Gay People Can’t Give Blood

Marisa Demarco [ Thu Jun 7 2007 1:11 PM ]

Hate to always be the bummer outer on this blog, but this is totally f’ed up. United Blood Services for New Mexico is short about 500 units of blood. That’s just today.

But on May 23, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, upheld a regulation issued in the ’80s banning gay people from giving blood. Even the Red Cross makes it clear on its site that AIDS is not a gay disease, which is, I’m assuming, what the FDA’s problem is. Here’s a breakdown of all the demographic stats according to The Body.

Public Comments (7)

- Greenley
  - Greenley's profile
  - send message to Greenley
- Since 2006-06-01
- right behind you
- Posts: 961
it baffles me that [ Thu Jun 7 2007 5:03 PM ]

in this day and age
-gay people are still discriminated against
-that there's not full proof technology to screen hiv in donated blood so that everyone can donate
-that there's not a cure for AIDS
We can fly to the fucking moon but can't screen blood for this disease let alone cure it.
We're smart enough to develop digital wireless technology but still think people (gays) who love each other are evil. Stupid. Where are our priorities? It's just ridiculous.
- hbop
  - hbop's profile
  - send message to hbop
- Since 2007-05-24
- Posts: 35
I agree [ Thu Jun 7 2007 5:44 PM ]

Science needs to work towards finding a way to be able to screen blood donations for ALL abnormalities and diseases, along with HIV. Then anyone and everyone could donate, no matter what. Plus we could avoid those creepy pre-donation interviews.
Ugh... I always feel so violated after those. I swear, those doctors always give me the "I know your lying" look after I answer no to the "Have you had sex with a prostitute in the last 5 years" question.
- OutaCigs
  - OutaCigs's profile
  - send message to OutaCigs
- Since 2006-08-07
- Posts: 21
Just Say What The Fuck!!! [ Fri Jun 8 2007 10:26 AM ]

How can you be baffled?!
Gay People are STILL discriminated against because we had people like Jerry Falwell (may he burn in HELL), Rick "I Don't Wanna be a Moonie but I'll Take Their Money" Santorum and other "For the Love of Jesus - Christians" spewing hate and not being held accountable for it.
Richardson probably just lost his presidential bid because he's the only one to stand out and say he supports Civil Unions, Hate Crimes Legislation and Domestic Partner Benefits. Our own idiot of a President doesn't support hate crimes legislation, domestic partner benefits or AIDS research funding because he's too busy promoting hatred and war.
There isn't a Cure for HIV because it's a billons of $$$ industry. No one is looking for a cure anymore! Only the next drug that will cost hundreds to thousands of dollars per dose; that poisons the liver and burns the kidneys and contributes to sayings like "He/She died of AIDS Related Illnesses" instead of "He/She died of pharmaceutical poisoining."
Why are you baffled that nobody (not even countries) can stand up to the Pharmaceutical Companies. NOT EVEN THE AIDS DISSIDENTS who usually cave and take the meds when they get sick can stand up to the Pharm Cos.
I'm not really one to quote bumper stickers but this one really seems to fit, "If you are not Outraged then you are not paying attention!" It's time to revive ACT/UP and begin demanding more from our medical community. And that includes UBS!
- Yiska
  - Yiska's profile
  - send message to Yiska
- Since 2007-06-11
- Posts: 4
AIDS VACCINE [ Mon Jun 11 2007 11:33 AM ]

While I agree that there should be more accurate screening processes for HIV, I have to say, as a student of the biomedical sciences that much is being done to search for both cures and vaccines for HIV. I mean, A LOT. Computer technology is soooo much easier to come up with than medical solutions. Remember, viruses are alive. And they are evolving. VERY RAPIDLY. It's hard to vaccinate against something that evolves so quickly. HIV is a much more complicated and rapidly evolving virus than many other viruses. And viruses are very hard to treat, unlike bacteria, because when we attack them, we attack ourselves. Bacteria have mechanisms that we don't have, so we can attack those mechanisms without doing extreme damage to our own cells. Viruses are essentially made just of DNA or RNA (similar to DNA), enzymes, and a protein shell. Remember, with a virus like HIV, their genetic material is incorporated into our DNA, and our cellular machinery manufactures HIV proteins. So in order to prevent that, we risk killing off our own cells and disrupting our own cellular machinery. That's why AIDS drugs are so detrimental to whoever is taking them. But I would like to end this by saying that TONS TONS TONS of research is happening in this field and that people are working extremely hard at finding a way to prevent the transmission and effects of AIDS.
- OutaCigs
  - OutaCigs's profile
  - send message to OutaCigs
- Since 2006-08-07
- Posts: 21
Let's Be Very Clear [ Fri Jun 15 2007 1:09 PM ]

