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 They did not provide a specific timeline for implementation, but said that they “anticipate issuing updated draft guidance in the coming months.”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.
 
Faggots are literal demons of Slaanesh. A normal person would understand why higher risk blood wouldn’t be accepted, but faggots HAVE to go the next step. They NEED to take the most possible degenerate route in everything they do. They don’t understand the rational person’s perspective on this because all they can think about is their own narcissistic wants and hedonistic desires.

It’s always pushing for the next thing with zero regard for whether or not it even makes sense or is repugnant. Yeah let’s give people AIDS blood, yeah, let’s fuck kids in the classroom, yeah let’s see how much matter can fit into my asshole before I rupture internal organs. Why not?

Literal demons of Slaanesh.
 
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.


Fun fact, that's how the kid in the AIDS awareness episode in Captain Planet got it.
In another thread I mentioned messed up stuff I saw as a way too young kid on PBS and how there was lots of homo stuff.
One thing I remember seeing that has been memory holed is how some major gay group (I think it was code pink) urged gays to lie and donate blood.

I can't help but think their plan was to spread AIDS out of the gay population.
I know gays have always been the main AIDS carriers but if it had stayed a 100 percent gay disease I doubt 80s America would have spent billions to treat it.

Granted if homos could have laid off of unprotected buttsex for a few years and everyone who had it had just died out, AIDS probably wouldn't be a problem anymore.

Obviously the "unprotected butt sex with randos" pause was never going to happen.
It would have made it in to the blood stream sooner or later.
I wonder how many gay men got aids by receiving blood from one of the gays encouraged to lie about being gay?

Granted they killed more straights, got billions in research for their completely preventable disease and most lucrative, cemented their status as a persecuted minority.
I suspect code pink would call the operation a success and count whatever gays that died as "acceptable losses".
I doubt they have ever given the straights they killed or sentenced to a live of illness another thought.

Now the move is on to treat living with aids as no big deal so spreading it should not be a crime.
I have actually heard activists say "Spreading the flu isn't a crime. Why is spreading aids any different?"
They bring up how aids can be treated now and how Magic Johnson has lived with aids for over 20 years now.

It is never brought up that the meds to keep an aids patient alive cost about $12,000 dollars a year per patient.
That is at the low end, it can be way more.
They don't bring it up becase in most cases the government pays for the meds.
Catch a disease through no fault of your own?
You are on your own to pay for meds.
Catch a preventable disease we have know the cause of for at least 30 years?
Uncle Sugar will step up and pay for your meds.

It is a program named after Ryan White, a boy who died at 18 after getting aids from tainted blood.
Here is some interesting info about the law that makes the program possible:

The Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act (Ryan White CARE Act), Pub.L. 101–381, 104 Stat. 576, enacted August 18, 1990), was an act of the United States Congress and is the largest federally funded program in the United States for people living with HIV/AIDS. In exchange for States adopting harsh criminal laws regulating the conduct of HIV-positive individuals and providing for their public felony prosecution,[1] the act made federal funding available through contingency grants to states for low-income, uninsured, and under-insured people to be treated with the chemotherapeutic drug AZT.[2] The act is named in honor of Ryan White, an Indiana teenager who contracted AIDS through a tainted blood transfusion. He was diagnosed with AIDS in 1984 at age 13 and was subsequently expelled from school because of the disease. White became a well-known advocate for AIDS research and awareness until his death in 1990 at age 18.[3]

So in other words we are told aids is no big deal becase it can be treated and should no longer be criminal to spread.
Meanwhile the program that helped make paying for those meds no big deal was passed on the condition of criminalizing the spread of aids.

I have yet to hear any activist willing to end the government payment for aids meds as a condition of decriminalizing the spread of aids.


I used to be one of those "live and let live" idiots back when they were selling "consenting adults in the privacy of their own home"
Next it was we had to tolerate them being out, loud and proud.
Then they actively conspired to poison the blood supply.
We learn that tolerance was their opening bid.
Now they demand to be accepted and celebrated.
Likewise the armed forces, who will reject you if you have diabetes, bad eye sight, bad acne, depression or a whole host of other physical and mental conditions, must accept trainnes, pay for the HRT and I am sure soon they will be paying for their rot pockets and rot dogs.

