Time to end ban on gay men giving blood?

[The Straight Story]

Time to end ban on gay men giving blood?

The National AIDS Trust has used World AIDS day as an opportunity to increase pressure on the National Blood Transfusion service (NBTS) to change its policy on stopping gay men from donating blood.

This issue recently came to prominence at the University of Lincoln in November when the university’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender society (LBGT) held a demonstration outside the the Engine Shed while a blood donation session took place.

At the time the LGBT organised a petition which received hundreds of signatures in support and The Linc also held a poll which found that 98% of students asked supported the LGBT’s cause. Despite this, and many similar protests that have taken place around the country, the ban which has been in place since the 1980’s still remains.

Although there is widespread support for rescinding the ban on gay men giving blood, not everyone would advocate a change to the screening policy. John McCavish a Senior Lecturer in Social Work at the university explained that while he was full of admiration for LGBT society for highlighting an important issue and looking to defend gay men against discrimination, he argued that this issue was not about discrimination but rather managing risk. McCavish goes on to say that the policy of the National Blood Transfusion Service was simply looking to supply safe blood and not stigmatise gay men.

http://thelinc.co.uk/2009/12/time-to-end-ban-on-gay-men-giving-blood/

[harkadog]

1. Long past time

The blood is 100% tested for various blood borne diseases no matter who donates it. The ban is irrational.

[ZombieHorde]

2. Yes, the ban illogical, all of the blood has to be tested anyways. nt

[spiritual_gunfighter]

I wasnt aware gay men couldnt give blood

sorry for my ignorance, but that is completely ridiculous!

[TorchTheWitch]

128. Neither did I

It's terrible. Anyone can have AIDS or be HIV positive or have other diseases that would be passed on in their blood. Specifically singling out gay men is plain wrong. No reason for it other than blatant discrimination.

[PeaceNikki]

3. Absolutely. The American Red Cross has been trying to get the ban lifted.

[petronius]

4. Yes. (nt)

[Rhythm]

5. Way, way past due. n/t

[struggle4progress]

6. The demographics of infection vary country to country. In the US, here is the data

for males as of the end of 2007:

Estimated adult and adolescent males living with AIDS by race/ethnicity and exposure category, all years to the end of 2007 (50 states and D.C.)
http://www.avert.org/usa-race-age.htm

The table shows that 99% of all known male infections in the US are believed to have originated from Male-to-male sexual contact (61%), Injection drug use (18%), some combination of Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use (8%), and High-risk heterosexual contact (11%)

The same site contains the data for Estimated adult and adolescent females living with AIDS by race/ethnicity and exposure category, all years to the end of 2007 (50 states and D.C.)

This second table shows that 98% of all known female infections in the US are believed to have originated from Injection drug use (32%) and High-risk heterosexual contact (66%)

Blood Eligibility Guidelines
http://www.redcross.org/en/eligibility

... Nearly all people infected with HIV through blood transfusions received those transfusions before 1985, the year HIV testing began for all donated blood ... U.S. blood donations have been screened for antibodies to HIV-1 since March 1985 and HIV-2 since June 1992 ... An estimated 1 in 450,000 to 1 in 660,000 donations per year are infectious for HIV but are not detected by current antibody screening tests. In August 1995, the FDA recommended that all donated blood and plasma also be screened for HIV-1 p24 antigen ... http://aids.about.com/cs/hivtesting/f/bloodsupply.htm

[Bluebear]

7. Gee, you could have just said "no"

[struggle4progress]

16. Gee, you could have read all the links I posted

[Bluebear]

19. So what is your answer, O Struggler, given all these "links" and stats?

[struggle4progress]

48. Facts first, analysis later n/t

[dsc]

14. I could see having gay men who have had sex with a man outside a monogamous relationship

within the last year. The stats justify that. It doesn't justify the wholesale ban we have now. We ban any male who has, even one time, had sex with another male since 1977. That is ludricrous. If you aren't testing postive within a year of the contact, you didn't catch HIV from the contact. I would have been able to give under those restrictions I suggest for the past several years. Instead, I, an O negative regular donor, can't. It is insane.

[struggle4progress]

47. Perhaps issues like this should be wrapped into a larger long-term fight for national health care,

rather than being considered in isolation. There are a number of blood-transmissible pathogens that we can and should test for, and the testing ought to be done as part of regular health-care at public expense

[sandnsea]

133. I advocated that view about six months ago

and you beat the hell out of me for it. You had half the GLBT DUers screaming at me. And now you say the stats justify limits on some gay men?? You owe me an apology, although there's nothing you can do to undo that horrible attack on me and the permanent impression many people have as a result.

[readmoreoften]

75. So heterosexual women shouldn't donate blood either?

[berni_mccoy]

8. Absolutely.

[Yes We Did]

9. Absofreakinglutely. n/t

[Chan790]

10. Um, yes.

Some questions are just obvious. After finding out this was still the case, I honestly wondered if the reason might be that there was some portion of the idiot population who thought they were going to catch "the gay" from blood transfusion...the cause of the initial ban hasn't been an issue for more than 2 decades.

