The CDC is wrong....would you want my blood?

One of which is the gay & lesbian rights association, and a few
others

Well they put out an AD that says AIDS is a gay disease!!!!!

Now why did we have to go back 30years????? AIDS is a disease not a
Gay one!!! Yes as I read below a few times I know anal sex is the most
risky.

How many women out their have had anal sex with their BF, Husband,
anyone.....I'm just still disgusted by the situation....and for the
counsolor that informed me I wasn't allowed to give blood again, well
she still works their and there was no punishment.

I couldn't agree more. AIDS is a disease of exposure. You can't get
it if you're not exposed, and you can't give it if you're not HIV
poistive - so the question should be: do you regularly have
unprotected sex.
People who have unprotected sex are dangerous to all... gay and
straight. Sometimes both. And to the blood supply.

CDC is wrong!!

Personally, I don't think you should misconstrue the
CDC's regulations on donating blood as an affront on the life-style
gay people. Although we know that HIV/AIDS is not a "gay man's"
disease, as such, a large percentage of individuals who contracted the
disease during its earlier phase, were people who came from the gay
community. I agree that the Red Cross should not presume that someone
is HIV positive simply because he is gay. That would be
discrimination. Furthermore, if you or a family member needed a blood
transfusion, and tested HIV negative, would you object to the CDC
screening intravenous users or women prostitutes for HIV status? In
your opinion, would that constitute discrimination against a
life-style choice?

but I read a lot of responses tonight. Maybe too many because now my
head is swimming with all these what-ifs.

When they decide that a certain person is not eligible to donate, do
they do that so they don't have to test the blood or so they have less
blood to test. Because I'm (in my paranoid state) thinking, what if
you lie on your "exam" and you did get blood transfusions from Africa
since 1977 and then you went over to England and got some transfusions
after 1980 and then you got tattoos and dental work, acupuncture with
possibly unsterile needles and maybe one of the people you hooked up
with had a "gay/lesbian" encounter while they were in college....what
then?

OR what if you are a serial killer and have AIDS and you say you are
very healthy but secretly want to spread your disease to as many
people as possilbe?

If they just don't want those people to donate to have less blood to
test, well, then I guess i understand their logic behind the decision,
BUT if they can't test for all the illnesses or just randomly test,
and are counting on the donors to alert them to possible problems,
well, then there needs to be some serious reform!

Does anyone know how the whole testing process is done?

The CDC's form is horribly out of date. Sexual diseases are spread
most commonly by unprotected sex, regardless of the gay/straight
issue. The myth that homosexual sex is the most common way of getting
it is apparently still clung to by many people, and the CDC of all
groups should be wary of their role in the spread of sketchy
information.

I believe current data shows that the disease is most commonly spread
through heterosexual contact. Why the old link to gay males? Probably
because there was no need to use condoms to prevent unwanted
pregnancies.

Vancouver-WA
September 27, 2006


I share your angry feelings and I too felt truly hurt and rejected as
a person. The risk of HIV infection is understated in most cases and
certainly I as a gay man could have HIV and not know it. That being
said, so could many straight people and bisexual/curious people. That
being a fact we all know, the ideal situation would simply be to
screen the blood samples. Period.

Don't insult me by saying my 'lifestyle' or 'sexual preference' are of
any concern of the CDC. The job of the CDC is to collect blood and be
sure it is safe for usage for anyone in need of that blood. (Again,
period!) Part of the process of making sure it is usable is testing.
Test it and stop insulting the public who is coming to you as a gift.
I was not paid for prior times giving blood, I always turned it down.
I did it out of a loyalty to my fellow man.

I am a safe sex participant, I deserve better treatment. You deserve
to have to change your policy. It is we the gay people of the US who
have been wronged by your rules. Simply correct it and we'll all get
along better and the people in need of blood will receive the benefit
of healthy blood.

Thank you for reading
Phil V.
Age 36

The way you were treated is wrong - no one should have said that to
you.

However, I wouldn't want your blood. There is always a chance, but a
higher chance from a gay male donor, of getting tainted blood.

I wish you nothing but good health and happiness.

Actually, you need to educate yourself a bit more on the subject of
HIV/ AIDS. It is a known fact that certain types of sexual activity,
by nature, are far more likely to allow the transmission of viruses
such as HIV.

I applaud you for never having unprotected sex. It seems that so many
nowadays don't. However, I have a beautiful 6 year old son who is the
result of a night of protected sex with my husband. We were trying to
wait before having children. No method is 100% effective in the
prevention of pregnancy OR virus transmission.

It is an unfortunate fact that one of the particular sex acts
extremely common in gay men carries with it a HUGE increase in risk.
This is why the CDC and blood donation centers have that guideline. By
lying about your sexual history, you have potentially placed blood
recipients at risk, and that is not OK.

