Blood donation and Gay men ??

Dravokivich

Shenshen wrote: »

Outdated and homophobic.
Screen the blood before you use it and there are no issues. As you pointed out there, there is no restriction on hetero contact, no matter if protection was used. And I'm pretty sure that there are no restricitons on other high-risk groups (people who had blood transfusions before, people who are or used to be heroin addicts, etc)

You'll be wrong.

If anyone has received blood, they are disqualified from donating.

They also have plenty of disqualifications for drug use, depending on the nature of it.

Lots of info in the FAQ

http://www.giveblood.ie/Become_a_Donor/Give_Blood/FAQs/

I would of thought people read it before they became outraged.

Edit:
Just seen it doesn't mention drug use there, but it was on the pamphlets at the clinics whenever I've donated

Lollipops23

Dravokivich wrote: »

You'll be wrong.

If anyone has received blood, they are disqualified from donating.

They also have plenty of disqualifications for drug use, depending on the nature of it.

I think introvenous drug use (inc body building drugs) and crack (particularly in prison) are the main ones.
Or having sex for drugs/money.

karma_

We have the same rule in the North here, It's just a risk prevention measure and certainly not a homophobic one. You will also be barred for at least one year if you have a piercing or a tattoo. I was once turned away because I had a flu a matter of weeks before, blood donation is a serious business, and it is proper it's taken so seriously.

Dravokivich

It wasn't on the FAQ but they've also got this PDF up. They mention introvenous drug use.

http://www.giveblood.ie/Become_a_Donor/Give_Blood/Can_I_Give_Blood/Common_deferrals_for_blood_donors.pdf

However I had seen other documentation before that referred to other drug use, such as Cocaine and Hash.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

The gay blood ban is an outdated screening condition for blood donations that is a remnant of when people didn't understand the virus well enough - some thought it were purely a gay virus. Now even though science has moved on and yourpeople know to the contrary, blood donation agencies like the IBTS still use it as a screening condition. Its outrageous that a straight person who has unprotected sex is less of a risk according to the IBTS than gay people who have protected sex. It's simply not true.

Annasopra

Millicent wrote: »

The LGBT society aren't overreacting. HIV rates are climbing fastest in straight people. Also, since the US sees more HIV cases in black people (1 in 16 men, the CDC says :eek:), would it be fair to ban an entire race of people from donating or straight people, should their rates overtake infection rates in gay and bisexual people?

Actually HIV diagnoses in Ireland shows that infection amongst Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) is the highest group of new diagnoses so your statistics are not quite correct.

http://www.dublinaidsalliance.ie/index.php?page=latest-statistics

karma_

Dravokivich wrote: »

It wasn't on the FAQ but they've also got this PDF up. They mention introvenous drug use.

http://www.giveblood.ie/Become_a_Donor/Give_Blood/Can_I_Give_Blood/Common_deferrals_for_blood_donors.pdf

However I had seen other documentation before that referred to other drug use, such as Cocaine and Hash.

Yes, you are expressly barred if you have ever injected yourself. I don't believe there is any problem if you have THC in your system.

Annasopra

1ZRed wrote: »

I think that's an interesting point that many people miss. There are so many men who have had sex with other men, if they were curious, bisexual or had a one off, yet identify as straight. Some of these men would hide what they've done and lie to remain closeted. I know this to be true because I've met them.

I've been propositioned to have unprotected sex by men like this, of course I refused yet they could be having unprotected sex with their girlfriends and spread any possible diseases on. So these men who identify as straight but hide it, could* donate blood but me, a gay man who has never had unprotected sex with a man or woman, can't ever. It's wrong.

As much as I see this blood ban as outdated I understand the reasoning behind it in the first place but it doesn't hold up anymore.
At the least some barriers have to be introduced like in mainland UK, where MSM can donate blood of they haven't had sex with another man in over a year. At the very least, it's something.

