FDA lifts restrictions on homosexuals giving blood

originally posted by: shooterbrody
The local blood banks create the standards?

They follow them, not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand. Nor does your local blood bank give you advice on vaccines.

You seem very confused about this topic along with several other people.

originally posted by: tamusan
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
It'll turn the kids gay.

Monkey Pox is more likely.

wow, really hit a nerve with this one.

All of you that have a problem with my OP are hopefully not in any profession that gives you a voice in risk assessment.

I do agree with the one that said it is happening already anyway because alot of people are dishonest and will give blood and so on for money and not care if they have aids. And yes, they always tested for it anyway, but how much longer before it is California-ized?

You know, in that actually giving someone aids willfully is not a crime.

Remember that? Don't care about that either do you (some of you).

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: marg6043
I have some upcoming surgeries, I guess I will be opting out the blood transfusions.

Why? Does gay blood do something different than straight blood?

It's like car insurance. High risk models will cost more than non at risk models. I don't understand how this is confusing.

Think about it a bit will you.



Which brings me to... So you're saying all this time, something that we trod down for reasons of health safety and precaution, we're ok on the other side of the spectrum enough to encourage the behavior...

Yeah it doesn't make sense to me either.


I wish people would make up their damned minds!

In prepared remarks, Dr. Peter Marks, head of the FDA's CBER division that handles blood donations, said the new recommendations "represent a significant milestone for the agency and the LGBTQI+ community."

Ah
The real reason.
More get woke
Yay

originally posted by: Allaroundyou

Even though blood is tested for all kinds of things it would be a good idea to separate the bloods.
Group A.
The not gay blood
Group B.
The gay blood
Problem solved to a ridiculous complaint that is completely unfounded.

Even though Beer is tested for all kinds of things it would be a good idea to separate the Beers.
Group A.
The not gay Beer
Group B.
The gay Beer
Problem solved to a ridiculous complaint that is completely unfounded.

originally posted by: Timber13
It's like car insurance. High risk models will cost more than non at risk models. I don't understand how this is confusing.

If it's all tested what is the risk?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: shooterbrody
The local blood banks create the standards?

They follow them, not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand. Nor does your local blood bank give you advice on vaccines.

You seem very confused about this topic along with several other people.

Nope not at all
The fda, the people who pushed the clot shot, now are changing blood donation standards.
You are all in on holding up the fda.
Others have questions about the fda due to past shady activity.

Interesting to see a libertarian toe the government line and cheer this particular government agency.
Also interesting to see a libertarian so upset with others opinions.
Or in reality perhaps not?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Not my line of work. I have no idea. I'm just stating the obviousness to the question.


I imagine since you can't always find cancers and some diseases in blood tests, testing isn't exactly a full proof assuring you don't get something that you didn't already have. That's the only logical thing I can imagine.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
The fda, the people who pushed the clot shot, now are changing blood donation standards.

Did the testing standards change? No.

Guess you just like to get outraged then. It's cool, people need hobbies I suppose.

a reply to: M5xaz

Right in the 'Western' world. Why do you put it like that?
Because it's a virus transmitted through body fluids, that's why in the Western world it got kind of stuck in that group.
Not because of more or less safe sex

Globally though... different story

a reply to: Xtrozero

Sure, matters not to me.
Actually all of this would be absolutely hilarious if it did happen.
And if we have to revert to some child like way of solving a non existent (to me atleast), then so be it.
Bring on the laughter, we could all use a little more of it in our lives.

a reply to: greendust
Appreciate the op.
It will be good information to have to ask appropriate medical professionals if the need arises.
Thanks for informing us about the change in standard.

originally posted by: Timber13
Not my line of work. I have no idea. I'm just stating the obviousness to the question.

The answer is it's all tested for the diseases listed. No one makes adults get blood transfusions, if you need one and don't want one because you're paranoid and/or outraged it that's your call.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

If it's all tested what is the risk?

Maybe that is why they are allowing it now. Maybe the testing process is so good that it doesn't matter anymore. I remember back in the 80s and 90s I was not allowed to give blood since I traveled all over the world and there were a number of countries on the list to not give blood. It's 2023 and gays are no less of a high risk for about everything, but maybe it is no longer an issue.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The Food and Drug Administration has dropped all restrictions specific to gay and bisexual men donating blood, a move long anticipated by public health experts and gay rights activists.

Yeah
Standards were changed.

"This change reflects advancements in molecular tests as well as the accrual of reassuring data from other countries that implemented similar individual behavior (not population) based testing," said Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, an infectious disease specialist at the University of California, San Francisco.

Even dr Pete says it’s changed.

But you know better than the dr Pete?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Yeah
Standards were changed.

LOL, uh, no, they still test for the same things. Now they have better tests.

FFS.

That wasn't a difficult question that I asked, you just opted to overcomplicate it.

originally posted by: igloo
Whats wrong with the replies...

Nothing at all wrong with yours.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
No
You just have full trust in the fda.
Which is a laff riot.
Others default position isn’t to trust the government.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
You just have full trust in the fda.

Do I? Are they testing any blood that I might potentially need? Do you need the process explained again on who handles the testing aspect?