went to give blood today at american red cross and turned down because i was gay

[rvwnsd]

I don’t know the science, but I agree with @nycman. I’m not aware of the Red Cross being interested in anything other than health.

 

As to those who might “lie” to be able to “give”, I encourage you to search your heart and your motive. To me, unless you’re a hematologist up on the latest science, it seems that lying to be able to give blood means you’re either doing it more for you or to make a point than to actually help someone else. But again, only you can answer that for yourself.

 

Do other public blood banks have similar policies? If not, go there.

 

According to their website, the Red Cross is following Federal guidelines that all blood services are required to follow.

 

This is why I refuse to give money to The American Red Cross. They can mother-forking eat shirt for all I care.

 

Too harsh?

 

Perhaps you can have that laminated and carry it with you in case you are in need of blood. It would be helpful for the EMTs and ER staff to know that you would refuse blood from the Red Cross. Wouldn't want any of that motherfucking shit-eating blood to make its way into your body.

 

Oh, by the way, the Red Cross is also received-blood-trasfusion-in-the-UK-phobic, human-pituitary growth-hormone-phobic, ebola-phobic, iron-overload-phobic, have-ever-used-needles-to-take-any drugs-steroids-or-anything-not-prescribed-by-your-doctor-phobic, traveled-outside-of-the-USA-and-Canada-phobic, blood-thinner-usage-phobic, retinoid-using-phobic (treats psoriasis), organ-transplant-recipient-phobic, piercing-recipient-from-a-resuable-piercing-gun-phobic, pregnancy-phobic, syphilis- and gonorrhea-phobic (certain other STDs do not result in a deferral as long as you are feeling well and have been treated, which is far more generous than the standard used by many Forum members), sickle-cell-disease-phobic; and District of Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Utah and Wyoming tattoo-recipient-phobic (again, more generous than many members of the Forum).

 

Here is a link to the alphabetical listing of limitations associated with donating blood.

 

Think this is a function of "puritanical" thinking in the US? Read this and this and think again.

[LoveNDino]

According to their website, the Red Cross is following Federal guidelines that all blood services are required to follow.

 

 

 

Perhaps you can have that laminated and carry it with you in case you are in need of blood. It would be helpful for the EMTs and ER staff to know that you would refuse blood from the Red Cross. Wouldn't want any of that motherfucking shit-eating blood to make its way into your body.

 

Oh, by the way, the Red Cross is also received-blood-trasfusion-in-the-UK-phobic, human-pituitary growth-hormone-phobic, ebola-phobic, iron-overload-phobic, have-ever-used-needles-to-take-any drugs-steroids-or-anything-not-prescribed-by-your-doctor-phobic, traveled-outside-of-the-USA-and-Canada-phobic, blood-thinner-usage-phobic, retinoid-using-phobic (treats psoriasis), organ-transplant-recipient-phobic, piercing-recipient-from-a-resuable-piercing-gun-phobic, pregnancy-phobic, syphilis- and gonorrhea-phobic (certain other STDs do not result in a deferral as long as you are feeling well and have been treated, which is far more generous than the standard used by many Forum members), sickle-cell-disease-phobic; and District of Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Utah and Wyoming tattoo-recipient-phobic (again, more generous than many members of the Forum).

 

Here is a link to the alphabetical listing of limitations associated with donating blood.

 

Think this is a function of "puritanical" thinking in the US? Read this and this and think again.

I guess it’s too harsh...

[Guy Fawkes]

I suspect that the problem is that those rules are mandated by the FDA; and we all know how fast they move.

 

According to the Red Cross's own website, it's not just the antibody, but the actual virus which is also tested:

https://www.redcrossblood.org/biomedical-services/blood-diagnostic-testing/blood-testing.html

NAT closes the window period between infection and the detection of antibody for those infected with HIV by about 2 weeks. This leaves an approximate period of 7 to 10 days when an infected donor may not be detected by blood donation screening.

NAT stands for nucleic acid testing (or testing for the actual virus). In other words, per the Red Cross's own admission, there is no valid reason for any refusal for anyone who hasn't had sex in the last 2 weeks. And this would apply to donors of any sexual orientation. The notion that only gays get HIV is outdated, untrue, and preposterous. The question should be "Have you had any sexual activity with someone other than your permanent partner in the last 2 weeks?" If the answer is no, there is no reason to refuse the donation. But since they don't want my blood, they just won't have it. Nor my dollars, either. There are other charities which do similar work that don't behave like pricks.

