CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
The FDA has had a long lasting perma-ban on accepting gay men for blood donations since 1977. The stigma that gay men are more likely infected by sexually transmitted disease than straight men has plagued homosexuals since the onset of the AIDS epidemic. Heterosexual males can and do get all of the same diseases as easily, and of all the people and institutions we should expect to know that, the FDA is right on top. The American Red Cross and other blood centers don't exactly agree with the FDA, but the FDA is the law, so they are legally obligated to deny homosexual donors. It's time we get rid of this ban and allow people to donate blood without prejudice based on orientation. Besides, if our vampiric underlords are shorted one more year, the repercussions will be substantial.
They test all the blood that gets donated to prevent it from being used, if you test positive you are banned from ever donating anywhere in the US, so I don't see a problem with letting everyone donate.
There is a false-negative probability of these tests, which is so small that the overall chance of infecting someone through donated blood, is insignificant.
However, when we know that a certain group has a much higher probability of being infected, then the for them the overall probability to infect someone by donating blood can be unacceptably high.
However, when we know that a certain group has a much higher probability of being infected, then the for them the overall probability to infect someone by donating blood can be unacceptably high.
Okay, give me a number, at what point does the ratio of total donors to false negative tests become unacceptably high?
If I were in charge, I'd say that this number is unacceptably high, when the mean number of infections by a given disease, trough blood donation, becomes higher than one. Given that everyone donates at the same time, so we compare that value for gays to the value for the whole population.
But whatever that actual number is, it would be statistically 44 times higher among gay men, than among straight men. And that would push the overall number significantly.
I mean the actual number, not the limit set by somebody.
So, what I mean is, for gays as a group, this number is around 44 times higher.
I mean, if you knew right off the bat that someone is going to be forty four times more likely to pass on the condition, would you still go for it? That just sounds like a bad move.
Let's see, you divide the 2 percent by the 63 percent and you get a 31.75 times more often of new HIV for gay and bi males compared to everyone in the rest of the country.
And with .1 percent with HIV or AIDS and almost exactly 3/4 of the cases male you get .75 percent (roughly for ALL males).
So, gay/bi males are 21 times more likely to contract HIV than any male, and gay/bi mark at around 57 times more than a straight one, if my math is correct
Race is a HUGE factor as well. The last link that I pulled does an excellent job pulling that.
You also need to keep in mind that it's going to be difficult to figure out if someone is gay when they volunteer.
sigh I'm done, I had to do freaking algebra just to figure out the rates with (rough) figures since none of the studies answer it directly.
I'm pretty sure you math is wrong, the numbers you produced aren't really anything I can use. The number I need from you is the ratio of infected blood donations to total blood donations that you find acceptable. You can write it as:
The point that I was trying to illustrate (more accurately) is that gay men donating blood will dramatically increase the rate while not contributing to the amount much at all. I wouldn't want the rate to be multiplied for only a small amount more of the blood supply to be added. The rate of HIV transmission likelihood being raised would not be at all consistent with the total amount that gets added.
A fixed rate simply would not apply. The rate wouldn't change much since only a small amount of a small group is contributing. That's why I'm using HIV prevalence in gay males, since that is the only factor that will be changed.
I wouldn't want the rate to be multiplied for only a small amount more of the blood supply to be added.
This is why I need a number. You don't understand that the rate that the risk increases is directly related to the amount of blood homosexual males donate.
The rate wouldn't change much at all on the whole, but the only thing that matters is the rate among gay men which we could roughly speculate to have the same likelihood of HIV transmission times their increased prevalence. The rate on the whole is not what matters.
Let's say that there is a society that has 50 times more of the HIV rate than ours does, and thus roughly 50 times the transmission rate. Should they be allowed to donate blood here? What if they made up 10 percent of our society, should they be allowed to donate blood here then?
Why would it change anything if they only made 3-4 percent?
Let's say that there is a society that has 50 times more of the HIV rate than ours does, and thus roughly 50 times the transmission rate. Should they be allowed to donate blood here? What if they made up 10 percent of our society, should they be allowed to donate blood here then?
Yes and yes.
Why would it change anything if they only made 3-4 percent?
Well, that's just where we disagree. My point is, it's not about the total rate, it's about their rate. I would consider 50, 40, 30, 20, or even 10 times more likely to be unacceptable
The only rate that matters is the rate of gay men with HIV since homogenizing them with the other groups doesn't account for the same rate. If an individual is 8 times more likely than the current rate then they should not be able to donate blood.