* I know they can't or shouldn't by the regulations, but if they identify as straight but have have had sex with other men and were closeted, I believe a lot wouldn't be adverse to lying.

Actually comparing yourself to other Men who have Sex with Men is a bit irrelevant. You still all fall under the medical category of MSM for the purposes of IBTS.

Dravokivich

karma_ wrote: »

Yes, you are expressly barred if you have ever injected yourself. I don't believe there is any problem if you have THC in your system.

It thought it stays in your system for some time? What you want to do, may not be something that a donor wants to have any involvement in. Overall, they are primarily looking out for the best of the recipient.

Annasopra

Cavehill Red wrote: »

There are many more heterosexuals, though. Given that 40% of new HIV infections last year were among MSM, who make up approximately 2% of the population, you can see that statistically they as a cohort are more than 30 times as likely to become infected as the heterosexual population (and that's the hetero population INCLUDING needle users and prostitutes, and those who sleep with prostitutes, all of whom are also excluded from giving blood for similar reasons of high statistical likelihood of infection.)

You do know that MSM can also include heterosexual men don't you?

Annasopra

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The ban is on people who have had sex with someone who has had a particular type of sex in the last 12 months.

No. Men who have had sex with men at any time in their life are banned.

Annasopra

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

This is the thing. It has become an equality issue for some of the student LGBT organisations but the main LGBT organisation in Ireland rarely makes statements about it. They realise that their community is not giving them a mandate for it. Until the HIV figures come more in line with the rest of society, they can't really argue with the logic being used by the IBTS.

In fairness if you are referring to GLEN they are a self appointed group that non-one has actually given a mandate to do something in about 15 years. Student groups have a mandate from their members.

kylith

What bugs me most about the prohibition on gay men is that, IIRC, the wording of the question is 'are you a man who has had sex with another man, even a long time ago'. As I said previously I know a guy a experimented in college, more than 10 years ago, and he's still disqualified.

Surely after a decade it should be possible to screen for HIV.

I think that it would be better to rephrase it 'are you a man who has had unprotected sex with another man, in the last 2 years'. That would allow gay men who practice safe sex to donate blood should they want to.

Annasopra

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Well, since that is the CSO and HSE's estimate for all MSM (and not just self-identifying gay men)

Got a link to these estimates?

karma_

Dravokivich wrote: »

It thought it stays in your system for some time? What you want to do, may not be something that a donor wants to have any involvement in. Overall, they are primarily looking out for the best of the recipient.

It's not about what the donor wants, it's about the risk associated with it.

Dravokivich

karma_ wrote: »

It's not about what the donor wants, it's about the risk associated with it.

Drug use is the users choice. Whether you consider it to be a problem or not relating to hash is your own thing and is scope for another argument on top of what's being discussed here already.

Ideally, IBTS want to provide clean blood. Blood from a recreational drug user is going to be tainted in one way or another due to any amount of unknown mixing agents that could be involved.

karma_

Dravokivich wrote: »

Drug use is the users choice. Whether you consider it to be a problem or not relating to hash is your own thing and is scope for another argument on top of what's being discussed here already.

Ideally, IBTS want to provide clean blood. Blood from a recreational drug user is going to be tainted in one way or another due to any amount of unknown mixing agents that could be involved.

I'm willing to let the Blood Transfusion service outline the rules of donation.

Cavehill Red

mango salsa wrote: »

You do know that MSM can also include heterosexual men don't you?

Yes. That's why I specifically made reference to MSM and not to gay men.
:rolleyes:

Cavehill Red

mango salsa wrote: »

Got a link to these estimates?

I suggest you contact the Gay Men's Health Service at Baggot Street which is 20 years old this week.

Annasopra

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I suggest you contact the Gay Men's Health Service at Baggot Street which is 20 years old this week.

So you don't? I'm well aware of the gmhs I was asking you for some back up on your claims!

Cavehill Red

mango salsa wrote: »

So you don't? I'm well aware of the gmhs I was asking you for some back up on your claims!