[Gymowner]

where my point of discrimination is going is where unicorn went. to the red cross and most of the medical society it MUST now be perceived as a

totally homosexual disease...not even a 1% chance of being in the heterosexual community. why else would the questions be stated exactly as he spelled them out to be?

 

so if a woman fucks her brains out every day with multiple heterosexual males no need to have her leave...yet if ONE time she has sex with someone who ONE time had sex with another male...she now cannot give blood for 12 months. see why this is discrimination?

 

prior to the very accurate tests available..i get it. but with the testing in place these days then there cannot be any other reason for this other than for them to, as i stated, feel this is now a 100% contained homosexual disease. interesting. if they publicly state this WITH 100% accuracy then fine. if they cannot..then there is discrimination abound and someone needs to represent this in court.

 

talk among yourselves

[+ sniper]

It's not that the risk is zero for the other groups, it's that it is one to two orders of magnitude lower. Of new case each year, about ten times as many come from MSM than from heterosecxual transmission, while MSM are about 5% of the total population.

[Stormy]

I donated blood plasma in college to make a little extra money. I haven't donated blood since then. The blood banks were very clear about not wanting blood from gay men. Guess my mind kept telling me I couldn't donate thru these several decades

[Guest]

I stopped donating to the Red Cross years ago when I read how much they pay their executives and also news about questionable spends expensed to the organization. Yes, that was years ago, but I'm a bitch that doesn't forget.

You got that right. According to charitynavigator.org, their executives make a bundle!

Compensation % of Expenses Paid to Title

$603,564 0.02% Gail J. McGovern President, CEO

Other Salaries of Note

$650,966 0.02% Greg Williamson Chief Investment Officer

$612,562 0.02% Benjamin Spindler CEO, Delta Blood Bank

$606,325 0.02% Shaun Gilmore President, Biomedical Services

 

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3277

 

In Britain, the waiting period for MSM is only 3 months. While still not scientifically justified, it's a little less absurd than the American Red Cross policy...

https://www.blood.co.uk/who-can-give-blood/men-who-have-sex-with-men/

[Guest]

Interestingly, not all countries have any deferral at all for MSM. The green countries have no deferral period. Those in yellow have a temporary deferral for MSM (such as 3 months for Britain, 12 months for the US). Those in red have a permanent ban for MSM. Apparently no policy for those in gray:

 

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men_blood_donor_controversy

 

According to the sources quoted there:

In the United States in 2005, MSM, African Americans, and persons engaging in high-risk heterosexual behavior accounted for respectively 49%, 49%, and 32% of new HIV diagnoses.[10] In 2009 in the United States, African Americans accounted for 47.9% of new HIV diagnoses reported that year, but represented approximately only 12% of the population.[11]

Would those who support bans or deferrals for MSM also support such a ban or deferral for African-Americans or high-risk heterosexuals? If not, why not? Or would science be a better guide at determining who can donate?

Edited November 22, 2018 by Unicorn

[Gymowner]

Unicorn. Wow!! I never realized those statistics. Omfg... can you imagine if a person of color went in to give blood and was turned down due to their color as you said!!??? I'm telling you, this is a case for the ACLU if there ever was one. Those statistics alone prove discrimination.

[sincitymix]

please stop blaming american red cross and all the other companies, it is NOT something they can choose to disregard. they are MANDATED to follow FDA regulations. they have NO choice in the matter. If you want to blame someone, blame the Federal government.

Blood and Plasma companies have multiple times challenged the regulation and have systematically asked for the removal of MSM due to the advancement in testing. We are damn lucky to have the current 12 month deferral in place, it was a long fight just to get that.

[Guest]

please stop blaming american red cross and all the other companies, it is NOT something they can choose to disregard. they are MANDATED to follow FDA regulations. they have NO choice in the matter. If you want to blame someone, blame the Federal government.

Blood and Plasma companies have multiple times challenged the regulation and have systematically asked for the removal of MSM due to the advancement in testing. We are damn lucky to have the current 12 month deferral in place, it was a long fight just to get that.