[Tim01]

11. The gay community has done a very good job of policing itself.

They have implemented procedures which have DRASTICALLY decreased the spread of aids in their community.
Lift the stupid ban.

And kudos to the gay community on this one.

[gleaner]

12. Yes, the ban should be lifted ....

Gay men are not the only people who have HIV. In my state high school kids are the group which is contracting HIV at the highest rate. This ban is an action to stigmatize gay men. Every time anyone gives blood it is tested for a number of blood borne diseases including HIV and Hepatitis. It doesn't matter who you are. Now that there is a way to test for so many blood borne diseases I think this ban is offensive and obsolete. It presupposes that all gay men have HIV and engage in unsafe sex, and it singles them out as pariahs, when many other people who are neither gay nor male do have HIV. The ostensible reason for putting this ban into place was that there was no way to test for HIV. Now there is, so drop the ban and stop discriminating against people who only want to help others. They are offering their blood, for God's sake. There is no greater gift of life. My husband had to have five blood transfusions when he was in the hospital last year and the hospital was complaining of blood shortages because he has a rare blood type. I was an am so grateful to those donors who enabled him to get the treatment he needed that I would like to thank them all in person. In light of the fact that there are chronic blood shortages we need more donors not less. If gay men are generous enough to offer to donate we are fools not to take them up on it.

[Skittles]

13. I think it is long past time

I say this as a longtime blood donor - testing is much more sophisticated now and there is no reason to keep up this discrimination

[HamdenRice]

15. HIV rates are still catastrophic in the gay community

and that's what the ban is based on. Presently, the prevalence of infection is around 1/4 - 1/6 for all men who have sex with men (MSM). No other demographic group even comes close to that. The rate of infection is around 1-2% per year, which is equal to the rate of prevalence for all black women infected since the epidemic began. To put this in perspective, the chances a MSM is HIV+ is 1/4 to 1/6; for a white woman it's 1/2000.

Even MSM who self report being monogamous cannot report for their partners. The policies reflect the small risk of donors who don't know that their partners are cheating -- a phenomenon that is universal among heterosexuals and MSMs. If a heterosexual is the victim of cheating, the chances that the cheater's partner is HIV+ is minimal, but for a MSM it's 1 in 4 to 1 in 6.

Blood tests now accurately show whether a person is HIV+, but there is a "window" of several weeks after infection during which tests are not as accurate.

For that reason, the standard should be that MSM should be allowed to donate so long as they self report that they have not had sexual contact with another MSM within the past year. That would exclude most sexually active MSMs, but allow celibate MSMs to give blood.

[Bluebear]

23. Could you cite all these dramatic statistics you mention? Even though I know you lecture on this

Are we supposed to take your word for all these?

Even though blacks (including African Americans) account for about 13% of the US population, they account for about half (49%) of the people who get HIV and AIDS:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/index.htm

Should some ban be made upon their giving blood as well? Even though all blood donated is tested for HIV?

[HamdenRice]

38. If you check the statistics...

the rates are not really in the same ball park. The chances that a MSM is HIV+ is 1 in 4 to 1 in 6. The chances that an African American woman is HIV+ is 1 in 100.

That is the scientific and statistical basis for the different treatment.

[Bluebear]

41. 'The chances that a MSM is HIV+ is 1 in 4' *****BULLSHIT*****

Yeah, 25% of men who have sex with men are HIV+.

You surely pulled that out of your bigoted ass.

[HamdenRice]

42. Uh, no. Sadly the rate of prevalence is between 16% and 25%

Just google HIV prevalence. Your rage is well founded. It's catastrophic. Just don't direct the rage at the messenger, but at the social condition.

[Bluebear]

43. The majority of those living with HIV were nonwhite (65.4%)

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5739a2.htm

time to ban non-whites from donating blood :crazy:

[HamdenRice]

57. Yes, but MSMs of color are the reason

So if you screen out MSM in blood donation, you screen out most of the HIV prevalence in communities of color.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/301/1/27

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5424a2.htm

HIV Prevalence, Unrecognized Infection, and HIV Testing Among Men Who Have Sex with Men --- Five U.S. Cities, June 2004--April 2005

Well into the third decade of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) epidemic, rates of HIV infection remain high, especially among minority populations. Of newly diagnosed HIV infections in the United States during 2003, CDC estimated that approximately 63% were among men who were infected through sexual contact with other men, 50% were among blacks, 32% were among whites, and 16% were among Hispanics (1). Studies of HIV infection among young men who have sex with men (MSM) in the mid to late 1990s revealed high rates of HIV prevalence, incidence, and unrecognized infection, particularly among young black MSM (2--4).
...
Of the 1,767 MSM, 450 (25%) tested positive for HIV (range by city: 18%--40%). HIV prevalence was 46% among blacks, 21% among whites, and 17% among Hispanics.

[Bluebear]

44. CDC: Blacks, gays at high risk for HIV infections

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/09/12/hiv.blacks.gays/index.html

It shows 53 percent of the estimated 56,000 cases of new HIV infection in 2006 were among gay and bisexual men, and 46 percent of the infections occurred among blacks.

===

Oh, my.