Woah, looks like we have ourselves a case of passive aggression.
I mean you can insist on that one point, but you're still just fixating on the weakest point of the argument.
Dozens of times of an increased rate is absolutely ridiculous and you just don't want to admit it. The fixed rate is irrelevant when you're talking about a single group.
There is nothing for me to reply to until you give me the ratio I asked for. You clearly don't understand how debating works, butting in and parroting your unsolicited opinion won't convince anyone of anything.
I said that if an individual is 5 times more likely to be infected, I will draw the line. I actually unloaded a ton of facts and sources, while you've been trying to turn the discussion into a matter of which fixed rate is better. That part is irrelevant when you're talking about an individual group.
There is no need to have a discussion there since the likelihood of transmission would raise for a tiny amount of blood given. I already tired to explain that to you, but it's not getting through.
Of course, you're probably aware of this but you just don't feel like taking the point on the chin, you'd rather throw in a new topic of a fixed rate that is past the discussion here and especially the topic that I was pointing to.
While the risk of transmitting HIV would increase a small amount, that is vastly outweighed by the benefit of increased blood donations.
For first time blood donations the percentage of false negatives is:
Heterosexual Men: 0.036 per 100,000 (0.000036%)
Homosexual Men: 1.584 per 100,000 (0.001584%)
The false negative rate for HIV positive people is 0.3%
Once someone has tested positive for HIV, they are banned from donating blood in the US, this means that only 3 people with HIV our of every 200,000 male homosexuals will be able to donate blood more than once, and of those, only 0.009 will be able to donate a third time. Preventing those who test positive largely negates any risk of male homosexual donation as the ratio of false negatives to total donations will always be trending towards zero.
Another benefit of allowing homosexual men to donate blood is it will alert more men to the fact that they have HIV, as it is unlikely that someone who knows they have HIV will donate blood (at least where they don't pay you for it). That means for every 100,000 homosexual men, 520 will learn that they have HIV, this knowledge can help stop the spreading of HIV, as well as help these men get treatment for a disease they didn't know they had.
Over all the benefit in both volume of blood donated, as well as the benefit of slowing the spread of HIV are two very good reasons to allow homosexual men to donate blood. If people are really worried about it we can just test male homosexual blood twice, which reduces the chance of false negative to less than that of single tested heterosexual men.
That is all fine and dandy, but I would be upset to know that when I wake up I have HIV from contaminated blood. How many people will get HIV from false positives? I think personally the faction itself should live a better sexual life then attempt to donate blood versus just getting up and donating it.
All you are trying to do is appeal to emotion, yeah, it would suck to get HIV from a blood donation, but the math I provided show that risk is extremely minimal especially when compared to the risk to people who need blood when there isn't enough to go around. Double testing male homosexual blood reduces the rate of a false negatives to less than that of single tested heterosexual blood. There is no argument to be made against this, all anyone can express is a personal distaste for homosexuals.
Argument1: false negative results for HIV mainly have to do with the screening window,
so double - testing will result in almost no reduction of false - negative results.
Argument2: Gays as a group are notorious for having a whole bouquet of infectious diseases at a rate way above median for the population, and donated blood isn't checked for all of them. Example: antibiotic - resistant staphylococcus. For those deceases, the chance of transmission will be 100%.
Argument1: false negative results for HIV mainly have to do with the screening window, so double - testing will result in almost no reduction of false - negative results.
They test all positive results with a different kind of test, you can read about it in that link I posted.
Argument2: Gays as a group are notorious for having a whole bouquet of infectious diseases at a rate way above median for the population, and donated blood isn't checked for all of them. Example: antibiotic - resistant staphylococcus. For those deceases, the chance of transmission will be 100%.
Please provide sources so I can do some maths. I also still need a number from you, what is the acceptable ratio of infected blood donations to total donations?
They test all positive results with a different kind of test, you can read about it in that link I posted.
The screening window is a period of time after HIV infection, spanning 3 to 6 weeks, during which no tests can show that the person is infected, since the immune answer has not yet been formed. So, no matter how many times you do the tests over 1 or 2 days, it will not reduce the false - negative chance (unless it had been caused by something else than the screening window, but that is really rare).
I also still need a number from you, what is the acceptable ratio of infected blood donations to total donations?
Look there can be two ways to understand this question:
1. What I think is the acceptable ratio
2. What the FDA considers to be the acceptable ratio.
To me, even 1 possible case is too much.
