My mother-in-law begged me to donate blood as she works at the local blood bank. I finally relented and shortly after it was over I passed out hitting the floor with a nice thud.

She said, “next time eat before you donate” so I did and went back, again 5 minutes after it was done I passed out hitting the floor, this time jamming the door closed to the bathroom.

I was not asked back.

Well, they need to update their list of those who can and cannot donate. Military communities have big blood drives, but you are locking out a huge number of people and their dependents from giving, and for what? Is it really still necessary? Don’t know, but you *can* in theory get chronic wasting disease from eating venison(according to the CDC). Do you ban every hunter in the U.S. and their families who eat the venison from donating blood? You start to shrink the available pool at some point to never being able to collect enough blood. Do you start banning people who live in areas where Lyme Disease is prevalent? The list could go on and on and on

The list of people who cannot donate blood ever, or for years afterwards is quite long:

http://www.redcrossblood.org/donating-blood/eligibility-requirements/eligibility-criteria-alphabetical-listing

http://www.redcrossblood.org/donating-blood/eligibility-requirements/eligibility-criteria-alphabetical-listing#arc5

Getting a blood transfusion is a risk, but most people are willing to take that risk if they know it will save their lives. You cannot guarantee that something isn’t lurking in your blood that won’t come out later after another gets a transfusion from you, so I think some of these things need to be adjusted.

I haven’t lived in Turkey for 15 years. I believe the chances of my having a lurking disease from a country that I could not find a single reported case of that disease in the time we lived there, is small enough to allow me to give blood. I am almost 100% sure that the person who would need my blood would be willing to take a chance on the extremely remote chance I *may* have a risk of mad cow still lingering 15 years later, and my son had never eaten solid food that didn’t come out of a jar of baby food bought at the Commissary, jarred in the U.S.A, and was formula fed when we lived in Turkey. His chances, I would think, are almost nill. Surely he should be able to give blood when he turns 17.

They need to go case by case in some of these issues, or they are never going to get enough blood donated, because the list of restrictions is LONG.

That information about my name was buried in the threads from a year ago.

Oh. So now you think there’s an expiration date on anything you post on the Internet? Too funny!
Must be why you run like a frightened teenaged girl from those ten thousand comments you posted over the last two years! You’re hoping there’s a shelf life on them! Heh.

Have you decided what age you are this week? 27, 5, 102?

Shorter Hannitized: Blah, blah, blah.

What fear and propaganda? Do you deny that some people contracted HIV/AIDS from blood transfusions they received from infected donors? Remember Ryan White?

Because we need more people who CAN donate. Geez, you think I could of put that all in one post

Now you are doing what you always do, herpitzed will bonilla. Spin and lie to try and get out of they lies you have been caught at. Its too late, imbecile. Everyone on SAB knows what a liar you are. You might as well go back to switching ID’s so you can like your own posts you pathetic liar.

Hey don’t get mad, herpitized will bonilla. I want to be your facebook friend, too.

Hey, at least you tried:)

I am one of those who can give and have no problems and so I do. I especially like that I have a component in my blood that makes it “baby blood”, or fit for children.

What do you think about that? Would you give if you could?

I used to give blood regularly before going to England.

“Homosexuals and criminals should not be allowed to donate blood. Period.”

Criminals? does that include lawyers, politicians, some grocery store owners, the car sales man on the corner, meter maids, Joe the cop with connections on the side, the ice cream man, etc.

Maybe it’s not such a bad idea after all.

first how can u even tell a person is gay

there is no gaydar

I an earlier time in our history, not much earlier, anyone with a sexually transmitted disease would have been dealt with in a manner designed to protect their past and future sexual partners and as HIV/AIDS is a fatal disease, ever harsher measures than usual would have been employed. But, in an age of liberal political correctness it is wrong to do anything to protect the innocent victims of gay people.