[HamdenRice]

45. And this should be something we are united on, but I just don't get your hostility

Both the Black and Gay communities are disproportionately affected by HIV infection.

The worst affected group is black gay men. The rate of infection of black MSM is in many cities around 50%. For gay men and MSM it's around 20%. For heterosexual black men and women it's around 1-2% -- the highest of any heterosexual population groups.

Denying these facts is, imo, stupid -- but if you want to do so, go ahead.

[Bluebear]

53. because your Agenda is well known.

[HamdenRice]

54. Oh. My. God! I've been discovered!!!! My agenda is known!!!

I was born in a Philippine brothel.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=13057&mesg_id=13057

[QC]

73. Your agenda has been clear for some time now.

Maybe you can come over to the LGBT forum and discuss it with us sometime.

[readmoreoften]

78. Yes, your agenda is well known.

And blatantly obvious.

[donco6]

96. Your agenda has been transparent for some time.

You've been told this before.

[Jamastiene]

55. Hmmm...it might not hurt you to check your own hostility toward GLBT people.

Aren't you the guy who used to hound GLBT people on the GLBT forum here on DU so much that you can't go there any more? :eyes:

[TokenQueer]

112. Yes, but still allowed to troll his bigotry in every other DU forum...

What an ass...

[readmoreoften]

81. Your numbers are insane. 20% of urban gay men are not HIV positive.

That's such an exaggeration, its absurd.

And yes heterosexual African Americans and non-African American LGBTs have many points of solidarity, but just as African-Americans get to point out latent racism in individual non-AA LGBTs, non-AA LGBTs get to point out latent (and, at times blatant) anti-gay, anti-trans attitudes in individual heterosexual African Americans.

[struggle4progress]

85. A Chicago Health Department study of 500+ this summer found 17% HIV positive, half being unaware

of the infection

<pdf:> http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/STD_HIV_AIDS_Chicago_July09.pdf

[HamdenRice]

88. You're in denial. Why would the CDC and all these other medical studies lie?

The numbers are extremely consistent across various studies.

[donco6]

104. I'm urban. I can assure you 25% of my friends are not HIV+

Now 25% of the people who go to the baths? I could see that . . . maybe . . . but it's preposterous to think that that group is representative of the entire gay population of a large metro area.

[HamdenRice]

109. Maybe it's generational?

I had lots of gay friends in the 80s, two gay roomates in grad school, professional mentors and teachers, and unbelievably, almost all of them died in the epidemic, and most of the survivors are on the life saving drug regimen, so these catastrophic prevalence rates don't seem unrealistic to me.

Also, the national hiv surveillance study is not based on a single location or kind of venue. It collects data from dozens of hospitals and health organizations, including long term studies of patients in general to determine rates of sero-conversion.

[donco6]

113. This study didn't mention hospitals, health orgs or patients.

And wouldn't they be a higher rate of infection than the regular population?

[HamdenRice]

116. The data isn't from one study

From what I understand of the surveillance study, the CDC gave grants to about 25 hospitals and medical facilities. Named participants of all sexual orientations, genders, races, etc. participated in long term studies. These were combined with 33 long term state studies and various other studies. As I understand, and I could be wrong, it the national surveillance study is a meta study -- a study of studies -- that puts together all the results using math models comes up with estimates of prevalence, new infections and the like.

[donco6]

121. But still, if you're adding skewed data to your data pool -

it's only going to skew the data even more. If the individual studies gather data from patients and hospitals, and combine that with data from essentially self-surveys (I completely dispute the "randomness" of the data gathering in the Chicago model) gathered from an unknown mix of sex-clubs, bars, and gay pride parades, then you're just not ever going to be able to come up with a "25% of urban MSM are HIV+". Thats a preposterous projection.

[HamdenRice]

125. The CDC are among the best epidemiologists in the world. That's their overall conclusion.

Don't believe them if you don't want to, but just saying you don't believe them isn't very convincing.

[donco6]

126. If I were saying that, I would agree.

But I'm not, as is obvious from my many posts.

[struggle4progress]

50. HIV/AIDS among Men Who Have Sex with Men (CDC)

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm

From the PDF at the link: ... A study of MSM in five U.S. cities found extremely high levels of infection among MSM, and many of those infected did not know it.
• Overall, one in four MSM participating in the study was infected. Black MSM were twice as likely to be infected with HIV than other MSM ...

[Bluebear]

52. 'in five U.S. cities' - nowhere does it pretend to be a national or world statistic, progressive one

[HamdenRice]

56. I wish people understood more about statistics and sampling

All of these studies are statistical samples. Statistical sampling is extremely accurate. That's why polling companies and news outlets can predict the outcome of presidential elections, in which over 100 million people vote, on the basis of a few thousand voters.

These samples accurately predict the actual rates of prevalence and new infection in various demographic groups.

[dsc]

59. It is true that statistical samples are accurate but by selecting all city dwellers

that makes this one much less accurate. It would, possibly be an accurate representation of city dwelling gays, though even that is somewhat doubtful. I went to your link to see if the study was described, it wasn't. I can't see how this could really be a truely random sample since the people would have to agree to an AIDS test. People who aren't engaging in risky behavior would be significantly less likely to see the need for such a test. That makes it a self selected sample and not random. BTW I have a bachelors in math and am a math teacher who has taught an AP stats course so I do understand sampling.