AIDS is not a disease that comes from JUST HIV. AIDS can be caused by Chemo Therapy, it can be caused by Diabetes, it can be caused by many possible things; not just virus. Acquired Immune Disease Syndrome is a process where the immune system shuts down due to prolonged attacks on itself or suppression from medications. It can happen to someone with Rheumatoid Arthritis, it's just that nobody calls it AIDS when it happens to someone who doesn't have HIV.
A very good friend of mine just recently sero-converted (became HIV positive) and he's been told every time he's gone to the doctor (17 times since his diagnosis this past January) that a lot is being done in terms of research, but how does research help the virus in his body now? His t-cell count is down to 212 and his viral load (which has recently been determined a bogus test) is over 200,000/dl. He's losing hope, he's losing the desire to live because he doesn't see a future for himself any longer.
I've lost many, too many, good friends to HIV or what ever it is that has killed them and millions of others and they always heard that in 5 years there was going to be a new pill, in 10 years they were going to be testing the newest possibility. TONS TONS TONS of research is not good enough any more. I applaud your optimism and educational information I just find it difficult to believe in it.
- Yiska
  - Yiska's profile
  - send message to Yiska
- Since 2007-06-11
- Posts: 4
What else do you propose? [ Fri Jun 15 2007 4:35 PM ]

When you're talking about medicine, you cannot just demand a solution. Have you ever worked in Science? No matter how much you want something done, you cannot just will it so. Think of this: we strugle even to find a cure for athelete's foot, let alone an incredibly complicated and rapidly evolving virus. Across the country, laboratories studying HIV (not AIDS, but the virus itself) are some of the very best funded. But if you study the virus, you will realize how difficult it is to even study, let alone cure. I'm not saying that there are not problems with the treatment of HIV and AIDS. It is absolutely true that AIDS medication is prohibitively expensive, and often requires taking many pills and many different times during the day. This is mostly a problem for people in rural Africa, where distribution and administration of AIDS treatments are very difficult. Work is being done to find a once a day pill that will not cost as much (which researchers believe they have found), so that they millions and millions of people (close to 30% of the population in some countries) suffering from AIDS in Africa will have a chance at living longer and less painfully. I understand the frustration that there isn't something better that we can do, but it's not something that we can make happen just by wanting it to happen.
- OutaCigs
  - OutaCigs's profile
  - send message to OutaCigs
- Since 2006-08-07
- Posts: 21
Interesting that this Thread Should Reappear in the Side Bar [ Fri Oct 12 2007 9:17 AM ]

Oh believe me, I CAN DEMAND A LOT MORE! I can demand more effort to use more than the big black money hole that is RESEARCH. I may not work in science but I do work in health care and I don't have to look through a microscope to see that there are possibilities that exist with out wasting years and money on chemicalising botanical substances that potentially do more harm than good.
Take, for instance,
[link]
What do you think those 45 people who contracted HIV during an HIV vaccine trial were told after they tested positive? OOPS? Scientists can research all they want, but what is someone supposed to do in America NOW?! What do you propose to tell someone who just tested positive NOW? Sit it out and wait until we can find something that might work next time? We are working on more research? More Trials?
I'll take a quote from the article I listed above just to prove the point that this isn't about a cure any more.
"Analyst Steve Brozak of WBB Securities said the vaccine was considered the most promising candidate both by Wall Street and the science community. He said a vaccine is the only financially feasible way to fight the AIDS epidemic in poor countries and that the company that comes up with the first successful shot would have "a license to print money."
You say it your self Yiska, "Across the country, laboratories studying HIV (not AIDS, but the virus itself) are some of the very best funded."
The very best funded for what? It's been demonstrated that in the last 17 years, vaccines, though effective in the short term, are not as effective in the long term. What's worse, is once a vaccine is found all study to find a cure stops. Tuberculosis is the perfect example of this.
And why do you suppose that "western" doctors and scientists do not study Chinese medicine, Acupuncture or Herbal medicine very much?
Believe me it was a surprise to find out the University of Miami came up with this study: [link]
The dosage they are talking about in this article is the equivalent of 2-3 brazil nuts a day. That article is on the BBC News Online, did you hear about it in American mainstream media? Don't you wonder why?