If tests are 100% accurate to test for HIV/AIDS then I see no problem with their donating blood, but what in our worlds is ever 100%; and if in later years it crops up in patients receiving their blood, the victims can be assured the government will tell them “sorry,” and then the gays will be defended. That is our brave new world.

Be careful or Wee Willie will stamp his little foot again and make demands he can’t back up!
I’m not sure why he says he doesn’t want his name on this site. After all, he’s the one who posted the link to the documentary with his name on it and he’s the one who plastered pictures of himself all over the web at every opportunity, so that we couldn’t mistake who the individual in the documentary was!
In fact, I would say that Wankertized has published more personal information about himself here than anybody, including the site’s host: More about his jobs, where he lives, what businesses he’s run, what his boss’s sexual orientation is, what sexually transmitted diseases he takes preventative medication for, how many women of how many different races and nationalities he’s supposedly slept with, what his hobbies are, trips he’s taken, strip clubs he’s visited, what movies he likes, rounds of golf he supposedly played with real men in the military, what kinds of weapons he stashes in his gun safe, what his dog looks like, pictures of him in his bunny slippers…the list goes on and on and on! And all without so much as a single, original thought inside the vast, empty canyons of his head!

Now he wants to play coy? Not sure that bell can be unrung!

Why would you lift a ban on people who carry blood borne pathogens, or are at high risk of carrying them. That is crazy! You want to rely on a test to catch every tainted blood donation? Insane.

Its herpitized will bonilla, the butt surferering gay surferer dude with his mom. Still full of crap and infected with disease and not able to donate blood.

I don’t know about this, but do know that only a tiny fraction of people who could donate blood do.

It’s such a simple, painless procedure that takes only an hour to an hour and a half of time 3 or 4 times a year.

Even if more just gave once a year, what a difference that would make.

But here is what you actually posted seveal day ago, liar. So were you lying then, or are you lying now, or were you lying on all of the dozens of posts you made trying to defend your lie?

That would make sense if 27-29% of heterosexual men didn’t have AIDS…but they do.

All you ever do is lie, herpitized Will Bonilla. Go drink some wine with your wino mom.

“That would make sense if 27-29% of heterosexual men didn’t have AIDS…but they do.”

No, they don’t. You just made that up.

You stupid moron, by definition if a man has sex with another man even once, he is not a straight man. The RC questionare asks: Have you had sex with another man, even once, since 1977?

I know there are straight men reading this who have had gay sex. Trust me.

The reason for the questionare is that there is no 100% reliable blood test that will positively rule out the presence of HIV virus or other blood born pathogens.

All you ever prove on SAB is what an ignorant ahole you are, dinofag. Trust me.

Not to take away from the lovely debate about homosexual HIV infection rates… but more people would donate blood if they got something more than an oreo and a smiley sticker for doing so. A price ceiling of $0 is not helping get eligible donors to donate. For instance, I donate blood plasma because I can and because they pay me for my time, which means I can’t donate blood… it’s easy to decide which to do when one pays cash and the other gives you a sticker.

One is also told after the donation that if, for any reason, one feels their donation should not be used they may make a call with the donation ID number and ask that it not be used. This saves embarrassment for those who are not aware of the questions asked. Kind of extreme to go through with the donation to avoid embarrassment but one is given every chance to be honest with their answers and donation.

It is well known that gay men can give blood by lying on the questionnaire. I am sure that everything that can be done to protect the recipients is being done.

His “seconds” are sloppy, too! Heh.

Don’t expect any honesty out of herpitized, kenny. He was just throwing out a huge lie because he hates straight men. Now he is doing what he always does, spin a bunch of BS.

I’ve never had mad cow either.

You are a liar, moron. You claimed that 27 to 29% of heterosexual men have AIDS. This is yet another lie you expected to not get caught at on SAB. In fact its less than one 10th of one percent. Even in high density urban gay areas like the bay area HIV is about 2% in the gay population. You are a stupid imbecile and will always be stupid.