If it makes you feel any better, I can't donate blood either because I
lived in London for 3 years back in the 90s. (Mad cow disease is the
reason I am not allowed to donate) Oh, and I'm a vegetarian. But I
still can't donate. I enjoy helping people and was once a frequent
blood donor. I have just had to accept that I have to find a different
way to help people in need until there is a cure, vaccine, or whatever
else it takes for them to lift the restriction.

hmmm about 10 years ago, the Red Cross decided I tested postive for
Hep C and refused all future blood donationd from me.

Funny thing is, no less than three doctors have tested me for Hep C
since then, and all three say I have never enve been exposed, let
alone have the virus.

Needless to say, the Red CRoss has ZERO credibility with me.

OMG I am appalled! The American Red Cross blew this one. I hope they
fired that employee and made amends to you for that.

Did anyone read the newest news on the red cross??? They are being
sued 4.6 million by the govt for not asking enough questions, and not
testing the blood properly...

messed up huh?

There are a lot of replies below so I am not sure if this has already
been said but:

1) That employee should be fired. In addition to being bigoted and
factually wrong, he or she showed abysmal customer service. The
correct reply is not to get into the reasons for the ban but simply to
say, "I am sorry and I realize the law may seem extreme but it is the
law and we have to follow it."

2) Yes, they test the blood but false negatives are always possible.
Screening out high-risk donors is a necessary part of keeping the
blood supply safe. In our very wealthy country, we sometimes aim for
very high levels of safety. Some of the FAA safeguards probably look
absurdly overprotective but (setting aside intentional acts, which are
a different matter) flying is incredibly safe in the U.S. -- as is
getting a blood transfusion. Now, whether "high risk" screening
criteria added 20 years ago when AIDS epidemiology, detection, and
treatment were much different are still the best ones to use is a
legitimate question, especially since the list of questions is getting
a bit long these days with screening for CJD, West Nile Virus, etc.

You learn something new every day. Well, at least on Saturday, I did.

I went in for my blood donation. No problems, whatsoever, except for
the fact I have "deep veins". Deep lady, deep veins? Ha ha. My arm
is going to be black and blue for a while.

Prior to donation, I learned that in 2003 the Red Cross implemented a
new test to detect for HIV and Hep C. It's called Nucleic Acid
Testing, or simply NAT. I did some research over the weekend and it
turns out that this test detects viral genes, rather than viral
antibodies or antigens. This means they are able to detect infection
earlier since the donor does not have to develop an immune response
(which produces antigens or antibodies) to either virus.

According to the FDA, the average window to detect antigens and
antibodies for HIV and HIV-1 is 22 days, however with NAT, it's
reduced to 12 days. The window for detection of Hep C is reduced from
82 days to 25 days.

So I asked the donor coordinator who was there some questions along
the lines of djay's original post. According to her, with this new
testing, the American Red Cross has requested the CDC change some of
its questions to donors. She agreed with me that the current set of
questions has the unintended benefit of scaring off a number of
donors.

While I still understand why the CDC has promulgated the regulations
it has, with the advent of these newer tests, I am also seeing that
their policies and protocols are lagging behind the available
technology. If, indeed, a viral gene for HIV can be detected in 12
days, then maybe djay is right: maybe a lifelong ban on homosexuals
donating is not necessary....

Just some more things for me to think about!

university during the week before the football game, a good way she
thought to help someone as well as her school. Unfortunately, she had
just returned from Central American two months before where she had
gone on a church mission trip. They wouldn't let her donate because of
the area she stayed in and said she had to wait a year. I wondered at
the time if they wouldn't test the blood.

I know about San Bernardino, boy don't I know. There is a plasma
center located on La Cadena in Colton and I have wittnessed people go
outside and smoke drugs, right after the center pricked their finger
to test their iron, even though the center tells them not to go
outside. I am very sorry that you were treated so unfairly. No one has
the right to assume anything about anyone else. They should ask you if
you have unprotected sex; they make people who would be honest,
dishonest for fear of what might happen next. Being gay is not a crime
but it should be a crime to treat people like rejects.

Hi, as an RN, I guarantee you they run the sample through HIV/AIDS
testing prior to sending it off to hospitals or clinics. No matter
what your sexual preference is, ANYONE can get HIV/AIDS, it is not a
"gay" disease. I can't even give blood due to my low iron content due
to anemia. I do appreciate your concern though.

I'm amazed that there hasn't been much (if any) anti-gay sentiment
here. This is amazing, as I'm so used to people spewing their hatred
of gays at any chance they get.

This says something (positive IMHO) about PF users. We may be overly
negative (or so says Customer2006 and others), but we're very open
minded about homosexuality.

I knew there was a reason I liked it here!

I was upfront with them about my "condition," but that didn't dissuade
them, which surprised me. They were even impressed that I followed
through on the appointment! I won't repeat that mistake again.
Donating blood while hungover = a horrible, horrible day.

I have a friend who lived with a bi-sexual man for a year after which
they broke up. He was faithful to her during that time.