As stated by the FDA, the current figure is 2 per 1 million transfusions.
I still cannot understand how they have achieved that, since the 0,003 false-negative ratio should yield 3000 per 1 million. They must have some other mechanisms for reducing this rate, and I suspect that excluding certain demographics, like gays, is one of them. I myself need to obtain more information, to work out the maths.
But what I've already said, about the screening window, should be enough to justify the FDA's position.
(Good job there, multiplying 0,0036 by 44. Just kidding. I admire your thoroughness in preparing arguments).
The screening window is a period of time after HIV infection, spanning 3 to 6 weeks, during which no tests can show that the person is infected, since the immune answer has not yet been formed. So, no matter how many times you do the tests over 1 or 2 days, it will not reduce the false - negative chance (unless it had been caused by something else than the screening window, but that is really rare).
Oh, I see what you are saying.
Since 2001, donated blood in the United States has been screened with nucleic-acid-based tests, shortening the window period between infection and detectability of disease to a median of 17 days (95% CI, 13-28 Days, assumes pooling of samples).
But this 28 day window is still a problem, I agree. A possible solution would be to hold onto male homosexual blood until the donate again (usually 16 weeks later) and if that blood test negative also then the previous blood is okay, and they just do that over and over.
I'm not really sure this is an issue though, I would need to do some maths to determine the number of new HIV cases would be in this window for any given day and factor that into the risk, but for the 28 day window I think it would make since to ban anyone who has had sex with a new partner in the last month, there is no reason to not also ban slutty straight people.
This doesn't have any sources or use-able numbers, it is written like a propaganda piece threatening that gays will spread decease just by touching you. Link me to something with sources, or just the study they are referencing.
I still cannot understand how they have achieved that, since the 0,003 false-negative ratio should yield 3000 per 1 million. They must have some other mechanisms for reducing this rate, and I suspect that excluding certain demographics, like gays, is one of them. I myself need to obtain more information, to work out the maths.
Banning gays does help, I'm not saying it doesn't, I just think the flood of new blood donation outweighs the risk.
Dude, how many people will leave the operation room alive with a new lease on life only to unknowingly pass HIV on to others, like there girlfriends and wive?. How many at least get HIV via donated blood? That is all I wanted to know.
Double testing male homosexual blood reduces the rate of a false negatives to less than that of single tested heterosexual blood.
Obviously, the numbers are skewered.
Double test them on spot? The gays would play the discrimination card and would win. But by all means, to reduce the chance of getting HIV, triple test everybody.
Dude, how many people will leave the operation room alive with a new lease on life only to unknowingly pass HIV on to others, like there girlfriends and wive?. How many at least get HIV via donated blood? That is all I wanted to know.
Yes, this is an emotional appeal. I provided a source, read it. You don't need me to do all your thinking for you.
Obviously, the numbers are skewered.
Point out where in my math I made a mistake, or where in my sources there is faulty information.
Double test them on spot? The gays would play the discrimination card and would win. But by all means, to reduce the chance of getting HIV, triple test everybody.
There is no point for you to reply, if you won't take the time to understand an issue you aren't worth discussing it with. I disagree with BigOats but at least he raises valid concerns.
The number you are asking for isn't relevant to my argument. You are asking what is the number, that is something you can look up for yourself. Providing you with random facts that you ask for isn't something I am obligated to do.
What the hell? I can point out when you do that to everyone. You are asking Bigoats for numbers right now, numbers that are apparently random facts you should look up. and it is relevant to the argument, since the FDA is attempting to prevent the unknowing spread of AIDS through contaminated blood.
You need to take the time to read things before making assumptions. I asked BigOats for a number that represented his opinion of an acceptable infected blood to total blood ratio, this is important as it is the core of his argument. You are asking me for a random fact that I never mentioned. If you want to look up some facts and do the math to figure out how many people are infected from false negative HIV donations go for it, and if you think that makes a good argument against me, present me with what you found out, but I'm not obligated to do the research and construct an argument for you.
Alright, my argument is this: if this was an attack on sexual orientation then they would simply bar females in same sex relations too. The FDA's purpose is to reduce the risk of transmitted diseases in relations to blood: HIV, Hepatitis B and A, etc. etc. etc.
Currently, the chance of getting HIV from blood is 1:2000000. That means from the 30000000 transfusions a year(2006), statistically speaking 15 will get HIV from direct blood transfusions.