BTW, now I have all kinds of information about you that I can use. That was REAL SMART of you to make it available. How does that grab you, Will Bonilla, who works for commercial data systems?

How did they determine that 25% of HIV+ people don’t even know they are? Simple, moron. Through statistical analysis. After sampling any population patterns can be determined, but you are too stupid to know this. All the medical people have to do is find out someone is HIV+ through a test and ask them if they know they have HIV. 1 out of 4 say they didn’t know.

Why did you post that you sometimes take meds for chlamydia even when you weren’t sure if you had it or not, stupid?

You are so stupid. I never have to do anything. You provide all the lies and information yourself, because you are so…….stuuuuuupid.

I am banned from giving blood, as is my husband and BOTH my children. Why you ask? Well, we happened to have been stationed in Turkey from 93-95, and apparently we are banned because of mad cow disease, which seems odd since I don’t believe there ever was a case of mad cow disease in Turkey when we were there, and surely, by now it should be okay??? My son is banned even though he was a baby, because he was over 6 months old when we left:

I am banned because of the Mad Cow scare in the UK in 1996.

I am banned from giving blood, as is my husband and BOTH my children. Why you ask? Well, we happened to have been stationed in Turkey from 93-95, and apparently we are banned because of mad cow disease, which seems odd since I don’t believe there ever was a case of mad cow disease in Turkey when we were there, and surely, by now it should be okay??? My son is banned even though he was a baby, because he was over 6 months old when we left:

You were a member of the of the U.S. military, a civilian military employee, or a dependent of a member of the U.S. military who spent a total time of 6 months on or associated with a military base in any of the following areas during the specified time frames

* From 1980 through 1990 – Belgium, the Netherlands (Holland), or Germany
* From 1980 through 1996 – Spain, Portugal, Turkey, Italy or Greece.

Look at that list and think about how many people are permanently banned from giving blood. That is only a partial list, it lists most of Europe for varying years and lengths of time in the country.

It is astounding when you think about the sheer number of people who are not able to give blood.

will bonilla, the herpitzed gay, you are a submoron who can’t even comprehend what you read or basic math or figures. You can’t debate, either.

All you can do is lie and insult and you suck at both of those, too. You get caught lying here daily and your insults are infantile.

Go drink some wine with your mom.

herpitized willy you are so bleeping stuuuuuuuuupid! The stats are that 25% of the people who HAVE the HIV virus don’t know they have it, not that 25% of all people have it. You can’t even read or interpret simple data and figures , moron.

your data says 25% of people have HIV, but don’t know it??

If 1.2 million are HIV+ then 1,200,000/330,000,000×100= 0.36% of the population is HIV+ and 400,000 of those have AIDS.

You are so stupid. It is stunning that your brain can actually tell your lungs to draw breath you simple freaking retard.

Wankertized: Still hiding from your 10,000 previous comments I see! I frankly don’t blame you! It would be hard owning up to that much stupidity, race baiting, ignorance and baseless self promotion!

Actually it is 53% for homosexuals if you include homosexuals who are also drug abusers and it is 24% FOR “HIGH RISK HETEROSEXUALS”. Being HIGH RISK would indicate sexual activity outside of the norm.

But don’t worry handiwipe, your prowess is mostly make believe anyway.

Maybe someone should tell Arther Ashe its OK for Gays to donate blood. Oh……..too late, he died from AIDS from tainted blood.

So now we want to rely on just blood tests which can easily be screwed up just so some idiot senators can feel all warm and fuzzy and PC? This is idiocy that will kill a lot of people.

There are good reasons why the Red Cross won’t accept blood from homosexuals. For the record I give blood every 6 weeks. Blood should be accepted only from low risk individuals who meet that criteria on the Red Cross donor questionare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Ashe

I’ll be out of town on business from mid day Tuesday 3/30 through Wednesday 3/31. I’ll respond to email on Thursday 4/1.