[donco6]

97. Plus it only tested men who shows up at venues.

Pride parades, bars, sex clubs, - gee, wonder what the rate is of people who show up there.

[QC]

98. According to a survey taken at The Anvil, 97.6% of gay men are into S&M! n/t

[donco6]

101. GASP! Who knew?

:eyes:

[QC]

102. I recently took a survey at the garden club meeting

and learned that the entire population of the world loves to garden!

[donco6]

103. But it's not projecting.

It's just statistics. :)

[QC]

105. Exactly! n/t

[HamdenRice]

110. Definitely not true

The larger study looks at patients in general at a few dozen major hospitals and collects data on all people -- gay, straight, male, female, black, white, hispanic, asian. It also does long term studies of patients in general over many years.

It is collecting HIV surveillance data for all demographic groups.

[donco6]

115. And again,

Here's what the Chicago study tested: (e.g., bars/dance clubs, athletic leagues, professional groups, hobby/special interest organizations, public sex environments, gay pride events, retail stores, and street locations).

I need to know the breakout of respondents by each area. And if the larger study brought in hospitals - well, you're going to skew the results ever further. Who goes to hospitals? SICK PEOPLE.

[readmoreoften]

79. It's called unwarranted generalization. The CDC has no idea what the population of MSM is.

They only know how many people get tested. You cannot compare the number of men who have sex with men with the number of men going into a testing facility.

[panzerfaust]

67. 1999 is most recent data I could find in quick www search

http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102238105.html

"HIV incidence patterns, trends, and association with HIV prevelance in the United States, 1978-1999."

This study found that "HIV incidence among men who have sex with men (MSM) peaked in the mid-1980s (5-20/100 py), and declined and stabilized in the 1990s (1-3/100 py). Incidence among injection drug users (IDUs) peaked in the early 1990s (10-14/100 py), and stablized (0-2/100 py) by 1997. Incidence was also high among commercial sex workers and their partners (3-15/100 py)..."

Ten years out of date now.

I suspect that the incidence is higher now that in the 1990s, but doubt that it is anything like the peak in the 1980s ... there must be more recent data, but i do not have the time to look for it now.

25% was NOT true, even in the '80s

[readmoreoften]

80. Thank you. The suggestion that 25% of gay men are HIV positive in the US is ludicrous

and could only be the concoction of someone who can't read data and spends little time amongst LGBT peoples.

[struggle4progress]

87. Modeling may support figures in that range:

AIDS experts say HIV infection rates among gay men in the United States are ‘catastrophic’
By Matt Simonette
Staff writer

The AIDS Foundation of Chicago kicked off its HIV prevention conference last week with “Gay, Sexy and Healthy,” a discussion by Gregorio Millet, a behavioral scientist with the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, and Ronald Stall, chair of the Department of Behavioral and Community Health Sciences of the University of Pittsburgh ...

Stall set up his model to use very conservative numbers, but nevertheless produced alarming results.

“If you assume a rate of 1.9 percent a year, and you start with guys (who are) age 20…by age 30, about a quarter of the guys are going to be positive, by age 40 almost 40 percent and by age 50 almost half,” he said. “What this says is that at this 2-percent rate we’re looking at ongoing rates of catastrophic infection for generation after generation of gay men” ...

http://www.chicagofreepress.com/node/600

[dsc]

93. there is no way that this would be modeled by an exponential function

There would be limiting factors out the wazoo. First, people would alter their behavior and become less likely to be infected. Second, infected people would become to ill or to dead to infect others. This would become more of a log model due to those factors.

[struggle4progress]

99. Faculty/Staff Ronald D. Stall, PhD, MPH

Professor and Chair
Graduate School of Public Health
208 Parran Hall
Pittsburgh, PA 15261
The primary focus of my research has been in HIV prevention and behavioral epidemiology, both in the United States and abroad. I also have conducted numerous research projects in the areas of substance abuse epidemiology, smoking, aging, mental health, and housing as health care. Although a great deal of my research has been conducted among gay men, I also have worked with other populations at high risk of HIV infection ... I am a member of the National Institutes of Health study section titled Behavioral and Social Science Approaches to Preventing HIV/AIDS. I sit on the following journal editorial boards: Social Aspects of AIDS (1990-); AIDS Education and Prevention (1992--), AIDS Care (1995-) and review papers for approximately 20 other peer reviewed journals. I serve on the Persad Board, which is a Pittsburgh-based community-based organization whose mission is to meet the health needs of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Communities ... http://www.bchs.pitt.edu/fac_staff/stall.html

Not having read any of his papers, I don't know what his model looks like -- but he'd be laughed out of any epidemiological discussion if he just drew exponential curves. We live in an era of teraflop machines: I expect epidemiologists are perfectly capable of large population computer simulations which reflect a variety of behaviors for subpopulations. If you know a language like C, learn a bit about simulating random variables, and can get good estimates for the infection risks and frequency of various human sexual behaviors for several dozen subpopulations (age, education level, access to health care, etc), you can probably write a multiyear simulation yourself that you could run on a desktop to see what happens in a population of a few hundred thousand or a million. The results probably can't be summarized well by single numbers: the size of the various sexually-interconnected networks will vary, and a few of the networks may be quite large

[dsc]

100. this describes an exponential model

“If you assume a rate of 1.9 percent a year, and you start with guys (who are) age 20…by age 30, about a quarter of the guys are going to be positive, by age 40 almost 40 percent and by age 50 almost half,” he said. “What this says is that at this 2-percent rate we’re looking at ongoing rates of catastrophic infection for generation after generation of gay men” .

