[Deepdiver]

The idea that gays can donate blood is pure scientific insanity Sci Fi Horror across the minds of the masses - I dated and lived with a sexy female Harvard Med School PharmD and in private she would tell me never get a blood transfusion from any public supply - do autologous donations instead because the blood supply company tests can never show 100% virus clean blood below a certain viral count the tests lose their efficacy - in any type of cancer or deadly viral infection be it HIV Ebola or Avian flu - they monitor patients over time because if they are newly infected with HIV or have been on a successful drugs cocktail protocol HIV would show up as an undetectable viral count however they are never cured there are always residual viruses or cancer cells in their system as it is nearly mathematically impossible to eliminate 100% of the viruses or cancer cells. That is why there is always a prophylactic preventative drugs protocol to keep counts below so called detectable levels however any shock to the system - severe rino viruses "cold" or flu infection can reduce natural immunity levels and lower their resistance to a relapse and why they are almost OCD regarding used sharps management. These reports are routinely suppressed at the CDC and other major research centers due to the PC and political and media power of the enormously successful LGBTQstds Rainbow PUSH Coalition etc., lobby groups. The truth is in fact worse than fiction.

FYI:
While the community blood supply is extremely safe, a patient's own blood is safest for him/her. Patients planning elective surgery requiring blood transfusion may be able to donate blood for themselves prior to surgery. This is called autologous donation.

[Dr. Howard]

(07-09-2015 12:19 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

Does anybody ever actually make moves to leave the US after saying it's "time to leave the US"?

Not the US, but I moved out of Canada after i said "its time to leave Canada" 10 years ago.

[Geomann180]

(07-11-2015 01:05 AM)Deepdiver Wrote:  

There is a lot of precedent law that if you give a sexual partner a life threatening disease you are liable for a number of serious criminal and civil charges up to and including aggravated assault and or attempted murder depending upon the jurisdiction - posters in gay bars and bath houses that proclaim Do NOT let HIV keep you from great sex do NOT help...

iirc Robin Williams was successfully sued for giving herpes HSV2 (Genital) to a female groupie sex partner and it was settled quietly out of court and that seemed the beginning of the end for an eventually suicidal Robin Williams. Clearly transmitting HIV or Hepatitis are far more serious crimes.

If you contracted AIDs from a blood transfusion, could you open a class action lawsuit against the gay community for passing along AIDs to you against your will?

G

[Habano]

FDA finalized its blood donation policy this week: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/P...478031.htm

It partially caved to the cold, hard truth that blood transfusions from gay men are inherently more risky. But it didn't stop the agency: under the guidelines, a gay man may donate blood if he claims that he has completely abstained from sexual contact with other men for the past 12 months. Wanna bet that some in homosexual community might lie about that to give blood?

Ironically, the press release mentions that the odds of contracting HIV from a blood transfusion are 1 in 1.47 million. The rationale behind the policy seems to be "everything's pretty safe right now, let's make it a bit more risky."

Bottom line, don't put yourself in need of a blood transfusion. The odds of losing the HIV roulette are about to increase.

[Mentavious]

(12-24-2015 11:33 AM)MIMIKCOP Wrote:  

FDA finalized its blood donation policy this week: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/P...478031.htm

It partially caved to the cold, hard truth that blood transfusions from gay men are inherently more risky. But it didn't stop the agency: under the guidelines, a gay man may donate blood if he claims that he has completely abstained from sexual contact with other men for the past 12 months. Wanna bet that some in homosexual community might lie about that to give blood?

Ironically, the press release mentions that the odds of contracting HIV from a blood transfusion are 1 in 1.47 million. The rationale behind the policy seems to be "everything's pretty safe right now, let's make it a bit more risky."

Bottom line, don't put yourself in need of a blood transfusion. The odds of losing the HIV roulette are about to increase.

Wanna bet that all in the homosexual community will about that to give blood.

[polar]

AIDS: it's not just for gays.

Anymore.

[frenchcorporation]

(07-08-2015 06:30 PM)Horus Wrote:  

serious question. why arent straight white guys on this graph?