Look, contact the CSO for stats. It is well-accepted that the figure for gay men as a proportion of Irishmen is c. 4%. I've no interest in getting into a pissing competition with you over how many men in Ireland have sex with other men. As I said earlier, it would need to be 4 in 5 for the rate of HIV infection to be the same as ALL the rest of the population, including straight junkies, female prostitutes and men who sleep with prostitutes.
If you're aware of the GMHS, then you'll also be aware that they, not me but THEY have stated that 'men who sleep with men are the primary cause of HIV infection in Ireland' (check their 2011 annual report for that line.)
Since there is no current technology to screen blood for HIV in a matter of hours, the only sensible option is to refuse blood from high risk categories.
I posed this question earlier and got no answer. Perhaps you can answer it for me - medical research is striving to create such a test. But what are the gay community doing to bring their HIV infection rate down from over 30 times the rate of the rest of society?

Annasopra

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Look, contact the CSO for stats. It is well-accepted that the figure for gay men as a proportion of Irishmen is c. 4%. I've no interest in getting into a pissing competition with you over how many men in Ireland have sex with other men. As I said earlier, it would need to be 4 in 5 for the rate of HIV infection to be the same as ALL the rest of the population, including straight junkies, female prostitutes and men who sleep with prostitutes.
If you're aware of the GMHS, then you'll also be aware that they, not me but THEY have stated that 'men who sleep with men are the primary cause of HIV infection in Ireland' (check their 2011 annual report for that line.)
Since there is no current technology to screen blood for HIV in a matter of hours, the only sensible option is to refuse blood from high risk categories.
I posed this question earlier and got no answer. Perhaps you can answer it for me - medical research is striving to create such a test. But what are the gay community doing to bring their HIV infection rate down from over 30 times the rate of the rest of society?

If you have no backup data or link for your stats and you are changing your mind between 2% and 4% then you have no argument.

Cavehill Red

mango salsa wrote: »

If you have no backup data or link for your stats and you are changing your mind between 2% and 4% then you have no argument.

Oh ffs. 2% of society IS 4% of men. Women exist in this country, you know!
Let me repeat: Unless MSM make up 80% of ALL men, then their rate of HIV infection is massively out of kilter with the rest of society and it is for this reason that they are barred from donating blood, since blood cannot be screened for HIV in a timely fashion.
So, are you saying that 4 in 5 men sleep with other men? Or do you accept what the Gay Men's Health Project, the Health Surveillance Protection Service and the Irish Blood Transfusion Service have all stated, which is that men who sleep with men are the primary cause of HIV infection in Ireland?

Annasopra

Cavehill Red wrote: »

But what are the gay community doing to bring their HIV infection rate down from over 30 times the rate of the rest of society?

Lots of things -

* Having the GMHS and SGMHP provide free testing
* Regular articles in community publications such as GCN - see www.gcn.ie
* Distribution of free packets of condoms and lube with information inside at pubs and pride events http://www.dublinaidsalliance.ie/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=282&cntnt01origid=15&cntnt01pagelimit=5&cntnt01returnid=170
* Large advertising posters at pride events promoting safer sex practices
* A range of other advertising materials including posters, youtube videos
* Dedicated information and awareness raising website www.man2man.ie
* Forming a network of lgbt agencies into a health network
http://www.gayhealthnetwork.ie/
* Sending out a regular newsletter from the network
http://www.gayhealthnetwork.ie/newsletters
* Working with mainstream agencies, organisations, NGOs e.g. HSE, Dept of Health, Dublin AIDS alliance, Union of Students in Ireland etc etc
http://www.glen.ie/subpage.aspx?contentid=435&name=gay_hiv_strategies

Annasopra

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Oh ffs. 2% of society IS 4% of men. Women exist in this country, you know!
Let me repeat: Unless MSM make up 80% of ALL men, then their rate of HIV infection is massively out of kilter with the rest of society and it is for this reason that they are barred from donating blood, since blood cannot be screened for HIV in a timely fashion.
So, are you saying that 4 in 5 men sleep with other men? Or do you accept what the Gay Men's Health Project, the Health Surveillance Protection Service and the Irish Blood Transfusion Service have all stated, which is that men who sleep with men are the primary cause of HIV infection in Ireland?