Well, I agree that the American Red Cross obviously must obey the law if that's the law. However, I haven't heard of their pushing for a change in the law if that's the case. Certainly it's not on their website. A 12-month deferral, however, is a virtual ban, and I don't consider that a significant achievement. I have a feeling that not one of us on this forum could donate blood with a deferral like that (nor 90% of the gay population). I'm not sure my life would be worth living if I couldn't have sex. What we know about the biology and our current testing methods is that a 2-week deferral should provide full protection. Any deferral longer than that, especially more than a month, cannot be justified by the current level of scientific knowledge, and would be based solely on unfounded prejudice.

[sincitymix]

Well, I agree that the American Red Cross obviously must obey the law if that's the law. However, I haven't heard of their pushing for a change in the law if that's the case. Certainly it's not on their website. A 12-month deferral, however, is a virtual ban, and I don't consider that a significant achievement. I have a feeling that not one of us on this forum could donate blood with a deferral like that (nor 90% of the gay population). I'm not sure my life would be worth living if I couldn't have sex. What we know about the biology and our current testing methods is that a 2-week deferral should provide full protection. Any deferral longer than that, especially more than a month, cannot be justified by the current level of scientific knowledge, and would be based solely on unfounded prejudice.

unfortunately science moves faster then the glacial pace of government regulatory bodies.

[+ sniper]

What we know about the biology and our current testing methods is that a 2-week deferral should provide full protection. Any deferral longer than that, especially more than a month, cannot be justified by the current level of scientific knowledge, and would be based solely on unfounded prejudice.

 

According to this, that's simply not true. Even 34 days out, at least 5% of people who are positive will test negative.

 

https://www.catie.ca/en/pif/august-2010/detecting-hiv-earlier-advances-hiv-testing

 

"Across Canada, all labs use newer, more sensitive antibody tests (this includes rapid (point-of-care) HIV tests). For more on rapid HIV testing, see A rapid approach to community-based HIV testing. Research shows us that with these new tests, as many as 95% of people who test positive will do so within 34 days of exposure to HIV.10 However, for the remaining 5%, the window period for these HIV antibody tests is generally accepted to be three months so as to ensure people who take longer to develop antibodies are not overlooked. This means that if someone tests negative for HIV antibodies during the window period, they should be re-tested three months after possible exposure, to fully rule out HIV infection."

[Guest]

According to this, that's simply not true. Even 34 days out, at least 5% of people who are positive will test negative.

 

https://www.catie.ca/en/pif/august-2010/detecting-hiv-earlier-advances-hiv-testing

 

"Across Canada, all labs use newer, more sensitive antibody tests (this includes rapid (point-of-care) HIV tests). For more on rapid HIV testing, see A rapid approach to community-based HIV testing. Research shows us that with these new tests, as many as 95% of people who test positive will do so within 34 days of exposure to HIV.10 However, for the remaining 5%, the window period for these HIV antibody tests is generally accepted to be three months so as to ensure people who take longer to develop antibodies are not overlooked. This means that if someone tests negative for HIV antibodies during the window period, they should be re-tested three months after possible exposure, to fully rule out HIV infection."

It does not appear as if you're paying attention to prior posts. As has been explained previously, they don't just test for the antibody (which, I agree, can take months), but the test for actual viral genetic material, which only takes a max of 10 days to appear. So 2 weeks is more than adequate.

[+ nycman]

hey don't just test for the antibody (which, I agree, can take months), but the test for actual viral genetic material, which only takes a max of 10 days to appear.

 

I'm not an expert but I'm not 100% sure your timeline is completely correct.

 

I agree that the test sometimes (maybe even the vast majority of the time) converts within 10 days of exposure.

 

That's a different statement than the test "only takes a max of 10 days"......

 

Most the information I could find said the nucleic acid test (NAT) test would turn positive in the 1 to 4 week range.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/testing.html

https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/hiv-testing/learn-about-hiv-testing/hiv-testing-overview

 

I know we're arguing about angels on a pin head.....but when you're advocating for mass changes to national guidelines.....1-2 more angels....is a big difference.

