Dr. D.F. Joseph sent me this note saying that the Red Cross had petitioned the FDA to allow them to receive blood donations from homosexual men. I was relieved to find that their petition had been rejected but then I read this:
FDA medical officer Andrew Dayton asked the Blood Products Advisory Committee (BPAC) whether it was prudent to change the donor deferral policy to ban only men who disclosed having sex with another man within the last five years. Dayton and his colleagues analyzed the projected risk that relaxing the donor deferral rule would have on the nation's blood supply and presented the committee with this data. After much deliberation, the BPAC members voted 7 to 6 to maintain the current deferral policy.
By a vote of 7 to 6. So you know what that means- it's coming.
Even more alarming:
The serological tests routinely performed on all donated blood to detect HIV and other blood-borne viruses are sensitive enough to prevent all but about 10 HIV-infected units from entering the blood supply each year, said Dr. Michael Busch of the University of California-San Francisco. The infected blood that does defy the rigorous testing protocol causes two to three HIV infections each year, he said.
So, ten HIV infected units enter the blood supply each year and 2 to 3 cases of HIV result. Frightening.
7 comments:
Well, punk, do you feel lucky?
(doing my best imitation of Dirty Harry)
Meanwhile, You are not eligible to donate if: 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). Why? Mad Cow Disease. Now, I have to believe that, statistically, the odds of catching Mad Cow Disease from someone having visited or lived in the UK for 3 months (cumulatively) are less than 2-3 infections/year. Do we see an agenda here?
Even donating blood is evil if a non-heterosexual person does it, it seems.
The policy should be based on a scientific analysis of the risk factors, not on superstitious gobbledygook, period.
Sportin' life; we're talking about risk factors, not sexual proclivity. Men who engage in homosexual acts and those who use injection drugs are at the highest risk for AIDS. If it makes you feel any better, I'm also opposed to druggies giving blood.
The ban on homosexual men giving blood has nothing to do with de-legitimizing the lifestyle. However, removing the ban has everything to do with legitimizing the lifestyle, at the cost of 2-3 people per year being infected with HIV. Where's your compassion?
Let me clarify that currently 2-3 people become HIV infected per year. If the ban on those who engage in homosexual activity giving blood is lifted it will be much greater.
Just a word to Madeline - I lived for SEVEN of the years you mentioned in 'these islands' and those who know me say I don't have MAD COW DISEASE any more than anyone else does. AIDS doesn't show it's ugly face until 8-10 years. Do you think that MAD COW would have kicked in by now??? I'm afraid...(actually I have read your website, Madeline, and think that YOU better wait a few more years before you venture out to donate blood ;).
What's this?? ONLY 2-3 cases of HIV in ten years? Doesn't seem like much, does it?
Well, do they consider that at least two will infect at least two friends, they'll infect at least two friends, and they will infect two friends and so on and so on...
Begins to sound like LOTS more infections to me.
Of course, this stupid idea does not take into account that there are some sodomites who are asked and "DON'T TELL" when the give blood even now.
Profilling is GOOD.
We all need to start banking our own blood for future use IMO.
Jehovah Witnesses have this one thing right.
Post a Comment