I am saying I don't accept your arguments while you are throwing about statistics with no back up. Also there is a big difference between saying msm are the primary cause of hiv infection and msm are the main group at risk of hiv infection.

Cavehill Red

mango salsa wrote: »

I am saying I don't accept your arguments while you are throwing about statistics with no back up. Also there is a big difference between saying msm are the primary cause of hiv infection and msm are the main group at risk of hiv infection.

OK, you pick a number out of your head that you're happy with in terms of how many men in Ireland sleep with other men. Now, is that number 80% of all men? If it is lower than 80%, then you accept that men who sleep with men are the primary cause of HIV infection in Ireland, and now you understand why their blood is not accepted by the IBTS, who cannot screen for HIV in a timely fashion.
Men who sleep with men are more than 30 times more likely than the rest of the population to be infected with HIV, and this is still going up, despite the list of non-activities you just mentioned (which are primarily the health service informing gay men of the rate of infection and advising them to have safe sex).
Again I ask, what are the GAY MALE COMMUNITY doing to reduce this rate? Society, via the health outreach programmes like the GMHP, has attempted to educate gay men about this issue, apparently to little avail. As I said at the outset, the blood donation issue would be resolved within 12 months if the HIV rate among MSM fell to that of the rest of the population. Instead, it's already 30 times that rate and still rising.

Annasopra

Cavehill Red wrote: »

OK, you pick a number out of your head that you're happy with in terms of how many men in Ireland sleep with other men. Now, is that number 80% of all men? If it is lower than 80%, then you accept that men who sleep with men are the primary cause of HIV infection in Ireland, and now you understand why their blood is not accepted by the IBTS, who cannot screen for HIV in a timely fashion.
Men who sleep with men are more than 30 times more likely than the rest of the population to be infected with HIV, and this is still going up, despite the list of non-activities you just mentioned (which are primarily the health service informing gay men of the rate of infection and advising them to have safe sex).
Again I ask, what are the GAY MALE COMMUNITY doing to reduce this rate? Society, via the health outreach programmes like the GMHP, has attempted to educate gay men about this issue, apparently to little avail. As I said at the outset, the blood donation issue would be resolved within 12 months if the HIV rate among MSM fell to that of the rest of the population. Instead, it's already 30 times that rate and still rising.

Ha! You seriously expect me to engage with you about statistics when you're making your own up!

I've already answered your other question.

Capt'n Midnight

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The nurse was probably trying to spare your feelings. All blood is screened. But due to the statistical anomaly of comparatively enormous rates of ... infection among certain groups, ... , those groups are barred from donating because it takes too long to screen the blood for ... , when the blood is needed earlier than the screening would take.

As I've posted earlier

Consider Kuru

It's 100% fatal
People are asymptomatic for 10-13 in some cases over 30 years
It's a prion ie. made of protein, so DNA testing just doesn't apply
At present it's extremely rare so unlikely to be tested for anytime soon.


A disease like this could become widespread before anyone realised it. This is why people who have received donations or transplants are banned. The only defence blood banks have against a new disease like this is preventative.


Syphilis is another disease where people can be asymptomatic. And one statistic that just screams out in this case is that the MSM have had a lot more sexual partners. And like I said before I reckon the IBTS should consider number of partners to be a risk factor regardless of sexuality simply because of the greater exposure.
http://irishecho.com/?p=54216

The team found the average number of sexual partners in the three months prior to the diagnosis of syphilis was one for male heterosexuals, 12 for male homosexuals, 21 male and one female for male bisexuals and one for female heterosexuals.