[Guest]

If you want to see what the scientific studies show:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755436517300646

...Applying our best estimates of unknown parameter values, we estimate the mean eclipse period to be 8–10 days.

Further down in the article, they say:

Indeed, the average length of the eclipse period is similar between the risk groups: high-risk 8.3 days (95% CI: 4.2–16.7 days), medium-risk 9.2 days (4.7–18.4 days), low-risk 9.9 days (5.1–19.8 days).

And then:

The skew to longer eclipse periods is driven by a small number of donors for whom the estimated eclipse period is very long – up to almost four weeks in the highest risk category.

So I will correct myself and say that if you want to be 100% sure, the deferral period should be four weeks, since that's the longest it can take (97.5% sure for 20 days).

Edited November 23, 2018 by Unicorn

[+ nycman]

If you want to see what the scientific studies show:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755436517300646

 

Holy crap....You went FULL TILT Infectious Disease nerd!....MARRY ME!

 

That article is hard to read....much less understand.

 

The Journal "Epidemics"?....who even knew it existed?

 

Btw...I agree.....based on that article....one month seems reasonable.....which of course

means we'll be lucky if we can get the official government policy down to 3 months.

[instudiocity]

This tread really needs a new title: "

"went to give blood today at american red cross and turned down because i was gay"

 

"Went to give blood today at American Red Cross and was turned down due to a Food & Drug Administration rule."

 

No where in the OP's posts did he report the ARC or the FDA determining he was GAY. Only that he behavior disqualified him under a Federal agency's rule.

[Guest]

No where in the OP's posts did he report the ARC or the FDA determining he was GAY. Only that he behavior disqualified him under a Federal agency's rule.

 

But seriously... How many people, gay or straight, can say that they voluntarily haven't had sex in over a year? Yes, there probably are some people who can't have sex due to illness, being locked up in solitary confinement, or some other reason. Barring the inability to do so, however, how many gay (or straight) people can say they haven't had sex in over a year? Also, this "behavior" as you put it, doesn't add any risk to the blood supply as long as there has been no sexual activity in 4 weeks. So the truth of the matter, according to known facts, is that a one-year deferral period is truly based on unfounded bias, not on facts. Yes, statistically gay men have a higher risk of HIV. But so do "high-risk heterosexuals" and African-Americans. But barring the donation is not warranted based on that alone. The qualifying question should be "Have you had sexual activity with someone other than your permanent partner, a tattoo, or any illicit drug use in the last 4 weeks?" If the answer is no, then the potential donor is in the lowest possible risk category.

[+ poolboy48220]

But seriously... How many people, gay or straight, can say that they voluntarily haven't had sex in over a year?

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/3d21c28a-ef56-466d-aae7-4c787dcdd100

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/df98067d-e80f-4961-b303-f8cbd7f660a3

[LookingAround]

This is why I refuse to give money to The American Red Cross. They can mother-forking eat shirt for all I care.

 

Too harsh?

Yes and I’m sure you’re hurting them terribly by withholding your donation. You’ll teach them!

[Gymowner]

unicorn you really put things into the correct parameters. i thank you for that. if the science proves that "high risk heterosexuals" and african americans are at the same level of risk as homosexuals...then there in lies the discrimination. IF nothing is being done with them, then why are homosexuals or any guy that has had sex with another guy in the past 12 months being told to leave? they should then be put on such a ban as the homosexuals for the discrimination to end.

[Gymowner]

unicorn you really put things into the correct parameters. i thank you for that. if the science proves that "high risk heterosexuals" and african americans are at the same level of risk as homosexuals...then there in lies the discrimination. IF nothing is being done with them, then why are homosexuals or any guy that has had sex with another guy in the past 12 months being told to leave? they should then be put on such a ban as the homosexuals for the discrimination to end.

[+ sniper]

But there ARE one-year deferrals for people who sleep with prostitutes, or who had sex for money, etc.

[Guest]

But there ARE one-year deferrals for people who sleep with prostitutes, or who had sex for money, etc.

You're missing the point. The point is that the studies have shown that the tests currently used to test donated blood usually turn positive in about 10 days, and in no case do they ever take 4 weeks or more to turn positive. So regardless of what one's personal bias is, anything beyond a 4-week deferral has no scientific basis, regardless of the risk category.