Senator John Kerry has taken a stand against the Food and Drug Administration's discriminatory ban on gay male blood donors, writing both an open letter to the organization and an op-ed for Bay Windows. "Not a single piece of scientific evidence supports the ban," he says. "A law that was once considered medically justified is today simply outdated and needs to end."
Twenty other Democratic senators have co-signed the letter, which states, "We believe certain blood donor deferral policies should be reviewed and appropriately modified and modernized while ensuring the blood supply meets the highest possible standards that we all expect in America.” All I can say is, "Amen to that!"
– Dewitt
Photo credit: Slap Upside The Head
gay blood is pink.
And full of triangles BlockedUser, that’s why nobody wants it.
I’d be really happy if they did lift the ban. I don’t give blood out of spite (I know, I know, that’s just childish and I’m really only hurting the people who could use my blood) of the ban on gay men.
I’m O neg, a universal donor, and can’t give blood because of the ban. I don’t get squeamish and would gladly donate on a consistent basis because of how necessary it is to have donors. I also get tested every 3-6 months, which I guarantee is a lot more often than most straight guys, and I’m not even that promiscuous. Let’s hope that this change will really happen!
In Australia you can’t give blood if you’ve had gay sex in the last 12 months, or if your a woman that’s had sex with a bi man in the last 12 months… I find even this to be ridiculous as all blood goes through rigorous screening before it reaches the hospital. it was my goal to give blood at least once and i did earlier this year but gosh the 12 month sabbatical was tough.
It’s about time someone of prominence smells the dead rat. There is considerable evidence that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, that HIV is likely a benign passenger virus. Yes, AIDS is real, but most likely caused by chemicals–whether harsh prescription drugs, poppers or other illicit drugs that wreck the immune system. After reading how anti-retroviral drugs like AZT work, I can’t think of any medical reason anyone should use these drugs. It’s a slow suicide. AZT should be banned. There are a growing number of books out there exposing the HIV/AIDS hoax:
– Inventing the AIDS Virus by Peter H. Duesburg
– Science Sold Out: Does HIV Really Cause AIDS? by Rebecca Culshaw
– The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory by Henry H. Bauer
– Ten Lies About AIDS by Etienne De Harven
– Virus Mania: How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion Dollar Profits at Our Expense by Torsten Engelbrecht
My advice: Research the research and you might save your own life.
here’s a grass roots campaign that i believe in: until all non-heterosexual peoples, in the united states, have the same rights as the heterosexuals do, we shouldn’t have to continue to pay taxes like they do.
what do you think?
I’m B+. They used to drool over my blood. (Not to mention I could fill the pint in minutes.) But, oh, that’s right, as a bi dude who safely topped my ex-BF 4 years ago, I’m ineligible. As opposed to the crack-whore hooker down the street. Sorry, all you dying people who need transfusions!
I’ve bitched out quite a few Red Cross workers for the ban. I mean, gay men aren’t even the highest risk group for HIV anymore, straight women are. All hell would break loose if they decided straight women couldn’t give blood…
(Can I please please please make a bloodbath joke? LMAO.)
@diorgasm – Red Cross workers have nothing to do with the ban, it’s an FDA regulation. All you’re doing by bitching them out is being an asshole.
Charlie, you are clearly insane.
It’s the same here in Canada, but I don’t know if anything is being done about it. And I agree, the whole ban is very out dated. I think they need to do a “grandfather clause” to move the ban to gay men who were sexually active before and during the 80’s. I know, sounds stupid, but the ban was created then because of the high risk back then. It’s not a high risk now, obviously, so to keep the ban is just asinine.
Also, if we know about this ban, and we are actually serious about donating blood, why do we persist to declare we are gay? Are you trying to make a statement? Well then you aren’t trying to help anyone. That can’t refuse your offer to donate blood on the basis that they THINK your gay. So how about you just keep your trap shut and donate the blood.
@Charlie
How many of those authors are ACTUAL doctors? Because propaganda can go both way. Conspiracy theorists are the worst. You should maybe make certain you aren’t just naming books by crackpot theorists. As a historian, I know how easily facts can be misinterpreted and REinterpreted to make one’s argument look right.
@Charlie
Technically, AIDS is diagnosed in a patient when the CD4+ T-cell count drops below 200 parts per microliter of blood. Once a person is diagnosed with AIDS, they are always considered to have AIDS even if the CD4 cell count goes above 200 cells per microliter.
AIDS is caused by the presence of an opportunistic infectious organism that destroys CD4 cells, there by diminishing the host’s autoimmune functions. While the majority of AIDS cases are caused by HIV infection, not every person diagnosed with AIDS is HIV+.
How do I know this? I was diagnosed with HIV and AIDS on May 30, 2008. At the time of diagnosis, my viral load (amount of virus in the bloodstream) was over 100,000 HIV viral bodies per microliter of blood, and my CD4 count was 96. I didn’t start treatment for the HIV infection until October 2008. Given that my only other condition is controlled type 2 diabetes, I and my doctors have little doubt that it was the HIV infection that caused my AIDS, not the toxic chemicals I was (not) taking for to fight the HIV infection.
The reason AZT was used during the beginning of the HIV epidemic was that it worked at limiting the virus’ ability to reproduce. While it did little to help rebuild the immune system, it did help HIV/AIDS patient live longer. Like the early and dangerous version of chemotherapy and radiation treatment for cancer, AZT and it’s sibling during did treat the body harshly. And like chemo and radiation, many HIV/AIDS patients decided the additional time they got to live was worth the side effects. I fully understand that view. The Atripla that I take for my infection causes diarrhea, upset stomach, dizziness, nausea, possible liver and kidney damage, and an increase in loss of feeling in the tips of my fingers and my feet. Is the slow decline of my health in a manageable fashion worth the expected 20-25 years I’m gaining from the drug therapy? I think it is. My family and friends think it is.
In summary, while HIV can lead to AIDS, not all people with HIV will develop AIDS, and not every individual with AIDS has HIV (just the majority). The treatment for HIV/AIDS may be harsh, but is mostly manageable. Charlie is possibly a crackpot.
i LOL’d at how thrilled the gay guy seems with the blood taker’s reaction.
(if i might use “phlebotomist,” here?)
meanwhile, the phlebotomist seems totally dismayed regarding the sample he collected.
(such eloquent illustrating, indeed!)
i cant give blood becasue the first time i did (and only ) i dared a fellow junior highschool boy to out drink me in water, and ended up passing out in the bathroom after i donated and was rushed the hospital, good times.