Capt'n Midnight

Wompa1 wrote: »

I can't give blood in America because I lived in Europe between the late 80's and mid 90's. I set up a table outside to get people to sign a petition but didn't get much love.

]didn't get much love It's AH so *sniggers*


So you want a rule that says that people who lived in Ireland but not UK for certain periods can give blood ?
It's much easier and safer to have a simple rule, rather than go into the minutia especially if the numbers of donors isn't very large, don't forget that back then people living in Ireland ate foreign beef too :eek:

You also have to remember the US is in complete denial about mad cow disease. In the US only 0.11% of cattle are tested and there isn't a proper tracking system

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-madcow-testing-idUSBRE83O1LE20120425

While the USDA tests only a fraction of the herd for mad cow -- about 40,000 head a year, versus a total of 34 million slaughtered last year -- it does so under a protocol that is aimed at higher-risk animals and, it says, can detect mad cow at the level of less than one in a million head.
...
Japan tests all cattle over 20 months of age and European nations test cattle over 30 months, said Michael Hansen of the Union of Concerned Scientists, who said the U.S. needs to adopt more stringent measures.

Dubhlinner

When the rates of hiv infection are the same amongst msm are the same as heteros they should allow msm to donate.

I cannot stand people saying this ban is homophobic. If that were the case women having sex with women and male homosexual virgins would be banned. They are not banned because they are not a high risk group. (actually women who have sex exclusively with women would be lower risk than sexually active heterosexuals)

Cavehill Red

mango salsa wrote: »

Ha! You seriously expect me to engage with you about statistics when you're making your own up!

I've already answered your other question.

No, I seriously expect you to engage with a very serious issue, rather than sticking your head in the sand when you encounter realities you don't like, as unfortunately far too many MSM in Ireland are doing in relation to HIV.
I've told you repeatedly that the accepted figure for MSM in Ireland is 4% of the male population, according to the CSO and the HSE. I've invited you to present alternative data, and informed you that any guesstimate short of 80% indicates that MSM are the primary conduit of HIV infection in Ireland and this is why they are prevented from giving blood.
It doesn't really matter to me that you would run away from the debate like this, anymore than it mattered to me when the previous self-identifying gay poster did likewise when similarly confronted with the factual realities.
What does matter to me is that people comprehend there is no discrimination involved in the IBTS's decision, and that it can be easily resolved if the rate of HIV infection among gay men (or MSM if you prefer) fell to much less than its current rate of 30 TIMES higher than that of the rest of society, even when that remainder includes ALL the other high risk categories which are similarly banned from blood donation.

Cavehill Red

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

As I've posted earlier

Consider Kuru

I'd appreciate it if you didn't selectively quote me or misquote me again in future.
How many people eat other people's brains in this country? This is why kuru is not considered a major issue here.
I specifically referred to CJD in that post, not 'XYZ' or kuru, and I did so because CJD is the reason given why those who lived in the six counties are prevented from giving blood, despite the fact that infection rates have proved infinitesimal compared to HIV.
I accept this even though it is impossible for me to have contracted CJD in that period as I didn't eat any beef. I understand that the health service must err on the side of caution. Similarly, I would urge MSM would-be donors to understand why the ban on their blood is also in place.

Annasopra

Cavehill Red wrote: »

No, I seriously expect you to engage with a very serious issue, rather than sticking your head in the sand when you encounter realities you don't like, as unfortunately far too many MSM in Ireland are doing in relation to HIV.
I've told you repeatedly that the accepted figure for MSM in Ireland is 4% of the male population, according to the CSO and HSE

But you see you won't give a link to this claim so we really can't take you seriously.

PhlegmyMoses

mango salsa wrote: »

But you see you won't give a link to this claim so we really can't take you seriously.

