Good points raised by MusicMan
But nothing in the medical world is 100%. Nothing. People like to think medicine is easy and we have everything figured out, like childbirth. Which is why you see all those ads on TV for "Sue your doctor for causing your child's Cerebral Palsey" and the number of OBGYN's dropping at an alarming rate. The human body is almost never predictable, and therefore medicine will never be either.
There are still issues of Hepititus that get through the tests they run on donated blood, and we've been able to test for that for years.
I'm aware that lesbians were never at the front of the AIDS epidemic, I just wonder why whenever people say "homosexual" or "gay" they always mean men...probably because girl on girl sex is considered ok because it's not "dirty"...cultural judgements and stuff...
Anyway, if they are that worried about being short on blood all of the time, which they always are, they could accept blood from gay men with these new AIDS tests. They may not be 100%, but they could classify them, after testing, as a "last resort" option. Besides, I'd like to think no one would he heartless enough to purposely donate HIV infected blood.
If they are really worried about the spread of AIDS, they aught to be looking into promoting the use of Condoms and safe sex...oh wait...that means you'd have to actually educate people on how to use them, instead of the "abstinence only" campaign of scare the shit out of them so they won't have sex promoted by the government right now....how dare I suggest something that makes so much sense!
I can back Erin up...no one who has been to the UK for more than 6 months can donate blood, because of all the mad cow stuff. Same thing anywhere in Europe. When I came back from a month in France they wanted to tell me I couldn't donate because I ran the risk of getting something while I was there.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
If they are really worried about the spread of AIDS, they aught to be looking into promoting the use of Condoms and safe sex...oh wait...that means you'd have to actually educate people on how to use them, instead of the "abstinence only" campaign of scare the shit out of them so they won't have sex promoted by the government right now....how dare I suggest something that makes so much sense! [/QUOTE]
Beautiful.
If they are really worried about the spread of AIDS, they aught to be looking into promoting the use of Condoms and safe sex...oh wait...that means you'd have to actually educate people on how to use them, instead of the "abstinence only" campaign of scare the shit out of them so they won't have sex promoted by the government right now....how dare I suggest something that makes so much sense! [/QUOTE]
Beautiful.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Lisser wrote: [/QUOTENAME]So Pieter can't donate bc he's not from the US originally or bc he has worn a kilt in the past? [/QUOTE]
You see, here in America men should only be aware of "picking up the soap bar" when they're showering in a prison with a bunch of felons.
In Scotland it's a different story.
You see, here in America men should only be aware of "picking up the soap bar" when they're showering in a prison with a bunch of felons.
In Scotland it's a different story.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Lisser wrote: [/QUOTENAME]So Pieter can't donate bc he's not from the US originally or bc he has worn a kilt in the past? [/QUOTE]
You see, here in America men should only be aware of "picking up the soap bar" when they're showering in a prison with a bunch of felons.
In Scotland it's a different story.[/QUOTE]
How many times have I told you not to tell anybody???
You see, here in America men should only be aware of "picking up the soap bar" when they're showering in a prison with a bunch of felons.
In Scotland it's a different story.[/QUOTE]
How many times have I told you not to tell anybody???
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Besides, I'd like to think no one would he heartless enough to purposely donate HIV infected blood.[/QUOTE]
That is definitely not true. There are rare (but still very existent) cases where people who are HIV positive will intentionally try to spread the disease. This is probably due to mental issues, or due to misery enjoying company, or some business like that.
Anyway, your "last resort" suggestion sounds logical. If the person is going to die anyway, you might as well extend their life - even if they have to live with HIV/AIDS.
It's still a liability for the government and all involved organizations, though. I don't know how accurate these HIV tests are, but they're apparently not accurate enough.
That is definitely not true. There are rare (but still very existent) cases where people who are HIV positive will intentionally try to spread the disease. This is probably due to mental issues, or due to misery enjoying company, or some business like that.
Anyway, your "last resort" suggestion sounds logical. If the person is going to die anyway, you might as well extend their life - even if they have to live with HIV/AIDS.