Now maybe this was bad journalism but a description is a descrpition.

[struggle4progress]

106. I'm not sure what calculation you're doing -- or perhaps I'm unclear what you mean by

an exponential model. His numbers don't seem to me to fit an exponential curve: if 75% remain uninfected after ten years, exponential decline in the uninfected would suggest something like 56% uninfected after 20 years and only 42% uninfected after 30 years. If you mean the uninfected cohort remains uninfected in each successive year with probability 1.000 - 0.019, you still won't obtain his numbers: after ten years, you'll have an infection rate of 17%, after 20 years 31%, and after 30 years 43%. Neither of those fits the quote

I'm certainly willing to admit science journalism is often very bad -- but the quote itself looks hard to bungle: the journalist may well not have understood the model, but the guy is clearly saying something like "Even a low rate <of something> will produce very widespread infections in our model"

[dsc]

108. going up by x% a year is an exponential model

I will admit the numbers don't exactly work so it likely isn't. But the definition of an exponential model is the total goes up by a percent of the total each year. Think money in a bank account.

[HamdenRice]

111. No, that's not what exponential is

It's additive, not exponential. For example ~2% per year infection rate leading to 20% infection in 10 years is not exponential; it's a simple additive rate.

[dsc]

130. that isn't what he meant though

the numbers clearly don't work with that. Plus the model surely wouldn't. That would be linear (if you count percents instead of raw people).

[struggle4progress]

74. Public health policy can only be made on the basis of available information. Feel free

to post links to any more comprehensive surveys, that you find. Global epidemiological data, of course, does indeed show a different distribution of transmissions -- but that can only be relevant for US policy when discussing blood donor issues in the context of blood traded internationally

[donco6]

114. I could post Paul Cameron's work. It would be just about as accurate. n/t

[struggle4progress]

129. My link was the CDC. Again: do feel free to provide information you consider more accurate.

I provided another link ( http://www.avert.org/usa-race-age.htm ) above, which indicates that 75% of known (M and F) HIV infections in the US are believed to result from MSM and/or intravenous drug use (IDU): this suggests that HIV contamination of blood could be reduced by a factor of four simply by eliminating those two groups as donors -- and since no HIV test is perfect, one might still expect a similar four-fold reduction in HIV contamination of HIV-tested blood by eliminating those two groups as donors

I also provided above a link ( http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/STD_HIV_AIDS_Chicago_July09.pdf ) to Chicago's survey last summer, which estimated 17+% HIV status for MSM (half of the individuals being unaware of their HIV status), compared to an overall rate in Chicago of 1.2%. If one adopts (say) 5-6% as the rate of MSM (see: http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/bib-homoprev.html), this would suggest 75-87% of Chicago male HIV infection is associated with MSM, which is roughly consistent with the 70% estimate one obtains with national data from the avert link above. You are free, of course, to argue that the Chicago survey somehow completely failed to sample a large uninfected MSM subpopulation and that in Chicago MSM really occurs at a much higher rate (say 10%) -- so that the true HIV prevalence among Chicago MSM was actually smaller (say 12%) -- but some evidence would naturally be required that such argument had merit

One obtains similar estimates simply on the basis of new infections: the CDC ( http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/Fact-Sheet-on-HIV-Estimates.pdf ) estimated that 70% of all new US HIV infections in 2006 were among MSM and/or IDU. Crudely assuming that the epidemic has stabilized (which is, of course, not an entirely accurate assumption), leads to the immediate conclusion that about 70% of the epidemic will be localized in the MSM and/or IDU population -- which is what the data shows

If you want a more sophisticated analysis, you can use the 2007 HIV statistics by age table at the advert link combined with the US census 2006-2008 age and sex table data (from: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFPeople?_submenuId=people_2&_sse=on). This will enable you to estimate the annual risk (for M and F combined) by age group. The ages 15-49 are the high risk ages, so concentrate on them. From the avert tables, we expect 50% of hiv to be associated with MSM (with or without IDU); from Kinsey, take (say) 6% of the population MSM; adjust the age-risks accordingly; set up a spreadsheet and follow a cohort from age 5 to age 49: at the end, 13% of the population has been infected, not much different from the Chicago study's 17%. The assumptions about converting combined M and F risks to MSM risks only are a bit sloppy, so one should not take the numbers too seriously; in particular, it's only off by a factor of two from the five city 25% estimate