He has made a good point to you earlier that you are refusing to acknowledge. Whether it is 4% or 10% is irrelevant as it still leaves you with a huge number of gay men presenting with HIV every year relative to straight men or women or gay women. You can nitpick about a per cent here and there but it doesn't change the point being made in his post and it's kind of dragging things off-topic.

Pick a number that you are comfortable with. If it does not make up the number required to explain why 40% of new cases come from MSM, then it's not relevant to the topic.

Annasopra

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

He has made a good point to you earlier that you are refusing to acknowledge. Whether it is 4% or 10% is irrelevant as it still leaves you with a huge number of gay men presenting with HIV every year relative to straight men or women or gay women. You can nitpick about a per cent here and there but it doesn't change the point being made in his post and it's kind of dragging things off-topic.

Pick a number that you are comfortable with. If it does not make up the number required to explain why 40% of new cases come from MSM, then it's not relevant to the topic.

Yeah it's a good point. I'll arguments seriously when he can provide me with a link from the CSO or HSE

Capt'n Midnight

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'd appreciate it if you didn't selectively quote me or misquote me again in future.

Re the selectively quoting, when I remove text I replace it with an ellipsis.

Re the two instances of CJD --> XYZ , they have been replaced too.

How many people eat other people's brains in this country? This is why kuru is not considered a major issue here.

My post was about preventing currently unknown threats. I was including Kuru as an example of something nasty with a very long incubation time (over 30 years in some cases). The first case of vCJD was only 26 years ago.

PhlegmyMoses

mango salsa wrote: »

Yeah it's a good point. I'll arguments seriously when he can provide me with a link from the CSO or HSE

Why is this so important in light of what is being discussed in this thread? What do you think the figure is and can you provide a link? That would give us a platform to expand on the point being made.

You seem to have focused on something that is not overly important and made it the focal point of your discussion. I don't get the motivation behind this. i feel like I'm missing something.

Cavehill Red

mango salsa wrote: »

Yeah it's a good point. I'll arguments seriously when he can provide me with a link from the CSO or HSE

ESRI study for the CPA and Dept of Health, 2006 - p. 124 and following - http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/20061016131112/BKMNEXT084_Main%20Report.pdf
2.7% of Irish men identified as homosexual or bisexual, and 3% of Irish men had had a genital homosexual experience in the past 5 years. Are we done with this off-topic yet, or would you keep going?
We've had one preposterous guesstimate of 20% of Irish men being MSM already. Even with that exaggeration, statistically that would still make them FOUR times more likely than the rest of the population (including ALL the other risky groups) to be infected.
Unless you are prepared to assert that four out of every five men in Ireland sleep with other men, then you need to get your head out of the sand and accept that MSM are excluded from blood donation because they are at significantly higher risk of HIV infection and not because the IBTS are homophobic.

Cavehill Red

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Re the selectively quoting, when I remove text I replace it with an ellipsis.

Re the two instances of CJD --> XYZ , they have been replaced too.

You misrepresented what I wrote. I'd appreciate if you didn't do it again.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

My post was about preventing currently unknown threats. I was including Kuru as an example of something nasty with a very long incubation time (over 30 years in some cases). The first case of vCJD was only 26 years ago.

Hopefully you can make such posts in future without misrepresenting the statements or positions of others, thanks.

Steven81

I was born in 1981 in the UK, i have a A negative blood group which is rare enough, i used to give blood about 10 years ago but cos i lived in the uk from 1981 to 84 it stops me donating any more, during this time i wouldnt have been eating any meats

up for anything

Transfusion Guidelines - UK

The eventual number of individuals within the UK population likely to develop variant CJD remains uncertain and it is similarly uncertain how many current or past blood or tissue donors could be incubating the disease.

From the Irish Can I Give Blood quiz:

Have you ever had a blood transfusion?

Unfortunately you can never give blood unless the blood you received was your own or you received it in the Republic of Ireland before the 1st January 1980.

Have you spent one year or more in total/cumulatively in the UK* between 1980 and 1996, including living, working or on holidays?