It's still a liability for the government and all involved organizations, though. I don't know how accurate these HIV tests are, but they're apparently not accurate enough.
People with AIDS need blood too, so maybe that "last resort" option could be reserved for people who already have AIDS and need blood. That would work too.
As far as the test being accurate...they are very accurate, and a great improvement over the old ones they used. Of course, the FDA says it's not accurate enough...but the FDA has a history of being WAY behind the curve of things as far as medical developments go. Especially in an administration that is making it's ideological agenda primary on medical issues like stem cell research and such. Not that I'm saying you should mistrust everything the FDA says...but let's just say there are tons of medicines, both in the US and from Europe, that could be used to save countless lives, that aren't approved for US use because the FDA hasn't tested them...and they've openly said they won't test drugs that came from stem cell research and such.
Even mundane stuff like sunscreen falls into the cracks. When I was in Europe, I found a sunscreen that was SPF 100...blocked UVA and UVB rays. Being as Casper-like as I am (I glow in the dark and burn inside of 10 minutes in the sun) I bought some and used it over there...I was amazed! I could be in the sun for long periods of time, and I never so much as turned pink! When I came home, I tried to buy the stuff I saw over there, but they told me I couldn't because it couldn't be shipped into the US because the main ingrediant hadn't been tested by the FDA. I asked when they were likely to get around to testing it, and they gave me the run around of "Oh, we are backlogged and we'll get to it as soon as we can." And that's just on sunscreen, which is mundane and non-controversial.
Europe will probably wind up finding a cure for something like Alzheimers via stem cell research, and at this rate the FDA will continue to say "Sorry, the people with Alzheimers are screwed because we won't allow this treatment into the US because it was made by processes we don't approve of."
As far as the test being accurate...they are very accurate, and a great improvement over the old ones they used. Of course, the FDA says it's not accurate enough...but the FDA has a history of being WAY behind the curve of things as far as medical developments go. Especially in an administration that is making it's ideological agenda primary on medical issues like stem cell research and such. Not that I'm saying you should mistrust everything the FDA says...but let's just say there are tons of medicines, both in the US and from Europe, that could be used to save countless lives, that aren't approved for US use because the FDA hasn't tested them...and they've openly said they won't test drugs that came from stem cell research and such.
Even mundane stuff like sunscreen falls into the cracks. When I was in Europe, I found a sunscreen that was SPF 100...blocked UVA and UVB rays. Being as Casper-like as I am (I glow in the dark and burn inside of 10 minutes in the sun) I bought some and used it over there...I was amazed! I could be in the sun for long periods of time, and I never so much as turned pink! When I came home, I tried to buy the stuff I saw over there, but they told me I couldn't because it couldn't be shipped into the US because the main ingrediant hadn't been tested by the FDA. I asked when they were likely to get around to testing it, and they gave me the run around of "Oh, we are backlogged and we'll get to it as soon as we can." And that's just on sunscreen, which is mundane and non-controversial.
Europe will probably wind up finding a cure for something like Alzheimers via stem cell research, and at this rate the FDA will continue to say "Sorry, the people with Alzheimers are screwed because we won't allow this treatment into the US because it was made by processes we don't approve of."
But what does very accurate mean?
99% accuracy?
99.9% accuracy?
99.99% accuracy?
Even those are quite risky, if only due to sheer quantity and turnover of the blood donations.
But creating an "alternate bank" would definitely be a good idea, especially if you inform the patient of all the risks beforehand. I don't understand why this hasn't been implemented. Perhaps there wouldn't be a very large demand for such a bank.
99% accuracy?
99.9% accuracy?
99.99% accuracy?
Even those are quite risky, if only due to sheer quantity and turnover of the blood donations.