Big talk Hannah. You’re home alone most nights. Most of the rest of us are married.

by definition if a man has sex with another man even once, he is not a straight man

Agreed.

How odd that such an obvious truth escapes so many.

Denial?

No, Hannatard, it cannot be determined. Those tests rely specifically on making actual contact with enough viral bodies for a certain statistical level of certainty. If there’s too few viral bodies, the test can be negative and the person is still infected. You’d need to be able to do a volumetric scan that was not reliant on a dart throw of a chance which in the end is what those tests are by comparison.

The statistical likelihood of infection among gay males is many times higher than heterosexuals. If you’re going to toss multiple spreads of chance together, lower them any way you can. Married monogamous individuals are still plenty plentiful. You might want to start asking them instead of ignoring them. What this ban being ended would be like is choosing a rusty knife off the ground to make dinner with instead a known clean one right in front of you.

Now was Bubbie the mother of your father who died before he was able to collect Medicare and Social Security or the father who lived into his 90s?

I used to give blood 3-4 times a year and did that for about 10 years. Then I went on a work assignment to South Africa 15 years ago and was required by the State Dept to take anti-malarial drugs for a time, plus an injection of something (I think it was Gamma-Globulin or something like that). Even after all this time I cannot give, even though I would gladly do so. That said, I am a little leery of lifting some of the bans, and possibly this one fits that. If they miss on a screening test, someone is likely to be very unhappy about the result. There is also the danger of exposure to the workers at the collection sites to think about – accidents do and have happened. If more of those that are eligible would give it would negate the reasons for even thinking about lifting the bans. It really is too bad that more of those that can, don’t.

I thought I heard once though that people that fall into the banned category could give if they made greater use of blood components (platelets and plasma) as opposed to the whole blood. That might be a useful compromise that would still benefit those that need it and enable willing donors.

Aside from getting AIDS/HIV from a nasty blood transfusion, heterosexual (that’s NORMAL, for all you deviants out there) have an extremely low probability of contracting AIDS/HIV (see the update at http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/its_not_just_aids_thanks_fellas/?dsq=38268344#comment-38268344)

Why then, remove this cautionary measure from protecting the blood supply when it seems to be working and removing the protection will only increase risk to the Normal population?

Because being denied hurts the Butt-sniffers’ feewings?

And place the lives of millions at risk — A-gain?

Despicable.

Hahaha!

You are so stupid it isn’t even funny.

Your own data is stating things the same way i state them, you just read them in the way you want.

You are a liar, moron. You claimed that 27 to 29% of heterosexual men have AIDS. This is yet another lie you expected to not get caught at on SAB. In fact its less than one 10th of one percent. Even in high density urban gay areas like the bay area HIV is about 2% in the gay population.

Just like your data, said the percentage with HIV. Re-read my comment, you moron.

I think the percentage with HIV is something like 49% to 29% of homo vs. heterosexual males.

And so here you are, like a jack@ss arguing how low the percentage of the HIV infected population is less than .5%.

Hahaha!

You had no idea, did you?

Hahaha!

So if .3% of the poplulation is HIV infected, and only 47-49% of them are gay, and 27-29% are straight men……what real threat are gay men from donating blood.

Hahaha!

You need to watch more Columbo, fool.

Played!!

Responding to email yet, Citizen??

Dude, you are so fascinated with gayness, that i bet you were more than just a “pin cushion” for the military dudes.

I’ll be out of town on business from mid day Tuesday 3/30 through Wednesday 3/31. I’ll respond to email on Thursday 4/1.

Good morning E:
Would that include bi-sexuals like wee Willy too?

Blood can sampled and it can be determined if someone is HIV positive. There is no need to ban the donors for simply being out of the closet, unlike Move_Zig and WHFF.

Are you the genius who believes that 3 out of 4 people who go to a clinic or hospital to get tested for HIV know they have it before the lab results come back?

You idiot. You are dumber than a 3 year old trying to analyze statistics.

Hahaha!

I’ll be out of town on business from mid day Tuesday 3/30 through Wednesday 3/31. I’ll respond to email on Thursday 4/1.

Yeah, I’m sure lots of guys call back after giving and tell the person on the phone who they are and that they don’t want their blood used because they had sex with a whore on a business trip to Vegas.

I’ll be out of town on business from mid day Tuesday 3/30 through Wednesday 3/31. I’ll respond to email on Thursday 4/1.

I’ll be out of town on business from mid day Tuesday 3/30 through Wednesday 3/31. I’ll respond to email on Thursday 4/1.

That’s exactly what you do Willy. And just for the record, if YOU were any more pathetic you could qualify as a charity. Now toddle off and polish your belt buckle…and don’t forget to take your STD meds, you’re a hazard to others you come in contact with.

While I’ve been doing some research on the question of prevalence of AIDS/HIV among homosexuals versus normals I ran across this gem. Wouldn’t you know that Senator Stewart Smalley is part of the Gang of 16?

John Kerry, U.S. Senator
Kirstin Gillibrand, U.S. Senator
Dick Durbin, U.S. Senator
Daniel Akaka, U.S. Senator
Sheldon Whitehouse, U.S. Senator
Sherrod Brown, U.S. Senator
Frank Lautenberg, U.S. Senator
Bob Casey, U.S. Senator
Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senator
Russ Feingold, U.S. Senator
Mark Udall, U.S. Senator
Al Franken, U.S. Senator (gag!)
Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator
Carl Levin, U.S. Senator
Tom Harkin, U.S. Senator
Mark Begich, U.S. Senator
Rolland Burris, U.S. Senator
Michael Bennet, U.S. Senator

Franken urges end to gay blood ban
http://minnesotaindependent.com/55990/franken-urges-end-to-gay-blood-ban

Another tidbit:

Evidently, my browser is spying on me, because when I search for AIDS HIV, I get banner ads with meet Gay men in your area some of the models look suspiciously similar to our resident Butthole Surfer. More to the point, is the tacit admission that AIDS HIV is associated with homosexuality.

I’ll be out of town on business from mid day Tuesday 3/30 through Wednesday 3/31. I’ll respond to email on Thursday 4/1.

Naturally, the felching Lie-in-Court arrives on schedule to parrot the Leftist Party Line, which is invariably something destructive to society, or otherwise illegal, immoral or fattening.

Why is the government involved? Are bureaucrats in Washington the best people to make this decision?

Because, Mr. Sharpie-sniffer, government’s purpose is for the common defense, and to protect the health, safety, morals and welfare of the citizenry.

Look at what happened the last time they dropped the ball on this very topic:

Ending Gay Ban on Blood Donations – Criminally Stupid
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/ending_gay_ban_on_blood_donations_-_criminally_stupid/

Thousands, possibly millions, World-wide, have died as a result of Gay-infected blood donations.

If hemophiliacs could be considered a race, then homosexuals could very well be convicted of genocide, since so many hemophiliacs have been killed by nasty, Gay infected blood.

Oh, yeah, there is a long latency period wherein the AIDS/HIV viruses are not able to be detected;

AIDS/HIV is still incurable;

AIDS/HIV is still fatal;

Why, in Gods’ name, expose the public to this entirely-avoidable risk?

WHY?

Lets’ see; 2-3 million adult homosexuals, 400-500,000 of them carry the HIV virus. That is somewhere between one in eight and one in four with this deadly plague.

That test had better be pretty **** good, or else changing the policy is very likely to get people infected. To contrast, in the heterosexual population that doesn’t use IV drugs or prostitutes, there are 100,000 infections among nearly three hundred million people; one in three thousand, or literally 500 times less prevalent than among homosexual males.

Account for those who have received transfusions before the ban, and we’re talking 1000 times less prevalent. The ban is a good idea.

I would be worried about catching teh gay. It’s contagious you know!

I am laughing out loud here!

That’s what happens when you’ve never worked a day in your life after inheriting Bubbie’s rentals.

I’m personally troubled by the fact that a few organizations collecting blood want to end the ban. It simply suggests that people are not taking seriously the reality that 12-25% of homosexual men are carrying the virus, and you don’t play Russian Roulette just because you think your helmet is bulletproof.

More or less, this kind of attitude got thousands of people infected with AIDS, especially back in the days when homosexuals would give blood to “get a free AIDS test.” Obviously the reality of alpha error, and the possibility of infecting multiple people with a single donation, wasn’t cluing in to these people.

For those who haven’t given blood, here’s how the program works. When you arrive at the center, you are asked to read a document that lists a number of risk factors. More or less, it’s a way to tell unwanted donors that they should just walk out the door, rather than be embarassed.

After you read the document and decide you’re OK, you go into a little room with a phlebotomist, who will take a bit of your blood, measure your pulse, take your blood pressure, and so on. Then the person will ask you (or the computer will) a series of personal questions–several of which deal with whether a person has ever had sex with another man, or has had sex with people who sleep with homosexual/bisexual men. Others involve military service, tropical disease exposure, and such.

No “gaydar” is needed to determine this if the prospective donor is honest. Even if he is not, there are some “trick” questions designed to identify homosexual men trying to give against the rules. (obviously I’m NOT going to tell which ones are so designed)

Again, as long as being homosexual is the #1 risk factor for AIDS in this country, homosexuals need to be banned from giving blood. The tests aren’t perfect, and the Red Cross website admits this.

You’re quoting percentages on what size group of subjects? Compare that subject group to the entire size of the population.

What I said stands. When you’re looking at adding multiple percentages short of 100% absolute, always add the lowest chance of failure, not the higher one.

Well, first off, Willi Milli Vanilli, show your work.

Anyone can plunk down any statement and call it a fact and Leftards do it all the time. We do a form of peer reviewing here at SAB by including our sources, to verify that that is indeed what the source said (like for example, how you got your statements wrong on military women and STD’s) and, of course how reputable the source is.

While this is an older source, there has been nothing offered to update or contradict it.
http://www.aliveandwell.org/html/risk_realities/whatever_happened.html

In this source you will find that approximately six percent of of those contracting the AIDS virus are straight men from straight sex. As noted in the source, even that number is suspect, since many bi-sexuals fail to disclose their homosexual activity and they may also have failed to disclose their intravenous drug use.

The upshot is that it is very likely that less than six percent of those who contract AIDS are straight males contracting the virus through straight sex.

As to the other percentage accounting for straight males who have contracted the AIDS virus, I have provided extensive links showing how homosexuals and drug users (very often one and the same) polluted the blood supply with their infected blood, and as a result, thousands, if not millions, worldwide were given the HIV virus.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/ending_gay_ban_on_blood_donations_-_criminally_stupid/

Is it fair to call this a heterosexual means of transmission of the AIDS / HIV viruses?

Heterosexuals are the victims, but the source was homosexuals.

I would say that the real percentage of AIDS/HIV attributable to homosexuals is much, much higher than the MSM gives you folks credit for.

You see, like Leftists in government and wealth, Leftists in the MSM seek to spread the blame for HIV around — it helps camouflage the danger that homosexuals actually present to society.

I suppose a source of heterosexual infection is… check it out … homosexuals and druggies (often one and the same) who have donated blood.

http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/ending_gay_ban_on_blood_donations_-_criminally_stupid

There’s no way that 1 out of every 4 men has AIDS. That is such a bloated number that it must have been misread, but I cant find anything that can be misread in that way. Regardless, it’s not true.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2007report/table9.htm

Total estimates of male AIDS cases in 2007 are 398,057. 253,804 are from gay sex. That leaves about 145k. That’s roughly 1/10th of 1% of all heterosexual males.

Before that, I established the precedent when I said:

I think the percentage with HIV is something like 49% to 29% of homo vs. heterosexual males.

The percentage with HIV, is x compared to y. That explains the context of my second quote, that you are too stupid to understand, or too dishonest to understand.

And I know you think you are cute, tossing my name around. You have ignored my requests, and now your actions will produce a reaction. You can thank yourself.

An increased 20% risk is a massive difference.

And given that all of those straight guys with AIDS are in an excluded group too, you don’t have a point.

Before you open the doors to a subsection of society that is increasingly treating unprotected anal sex like a turn-on specifically for the lack of condoms (look up “bareback” on Google images with SafeSearch off) and has long embraced promiscuity and anonymous sex as the height of their culture, why don’t you go and ask the straights to give?

The possible straight donors who could but do not give is hundreds of times the gays who are available period. Given that, keep the ban.

I give blood and so does my wife. If you hit up the churches and synagogues instead of doing the usual turn-up-your-nose stupidity, you’d have a lot more donors.

I’ll be out of town on business from mid day Tuesday 3/30 through Wednesday 3/31. I’ll respond to email on Thursday 4/1.

For the record, here are other groups who are banned from giving blood:

1. Anyone who has ever traded money or drugs for sex.
2. Anyone who has ever taken drugs by needle not prescribed by a doctor. Heroin addicts need not apply.
3. Dura mater graft recipients.
4. Those who have received blood transfusions.
5. Anyone who has had sex in Africa (and perhaps Haiti)

Reality here is that even the best tests have “false negatives,” and even if they didn’t, it takes a lot of effort to collect blood, test it, and then then throw it away. Allowing homosexuals to donate blood would only raise the supply 1% or less, and a signifcant amount of that would need to be thrown away–never mind those who would be infected. Having met people infected by transfusions, I don’t think there’s any sane reason NOT to address the #1 item on the Pareto for HIV infections in the blood supply.

(I’ll be glad to keep adding to the 12 gallons I’ve donated–also kid-safe like Yvette’s–in order to make that supply as safe as possible)

Homosexuals and criminals should not be allowed to donate blood. Period.

I’ll be out of town on business from mid day Tuesday 3/30 through Wednesday 3/31. I’ll respond to email on Thursday 4/1.

The stats are that 25% of the people who HAVE the HIV virus don’t know they have it, not that 25% of all people have it. You can’t even read or interpret simple data and figures , moron.

You missed the question, genius. And you think you are smart. OMG, that is a laugh riot.

How is it that somebody else knows this 25% have HIV, but the people who actually have it, don’t?

Again………explain.

Hahaha!

I’ll be out of town on business from mid day Tuesday 3/30 through Wednesday 3/31. I’ll respond to email on Thursday 4/1.

Where do you get that information?

I’ll be out of town on business from mid day Tuesday 3/30 through Wednesday 3/31. I’ll respond to email on Thursday 4/1.

Make demands I can’t back up??? What does that even mean dumbass.

That information about my name was buried in the threads from a year ago. You kept pulling it up and drawing attention to it, and you are the one that is being held responsible, and that was a really dumb move on your part.

That’s not what you originally said though.

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/senators_look_to_end_ban_on_gay_blood_donations/#comment-38248833

That would make sense if 27-29% of heterosexual men didn’t have AIDS…but they do.

So what do you want to do about that?

Maybe you wrote it poorly, but that quote DOES say what Will claimed.

Moreover, your numbers are still high (straight men only account for about 20% of all cases), and ignore another crucial truth…namely that the straight men we have to worry about, drug users and high risk heterosexuals, are also excluded. If you exclude those who have high risk sex (those who knowingly have sex with diseased partners, or likely to be diseased partners) and drug users, the percentage of straight males with AIDS is astonishingly low. .5% of all AIDS cases. Even with high risk sex included, straight males account for only 5% of all AIDS cases.