Seems quite reasonable doesn't it?
Let us add in homosexual males now.
MSM constitutes for 52% of the HIV population. here are approximately 1.2 million people with HIV. So 624000 MSM have HIV.
How many don't know they have HIV? It is 1 for every 5, so about 124800 don't know.
There is no percentage of men who are gay that give blood, so for the sake of argument, I will use the percentage of current donors in the U.S. and equate them to MSM. 3% of American's give blood yearly. So let's just say for argument sake 3% of MSM give blood. 124800*3% is 18720. 18720 HIV positive males will be donors. How many will pass the screening? If it is 1 in 2 million get HIV from contaminated blood now, then that means right now, if I were to give blood and were HIV positive I would have a 0.00005% chance of transferring HIV to another person If I were a homosexual male with HIV and didn't know, then I would have an 0.00005% chance of passing the screening and giving the HIV to someone else. As it is now, only 15 people get HIV from blood transfusions. Adding homosexual males to the group, would push the number to 16 for every 30000000 and that is an approximate increase in contractions of HIV alone. If I am right, the FDA has more than reason. 1 for every 18720 MSM person will pass screening, that is far greater in terms of percentage than the current arrangement. America has a stable blood supply too, so not having 18720 does not affect them negatively.
FDA realizes that this policy leads to deferral of many healthy donors. However, FDA's MSM policy minimizes even the small risk of getting infectious diseases such as HIV or hepatitis through a blood transfusion. Due to the generosity of millions of eligible donors, the blood supply in the US has been very stable.
Here is one based on numbers.
The number of blood donations collected in the U.S. in a year: 16 million (2006)
The number of blood donors in the U.S. in a year: 9.5 million (2006).
The number of patients who receive blood in the U.S. in a year: 5 million (2006).
The same site says that only 38% of the population can give blood, so the FDA has strict policies concerning donors and risk factors.
I think this poses a problem because for some reason, it is touchy when a small faction of the homosexual community cannot give blood but it isn't when you:
>Have ever used needles to take drugs, steroids, or anything not prescribed by your doctor
>have ever taken money, drugs or other payment for sex since 1977
>have had sexual contact in the past 12 months with anyone described above
>received clotting factor concentrates for a bleeding disorder such as hemophilia
Why was it that an argument to allow these people to give blood never came up? Aren't they citizens being "discriminated" too? Or is it just that they have less of an ability to use affirmative action?
I think this poses a problem because for some reason, it is touchy when a small faction of the homosexual community cannot give blood but it isn't when you:
>Have ever used needles to take drugs, steroids, or anything not prescribed by your doctor
>have ever taken money, drugs or other payment for sex since 1977
>have had sexual contact in the past 12 months with anyone described above
>received clotting factor concentrates for a bleeding disorder such as hemophilia
Why was it that an argument to allow these people to give blood never came up? Aren't they citizens being "discriminated" too? Or is it just that they have less of an ability to use affirmative action?
I think these are too restrictive as well.
Thank you for your sources, I'll review them.
If we have a stable blood supply and it is affordable, I would be okay with waiting for a second donation before using the first, this can be used to ensure that the first donation is clean.
I am worried about the patients. Not any offended demographic, because blood transfusions are for the patients.
Well we can agree on that at least, these restrictions should not be discussed in the context of any offended demographic, the only thing that matters are the patients.
Sure we may disagree about how best to help patients, but at least we are talking about the part that matters... and not "how best to not offend homosexuals."
Ever heard of a demographic dividend? A declining population would mean more older people in the long run combined with an increase in life expectancy will sap our resources by shifting the mean age higher.
WHAT?! I had never heard of this " lets not accept blood from homosexual" thing. This is outrageous I mean what the hell is with people? "If he's a homosexual, he simply must have AIDS..."
Yeah, it is pretty insane. When you donate blood in America it asks if you have had sexual encounters with someone of the same sex. If you write yes they are supposed to deny you.
They test all the blood that gets donated to prevent it from being used, if you test positive you are banned from ever donating anywhere in the US, so I don't see a problem with letting everyone donate.
I didn't know this was a law! And I am surprised about it. The blood is tested.. I don't see how this law is even needed. I get it, that in the 70's and early 80's HIV and AIDS was called GRAVES disease and was thought to be a gay born illness, but we now know this is not true. In any form, we should do something about this law and have it over turned.