[Deepdiver]

Only real technical solution is to reverse this pro PC Militant Marxist Feminist LGBTQstds media agenda under a Trump administration and isolate the Psychotic HIV sufferers (Gays Trannies and IV Drugs abusers) who refuse to remain celibate or get off drugs to former Leper Colony islands.

Then pass laws that require mandatory DNA tracking and bar coding of every blood donation and a tracking database of everyone and every organization earning an income (For Profit and Not For Profit included) and every person on duty during that chain of custody and if the surgical patient who receives that blood becomes HIV positive even 5 years after knows exactly who to sue into bankruptcy over their malignant malpractice behaviors.

The worst is the HIV positives often destitute gay drugs addicts who lie and donate blood and or plasma for income - this must be prosecuted as a crime... attempted manslaughter or murder.

Idea is to make the financial and criminal penalties much more severe than any possibly profit and then the pro PC LGBTQ liberal decision making will give way to hard core financial decision making.

[Habano]

(12-24-2015 01:16 PM)Mentavious Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 11:33 AM)MIMIKCOP Wrote:  

FDA finalized its blood donation policy this week: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/P...478031.htm

It partially caved to the cold, hard truth that blood transfusions from gay men are inherently more risky. But it didn't stop the agency: under the guidelines, a gay man may donate blood if he claims that he has completely abstained from sexual contact with other men for the past 12 months. Wanna bet that some in homosexual community might lie about that to give blood?

Ironically, the press release mentions that the odds of contracting HIV from a blood transfusion are 1 in 1.47 million. The rationale behind the policy seems to be "everything's pretty safe right now, let's make it a bit more risky."

Bottom line, don't put yourself in need of a blood transfusion. The odds of losing the HIV roulette are about to increase.

Wanna bet that all in the homosexual community will about that to give blood.

It may very well be that before this policy, gays simply lied about their sexuality if they really wanted to donate blood. But the new policy seems to lower the threshold in the sense that a gay person now only has to lie about his sexual history. And I think that is going to become more likely given that the public is going to take this news as "it's perfectly fine to be gay and give blood now."

In the grand scheme of things, I would be surprised if the decision led to more than a handful of new HIV transmission cases above the status quo. The chances of getting HIV from a blood transfusion will still be relatively low. Given that transfusions are often necessary to prevent life-threatening situations, they will still make sense despite the new risk.

But why? Why should an elevated risk be tolerated? It's not like without homosexuals there would be a shortage of blood to go around. Nobody has to forgo a transfusion because non-gays aren't willing to give blood. At least 90% of the population isn't gay.

No, this is a symbolic gesture by the Obama administration to remove what the PC crowd deems unfair stigma on gays. But this gesture comes at a cost that everyone has to bear: an elevated HIV risk. While optimal health policy would seek to reduce the chances of contracting a blood-borne disease from a blood transfusion whenever possible, that's not what's happening here. I find it disgusting.

[Neo]

Fuckin a.

This decision is a joke. I don't know the accuracy of the tests, but even if the tests are 99.9999% imagine being that poor sob who gets struck down. Another example of political correctness ruining this country.

[The Beast1]

Don't they test all blood transfusions for HIV anyway? If not, all it will take is one botched transfusion for a great class action lawsuit.

[Suits]

(07-13-2015 07:27 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 12:19 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

Does anybody ever actually make moves to leave the US after saying it's "time to leave the US"?

Not the US, but I moved out of Canada after i said "its time to leave Canada" 10 years ago.

I left the US two years ago and moved to China. Does that count?

[robreke]

(12-24-2015 11:33 AM)MIMIKCOP Wrote:  

FDA finalized its blood donation policy this week: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/P...478031.htm

It partially caved to the cold, hard truth that blood transfusions from gay men are inherently more risky. But it didn't stop the agency: under the guidelines, a gay man may donate blood if he claims that he has completely abstained from sexual contact with other men for the past 12 months. Wanna bet that some in homosexual community might lie about that to give blood?

