Ha sch me kya bkwas h ye mne platelets donate kra pichle mhine or hospital walo ne kch bhi ni pcha. Sirf weight or platelets count checkup kra hmare yha hi thik h fir to

Things need to be revised/updated, but minimum abstinence periods are necessary due to a combination of testing limitations, risk factors, etc... I wrote an entire blurb with links below if you want to take the time to Ctrl + F.

@CZpersi Although there have been many advancements in science, testing itself is not infallible. Statistically, we will never have diagnostic tests and exams that have 100% specificity (correctly identifying individuals without a disease/condition) or 100% sensitivity (correctly identifying individuals with a disease/condition).

If you already considered high risk they are not going to take the chance. Being gay does not disqualify you, it is having gay sex that disqualifies you.

These regulations were often lobbied for by people, who believe that the world is flat and was created by a bearded grandpa about six thousand years ago.

It is not identifying as gay that disqualifies you it is gay sex.

Things need to be revised/updated, but minimum abstinence periods are necessary due to a combination of testing limitations, risk factors, etc... I wrote an entire blurb with links below if you want to take the time to Ctrl + F.

Yup! It is like 9/11 hapenning every single day for half a year. Every. Single. Day.

Logic doesnt work for the leftist Agenda drive idiots

Things need to be revised/updated, but minimum abstinence periods are necessary due to a combination of testing limitations, risk factors, etc... I wrote an entire blurb with links if you want to take the time to Ctrl + F.

I wonder, does the blood quality change after one’s coming out? I would love to know the answer from these doctors, who I am sure, are good Christians and never sinned. Right?

@CZpersi Yes, you are correct in the statement that HIV does not care about who is gay and who is straight and I agree that sex with unknown partners will remain risky for all parties; however, there is data that identifies certain groups have higher risk and thus cannot treat all sexual activity as equal risk. Science is fluid - with new information, we come to new conclusions and adjust accordingly. We can review and update our policies, but this takes time and should not be rushed. From a public health perspective where rules affect tens of thousands, if not millions, you must consider the larger implications, especially as regulations take years of debate and conducting studies before change. As I mentioned before, health care is a delicate balance of safety, efficacy, and cost… and this also includes risk-benefit assessments. The CDC (1) reported that 37,968 new HIV cases in 2018 could be primarily attributed to 3 categories: 69% (aka 26,198) gay/bisexual/MSM + 24% (aka 9,112) heterosexual + 7% (2,658) IVDU (1 - US HHS). Unfortunately, this source [2 - Int’l Journal of STD & AIDS] is only a review article from 2015, but it reports that 45 days from time of infection (which in itself is difficult to properly identify), even the most advanced antibody tests have a 0.01 probability of reporting a false-negative (aka an individual actually having HIV has a negative test) . I was always terrible at stats, but I believe if you use the 0.01 probability with the aforementioned figures, 379 of the HIV positive cases would still have negative tests. 261 false-negatives would be attributed to gay/bi/MSM vs. 91 hetero. With the risk of these individuals having a much higher false-negative result, you must see why the regulations are very conservative. (Also please note that the probability of a false-negative can never reach 0.) On top of statistics, we must consider cost. Patients/recipients of blood had to pay on average $343 (plus or minus $135) per unit in 2011 (3)… this is equivalent to $396 in 2020 dollars (4). Adding more testing would incur more statistical error in addition to more cost and time… important factors when working in the health care setting. I understand why people are in an uproar in regards to what seems to be blatant discrimination, but there are numerous variables that providers and decision makers must consider to ensure safety to both the donor and recipient. From a health care professional's perspective, I am always juggling between the beneficial and adverse effects to treatment regimens based on facts and not bias... I want to believe that others in similar positions are attempting to do the same. (1) www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/data-and-trends/statistics (2) - www.researchgate.net/profile/Bernhard_Konrad2/publication/264056703_Probability_of_a_false-negative_HIV_antibody_test_result_during_the_window_period_a_tool_for_pre-_and_post-test_counselling/links/568522de08ae051f9af1a735.pdf (3) - go to scholar.google.com --> search the title "Costs to Hospitals of Acquiring and Processing Blood in the US: A Survey of Hospital-Based Blood Banks and Transfusion Services" --> click the [PDF] academia.edu link to access the primary literature/research paper (4) - www.usinflationcalculator.com/

Fair enough. But this does not explain the ban on gay blood donations. Any sex with unknown partner is risky. Heterosexual intercourse would have to be treated exactly the same way, because HIV does not care about who is gay and who is straight.

@molly2 frodo2 Thank you... I may be overstepping, but I feel like you are a kindred spirit Ctrl+F this chap's/chapette's posts to dispel the false information.

No there is not. There is a question about gay sex which can disqualify you.

Yes. And you have to answer it honestly under the threat of prosecution.

It may not be the answer you're looking for, but I wrote a brief and definitely not all-encompassing explanation with links to CDC, etc above if you have time.

@RealTalk evangelicals in America are verrry conservative

not sure about the american evangelicals but the evangelicals in europe are actually very progressive.

Www... what?

If you Ctrl+F... I go into statistics and balance of risk-benefits but it's kinda boring.

~14% of individuals (1 in 7) living with HIV are undiagnosed and in 2018, 69% of newly diagnosed cases were in the MSM population (1 - US HHS). Acute HIV infections can be misdiagnosed as individuals may exhibit non-specific flu-like symptoms (2 - CDC). Typically ~2 weeks after infection, HIV RNA and p24 antigens can be detected; however, it may take 3 to 6 months post-exposure to develop detectable antibodies (3). Yes, there are a variety tests available (4 - CDC)… even OTC ones such as the OraQuick In-Home (5 - package insert)… but for testing in blood donations there must be a balance of safety, efficacy, and cost to be considered in addition to the accurate identification of when the window period begins and ends. (1) www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/data-and-trends/statistics (2) www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/whatishiv.html (3) www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/approved-blood-products/information-regarding-oraquick-home-hiv-test (4) www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/hiv-testing/test-types.html (5) www.oraquick.com/assets/base/oraquickfull/pdf/8453_02_MultiPager_L.pdf

Yes, he is.

What was your Job in the army

Testing blood is compulsory... also, blood centers do not "sell" blood per se... they are recuperating cost of testing, hiring staff, overhead, etc. Go to scholar.google.com --> search the title "Costs to Hospitals of Acquiring and Processing Blood in the US: A Survey of Hospital-Based Blood Banks and Transfusion Services" --> click the [PDF]acedemia.edu link to access the primary literature/research paper.

They do test all blood as matter of routine.

Well, it IS a comedy show...

@Torch from Olympia And the best part, there were times, when Afroamerican blood was also refused or spilled away. But the soldiers were still "ordered to volunteer", even if everybody knew, what is going to happen.

Standard Operating Procedures in the service ha ha