Public health policy should be determined by one's best honest assessment of the facts -- which will always be imperfect. In reality, of course, it is also influenced by other factors -- but for this blood bank donor policy question, one ought to have a robust understanding supported by multiple models and multiple data sets

I had no idea who "Paul Cameron" was, until reading your post, but on investigating I find he's irrelevant to this discussion: his professional society expelled him over 25 years ago, and nobody except lunatics will take him seriously

[struggle4progress]

131. My link was the CDC. Again: do feel free to provide information you consider more accurate.

I provided another link ( http://www.avert.org/usa-race-age.htm ) above, which indicates that 75% of known (M and F) HIV infections in the US are believed to result from MSM and/or intravenous drug use (IDU): this suggests that HIV contamination of blood could be reduced by a factor of four simply by eliminating those two groups as donors -- and since no HIV test is perfect, one might still expect a similar four-fold reduction in HIV contamination of HIV-tested blood by eliminating those two groups as donors

I also provided above a link ( http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/STD_HIV_AIDS_Chicago_July09.pdf ) to Chicago's survey last summer, which estimated 17+% HIV status for MSM (half of the individuals being unaware of their HIV status), compared to an overall rate in Chicago of 1.2%. If one adopts (say) 5-6% as the rate of MSM (see: http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/bib-homoprev.html), this would suggest 75-87% of Chicago male HIV infection is associated with MSM, which is roughly consistent with the 70% estimate one obtains with national data from the avert link above. You are free, of course, to argue that the Chicago survey somehow completely failed to sample a large uninfected MSM subpopulation and that in Chicago MSM really occurs at a much higher rate (say 10%) -- so that the true HIV prevalence among Chicago MSM was actually smaller (say 12%) -- but some evidence would naturally be required that such argument had merit

One obtains similar estimates simply on the basis of new infections: the CDC ( http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/Fact-Sheet-on-HIV-Estimates.pdf ) estimated that 70% of all new US HIV infections in 2006 were among MSM and/or IDU. Crudely assuming that the epidemic has stabilized (which is, of course, not an entirely accurate assumption), leads to the immediate conclusion that about 70% of the epidemic will be localized in the MSM and/or IDU population -- which is what the data shows

If you want a more sophisticated analysis, you can use the 2007 HIV statistics by age table at the advert link combined with the US census 2006-2008 age and sex table data (from: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFPeople?_submenuId=people_2&_sse=on). This will enable you to estimate the annual risk (for M and F combined) by age group. The ages 15-49 are the high risk ages, so concentrate on them. From the avert tables, we expect 50% of hiv to be associated with MSM (with or without IDU); from Kinsey, take (say) 6% of the population MSM; adjust the age-risks accordingly; set up a spreadsheet and follow a cohort from age 5 to age 49: at the end, 13% of the population has been infected, not much different from the Chicago study's 17%. The assumptions about converting combined M and F risks to MSM risks only are a bit sloppy, so one should not take the numbers too seriously; in particular, it's only off by a factor of two from the five city 25% estimate

Public health policy should be determined by one's best honest assessment of the facts -- which will always be imperfect. In reality, of course, it is also influenced by other factors -- but for this blood bank donor policy question, one ought to have a robust understanding supported by multiple models and multiple data sets

I had no idea who "Paul Cameron" was, until reading your post, but on investigating I find he's irrelevant to this discussion: his professional society expelled him over 25 years ago, and nobody except lunatics will take him seriously

[Name removed]

27. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

61. wow, these days you don't even bother to try. i get a little grossed out to think i ever thought of

you as a friend. :puke:

if we were really banning HIV because of prevalence to the community affected as opposed to the individual we should only ban MSM of color. which would be gross. as is our current policy.

[HamdenRice]

68. Sadly, no.

The rates are very high across all MSM demographics. See CDC chart above.

[readmoreoften]

77. Wow, where'd you get your made up, nonsense numbers.

Stop trolling the Focus on the Family website. We don't even know the NUMBER of gay men--it's not like there's a census. You can't compare the numbers of gay men with the numbers of black women. They're not comparable categories. Are "all men who have sex with men" comparable to "all men who get HIV tested"? What is your source for "all men who have sex with men"?

More anti-gay propaganda from Hamden Rice. Whouda thunk it!

[Starry Messenger]

82. +1

And wow, he gets whole threads demonizing large swaths of DU (and humanity) and we try to call out his garbage in a subthread and get deleted. :(

[Bluebear]

83. Quelle surprise.

[Starry Messenger]

86. "There's no homophobia on DU"

:crazy:

[HamdenRice]

89. How is saying people are suffering from a disease demonizing them?

There is nothing "demonic" about being HIV+.

[Starry Messenger]

91. Just can't help yourself, can you?

Amazing how many people you manage to offend, but you still think you are the aggrieved party. Well, good luck with that.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Starry Messenger]

95. Big talk from a Shirley Maclaine fan.

Have a terrible evening. :)

[HamdenRice]

90. CDC = Focus on the Family?

This is getting more bizarre by the hour.