Ironically, the press release mentions that the odds of contracting HIV from a blood transfusion are 1 in 1.47 million. The rationale behind the policy seems to be "everything's pretty safe right now, let's make it a bit more risky."

Bottom line, don't put yourself in need of a blood transfusion. The odds of losing the HIV roulette are about to increase.

Aaaaannd once again proof positive that liberalism is a mental disorder.

What's the definition of a mental disorder?

This: It's more important to include formerly "put upon" classes of people such as gays, trannies, women, muslims and illegal immigrants so that everything is "fair" than it is to uphold public safety, save lives and do the best we can for society.

Examples:

* Let's put women in the military because women have been oppressed. Yes, it does cost lives and kills more Americans in wartime to have women mixed in with male soldiers, but political correctness is more important than minimizing fatalities and casualties and upholding the effectiveness of military units. Can't you see that !!!??

* Even though we're at war with militant Islam, let's usher in as many refugees and muslim immigrants as we can into the USA because it's 'fair' and the US is a compassionate country. And,as Obama said with a tone in his voice meant to encourage guilt and shame in those who are for screening, in response to screening/banning Muslim immigration for a while " That's not what this country is about"

* Finally, the subject of this thread: because we don't want gays to feel uncomfortable or discriminated against, even though there is every logical and scientific reason to discriminate against them in this regard, we allow the demographic with the highest probability of AIDs/ HIV (said homos) to contribute to the American blood supply.

What kind of mind allows danger or even death to its people and country for the sake of making sure some people feel included and don't have their feelings hurt? The mind with a mental disorder.

Once a nation gets leaders like this, it's all downhill. As Ecclesiastes says "Woe be to thee, O Land, when thy king is a child."

[puckerman]

The "gay blood ban" isn't just a ban on gays donating blood. When you give blood, they ask you: "Have you ever had sex (even once)...?" So, it's a ban on any man who has had sex with another man even once. This goes way beyond gays.

I've been deferred because I've been taking the sacred medicines of the Amazon. That's just as ridiculous. So, I doubt I will ever be eligible to give blood again.

[philosophical_recovery]

(12-26-2015 12:01 AM)puckerman Wrote:  

The "gay blood ban" isn't just a ban on gays donating blood. When you give blood, they ask you: "Have you ever had sex (even once)...?" So, it's a ban on any man who has had sex with another man even once. This goes way beyond gays.

I've been deferred because I've been taking the sacred medicines of the Amazon. That's just as ridiculous. So, I doubt I will ever be eligible to give blood again.

[Sebastian]

I don't think they asked such questions at blood drive 'have you done sexual intercourse with another man recently?'

Anyways, don't they have to do some type of testing anyways since people can lie to sell their blood?

Btw, I really want to see the face of the person who wants to support LGBT community, realizes he's getting a donated blood from a good friend in LGBT community.

[spokepoker]

After reading those gay forum screenshots, I hope to God I will never need a blood transfusion. Reading about the bug chasers and 'givers' was horrifying. I can't remember which thread they were in, I think the Deep Web one?

If anything the cost of stored blood will skyrocket with allowing gay blood, due to the cost of having to test every donation.

[nomadbrah]

(12-24-2015 01:40 PM)frenchcorporation Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 06:30 PM)Horus Wrote:  

serious question. why arent straight white guys on this graph?

Straight white men don't get HIV, simple as that.

Blacks/Africans are much more suspectible to HIV than whites. Who knows why, conspiracy theorists are ready to answer probably, or it's because of other lifestyle differences, drugs, hepatitis, immune differences. Northnern Europeans are also believed to have higher immunity to ebola. Either that or Africans have massive problems with homosexuality, which I somehow doubt.

However, when you see 'aids education' it is very popular to show a straight white couple.

[infowarrior1]

(07-08-2015 06:57 PM)Horus Wrote:  

Bug chasing is the term for men who intentionally become infected with HIV.

Gift giving is the term for men who intentionally infect other men with HIV.

Video on bug chasing deleted from copyright infringement.