If you have a strong stomach check out the GRS thread on the farms.
Considering how many of those operations turn in to rotting, infected pus filled nightmares getting GRS might be a good way to avoid having to do any work in the military.


Step 1 First day of basic training come out as transgender and be rushed in to "life saving surgery"
Step 2 Hang out in sick bay while your Frankenwang/ Frankenvag rots off
Step 3 ?????????
Step 4 Profit
 
It's illegal to pay someone for a blood donation in burgerland. The only exception, used by those plasma donation centers you see in the hood, is for donating plasma that is going to be essentially frozen and divided into micro-portions and used pharmaceutically.
Oh that's good to know, thank you for the correction; I'm exceptional, I knew the plasma donations were paid and didn't consider that would be a seperate thing with different rules.
That does make this all a lot more headscratch-worthy though. The past situation of people selling off their blood to feed a drug habit or something made sense why there'd be an incentive, now it's just... well, I guess I was being to charitable and it's just a 'we can't stand a reasonable safety boundary without wanting to break it' sort of situation??
 
...Uhhh, what?!
Parents of baby with heart issue don't want him to get COVID-vaccinated blood (because heart issue). They have compatible blood donors lined up and everything, but the hospital says "Vaccinated blood or we don't do the surgery." and they're being threatened with having their child taken by CPS.
 
Out of curiosity, how many heterosexual people here donated blood recently? I'd be pretty confident in concluding it was zero.

There's your answer. There's a shortage of blood because people aren't donating enough, if you want to stop them from donating you'd better step up your efforts and fill the shortfall.

One of the big issues during the HIV/AIDS crisis back in the 1980's was gay men donated a lot of blood relative to the population as a whole. That's why the decision was made to restrict any homosexual or bisexual men (as well as people exposed to other conditions like being in a jail or prison) from donating blood. There was no reliable way to identify the virus or detect it in blood donations making it extremely risky to continue allowing donations.
 
Out of curiosity, how many heterosexual people here donated blood recently? I'd be pretty confident in concluding it was zero.

There's your answer. There's a shortage of blood because people aren't donating enough, if you want to stop them from donating you'd better step up your efforts and fill the shortfall.
It's easy to say that, but you have to consider why people aren't donating. If they hadn't acted like demonic bastards for the past several years maybe some of us would be more inclined.
 
It's easy to say that, but you have to consider why people aren't donating. If they hadn't acted like demonic bastards for the past several years maybe some of us would be more inclined.
Understandable but you can't really expect them to not broaden the donor pool if people aren't donating. Probably other restrictions will be lifted as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kermit Jizz
Understandable but you can't really expect them to not broaden the donor pool if people aren't donating. Probably other restrictions will be lifted as well.
When your system is predicated on donations; I'd expect to be treated a certain way to get me to come back. But instead of appealing to the clean and responsible, they cave to pressure, which is what it sounds like they're doing with the last sentence in the article.

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.
The screening process wasn't specifically targeting queer men, as much as it was screening out people with reckless lifestyles; the majority of which are "queer men." If the gays weren't so up their ass about everything; you could argue the screening methods target the sick, weak/frail, pregnant, tattoos, and a whole host of other things. You know that the screening criteria for women is more stringent than it is for men; to where they actually have height/weight considerations, where a man is mostly "You look healthy enough." And the changes they're making as outlined in the article... it's still self-reporting. If you can claim you haven't had any new partners in the past 3 months is no different than claiming you're not a gay male or engage in risky activities. Gays are a pet project for politicians and activists to use to push dumb shit through.
 
Understandable but you can't really expect them to not broaden the donor pool if people aren't donating. Probably other restrictions will be lifted as well.
There is not a shortage of donors. Now, will your local nonprofit blood bank tell you that there is a "critical blood shortage!" to get your ass in the door? Yes. But "critical" is a relative term and in this case basically a marketing term.

There are plenty of clean-living old guys and office worker normies donating, and less and less demand as science comes up with alternatives to transfusion for a lot of situations and conditions. The 1% of the population obsessed with buttfucking in no way will fill some actual critical need that otherwise would go unfilled.

This is completely, entirely, and at every level about DIE and politics.
 
Back