[seabeyond]

17. i heard about it a year ago. surprised. couldnt believe it. had to get confirmation

way past time

[Shell Beau]

18. I had no idea there was such a restriction. How bogus is that restriction?

The blood is thoroughly screened, and they need all the blood they can get. If someone is willing to give their blood, take it. Period. Who cares where the blood came from? As long as it is human and safe, take it. Not to mention the whole stigma that bullshit creates. Good God, I guess I thought we were a little more advanced than that. Shoulda known better.

[timeforpeace]

20. Stupid. How the hell they gonna know you're gay?

[Skittles]

35. they ask you

[Unvanguard]

37. They ask about sexual intercourse with other men. n/t

[Thickasabrick]

21. Wow...just wow - I had no idea there was a ban. nt

[tmyers09]

22. I am stunned that this policy even exists.

I had never heard this before, this is absurd! They have to put you through so many other screenings already, surely they could easily figure out any problems? Newsflash: STRAIGHT PEOPLE GET HIV TOO. Just another example of pointless discrimination.

[libnnc]

24. They'll never get a drop nor a dime from this lesbian until they do. n/t

[dsc]

25. If you are referring to the red cross they are not to blame

for the past several years they have begged for the policy to be changed to no avail. Your government is to blame here.

[libnnc]

26. My partner tried giving blood about ten years ago

had to fill out a form that included a question about "homosexual sex". She gave the form back to them and walked out.

I'm fed up with crap like that.

[dsc]

28. I agree but the blame now rests squarely on the government

for those forms. The FDA requires the questions in order to certify the blood.

[libnnc]

30. And until those forms are changed, I shall not give blood. n/t

[dsc]

31. I agree with that

[dsc]

36. I just realized she actually can give as can you

so thank you for your support here. You actually aren't being discriminated against but are still standing up, thanks. Sorry I missed the word lesbian the first time reading.

[Statistical]

29. I was clueless had no idea there was a ban of "gay blood".

Is rate of AIDS statistically higher (high enough to warrant ban) among gay men. I guess I just assummed that a long time ago AIDS became an equal opportunity killer.

[Lyric]

32. Even if it was, they test all blood now regardless of where it came from.

With the technological advances in testing (and double-testing), there's no functional need for a ban, especially when you consider how desperately in-need we are of donated blood. The benefits of a ban do not even come close to outweighing the negative consequences of it. And of course, it's bigoted and worse, perpetuates bigotry by giving it "official" government sanction.

[liberal_at_heart]

33. It is definitely time to end this ban

[Retired AF Dem]

34. I'm not gay

but I'm banned from giving blood since I was stationed in Europe. Strange world.

[dsc]

39. I don't think you are permanently banned

unless you got blood in England or somewhere else with mad cow. Incidently that ban actually makes sence as there is no test for mad cow as of yet.

[MH1]

66. Yes, we are

I just posted about this, I am in the same situation.

It isn't about having received blood, it is about being in the country and presumably having consumed beef while there.

It will be permanent until a test for mad cow is available, and there isn't one on the horizon as far as I know.

The countries include UK, Germany, and a few others. The time period is the 80's plus or minus a few years. Anyone stationed in those countries during those times probably meets the criteria for being excluded from giving blood.

[MilesColtrane]

49. Fear of the Mad Cow?

I thought they had a way to test for malformed prions in blood.

[Orrex]

40. It depends. Are they still corrupting the sanctity of heterosexual marriage?

I just can't keep up with their fiendish agenda.

[dysfunctional press]

46. i don't see it happening until they develop a reliable way to test blood for cooties...

:sarcasm:

[mamaleah]

51. Why do they need a ban at all?

I thought the Red Cross tests donations anyway.

[Locut0s]

58. Scientifically there is no reason to deny them any more.

All blood is screened for HIV and many other STDs and it's extremely effective.

[JonLP24]

60. I'll also add they need to lift the travel ban based on HIV status

If the policy hasn't changed since Obama's taken office then that means the US is the only industrialized nation with this sort of ban.

[dsc]

63. it finally changed a few weeks ago

despite congress lifting the ban during the Bush administration.

[KG]

62. yes.

america - leading the world in ignorance since the reagan admin.

[muriel_volestrangler]

69. The OP article is about the UK (nt)

[panzerfaust]

64. Should previously pregnant women be banned from giving blood?

TRALI - transfusion related acute lung injury - now kills more transfusion recipients in the first world than AIDS, Hep-C, or Hep-B.

There is a growing consensus that TRALI is an immune mediated condition caused by preformed HLA & HNA antibodies which normally appear as the result of pregnancy.

I suspect that women make up more than half of those who donate blood.

Beyond the question of donation, how long should donated blood be stored? In the US it is 42 days, in Japan it is (I have been told) only 14 days before it is considered unfit for use (growing evidence that this is correct).

Given the financial interests involved, my prediction for how these questions will be answered in the next decade are: Homosexual donations (Yes); Previously pregnant women being barred (No); Length of storage (28 days) - whilst I think that the science would support: Yes, Yes, 10-14 days.

[MH1]

65. if a relatively inexpensive test can determine if the blood carries HIV, then yes

otherwise no.