My friend had given blood since she was in her teens but was no longer
allowed to do so after being with this guy. One of the questions on
the form the blood bank had her fill out asked whether or not a
potential donor had been with a gay person. My friend answered "yes"
to this and was told she would never be allowed to give blood again
because of the possibility of her having gotten HIV from him.

Sort of guilt by association. She was more than willing to be tested
for HIV but the people at the blood bank told her it wouldn't make a
difference.

I guess they think they are being super careful but I think this was a
bit excessive.

That's so wrong. Maybe the test should just say "Have you ever engaged
in sexual activity? Non-virgins need not apply."
That is so backward-thinking that AIDS is just a gay disease. If they
are being extra cautious, then they should just ban everyone that has
ever had sex from giving blood.

I'm not allowed to give blood because I've had piercings in the past
year. Was the place I got my piercings reputable and sterile? Yeah.
Does that mean they should take my word for it? No.

There are certain procautions they have to take. If a mistake IS
made, the situation could result very poorly.

Personally I think it is irresponsible to lie on a form like that.
You aren't taking chances with your life, you could be taking chances
with another life. Not to mention wasting resources...

I didn't have time to read through all the posts, so please excuse me
if this has already been mentioned or asked.

I read the posts and didn't run into this statement. "I have been
tested for HIV within the past 6-months and am 100% aware of my
status, why am I not allowed to donate blood?".

Fact is, there are so many people out there straight, gay or whatever,
that just don't get tested. They think "I've been in a monogamous
relationship and don't need to". Well, everyone needs to, no matter
what your situation is. As mentioned before, no one is immune to the
disease, whether you're married or single or what. One never knows
until they're sitting in the chair getting blood drawn and having it
tested for HIV.

The CDC sounds like it's primative in it's efforts to cut down on
putting people at risk, they need to be open to other possible
scenarios not just "Gay men".

I also practice what I preach, I know my status, I truely think it's a
wonderful thing to know! Did any of this make sense? I keep having
to come back to it!

Its not just a matter of your sexual preference. I lived in England
for almost a year back in the late 80's... I have been told that due
to the Mad Cow thing I can not give blood.

It is because they already have to screen for so many things they try
to get as unadulterated blood as possible.

I am a universal donor and can not give blood... I think they need to
do something about the screening and or acceptance but I think about
the other side also.

How upset would you be if,because of a screener mistake, a child of
yours got Mad Cows Disease during a transfusion to save their life.
They are making guidelines to prevent spreading disease and for the
long run, with all of the bugs that are out there, I think they are
making the most prudent choice.

Im not good when im alive what if I fall and hit my head
tomorrow....would they take my organs?

http://www.123helpme.com/assets/17466.html

Mandatory AIDS Testing



AIDS has become a worldwide epidemic that has struck every
identifiable group.

However, persons who are considered to be in a high-risk group of
contracting

HIV, the disease believed to cause AIDS, are still stigmatized by the
media and

other professionals as being diseased and abnormal. It is quite
surprising

still that this type of stereotype still exists now in our
gender-bending

society. No longer do only gays, prostitutes, bisexual men,
intravenous drug

users contract HIV, the heterosexual community is also facing the
epidemic at

phenomenon increases. It is estimated that heterosexual transmission
accounts

for 75% of all AIDS cases in the world.(Video, CBC In Review) And
still

individuals persist that AIDS is a gay disease and that if one is not
gay, one

is immune from it. No one is immune to from AIDS. Until a vaccine
and cure is

discovered for AIDS, the numbers will increase and people will keep
dying.

Therefore it is of vital importance to educate people about AIDS and
to promote

safer sex. The key word now is prevention. Among many proposed
policies to

help prevent AIDS infection, one of the most controversial is
mandatory AIDS

testing. Mandatory AIDS testing is theoretically very effective,
however, when

it is applied, it is not practical at all because one is dealing with
human

nature, the odd nature of the virus itself, and also all of the
stigmas that are

attached to AIDS. Therefore, not only will mandatory AIDS testing not
prevent

HIV infection, it will indirectly increase HIV infection because of
the adverse

effect it will have on voluntary testers. One of the major flaws of
mandatory

AIDS testing is that "it provides people with a false sense of
security."(Greig,

p68) When one goes for AIDS testing or more accurately an HIV
antibody test

which is also know as the ELISA test (Kolodny, p42), one tests for the
presence

of HIV antibodies not for the virus itself. Our bodies manufacture
antibodies

to fight against foreign infections, therefore the presence of HIV
antibodies

indicates that the person is infected with HIV and is considered a
carrier and

may infect others. However, if the person is infected recently
enough, these

antibodies might not show up in the test because it can take the body
as long as

six months to develop these antibodies. This period of time is known
as the

window period. So a person whose test returns with a negative HIV
status may be

in fact a carrier and not know it because the antibodies have not
shown up yet.

Misguided, this individual believing to be HIV negative, may
participate in high

risk activities for contracting HIV and infect others as well.