According to a survey made by CDC in 2010, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.
The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women, the analysis says.
The heterosexual community has a larger than 0% rate of STDs.
The homosexual community has a smaller than 100% rate of STDs.
It's not like we're taking blood and just injecting it into another person without looking at it. The blood is analyzed, typed, checked for infectious agents, etc.
We have no business discriminating against potential donors when there is still a need for donors. Sort them based on whats ACTUALLY IN THEIR BLOOD- not what you THINK MIGHT BE IN THEIR BLOOD.
Suppose the overall male population is N, total number of men with AIDS is aN, the number of gays is gN, and the chance that a gay man has AIDS is c.
Suppose that the chance of a straight man to have AIDS is p1, and the chance of a gay man to have AIDS is p2.
What is the rate p2/p1?
2. Have you noticed the domain of that site?
It's not like we're taking blood and just injecting it into another person without looking at it.
Gays have also alarming rates of other diseases, staphylococcus and typhoid are an example. Those deceases are very rare among the majority of the population, so the relevant tests are not done. Should we start testing donor blood for everything?
And also, the AIDS test, and almost every other test, has a false - negative probability. Even if it's 0,5%, then for gays as a group the overall chance to transmit AIDS through blood donation would be unacceptably high.
We aren't concerned with the proportion of gay men with AIDS vs. the proportion of lesbians and heterosexual men and women with AIDS.
We are concerned with the proportion of individuals that are HIV positive and not aware of it. While it's true that this proportion is higher amongst the homosexual male population, the gap is far narrower than it is in documented cases of AIDS.
Are you familiar with how donated blood is stored? Red cells and plasma are frozen. This process is lethal to both staphylococcus and the salmonella variants that are responsible for typhoid. In fact, this process is fatal to MOST bacterial and fungal agents. It is primarily the viral ones that have a sizeable chance to survive the process.
Edit: Also, even in the first world, people die daily for want of a blood donation. Given the choice, I'd roll the dice with questionable blood rather than die. Given the choice between dying right there in the ER, I'd rather spend the remainder of my life controlling AIDS with medication.
We are concerned with the proportion of individuals that are HIV positive and not aware of it.
If we are coherent, then we should talk about the ratio of those proportions: Q1/Q2,
where Q1 is the proportion of gay men who are infected with AIDS and unaware of it
and Q2 is the same for the rest of the population.
I'm pretty much sure, that this ratio is still ridiculously high.
Are you familiar with how donated blood is stored? Red cells and plasma are frozen. This process is lethal to both staphylococcus and the salmonella variants that are responsible for typhoid.
Really? Staphylococcus is highly resistant to low temperatures; the bacteria can stay frozen for many years, and survive.
Actually, undiagnosed hiv infections are less common amongst the homosexual community in this day and age, given the emphasis on testing. On the other hand, a not insignificant number of heterosexuals engage in the same high risk activities as homosexual males, and that demographic gets tested far less frequently.
I believe the ratio is going to be close to even, given that.
Good call on staph though, I'll cede that point (though not the salmonella variant that causes typhoid)- I was working on memory there, and obviously a faulted one. I wonder what other one I was thinking of there?
1. I admit I shouldn't have chosen HIV for all those calculations. The main problem is that AIDS being caused by some retrovirus, is a highly questionable statement.
2. If we take syphilis as a marker, then I'm still right. Gays have some forms of syphilis, which are very hard to detect until the later stages.
Ultimately, I still maintain that it is foolish to exclude an entire demographic because they MAY be at somewhat higher risk of carrying this, that, or the other.
I could continue and point out other demographics that have a high recorded instance of various infections, but I've already made my point, and reframing it isn't going to sway your opinion any. Furthermore, detailing those other demographics is going to be even more politically charged than the gay argument, so I'll refrain.
Fact remains that there are still people dying for want of a blood transfusion, and I would personally take infected blood over death.
For the purposes of determining rates of disease for MSM, CDC researchers first estimated the size of the gay and bisexual male population in the United States – defined as the proportion of men who reported engaging in same-sex behavior within the past five years. Based on an analysis of nationally representative surveys, CDC estimated that MSM comprise 2.0 percent (range: 1.4-2.7 percent) of the overall U.S. population aged 13 and older, or 4 percent of the U.S. male population (range: 2.8-5.3 percent). Disease rates per 100,000 population were then calculated using 2007 surveillance data on HIV and primary/secondary syphilis diagnoses and U.S. Census data for the total U.S. population.