Unfortunately, because of the risk of variant CJD you are unable to give blood.

Not meaning to go off topic but this is something I think about from time to time.

I can give blood in the UK, but in Ireland I can't - on two different counts.

There seems to be no new information as the real risk of vCJD for those of us who ate British beef during the dodgy years. It must be considered real if all the people who went to the UK during the last recession are barred from giving blood here.

Also what am I at risk of from my Irish blood transfusion that I couldn't give blood here even if I hadn't lived in the UK?

obplayer

mango salsa wrote: »

Yeah it's a good point. I'll arguments seriously when he can provide me with a link from the CSO or HSE

http://www.dublinaidsalliance.ie/index.php?page=latest-statistics

The highest proportion of new diagnoses in 2011 (42.5%) were among men who have sex with men (MSM)
Heterosexual contact accounted for 34% of new diagnoses. Among theheterosexual cases, 43% were among individuals originating from countries with generalised epidemics, 11% had a high‐risk partner or apartner known to be HIV positive and 7% had a partner originating froma country with a generalised epidemic.5.0% of new diagnoses were among Injecting Drug Users (IDUs)
And you don't 'arguments', you argue.

Neewbie_noob

roadrunner16 wrote: »

Is the risk of taking a Gay mans blood .

Is the condition outdated and homophobic or are the LGBT overreacting ?

P

Of course there is not any more risk.
Of course it is outdated

I'd rather have the blood of a gay man flowing through my veins than the blood of a straight drug addict. Are you for real asking this question ?? Seriously ??

PhlegmyMoses

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

Of course there is not any more risk.
Of course it is outdated

I'd rather have the blood of a gay man flowing through my veins than the blood of a straight drug addict. Are you for real asking this question ?? Seriously ??

Have you read the thread? If you had, you would have found statistics that are in stark contrast to your points.

Neewbie_noob

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Have you read the thread? If you had, you would have found statistics that are in stark contrast to your points.

Blood is screened anyway.

What if we blocked blacks from donating blood? Some nationalities, such as Namibians have a HIV rate of 1 in 10.

PhlegmyMoses

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

Blood is screened anyway.

What if we blocked blacks from donating blood? Some nationalities, such as Namibians have a HIV rate of 1 in 10.

Again, this has been covered in the thread. Sub-Saharan Africans are barred from giving blood until they have been living in Ireland for a concurrent 18 month period.

Neewbie_noob

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Again, this has been covered in the thread. Sub-Saharan Africans are barred from giving blood until they have been living in Ireland for a concurrent 18 month period.

Then why can't gay men who haven't had sex for 18 months be allowed to give blood?

PhlegmyMoses

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

Then why can't gay men who haven't had sex for 18 months be allowed to give blood?

Please read the thread. It'll answer all of these questions.

Dubhlinner

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

Blood is screened anyway.

What if we blocked blacks from donating blood? Some nationalities, such as Namibians have a HIV rate of 1 in 10.

They should ban anyone who is from or lived in for a significant amount of time any country where the rate of infection is above 1% of the population IMHO

Were HIV levels higher than the current level I'd think there's a possible argument for banning some ethnicities. People who originate from countries with high malaria risk appear to have evolved a gene that gives them defence against malaria. A downside to this gene is it increases your risk of catching HIV which some people believe is the reason for especially high levels in subsaharan africa/thailand etc.

Of course there is poverty and poor levels of education in those regions but apparently that doesn't explain the levels being what they are.

Neewbie_noob

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Please read the thread. It'll answer all of these questions.

Try to comprehend what I'm saying.

I have read the thread. AIDS / HIV stays, it doesn't just go away.

A person from Sub-Saharan Africa is at a much higher risk of AIDS than a gay man.

If a person from Sub-Saharan Africa can donate blood, then why can't a gay man.

Living in Ireland for 18 months won't make your AIDS dissapear.