Mandatory Aids testing also involves sub-policy known as contact
tracing or

partner notification. The intent of this policy is to have an
individual who is

HIV positive disclose his sexual history and all partners as well.
Then the

public health office will contact these partners and have them tested
and

educated. This policy fails to recognize that it is dealing with a
very

sensitive, and private issue and people might not want to disclose
their sexual

history. Also how will this information be verified? It will be of
no surprise

that certain individuals may lie and identify someone who they had no
sexual

contact with just to put that person through the hassle. Not only is
this

policy an infringement on privacy, it is not effective because there
is no cure

for AIDS. In the past, contact tracing was also implemented for
other

STD's(sexual transmitted diseases) such as syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes
simplex

where there is treatment for the diseases. (Greig, p71) For AIDS,
there is no

cure or vaccines, therefore, people living with AIDS(PWA) are not
treated but in

fact being re-educated again. With all the hassle and insecurity of
the

mandatory AIDS testing policy, people will become reluctant to test.
Also

because the results of the tests will be kept on file and the results
are

accessible by some selected individuals and groups, people will become
even more

hesitant to test voluntarily first let alone be mandatory. The
consequences of

public disclosure or even select disclosure are very damaging to a
person who

has just learned of his HIV positive status. Some of the negative
consequences

are alienation from community and family, loss of accommodation,
denial of

disability and life insurance, travel restrictions and also the
prospect of

"blackmailing". (IPC, HIV/AIDS, p17) The notion that mandatory AIDS
testing

and its implications deter people from voluntary testing is evident
from the

possible discrimination that one might face undergoing the procedures
of the

policy. As of today, there is no mandatory AIDS testing programs
being

implemented for persons of "high-risk groups". One cannot help but
feel the

society as a whole believes when one is dealing with an issue like
AIDS, which

is so sensitive and private, the rights and the comfort of the
individuals

stricken with this horrid disease should come first. As a result,
anonymous

testing has been made available to provide people with discretion and
protection

from discrimination. Although not many cities provide this sort of
services,

just the fact that it is available is a relief for those who suspect
that they

might be infected with HIV. This type of service encourages testing
and is the

right tool to help prevent HIV infection. Some of the question asked
may be

very difficult or even impossible to answer, but a strong debate can
be put up

for both sides. Can Aids testing control the spread of AIDS, for the

individuals who seem to believe that it can, many argument go in it's
favor. By

promoting HIV testing "it enables those who have tested positive to
seek early

treatment. By learning of their infection, people with HIV can avoid
unsafe

practices that could infect others."(Bender, p.114) By doing this it
will

prevent those who are infected from spreading the virus to those who
are not

accidentally. A lot of the time when this virus is being passed it is
done

unknowingly. If this system were to be in place, it would be the end
of people

passing the virus off unknowingly. Leaving us with the few that have
been found

knowingly passing the disease. There have be some cases where a
person who has

been tested and knows that they have the virus, but continues to
engage in an

unsafe sexual manner. Therefore passing the virus off to other
uninfected

people. How should we deal with these individuals? Should there be
a criminal

punishment? How can we protect ourselves from these individuals? With
this

system it may crack down on this problem, and the a criminal
punishment may

follow. When testing not everyone must be tested only those who are in
the

high-risk groups, consisting of homosexuals, IV drug users and those
who have

partners that are infected with the HIV virus. This testing would
inform people

of possible HIV infection and enables them to seek early treatment.
It also

does a very important job in telling the person if he/she if a carrier
of the

virus. With this information hopefully the spread will drop in
accidental cases

this meaning a smaller number of AIDS cases. This isn't it only
purpose it also

helps the blood donor clinics such as the Red Cross in determining who
has the

virus and who doesn't. It would mean there would be a safer system in
blood

donating overall. It ensures the public that everyone who is giving
blood is

HIV/AIDS free. It is possible for one bad unit of blood to
contaminate 10 000 -

30 000 other units of blood. That would be a huge catastrophe for the
Red Cross.

Lastly it gives individuals engaging in any sexual activities that
added piece

of mind that the person they are sleeping with does not have the AIDS
virus.



A case of a man who was infected with the HIV virus was found trying
to donate

blood at Red Cross located in Ottawa.(G&M, June 5/'95) Mr. Thornton
in the fall

of 1987 donated blood after being tested positive twice for HIV and
not

revealing that he was homosexual. A high risk group that the Red
Cross won't

except blood from. He had been warned not to donate blood, but did so
any ways

believing it would relieve his chances of developing AIDS if he got
rid of some

blood. One of his friend quoted him saying he wanted to see if he
could get

away with donating blood. Mr. Thornton thought his blood would be
screened out.

One has to remember the screening process isn't foolproof, in theory
it would

only catch 99.3 % of cases of infected blood. For this action, Mr.
Thornton was

found guilty in 1989 of committing a common nuisance endangering the
lives or

health of the public. He was sentenced to 15 months in jail. This
has been the

first case the top courts had to deal with involving the transmission
of AIDS.