The issue is, they use data from 2007 from walk-in tests. Heterosexual men RARELY get tested, while it is EXPECTED of homosexuals. That alone invalidates the legitimacy of the data.
-
Also this was funny...
Also, the risk of HIV transmission through receptive anal sex is much greater than the risk of transmission via other sexual activities, and some gay and bisexual men are relying on prevention strategies that may be less effective than consistent condom use.
30-34% of heterosexual couples engage in anal sex, and of those couples that cohabit, 45-48%, and those numbers are on the rise. Compare that to homosexual and bisexual men: Anal intercourse occurred among less than half of participants (37.2%) and was most common among men ages 18–24 (42.7%).
The issue is, they use data from 2007 from walk-in tests.
Now, where did you get that from? Here's a quote from CDC on how they gather their data:
"CDC’S National HIV Surveillance System is the primary source for monitoring HIV trends in the United States. CDC funds and assists state and local health departments to collect the information."
Disease rates per 100,000 population were then calculated using 2007 surveillance data on HIV and primary/secondary syphilis diagnoses
That's what you put bold in your argument. How does that prove they only used data from walk - in tests?
Maybe you need a reality check? The CDC is a federal agency under the Department of Health and Human Services.
They have access to the largest possible quantity of health data sources.
If you care to follow the link I'd posted, you'll read this:
CDC’S National HIV Surveillance System is the primary source for monitoring HIV trends in the United States. CDC funds and assists state and local health departments to collect the information. Health departments report de-identified data to CDC so that information from around the country can be analyzed to determine who is being affected and why.
Black women account for 67% of all HIV/AIDS cases that are diagnosed. Why doesn't the FDA exclude them? Because their rights are more established. I am gay and donate blood. The rule isn't enforceable anyways. Being gay is a self appointed identity, just appoint yourself straight for an hour.
Sorry, next time I will quote you so you can't lie.
What about the fact that AIDS has appeared in heterosexual blood. Now it doesn't matter where it was found first. The rules are in place from the time before blood testing was done. Why keep those rules around?
Alright, my argument is this: if this was an attack on sexual orientation then they would simply bar females in same sex relations too. The FDA's purpose is to reduce the risk of transmitted diseases in relations to blood: HIV, Hepatitis B and A, etc. etc. etc.
Currently, the chance of getting HIV from blood is 1:2000000. That means from the 30000000 transfusions a year(2006), statistically speaking 15 will get HIV from direct blood transfusions.
Seems quite reasonable doesn't it?
Let us add in homosexual males now.
MSM constitutes for 52% of the HIV population. here are approximately 1.2 million people with HIV. So 624000 MSM have HIV.
How many don't know they have HIV? It is 1 for every 5, so about 124800 don't know.
There is no percentage of men who are gay that give blood, so for the sake of argument, I will use the percentage of current donors in the U.S. and equate them to MSM. 3% of American's give blood yearly. So let's just say for argument sake 3% of MSM give blood. 124800*3% is 18720. 18720 HIV positive males will be donors. How many will pass the screening? If it is 1 in 2 million get HIV from contaminated blood now, then that means right now, if I were to give blood and were HIV positive I would have a 0.00005% chance of transferring HIV to another person If I were a homosexual male with HIV and didn't know, then I would have an 0.00005% chance of passing the screening and giving the HIV to someone else. As it is now, only 15 people get HIV from blood transfusions. Adding homosexual males to the group, would push the number to 16 for every 30000000 and that is an approximate increase in contractions of HIV alone. If I am right, the FDA has more than reason. 1 for every 18720 MSM person will pass screening, that is far greater in terms of percentage than the current arrangement. America has a stable blood supply too, so not having 18720 does not affect them negatively.
According to the CDC, black women make up 67% of ALL HIV/AIDs cases that are diagnosed. If this is not an attack on sexuality, why are black women allowed to give blood?
I won't be put in a situation of a doctor telling me, "well, you are going to die unless you get a blood transfusion from Steve over there. Yes the one in the girl pants." So your original question is stupid.
Worst case scenario I'll get a transfusion that has like a 2-3 percent chance of being from a homosexual, and twice the risk of getting HIV from it. I'll come find you and give you a big ol' kiss if I'm one of those lucky ones.
No, you might be in the situation where the doctor says you will die unless you get a blood transfusion, and we are out if blood. This is happening to people.
