US Some queer men in the U.S. may soon be allowed to donate blood

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Link (Archive)

Some queer men in the U.S. may soon be allowed to donate blood​

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is planning to allow monogamous gay and bisexual men in the U.S. to donate blood without abstaining from sex. Advocates say it’s an important step—but that it doesn’t go far enough.

On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journalreported that the FDA is drafting new guidelines that would allow monogamous gay and bisexual men to donate blood anytime, according to people familiar with the plan. Currently, sexually active gay and bisexual men must abstain from sex for three months before they’re allowed to donate blood. The proposed change would replace this deferral period with an individual risk assessment, the efficacy of which has been the subject of a recently concluded FDA-funded study.

In a statement, the FDA said it believes the findings of that study “will likely support a policy transition to individual risk-based donor screening questions for reducing the risk of HIV transmission.” They did not provide a specific timeline for implementation, but said that they “anticipate issuing updated draft guidance in the coming months.”

According to the sources who spoke with the Wall Street Journal, the new policy would not assess donors based on their gender or sexuality. Instead, it would first ask potential donors if they’d had any new sexual partners in the last three months—if they answered “no,” they would be free to donate. If they answered “yes,” they would be asked whether they had anal intercourse in the last three months. If not, they could donate. If they had, they would likely be asked to wait three months before donating.

A similar policy change recently took effect in Canada. In April, Health Canada announced that it would remove its three-month abstinence requirement for queer men in favour of individual risk assessment, and the new guidelines were implemented in September. However, some have criticized the current policy for continuing to single out queer men by screening for anal intercourse, without factoring in condom use or PrEP.

The FDA’s new policy comes at a crucial time for blood donations in the U.S. Earlier this year, the Red Cross announced a national blood crisis, and America’s blood supply remains critically low. A 2014 study by the Williams Institute estimated that lifting the blood ban on queer men would mean an additional 360,000 donors, which could help save over a million lives.

The U.S. instituted its first blood ban on queer men in 1985, at the height of the AIDS epidemic. Amidst heightened stigma and fear of HIV transmission, the FDA barred queer men from donating blood, for their entire lives. That ban was sometimes applied to trans women. In 2015, the FDA lifted the lifetime ban, instead requiring that queer men abstain from sex for a year prior to donating blood. And in 2020, due to the dire blood shortage caused by the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA shortened the abstinence period from one year to three months.

These policies, which single out gay men, bisexual men and some trans people, have been heavily criticized since their initial implementation. In April of 2020, over 500 medical professionals signed an open lettercalling the three-month deferral policy “unscientific” and urging the FDA to reverse its “historic discrimination.” Earlier this year, 22 U.S. Senators wrote a letter criticizing the policy, which they said was based on “inaccurate and antiquated stereotypes.”

Advocates and medical organizations expressed tempered support for the potential policy shift. Sarah Kate Ellis, the president and CEO of GLAAD, an LGBTQ2S+ advocacy organization, says the reported change is “an important step.” However, she says that GLAAD “will not stop advocating for the FDA to lift all restrictions against qualified LGBTQ2S+ blood donor candidates.”

“Giving one set of rules to some people, and another set of rules to others, based purely on identity, is blatant discrimination,” she said in a statement.

Dr. Jack Resneck Jr., the president of the American Medical Association, called the news “encouraging.” “We have urged the FDA to use rational, scientifically based deferral periods,” said Resneck in a statement to CNN.

While guidelines may remain imperfect, this kind of change from the FDA would put them in line with a global shift away from sexuality-based blood donation policies. The U.S. would be joining countries including the U.K., Austria, France, Greece and Canada, which have already done away with donation guidelines that single out queer men.
 
>Be Westerner in mid-late 2020s
>Get in an accident because someone Died Suddenly(TM) driving their oversized RC car
>Survive because Science(TM)
>$50k in debt to Tesla
>$100k in debt to Hospital
>Get AIDS and Myocarditis from blood taken at the Drag Queen Elementary blood drive
>Your guns got taken after being hospitalized and there's a rope shortage
>Drive to get euthanized at the hospital
>Die Suddenly(TM) on the way there
>Repeat

FfyXfNoWIAg9bZu.jpeg
 
Last edited:
HIV/AIDS has absolutely ridiculous prominence. There have been medical ethics classes regarding the disclosure of information where significant portions of the course were dedicated to just how much you can never, ever disclose someone has HIV.
 
I know a fag who makes a big shit about this every time it comes up. I always point out it's due to the high HIV rate, and his response is always something to the effect "it doesn't matter why, you don't compromise on equality".
There are certain groups of people in the world that make it so hard not to hate them.
I wasn't born or even raised to hate people - the persons in question have literally driven me to it.