Now a under existing laws, any one knowingly donating blood can be
prosecuted.



In another case this one being on the civil
aspect

involving a married father of two is suing the estate of his
homosexual lover,

saying the man failed to disclose that he was carrying the AIDS virus
until

shortly before dying.(Star, '94) This case is the first of its kind
in Canada,

and may end up setting the rights and duties of people in sexual
relationships

that involve AIDS. The man known as C.R. is seeking damages for
negligence,

negligent misrepresentation, assault and battery and breach of
fiduciary

obligation from the estate of a man known as J.T. He is suing for
$250 000 in

general damages and $ 75 000 in punitive and special damages. A good
point made

by the lawyer representing J.T. estate, " If you are going to have
unprotected

sex with a member of a high risk group you are partially negligent.
This case

shows that there are repercussion to ones actions you must be
extremely

selective of who you have sexual encounters with. It also looks more
towards

the civil side of AIDS and the law, the decision of the case was not
obtained.

It's safe to say that AIDS has changed our views on any sort of
sexual

activities we conduct ourselves in. Sexual conduct isn't the only
thing we must

worry about anymore because in a article in the Globe and Mail dating
back to

November, 11/'94. Those who donate blood must now face the fact that
if they

are HIV positive when donating, whether it be accidental or purposely
the ruling

was that the Red Cross would be able to give the names of the
individuals to the

public health office. "Donors implicated that having names released
amounted to

mandatory testing for acquired immune deficiency syndrome." (G&M,
Nov.11/'94).

In one last case in a recent newspaper ruled that some Red Cross
workers could

be charged with criminal negligence causing death if Justice Horace
Krever's

inquiry assigns them blame for their role in the tainted blood
tragedy.(Sun.,

Nov '96) There are a dozen medical directors and senior managers that
could be

charged. Under these jurisdictions, committing a common nuisance and
thereby

endangering the lives, safety or health of the public. Criminal
negligence in

doing something or failing to perform a duty and showing wanton or
reckless

disregard for the lives or safety of others persons. Criminal
negligence

causing death and criminal negligence causing bodily harm to another
person.

The judge stated that the Red Cross failed to adequately fund its
program in the

1980's; it didn't screen high-risk donors; it publicly understated
the risk of

blood borne AIDS virus and hepatitis C; it failed to buy safe, heat
treated

blood products as soon as they became available. Because of that
several

notices warning people he might cite them for misconduct.

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

Tremendous effect on men who have sex with men (MSM). MSM accounted
for 70% of all estimated HIV infections among male adults and
adolescents in 2004 (based on data from 35 areas with long-term,
confidential name-based HIV reporting*), even though only about 5% to
7% of male adults and adolescents in the United States identify
themselves as MSM [1,2]. The number of HIV diagnoses for MSM decreased
during the 1980s and 1990s, but recent surveillance data show an
increase in HIV diagnoses for this group [3, 4]. This increase points
to a continued need for culturally appropriate prevention and
education services.

"even though only about 5% to 7% of male adults and adolescents in the
United States identify themselves as MSM"

Ok so their saying their guessing that the rest of the men are
gay?????

Ok people 35 areas?????
A total of 35 areasthe US Virgin Islands, Guam, and 33 states
(Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, New Mexico, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.


Im sorry but you cant judge your opinion on 35 States. Im wondering
why they don't have Illinois or California on their....they have
highest population of gay men, and would help Identify a more correct
number

Heres some other Info

http://www.youandaids.org/HIVAIDS%20Language/Guide.asp

"Feminization' of the pandemic: Now often used by UNAIDS and others to
indicate that the number of women infected has equalled, or surpassed,
the figure for men."

The language we use to conceptualise and talk about HIV/AIDS reflects
our personal biases and understanding or lack of understanding. It
also helps shape our own and others' attitudes about HIV/AIDS.
Appropriate language is constructive, does not fuel stereotypes and
does not cause prejudice. Language has a strong influence on attitudes
toward HIV/AIDS and people infected and affected by HIV/AIDS.

UNAIDS old usages and current preferred usages

OLD
PREFERRED

Commercial sex work Sex work
Developing countries Low- or middle-income countries
Direct sex workers Brothel-based sex workers
Fight against AIDS Response to AIDS
High(er) risk groups Key populations at higher risk
HIV/AIDS HIV and AIDS
HIV/AIDS HIV disease or AIDS
HIV/AIDS epidemic AIDS epidemic
HIV/AIDS prevalence HIV prevalence
HIV/AIDS prevention HIV prevention
HIV/AIDS testing HIV testing
Indirect sex workers Non-brothel-based sex workers
Intravenous drug user Injecting drug user
Most vulnerable to infection Most likely to be exposed to HIV
People living with HIV/AIDS People living with HIV and AIDS
Prevalence rates Prevalence
Risky sex Unprotected sex
Sharing (needles, syringes, etc.) Using contaminated injecting
equipment (if referring to HIV transmission) Using non-sterile
injecting equipment (talking about risk of exposure to HIV)
Vulnerable groups Most likely to be exposed to HIV


Usage of common terminology and acronyms

AIDS is what people die of; HIV is what they are infected with

Contaminated and unclean: drug injecting equipment was 'contaminated'
if it caused infection, 'unclean' if it did not cause infection.