Just did some fun calculations. Found a source that says about 2% of men are gay... so there are 313.9M Americans which means 3.139M male homosexuals. According to the CDC there are 440,408 gay men who are living with a HIV diagnosis (since 2010, and I'm working with 2014 population numbers, giving homosexuals an error in their favor). 440K/3.13M is about .14... so roughly 14 percent of gay men have HIV. 14%... holy crap... the typical homosexual has hundreds of partners in their lives...
Anyways, the infection rate for everyone else is .28% ... So A homosexual man is about 50X as likely of having HIV than everyone else. This matches some other estimates I have seen, granted I don't have access to the best information, etc. etc....
Who the hell really wants them in the nation's blood supply? If I was gay I wouldn't want myself to donate blood. The prospect of killing someone, even if it is rare after testing, is still killing someone for what... a half of 1% increase in the donor pool (male homosexuals who don't have a positive HIV test)???
Pretty much every lab test has a chance of producing a false negative. It might be one in 10,100,1000, or 100,000. It does happen. Those who administer the test have to balance the dangers and odds of a false negative with a related probability and expense of false positives.
In addition, what they test for isn't the actual HIV virus, but instead they have to look for the anti-bodies that develop weeks after someone is infected. Homosexuals typically have a lot of partners and have open relationships. A heterosexual has lower odds of changing/acquiring a new mate in a random month.
Your facts are retarded! Fist of all, straight people are having just as much sex and with multi partners as we'll.. Saying that gay men have more partners than straight men, is a false statement. Just as women can have just as many partners and a gay female. I find this argument discredited on so many levels
Found a source that says about 2% of men are gay...
I'd like these sources.
-
so there are 313.9M Americans which means 3.139M male homosexuals
...that are openly gay, open to the point of writing it on a census or study or wherever you found your statistics.
-
According to the CDC there are 440,408 gay men who are living with a HIV diagnosis (since 2010, and I'm working with 2014 population numbers, giving homosexuals an error in their favor).
Four years is a long time to embellish and project statistics for medical records.
-
440K/3.13M is about .14... so roughly 14 percent of gay men have HIV. 14%... holy crap...
&
Anyways, the infection rate for everyone else is .28% ... So A homosexual man is about 50X as likely of having HIV than everyone else.
First, you've failed to address the likelihood of error in testing, (which is a lot greater than you might suspect) but more importantly, you've also not taken into account the probability of an average american getting tested compared to that of a homosexual male. Due to the stigma that lies on homosexual males, gay men are expected to get tested very regularly. Compare this to the entire demographic spectrum of the U.S, and it's easy to see how more people have HIV/AIDS than is calculable. Consider also that, as listed from your source, gay men only account for 1% of Americans; rendering a comparison of infection rates as inconclusive at best.
-
the typical homosexual has hundreds of partners in their lives...
This is a complete and utter fallacy created by homophobes to demonize gay culture as some sort of biblical Sodom-esque culture. Just because your gay doesn't mean you get a lot of action. In fact if anything, the inverse would be true due to the infrequent chance of first finding another gay man, and secondly finding one that would have sex with you. All of the challenges and complications of hetero relationships still exist, ergo there is no insta-sex for being gay.
Who the hell really wants them in the nation's blood supply?
Any person dying and in need of a transfusion.
-
If I was gay I wouldn't want myself to donate blood.
Your blood is no different whether or not you're gay.
-
The prospect of killing someone, even if it is rare after testing, is still killing someone for what... a half of 1% increase in the donor pool (male homosexuals who don't have a positive HIV test)???
The prospect of killing someone IS NOT AFFECTED by your sexual orientation AT ALL. The odds of any of the multitudes of tests done on blood samples failing is equally probable among gay and straight men. An AIDS/HIV test will fail just as frequently for a gay man as much as a straight man, infected or otherwise.
First, you've failed to address the likelihood of error in testing, (which is a lot greater than you might suspect) but more importantly, you've also not taken into account the probability of an average american getting tested compared to that of a homosexual male. Due to the stigma that lies on homosexual males, gay men are expected to get tested very regularly. Compare this to the entire demographic spectrum of the U.S, and it's easy to see how more people have HIV/AIDS than is calculable.
I've already answered those claims in this very debate.
The CDC gathered their statistics from test results on 100000 homosexuals males, 100000 heterosexual males, and 100000 heterosexual females. This means that the samles were of equal quantity, so your "stigma" argument is irrelevant.