But creating an "alternate bank" would definitely be a good idea, especially if you inform the patient of all the risks beforehand. I don't understand why this hasn't been implemented. Perhaps there wouldn't be a very large demand for such a bank.
i wasnt going to get into this but......
those who intentionally tramsmit the virus to non infected people are 'gift givers' -- so if anyone mentions to you something about giving you 'the gift' take a hike.......quickly
i hear about this more with barebacking versus blood giving...but i dont doubt that it could happen..
i am not upset nor feel discriminated against at all for not being able to give blood... i suppose others are but i for one am not--**edit addition--i should also say i am not opposed to widening the ban either...the dynamics of those infected is expanding too**
until the testing is 100% there have to be precautions... anyone remember a few years ago when previously tested and thought to be untainted blood actually had the virus???--- i am fine with the 'better be safe then sorry attitude'....
HIV/AIDS has been something that i have had to fear and deal with for years now.... i watched friends waste away and die and have friends now infected and trying to deal...nevermind knowing ,despite the denials, that Freddie was suffering also......the virus, the disease has touched my life tremendously
if me not giving blood can help ensure someone else doesnt suffer as others dear to me have, thats a very small price to pay
those who intentionally tramsmit the virus to non infected people are 'gift givers' -- so if anyone mentions to you something about giving you 'the gift' take a hike.......quickly
i hear about this more with barebacking versus blood giving...but i dont doubt that it could happen..
i am not upset nor feel discriminated against at all for not being able to give blood... i suppose others are but i for one am not--**edit addition--i should also say i am not opposed to widening the ban either...the dynamics of those infected is expanding too**
until the testing is 100% there have to be precautions... anyone remember a few years ago when previously tested and thought to be untainted blood actually had the virus???--- i am fine with the 'better be safe then sorry attitude'....
HIV/AIDS has been something that i have had to fear and deal with for years now.... i watched friends waste away and die and have friends now infected and trying to deal...nevermind knowing ,despite the denials, that Freddie was suffering also......the virus, the disease has touched my life tremendously
if me not giving blood can help ensure someone else doesnt suffer as others dear to me have, thats a very small price to pay
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]iron eagle wrote: [/QUOTENAME]i wasnt going to get into this but......
those who intentionally tramsmit the virus to non infected people are 'gift givers' -- so if anyone mentions to you something about giving you 'the gift' take a hike.......quickly
i hear about this more with barebacking versus blood giving...but i dont doubt that it could happen..
i am not upset nor feel discriminated against at all for not being able to give blood... i suppose others are but i for one am not--**edit addition--i should also say i am not opposed to widening the ban either...the dynamics of those infected is expanding too**
until the testing is 100% there have to be precautions... anyone remember a few years ago when previously tested and thought to be untainted blood actually had the virus???--- i am fine with the 'better be safe then sorry attitude'....
HIV/AIDS has been something that i have had to fear and deal with for years now.... i watched friends waste away and die and have friends now infected and trying to deal...nevermind knowing ,despite the denials, that Freddie was suffering also......the virus, the disease has touched my life tremendously
if me not giving blood can help ensure someone else doesnt suffer as others dear to me have, thats a very small price to pay[/QUOTE]
Paulie I love you. I just want you to know that I think the world of you. I'm glad you got to star in my film too!!!
I need to call you and bug you soon!!!
those who intentionally tramsmit the virus to non infected people are 'gift givers' -- so if anyone mentions to you something about giving you 'the gift' take a hike.......quickly
i hear about this more with barebacking versus blood giving...but i dont doubt that it could happen..
i am not upset nor feel discriminated against at all for not being able to give blood... i suppose others are but i for one am not--**edit addition--i should also say i am not opposed to widening the ban either...the dynamics of those infected is expanding too**
until the testing is 100% there have to be precautions... anyone remember a few years ago when previously tested and thought to be untainted blood actually had the virus???--- i am fine with the 'better be safe then sorry attitude'....
HIV/AIDS has been something that i have had to fear and deal with for years now.... i watched friends waste away and die and have friends now infected and trying to deal...nevermind knowing ,despite the denials, that Freddie was suffering also......the virus, the disease has touched my life tremendously
if me not giving blood can help ensure someone else doesnt suffer as others dear to me have, thats a very small price to pay[/QUOTE]
Paulie I love you. I just want you to know that I think the world of you. I'm glad you got to star in my film too!!!
I need to call you and bug you soon!!!