'Feminization' of the pandemic: Now often used by UNAIDS and others to
indicate that the number of women infected has equalled, or surpassed,
the figure for men.

'Fight' and other combatant language: e.g., struggle, battle,
campaign, waravoid using such words, unless in a direct quotation or
the context of the text (possibly a poster or very short publication
designed to have high-impact) makes it appropriate. Alternatives
include: response, measures against, initiative, action, and
programme.

Gay men: use men who have sex with men unless individuals or groups
specifically self-identify as gay. The broader community of men and
women and transsexuals should be described as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual
and Transgenderedthe acronym LGBT: is often used of groups, but UNAIDS
general preference is to spell out all terms in full.

PLHIV: spell out in full 'people living with HIV'

Risk: Avoid using 'persons' or 'groups at risk'. Behaviours, not
memberships, expose individuals to the possibility of infection.

Safe sex: always use safer sex

ABC: Prevention strategies, abstain from penetrative sexual
intercourse (also used to indicate delay of sexual debut); be faithful
(reduce the number of partners or have sexual relations with only one
partner); condomise (use condoms consistently and correctly).

AIDS carrier: This term refers to any person living with HIV. However,
it is stigmatizing and offensive to many people living with the virus.
It is also incorrect, since the effective agent is HIV.

AIDS virus: Since AIDS is a syndrome, it is incorrect to refer to it
as the 'AIDS virus' HIV (the human immunodeficiency virus) is what
ultimately causes AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome).

Describing AIDS: AIDS is often referred to as a 'deadly, incurable
disease', but this creates a lot of fear and only serves to increase
stigma and discrimination. It has also been referred to as a
'manageable, chronic illness, much like hypertension or diabetes', but
this may lead people to believe that it is not as serious as they
thought. It is preferable to use the following description: AIDS, the
acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, is a fatal disease caused by HIV,
the human immunodeficiency virus. HIV destroys the body's ability to
fight off infection and disease, which can ultimately lead to death.
Currently, medication can slow down replication of the virus, but it
does not cure AIDS.

Epidemic: A disease that spreads rapidly through a demographic segment
of the human population, such as everyone in a given geographic area;
a military base, or similar population unit; or everyone of a certain
age or sex, such as the children or women of a region. Epidemic
diseases can be spread from person to person or from a contaminated
source such as food or water.

Theirs some intresting readinga here too...repot done in 1999
inlondon...its a little old but some intresting Info

http://www.undp.org/hiv/publications/gender/mene.htm

Ok Ill stop now, when I fend other stuff ill post.......

http://www.bethegeneration.com/


Cant give blood, So why not help with the problem!

Why can't they just do a test then? straight people and gay people are
both able to have/get/pass on aids, and some people don't even know
they have it, so why doesn't the CDC just make people get tested
before giving blood? That's stupid of them, they should just assume
things like that.

The answer is ...NO! But, don't feel discriminated against, I
honestly don't want ANYONE else's blood but my own.

I disagree that a person should be discriminated against because of
sexual preference. There was some document...oh what was the name of
it...it said "All men are created equal"...yes, I'm being facetious!!

Being gay doesn't mean you automatically have HIV/AIDS. Any person
who is sexually active is at risk of the disease...among several
others. As well, the CDC accepts blood from African-American
women...check your statistics on the most potentially infected
group... Do they say, "Sorry you're a black woman, we can't take your
blood." And, if we're going back to the 70's..."sex, drugs, and rock
and roll baby!!"....everyone was doing it...

I know several homosexual individuals and straight individuals. In my
circle, the homosexual individuals are more likely to pay attention to
the prevention of such a disease. How many straight people actually
ask for their partner's medical recorrds over the past 10 years, or
even the latest HIV test results???

Straight people are more likely to pick up a partner in a bar, under
the influence of alcohol, and wake up the next morning wondering who
they're waking up beside....or fell asleep with....or...did they
actually use protection???

I'm not convinced that every person donating blood is 100% honest when
they fill out that form. Taking someone else's blood is a risk at any
level...

Test all the blood that comes in, instead of denying individuals based
on lifestyle. Not all blood received is from "donors". Far too many
people receive pay for their blood...and they probably need that money
for things besides drugs, but hey...they're getting paid for their
blood!!!, so go ahead society, automatically assume that it's drugs
they're going to buy instead of food for their homes, and let's test
them stringently before taking their blood. Yes, I'm being facetious
again...