Hmm, weird how Black hetero women have such high rates of HIV infections.
lol niggers

HIV/AIDS has absolutely ridiculous prominence. There have been medical ethics classes regarding the disclosure of information where significant portions of the course were dedicated to just how much you can never, ever disclose someone has HIV.
Many years ago when I was a kid, we had a family doctor - an old country doctor who, when he was younger used to even make housecalls. Real straight shooter. Years ago he told us that when people died in the hospital from AIDS, the hospitals completely stripped the rooms down and repainted the walls and ceilings.

I wonder if they still do that.
 
Last edited:
There are certain groups of people in the world that make it so hard not to hate them.
I wasn't born or even raised to hate people - the persons in question have literally driven me to it.


lol niggers


Many years ago when I was a kid, we had a family doctor - an old country doctor who, when he was younger used to even make housecalls. Real straight shooter. Years ago he told us that when people died in the hospital from AIDS, the hospitals completely striped the rooms down and repainted the walls and ceilings.

I wonder if they still do that.
Doctors aren't even allowed to call fat people fat anymore.
 
Years ago he told us that when people died in the hospital from AIDS, the hospitals completely stripped the rooms down and repainted the walls and ceilings.

No at the time they where unsure if AIDS (or GRID as it was known then) could be passed on outside of blood or other form of soft tissue / fluid contact so they took precautions, it's one of the reasons Princess Dianna was considered a ground breaker she knowingly shook hands without gloves of a terminal AIDS patient to dispel that kind of myth.

I think they only do that kind of thing now with serious and novel infections like Ebola, Haemorrhagic fever, what ever else novel has come out of Africa or Asia this week, etc.
 
By “Queer men” they probably mean straight women fetishizing gay men.
I thought this could've been the case too. Is it possible that they're focusing in on Gayden TIFs right now? The likelihood of them having HIV is pretty low, yet in this this faggy-ass world they're categorized as homosexual males.
 
Welp I guess if I ever require blood transfusions I'm just gonna have to find my own fresh supply because I'm not gonna let them infect me with AIDS blood just to appease some cocksucking faggot or rug muncher
 
ANYTHING that is directly transfused into another living person it is illegal to give compensation for above the value of a free donut.
Our's 🍁 got rid of juice boxes and cookies bc of covid and it's still in place. :(
Canada bans payment for blood donation and yet the same thing is happening here - people whining about 'discrimination' because they're not allowed to donate possibly pozzed blood. So money is clearly not the motivation up here for that.
There's an insane amount of non profit charity work in Canada seeking to decriminalize AIDS transmission and allow homosexual males to donate blood.
Our government is pretty good on the issue though so far. Knowing you have HIV and having sex without telling someone is considered a form of sexual assault. As it should be.
I hope that never changes, but I'm not so sure with all this useless activism that doesn't help anyone. It seems like such a waste. Raising money for treatments and testing seems a lot smarter than trying to change the laws in a dumb way and then calling people a bigot bc you don't want AIDS.
I obsession with prep and undetectable viral load shows how normalized AIDS has become in the gay male community. There was a time when everyone knew someone who had died and everyone feared it. Old gay people who managed to survive can tell horror stories. But younger people are nonchalant.
There is a non zero chance to get infected with HIV, even with an undetectable load. It's such a devastating virus. Not worth the risk.
 
Last edited:
Blood is a weird thing because it's really about the ethical and safety issues. Most blood centers and governments find that if blood could be bought, it would lead to more quality control issues (which yes is ironic considering they're just allowing the high risk to donate easier now) and people taking advantage of such a system for easy cash. Imagine all the O+/O-/AB blood types that aren't financially well off, they'd be killing themselves if we monetized blood donations. It's also the fact that your body takes a good amount of time to properly replenish the blood you lost through a donation. Compared to plasma donations, they can be more serious is done improperly or if the donor didn't allow their body to replenish properly after some repeat donations within a given month's time.

Plasma on the other hand yes, is something that can be a transaction, because plasma usage is specifically linked to the pharmaceutical industry. The majority of plasma donation centers are for-profit companies, so yes you as the donator are entitled to some of the money this industry will obviously make money from. Purely because of plasma's direct usage in pharmaceuticals, it's put through extensive sterilization/purification to process it into the very medications needed. Whereas blood is directly taken from the donator, and into an awaiting patient who needs it. I also should mention that plasma donations aren't as harsh on the donor's body because you're hooked up to a centrifuge that processes your plasma out from your blood, which then that blood is cycled back into the body as the fresh, plasma-rich blood goes into the machine. In fact, you can do two plasma donations in a 7-day period if you space your appointments out properly, and it also depends on the specific donation center too.
Yep. The dose and time from donation to infusion into a patient is far shorter for donations to blood banks vs donations to plasma centers. Plasma center, any given patient will only be exposed to a tiny amount of your sample, and it could be months after you donated. (Plenty of time for your donation to get trashed if new test results come in.) Transfusable blood has to be fresher to be good, and it may be only a couple days from donation to a whole pint of your blood going in someone else's vein. Worst part is, the most fragile patients (newborn babies, people with immune compromise from cancer treatments, pregnant ladies) are supposed to get the freshest donations too, so bear more of the risk for exposures that slip through the cracks.