My uncle was a hemophiliac who died in 1987 from a treatment of factor 8 he recieved in the 80s.

I watched him die because a homosexual who contracted AIDS donated blood which was used to create the factor 8. I know this because the blood center which created the factor 8 tracked the lot back to the donor, who was dead by that time.

No one who is at risk for any bloodborne disease either active, inactive or a potential carrier should be allowed to donate. It isn’t discrimination, it’s common sense.

Hann-tard is off the mark, regardless as to how he spins his statement. We’ve cited information above, and there has been no new information to refute it, showing that less than six percent of straight males contract AIDS/HIV via heterosexual contact with women. The researchers pointed out that even the six percent figure was suspiciously high because many respondents were lying about their undisclosed homosexual contacts or intravenous drug usage.

Among the remaining heterosexuals contracting AIDS / HIV, much of those incidents of contracting AIDS / HIV can be traced back indirectly to homosexual origins, such as in the case of hemophiliacs contracting AIDS/HIV through tainted blood, such as FACTOR VIII, which originally came from HIV+ homosexual donors and drug users (which often are one and the same, since there seems to be a very high incidence of drug use associated with homosexuality)

As far as the likelihood of homosexual men contracting the AIDS/HIV viruses, the statistics vary between 50 to 75 percent likelihood, and, on average, the homosexuals’ lifespan is shortened actuarially by anywhere from 8 to 24 years, depending upon which study is referred to.

Regardless as to which study is referred to, they invariably show that the homosexual lifestyle is inherently dangerous, diseased and deadly.

Amidst all these facts, there is ZERO justification for risking the lives of the general public and consumers of blood products, particularly when there exists a latency period of up to 10 years between infection and diagnosis.

This concludes the analysis phase of this post.

Now for the gratuitous commentary.

Hann-tard is very likely a tuber-sucking, goo-gobbling fag.

So there.

I’ll be out of town on business from mid day Tuesday 3/30 through Wednesday 3/31. I’ll respond to email on Thursday 4/1.

Trust me.

Could you possibly make a more silly statement than this?

Anyone who is not sure of their blood quality need only go for an STD series and remain celibate until completion and blood donation. Most people won’t do it and that includes gays, among whom it is increasingly irrationally considered to be a right to have their blood be a mystery to them.

How can a statistic tell us who has AIDs, if the people don’t know it themselves??

You are really stupid.

So 25% of people with HIV don’t know they have it…..how then, did they arrive at an accurate percentage of people who have HIV???

And then you are going to say that 27% of heterosexual men don’t have HIV….even though your data says 25% of people have HIV, but don’t know it??

Explain.

Sorry you can’t find anyone who will have sex with you!

Hahaha! And what are you doing home, alone at 10:24 PST? You have no life.

You said more than 1 out of 4 straight men had AIDS. There’s no other way to read that.

Even reading your initial comment it sounds like 1/2 of all gay men have AIDS, and 1/4 of straights.

Reading your later comments, I get what you’re saying. And it’s close to being right. But it’s not what you INITIALLY said. You could just admit it was written poorly, and needed to be clarified. No shame in that, happens to everyone. But to be mocking people for calling you on an incorrect statement that ends up being…completely bogus, reeks of that hubris you often accuse others of.

I’ll be out of town on business from mid day Tuesday 3/30 through Wednesday 3/31. I’ll respond to email on Thursday 4/1.

Haha!

Who said anything about lawsuits??

You have the intellectual capacity of a 10yr old, and trust me, you aren’t impressing anyone but yourself.

We had a good laugh at you last time. You are a narcissistic donkey.

Did you miss me sissy boy?

Everyone willing to get a blood donation from Wee willy the bisexual or the young/old Dino fags raise your hand….