My point is, does it really matter who the donor is? Isn't the most
important aspect the collection of safe blood. Put the onus back on
the CDC to develop testing procedures for every drop they receive.
That's the ONLY way you can be sure that the blood you may have to
receive one day is not potentially harmful in one way or another.

But hey, what do I know...

I pulled the following from FAQ at the site below.
As a long time donor I see these questions as Job #1 in their attempt
to assure a clean blood supply. If anyone or group feels descrimanated
against that is an unfortunate result of this effort.

http://www.fda.gov/Cber/faq/bldfaq.htm


As a gay male, why am I deferred as a potential blood donor simply
because of my sexual orientation? Furthermore, I am in a monogamous
relationship. I am being discriminated against. Will this
recommendation be removed any time soon?

In 1983, FDA recommended donor-screening procedures to exclude
individuals at increased risk for transmitting Human Immunodeficiency
Virus (HIV), the virus that causes Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
(AIDS). These recommendations have been updated periodically since
then. The exclusion of potential donors based on certain sexual
histories has been discussed often, and in-depth, by FDA's Blood
Products Advisory Committee (BPAC). This panel of non-FDA independent
experts continues to recommend the deferral of men who have sex with
other men and their recent partners. This issue was discussed at the
December 11-12, 1997, BPAC meeting. The committee voted to reconsider
the current recommendations for deferral of men who have had sex with
other men. However, at that time the committee did not specify what
the specific recommendations should be. Data on the incidence and
prevalence of HIV and other viruses in men who have had sex with other
men and data on HIV positive blood donors were presented at the
November 23, 1998, FDA Workshop on Blood Donor Suitability. A
transcript from this workshop can be obtained from CBER's web site at:


www.fda.gov/cber/minutes/bld112398trans.pdf

The BPAC met on September 14-15, 2000 to revisit this issue. After
much discussion, the BPAC recommended that men who had sex with other
men since 1977 continue to be deferred from donating blood. A copy of
the meeting transcript is available at:

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/cber00.htm#Blood Prducts

A test for the antibodies to HIV (previously termed HTLV-III) was
licensed by FDA in 1985 and has been used to screen blood donors since
that time. Studies have shown that up to 2 months may elapse between
the time of infection and the time the HIV antibody test is reactive.
This period of time is often referred to as the "window period."
Accepting men who have had sex with other men since 1977 as blood
donors increases the likelihood for the collection of HIV-positive
window period blood, because epidemiologic studies have documented
higher incidence and prevalence rates in these populations. On March
14, 1996, FDA recommended donor screening with a licensed test for
HIV-1 antigen, which has succeeded in further reducing the window
period. In addition, almost all blood collections in the U.S. are
tested for HIV RNA using investigational/experimental tests under the
IND regulation. This probably decreases window period risks.

FDA continues to recommend that blood donors be informed of behaviors
that potentially place them at increased risk for transmitting HIV. In
addition, donors are informed that there is a time interval early in
infection during which any test for HIV may be negative and an
infection may still be transmitted. Providing donors with this
information allows them to consider their behaviors and self-exclude
from donation if they participated in any of the identified risk
behaviors. Note that donors do not have to specify the basis for their
decision to self-defer.

In an April 23, 1992, memorandum to all blood establishments entitled,
"Revised Recommendations for the Prevention of Human Immunodeficiency
(HIV) Transmission by Blood and Blood Products," FDA outlined updated
policies for deferral of donors based on HIV-associated signs and
symptoms, medical history, laboratory test results, and certain
activities that place the donor at increased risk for HIV infection.
Taken together, these control measures had been effective in reducing
the risk of transfusion transmission of HIV to about 1 unit per
million donations. However, since 2002, the routine use of nucleic
acid testing (NAT) for HIV has even further reduced the risk of
transfusion transmission of HIV to about 1 unit per 2 million
donations. A copy of this memorandum can be obtained from CBER's web
site at:

http://www.fda.gov/cber/bldmem/hiv042392.pdf

or by contacting CBER's Office of Communication, Training and
Manufacturers Assistance at 301-827-1800.

In the above-mentioned memorandum, certain categories of high-risk
behaviors are specifically mentioned, without further elaboration, as
a basis for deferral: "men who have had sex with another man even one
time since 1977," "men and women who have engaged in sex for money or
for drugs since 1977," and "persons who have had sex with any person
meeting (these) descriptions during the preceding 12 months," are all
examples of such categories. Because there is a potential danger to
blood safety in making the criteria for exclusion too specific,
activities encompassed by each general area of exclusion have not been
described. The April 23, 1992, memorandum also addresses a variety of
high risk behaviors and medical conditions that are unrelated to
sexual preference, including past or present drug use, hemophilia or
other blood clotting disorders, being treated for syphilis or
gonorrhea or receiving a transfusion, as well as asking whether a
person has had a positive test for antibodies to HIV.