There was a few kids in the 80's that got HIV / Aids from tainted blood transfusions - quite a few innocent adults too.
I know a peds hem/onc doc who practiced at that time. He was going to a patient funeral at least once per month in the grunge era. Little kids who had a treatable blood disease and got a blood transfusion to manage it, dying of AIDS.
 
I know a peds hem/onc doc who practiced at that time. He was going to a patient funeral at least once per month in the grunge era. Little kids who had a treatable blood disease and got a blood transfusion to manage it, dying of AIDS.

Yea I've seen a interview recently with one of the kids who's managed to survive into adulthood and the impact it's had on him is tragic, a teacher essentially told the class he had AIDS and got bullied every day because of it, if he had an accident at school people refused to give him first aid etc, really horrible stuff.

He's in his late 30's to early 40's now and he said he decided to remain celibate, single etc just so he doesnt spread the disease even though his viral load is essentially nill with new medication and how he's locked himself away from the world at large, really sad as he seems like a decent dude from everything I read about him.

I really hope this doesn't go ahead as there is a massive risk involved that can't be negated that can last a lifetime.
 
Real talk, how can we set up a smaller-group blood donation service?
After what happened with that baby in New Zealand, it feels like there's a need to take proactive action.
"Homologous Donor" is the technical term for what you'd be looking for. While paying donors is illegal*, the way to viably implement this would be to provide extraction, storage, and re-supply to customers that want to self-pay. Generally speaking you run into much less regulatory red tape as donor and patient are one-in-the-same.
Although we can always spin up a subsidiary somewhere it is legal and begin paying donors that have types or clientele are interested in. Probably best to affiliate with a Caribbean/Mexican provider already doing the medical tourism thing.
 
I feel like the only reason the "lgbt community" cares about this so strongly is the sense that its effecting them (read: gay/bisexual men) primarily.

As someone who falls into that group, but isn't sexually active nor part of that "community", it just comes off like a huge cope. The spiteful part of me would like to see black women put into the same camp given the high risk of HIV in them as well, but thats merely because the argument devolves into percentages and not per person tests. When it comes down to it, anyone sexually active and having sex with multiple randos in any short period of time should not be trusted to donate blood, regardless. Fags just so happen to fall into a category of particularly whorish and risky behavior and thus cannot be trusted all the same.
 
No at the time they where unsure if AIDS (or GRID as it was known then) could be passed on outside of blood or other form of soft tissue / fluid contact so they took precautions, it's one of the reasons Princess Dianna was considered a ground breaker she knowingly shook hands without gloves of a terminal AIDS patient to dispel that kind of myth.

I think they only do that kind of thing now with serious and novel infections like Ebola, Haemorrhagic fever, what ever else novel has come out of Africa or Asia this week, etc.
Thank Fauci for that. We all knew it had to be fluid-transmitted as a result of being almost entirely isolated to gays (hence being termed Gay-Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome initially) until he mysteriously announced (presumably after a few visits to bathhouses to double-check) that we had absolutely no idea how it was transmitted.
 
I stopped donating blood once California made exposing others to HIV a misdemeanor. It may just be confirmation bias, but I've been donating since 17/18; and my blood is kinda rare so I had the idea that the life I save might be my own. But after that law was passed, three times in a row I got called in for a STD check. The way they do it is they batch blood by types, then test the batch; if anything pops they call the batch donators in. I got pissed that it was three times in a row and decided it was gays being fucking malicious, so fuck you, you're not getting my blood... this only solidifies my decision.
I can't find it right now, but it absolutely was in the Pozzer thread where a bunch of insane degenerates playing amateur mad scientist intentionally donated blood while being infected with like four STDs each.

Giving people AIDS is absolutely a fetish for some people. Like some weird, buttfucking Nurgle cultists or something.

There was a few kids in the 80's that got HIV / Aids from tainted blood transfusions - quite a few innocent adults too.
Fun fact, that's how the kid in the AIDS awareness episode in Captain Planet got it.
 
Last edited:
Back