[Horus]

(12-26-2015 01:46 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

Blacks/Africans are much more suspectible to HIV than whites. Who knows why, conspiracy theorists are ready to answer probably, or it's because of other lifestyle differences, drugs, hepatitis, immune differences.

Prison.

[YossariansRight]

   

[Ambicatus]

As has been stated before, it's not the homosexuality aspect that prevents gays from donating blood, it's the risky practices they engage in.

In New Zealand (and I'm assuming other countries have a similar format) there's no "are you a homosexual?" question, they do however ask:

-Have you engaged in unprotected sex with anyone in the last XX (I think it's 6?) months?
-Have you ever had unprotected anal sex?
-Have you ever had anal sex with another man?

Theoretically homosexuals already can give blood, as long as they are lesbians or men who only do blowjobs with condoms. They shouldn't feel discriminated against, if you've ever done IV drugs or lived in the UK during the mad cow scare you can't give blood either. For some time I couldn't give blood because I was on isotretinoin for acne so my blood could cause birth defects in babies if given to a pregnant woman. I also couldn't give one time because I'd had root canal surgery recently. Should I be offended? Of course not, I understand that these aren't personal slights; just sensible measures taken to reduce risk.

Gays themselves need to realise that their own risky behaviour makes them poor candidates as well. In fact, our old friend Milo posted an article saying just that: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/06/...ing-sluts/

Highlights include:

Quote:

Look, I’m not trying to be offensive. But I know from experience how randy queens can be. I’m the most recklessly promiscuous person I know — with a fondness for African gentlemen to boot. Fortunately, I live a charmed life and I’ve never had so much as crabs. But I’m a unicorn: everyone else I know emerges ashen-faced from the clap clinic on a near-monthly basis.

The clearest figures on HIV infections come from the US, where although gays are less than 2 per cent of the population, they account for 61 per cent of all new infections. An estimated 77 per cent of diagnosed HIV infections in men is down to gay sex, according to the FDA — and the figures among gay men are going up, not down. That’s why there’s a lifetime ban on gay blood donors in the US. The NHS isn’t even that strict, by the way: they just ask that the donor refrain from sex for a year.

I get that asking a gay man to go without sex for a year is, in practice, the same thing as a lifetime ban, but whatever. Consider the fact that younger people are more likely to donate blood and that the largest increase in gay HIV infections is in the 13 to 24-year-old category. This isn’t bigotry: it’s a question of public health.

[Syberpunk]

I decided I wanted to give blood for the first time (to lower my iron) so I thought "What do the good men of the veritable Roosh V Forum think of doing this".

And this was the first thread that comes up in google.

Luckily with me the elderly won't be receiving and infirmed any queer blood, only liquid gold that they can't handle.

[jeffreyjerpp]

(12-26-2015 01:46 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 01:40 PM)frenchcorporation Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 06:30 PM)Horus Wrote:  

serious question. why arent straight white guys on this graph?

Straight white men don't get HIV, simple as that....However, when you see 'aids education' it is very popular to show a straight white couple.

The truth of who gets HIV and why is explosive and politically unacceptable.

Who doesn't get HIV:
-Heterosexual men*
-Heterosexual women who don't have anal sex with closeted gay men
-People who don't use injection drugs

Who does get it:
-Degenerate gays who have rampant unprotected sex
-Drug users
-Prostitutes
-Women who take it up the ass from gay men
-Low iq third worlders who don't have indoor plumbing


*I have read studies where married women unknowingly had HIV (former drug users) and had unprotected sex with their husbands for years on end. The husbands never got HIV, researchers estimated transmission rates for vaginal sex to be about 1 in 10,000.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

^^^^^^
The media is the reason why people think AIDS is an equal opportunity disease. For decades we were fed disinformation about how it would spread into the straight, suburban communities.

It never did. Rather than drone on, I am going to present some magazine covers from the bad old days that created this hysteria. Imagine living in this era and being barraged with this in print and on TV all the time.

Now you know why I don't take ANY "crisis" seriously, from human trafficking to opioid addiction. Money and politics drive media coverage, not facts.

1983:


1985:


1987:


1987:


1992:


1992: