners and other high-risk sources.

L1011

There's a possibility of new/unknown diseases in *anyone*. The entire issue comes down to them accepting blood from just as or far more risky sources once a time period has elapsed - as opposed to never.

johnnyskeleton

MYOB wrote: »

There's a possibility of new/unknown diseases in *anyone*. The entire issue comes down to them accepting blood from just as or far more risky sources once a time period has elapsed - as opposed to never.

The issue is political correctness taken a step too far. Just because you want to give blood, that does not mean you have a right to give blood, and I would be very wary of forcing the blood transfusion service to accept blood from a high risk group. If you have been an intravenous drug user, then you can't ever donate blood either. If you've been clean for 40 years, it's highly unlikely you will contract aids now. Nevertheless, the risk is too great and the blood transfusion service says no.

As for the OP, I would counter your argument but The_Minister and dermo88 have done that perfectly.

L1011

You're taking the one other group thats permanently barred there as an example - none of the other 'high risk groups' are barred permanently. How come they cease to be a risk to the blood supply after 12 months yet men who have had sex with men amazingly don't?

Its nothing to do with political correctness, just equality in provision of services. If they want to exclude apparent high risk groups permanently they should do it for all groups - not just some. So out with the prostitute users forever, then... Claiming something is 'political correctness gone mad' is the standard defense of Daily Mail readers who want the world to stay as it was in 1955.

dermo88

Yes, but in 1955, MYOB, HIV was a happy contented little virus lurking around the jungles of the Belgian Congo, doing very little damage until a sailor arrived and decided to go shagging in Kinshasa.

And the rest...is history.

johnnyskeleton

MYOB wrote: »

You're taking the one other group thats permanently barred there as an example - none of the other 'high risk groups' are barred permanently. How come they cease to be a risk to the blood supply after 12 months yet men who have had sex with men amazingly don't?

There are others, e.g. people who have had a blood transfusion abroad, people who have lived in England during a certain period etc who can never give blood. The website is silent as to whether prostitutes can give blood, but I recall that the application form has a lot more questions than are prohibited groups, so perhaps prostitutes are weeded out that way.

In any event, as another poster has said, if it is the case that prostitutes can give blood after 12 months but homosexual males can never give blood, that would suggest to me that the appropriate change is to prohibit prostitutes for life rather than decrease the time for homosexuals.

MYOB wrote: »

Its nothing to do with political correctness, just equality in provision of services. If they want to exclude apparent high risk groups permanently they should do it for all groups - not just some. So out with the prostitute users forever, then... Claiming something is 'political correctness gone mad' is the standard defense of Daily Mail readers who want the world to stay as it was in 1955.

But it is to do with political correctness, and you've just highlighted my point. It's not about equality in the provision of services, because the blood transfusion service do not provide you with a service by taking your blood, they provide a service to people who need blood transfusions.

So if they refused to donate blood to homosexuals, that would be inequal provision of service; however, if they refuse to take samples from a homosexual, how is that a failure to provide equal service?

I think it is political correctness gone mad because there is no right to donate blood, and so demanding this as a right is spurious. If someone is refused from giving blood, they hardly have grounds to complain do they? If you went up to a charity shop with some old clothes and they said "sorry, we only sell women's clothes", you could hardly complain about inequal treatment there. You are perfectly entitled to let your blood whenever you like (unless you do so in a manner likely to cause death to yourself or alarm in another person), but you have no right to foist your blood on the blood transfusion service.

I also think it's political correctness gone mad because it seems to me that in our permissive and open society, homosexual activists don't feel persecuted anymore, so they find this type of obscure cause to fight for. Otherwise, gay rights people would be out of a job isn't it? They would be as redundant as Germaine Greer and the like.

Chunky Monkey

I'm not gay but anyway.

Dermo you talk about some gay men being randy. Heterosexuals can be randy without protection too. The rule for the Irish service states that men who have had sex with other men, even when using protection, are not allowed to donate. That does not make sense. Do they believe that gay men are not to be trusted. Do they believe that heterosexuals never have unprotected one night stands.

Syphilis is not an STD exclusive to homosexuals and anal sex is not an activity exclusive to homosexuals.

I'm not allowed to give blood because of the UK rule. I could say I'm being discriminated against because technically I'm British. But I'm not because I did eat beef there and I could turn into a mad cow one of these days.

However, just looking at the statistic which shows that 60% of newly diagnosed cases of HIV were in heterosexuals in 2003 for example, shows that it doesn't add up.

Even if they were to keep that rule they should have an exception to it- that sexually active gay men should be able to bring negative HIV (etc) test results with them and be allowed to donate. Or do you think that would be too politically correct Johnnyskeleton?

Kooli

I am not allowed to donate blood EVER because I spent over 6 months in Sub-Saharan Africa.
So that's another group that is banned forever.
I don't take it personally. I don't feel discriminated against. I wish I COULD donate, cos I think they are missing out on a regular donor who has neither HIV nor malaria, but I accept the logic behind their decision. It's their choice what is worth their while and what isn't. They have obviously weighed it up and are making things easier and more cost-effective for themselves, and it would be pretty stupid if they didn't do that.

L1011

The cost effective argument just means they're making the entire blood supply more risky. If they're taking people at their word and using cheaper tests, its extremely, extremely dangerous.

If they opened up the categories slightly I doubt they'd have much increase in the % of discarded samples, if any.

johnnyskeleton

Chunky Monkey wrote: »

However, just looking at the statistic which shows that 60% of newly diagnosed cases of HIV were in heterosexuals in 2003 for example, shows that it doesn't add up.

That doesn't suggest that hetrosexual males are a greater risk though, nor that homosexuals are a lesser risk.

Chunky Monkey wrote: »

Even if they were to keep that rule they should have an exception to it- that sexually active gay men should be able to bring negative HIV (etc) test results with them and be allowed to donate. Or do you think that would be too politically correct Johnnyskeleton?

What I object to are the ideas that (a) there is a right to give blood and (b) it is considered an issue of discrimination. Seeing as the blood transfusion service is asking people to give blood, rather than providing a service so that they can, it is reasonable to let them do so on their terms. To impose any obligation on them there must be a vey valid reason for it. I don't think making homosexuals feel better about themselves is reason enough to interfere with the IBTS' discretion in this important area. If a homosexual man was to bring a negative test into them then I think they could allow him to donate, but it's up to them. Therefore, to insist that they should be allowed give blood is "too politically correct" in that it is a policital issue overriding a medical choice.

MYOB wrote: »

The cost effective argument just means they're making the entire blood supply more risky. If they're taking people at their word and using cheaper tests, its extremely, extremely dangerous.

If they opened up the categories slightly I doubt they'd have much increase in the % of discarded samples, if any.

They don't use cheaper tests. This has been explained to you several times. If you accept that high risk cateogries do have a higher percentage of hiv+ people, then you must accept that people in this group are more likely to be hiv+. Therefore, it stands to reason that there will be more discarded samples from 100 high risk samples than from 100 low risk samples.

More importantly however, is the risk that a mistake will be made an infected blood will be passed through as not infected. Human error is possible, sadly.

L1011

Right, if you say you'd think its OK for gays who have clean STD tests to donate, why not make this a requirement for *all* donors? If its such a good idea to clean up the blood supply, etc. And it would be undiscriminatory... no, wait, it'd add such an onerous requirement that very few would be bothered to do it. What kind of time scales are you suggesting for the test, as it happens? I could get a test on a Friday saying I was clear (with the standard 'may not detect an infection that happened in the past ten days', etc), then go shag the entire contents of the Phoenix Park on a Saturday night*, then head to the IBTS Monday morning... not workable, at al.

*although I wouldn't make it to Monday morning as my partner would murder me for doing that... or even considering it.

You're also miles off about the high risk categories increasing the % of rejectable samples. People who know the have HIV, Hepatitis, etc, are already barred from donating, full stop. Most gay people with HIV *know* the have HIV. Its only those that "know" they don't - as in haven't got it or haven't got diagnosed with it - who would be able to donate. On the basis that homosexuals are far, far, far more likely to get tested than heterosexuals, I'd suggest that the % of undiagnosed cases amongst those who would not otherwise be barred from donation is no higher than amongst heterosexuals.

As goes figures, even taking 40% of all HIV cases as being gay men (which is far higher than the current figures are running at, but lets include some space for those still alive from the past, eh) - this makes there be 1767 gay men diagnosed with HIV as of the end of 2006 (latest figures I can find). Assuming similar figures here to what the ONS provide in the UK (as no such figures exist here), about 6% of all men are gay - gives us around 130,000 gay men in Ireland.

Now, even if there's as many who have HIV and don't know it - unlikely - that means 2.7% have it. Taking figures for the entire population of diagnoses and assuming the same amount of people don't know it - likely, and indeed likely to be higher - thats 2.08% of the population in general.

How can I ask is that such a higher risk? Really?

johnnyskeleton

MYOB wrote: »

Right, if you say you'd think its OK for gays who have clean STD tests to donate, why not make this a requirement for *all* donors? If its such a good idea to clean up the blood supply, etc.

Are you talking about me? It's hard to tell because you don't quote people. It's even harder to tell because I never said that it would be OK, I said that it is something the IBTS might consider on an individual basis. As a general requirement it would be, as you say, too onerous.

MYOB wrote: »

I could get a test on a Friday saying I was clear (with the standard 'may not detect an infection that happened in the past ten days', etc), then go shag the entire contents of the Phoenix Park on a Saturday night*, then head to the IBTS Monday morning... not workable, at al.

Again, who are you talking to? I assume it's me because I'm the only person to post since your last post, but I never advocated that someone with a clean test should be allowed to give blood in the first place.

MYOB wrote:

You're also miles off about the high risk categories increasing the % of rejectable samples. People who know the have HIV, Hepatitis, etc, are already barred from donating, full stop. Most gay people with HIV *know* the have HIV. Its only those that "know" they don't - as in haven't got it or haven't got diagnosed with it - who would be able to donate. On the basis that homosexuals are far, far, far more likely to get tested than heterosexuals, I'd suggest that the % of undiagnosed cases amongst those who would not otherwise be barred from donation is no higher than amongst heterosexuals.

I'm pretty sure they test everybody, if nothing else other than on the basis that the cost of the Hep C tribunal is probably more than they have ever spent on testing. It is not a question of cutting corners, using cheaper tests or, as you now seem to suggest, not testing all samples.

The risk is too high that there will be a mistake. In the particular case of AIDS it is not detectable within 10 days of infection, which is a huge risk that cannot be screened properly.

MYOB wrote:

As goes figures, even taking 40% of all HIV cases as being gay men...
How can I ask is that such a higher risk? Really?

That alone should suggest it, but do you not realise that 2% is a huge risk? Medical risks are measured in the 0.01-0.00001% areas, a risk of 2% is of epidemic proportions. I looked at your figures, and as far as I can make it (based on your assumption of 1767/130,000 being HIV+) 1.35% of gay men have AIDS. But it also means that 4417.5/4,000,000 of the general population (including other high risk groups such as intravenous drug users etc) which is 0.11%. I would also suggest you are looking at it in the wrong way because what is really important is the % of gay men who are HIV+ and

damien

dermo88 wrote: »

Yes, but in 1955, MYOB, HIV was a happy contented little virus lurking around the jungles of the Belgian Congo, doing very little damage until a sailor arrived and decided to go shagging in Kinshasa.

Wow, your bluff was going so well til you got to this point. Fair play, your writing style is quite good and barely let you down in front of some of the ignoramuses here and I'm sure many people were convinced you didn't string various "accepted" theories together to come up with your logic. Oh and 9/11 was an inside job was it?

The_Minister

I think that he was joking:)