I am "banned" from giving blood, not because of being gay, but because I was in the military and spent too much time in certain countries during a certain period of time, that puts me (in the judgment of those responsible for figuring these things out) at some risk of carrying mad cow disease. The irony is that I was experimenting with vegetarianism at the time and avoiding eating meat. Since a couple years before that time I mostly didn't eat beef at all. I would say in the last twenty years (including the time in question) I've eaten less beef than the average person eats in a week. I.e. I can't swear never, but it's been damn little. So to be banned for possible vCJD is kind of silly in my case, I think.

But that's how things work. It's about risk factors and protecting the blood supply.

If you can ensure that the transfusion someone gets after their car accident doesn't infect them with HIV, and testing for it doesn't significantly drive up the cost of that transfusion, then by all means let anyone donate despite their risk of HIV status.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

70. all blood is tested for HIV

[MH1]

71. if it's a high reliability test then the ban should be lifted

[aikoaiko]

72. This policy is relic from the hyperfear culture of the 1980s regaring HIV

All blood is tested regardless of donor sexual orientation, drug use, chimpanzee meat eating proclivities, etc.

[itsrobert]

76. I can't give blood because I lived in England a few years

during the Mad Cow scare.

[KitSileya]

84. One of the conservative parties in Norway

just suggested we follow Sweden's example and stop banning men who've had gay sex from donating blood. They feel that as long as they have to follow the guidelines of people who only have straight sex (no new partners within the last year) they should be allowed to donate. I agree with them.

[recoveringrepublican]

94. I've never understood this everytime I give blood. I have always been under the

impression that they test for HIV regardless. At least I would hope so, since I would think (probably stupidily) that the hetero population would be less likely to think they have HIV, yet I know how risky many of us straits are with our sex lives.

[scrinmaster]

107. I'm ineligible, I spent more than 3 months in England between my birth and 1996.

[Renew Deal]

120. I think the limit is now 5 years.

http://www.redcross.org/en/eligibility#vcjd2

[scrinmaster]

122. Nah, it's five years for the rest of Europe. Just three months for England/UK.

From January 1, 1980, through December 31, 1996, you spent (visited or lived) a cumulative time of 3 months or more, in the United Kingdom (UK), or

[RoadRage]

117. Don't they test every drop that is donated anyway??

I guess I don't understand this policy. Yes, gay men are more likely to have HIV - but obviously if you know you have HIV you're not going to donate blood. If you show up, you can lie and say you're straight and it doesn't matter.. they're still going to test the blood for HIV anyway.

So why ban anyone? Why not let anyone give blood, and just continue to test every drop before it's given to anyone else?

Confused!

[scrinmaster]

123. I think they mix up a bunch of donations, then test it.

That way they have to run fewer tests, as opposed to testing every single sample.

[beyond cynical]

118. I don't know enough about the issue to comment.

But the medical community typically errs on the side of caution.

[Renew Deal]

119. I gave blood last week.

They ask a load of unambiguous questions about men having sex with men, using illegal drugs, tattoos, sharing needles, and some other stuff. The HIV eligibility questions are below. They want to screen out any men that have had sex with men since 1977, and any women that may have had sex with men that did that. It's not just targeted at men, but women that have been with those men too. Also, men that had sex with men prior to 1977 are eligible. This is obviously about risk minimization. I'd be interested in the true numbers that fit these categories that are susceptible to AIDS. They probably run this stuff through a benefit-loss calculation. If the risk is high enough it becomes detrimental to the organization to deal with.

I've always wondered why women who have had sex with men haven't been screened out.

My feeling is that they should allow people to donate if they believe they are uninfected. They do allow everyone to donate if it's going to cause the individual embarrassment if they don't donate. They offer you two bar code stickers to put on the form. One means "donate my blood" and the other is "do not use my blood." This is done just in case someone is pressured into doing it.

http://www.redcross.org/en/eligibility#hiv

HIV, AIDS
You should not give blood if you have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test, or if you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV.
You are at risk for getting infected if you:

have ever used needles to take drugs, steroids, or anything not prescribed by your doctor
are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977
have ever taken money, drugs or other payment for sex since 1977
have had sexual contact in the past 12 months with anyone described above
received clotting factor concentrates for a bleeding disorder such as hemophilia
were born in, or lived in, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea,Gabon, Niger, or Nigeria, since 1977.
since 1977, received a blood transfusion or medical treatment with a blood product in any of these countries, or
had sex with anyone who, since 1977, was born in or lived in any of these countries.

[RoadRage]

124. Well, thankfully all of my homosexual acts took place in 1976 or before...

Kidding. I am female, and was born in 77 actually.. but curious as to why the year "1977" is the barometer year?? Why not say "ever" if they're so worried about this?

[Renew Deal]

127. I'm pretty sure it has something to do with AIDS

and when it became prevalent.

[RoadRage]

134. I figured...

for some reason I thought Aids hit in the early to mid 80's.. but I suppose they probably want to go back a few years before that. I'm 32.. I guess I didn't realize that this disease has really been around all of my lifetime.

[mcablue]

132. Yes

Doctors should just test the blood for hiv like they do with everyone else. I don't see the point of banning gay men.