Although a potential individual donor may practice safe sex, persons
who have participated in high-risk behaviors are, as a group, still
considered to be at increased risk of transmitting HIV. Safe sex
practices reduce, but do not eliminate, the risk of the transmission
of AIDS. Several Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
studies have shown that many people who believe they are engaging in
safe sex practices are not doing so, either because of poor technique
(i.e., condom is incorrectly used) or lack of consistency (i.e.,
proper safe sex practices are not used at every sexual encounter). The
August 6, 1993, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) will
provide you with further information on this subject.

FDA believes that there is scientific justification for screening out
all potential donors who are men who have had sex, even once, with
another man since 1977, and for screening out the recent (within 12
months) sexual partners of such men. Since 1983, CDC and, the
previously mentioned, BPAC have been advising FDA on high-risk
categories as a basis for deferral of potential blood donors. Studies
have shown that men with a history of male to male sex since 1977 may
be infected with HIV and/or may have evidence of a lifestyle that
potentially exposes them to HIV. In a recent "HIV/AIDS Surveillance
Report" CDC's states that men who have sex with men account for the
largest proportion (38%) of new AIDS cases reported in the United
States from 1996-1997. Intravenous drug users (23%) are the second
highest proportions of reported cases. Studies also show that men with
a history of male to male sex since 1977 are also at increased risk of
transmitting hepatitis viruses. For further information on CDC studies
you may wish to contact:

Center for Disease Control and Prevention
Mailstop D-21
1600 Clifton Road
Atlanta, GA 30333
http://www.cdc.gov/

FDA donor exclusion criteria are intended to utilize all prudent
measures, which may reduce the potential risk for transmitting HIV and
other infectious diseases. FDA's conservative approach, originates
from several published sources and public discussions. This approach,
consistent with external advice, has the potential to decrease
transmission of HIV virus from entering the blood supply. FDA is very
much aware that strict exclusion policies eliminate some safe donors
in the attempt to maximally protect the nation's blood supply by
deferring the largest number of donors at increased risk for HIV
infection. FDA continues to review and discuss donor deferral
recommendations within the public health service (FDA, CDC, and
National Institutes of Health) and at open public BPAC meetings,
scientific meetings, etc.

If X% of straight men have experimented/fooled around with another guy
(think, high school or college), you can bet they lie in response to
those questions that the Red Cross asks when you donate blood.

First let me say that i couldn't possibly care less about a person's
sexual orientation. People are people to me and i judge on individual
merit. But we are talking about blood and a person's life here. And
any sort of risky behaviour can render you potentially dangerous as a
donor. That includes sex between straight people and gay people.
Unless you are totally monogamous with a long term and i mean LONG
term partner (ten years at least) you are at risk whether you think
you are or not. Condoms are not failsafe. I would not want blood
from anyone who wasn't in a long term monogamous relationship. Either
that or someone who practices total abstinence. Why risk it when we
are talking about life and death? This includes both straight and gay
people.

Djay,
I just wanted to thank you for setting off one of the more
intelligent debates I've seen here. (ok, I'm relatively new, but
still)
It has been interesting watching the process of a group of people
from different parts of the country come together to even try to
define a problem, let alone solve it.
I do really agree with you that asking about unprotected/anal sex
from everyone is at the very least a good addition to the screening
process.I look at the whole thing a little differently now - never
even thought about it before.
So thank you again - darci

Aids and HIV is something I have looked into allot, because its labled
a gay disease......No one here has even metioned AIDS II.....AIDS II
is really bad...People need to be aware of many things, and without
awarness theirs ignorance..........Please if anyone disagrees with me
do more research look up information and information from other
countries.....Do you know theirs prostitutes that have an AIDS
anti-body's, are you aware that Emory University in Atlanta, GA may
have found a vaccine.....Theirs allot of information......Learn its a
great ability we hold....only if people used it more.

Djay

David,

I feel your pain. I am straight but have many gay friends. In fact,
my soulmate is a gay male. And you are right; gay men are not the
leading carrier of AIDS any longer.

The Red Cross won't let me donate blood because I take Coumadin (a
blood thinner). I have a genetic clotting disorder, and the drug
brings my blood to a "normal" level. But they won't take my blood
because of the drug. Now what do they do once they receive blood from
someone? They heparinize it (thin it with a different blood thinner
called Heparin). Do they think that genes are contagious or
something? I feel like I'm missing out on helping a lot of people.
I'm B+.

You know, just chalk it up to ignorance. Sometimes it takes years for
new knowledge to seep its way into large organizations. Your years of
donating and your desire to donate are admirable, and since my father
had to receive a lot of blood when he had Leukemia, I know exactly how
much it means to those who used your gift of life. Thank you, and
don't give up. One day, when all of their "criteria" result in tons
of contaminated blood, they will perhaps rethink their screening
process.

:-) 4C

Obviously, the guidelines are there for the people who will receive
your blood. I, too, am not allowed to give blood (not that I
mind--needles freak me out) because I was in England for 7 years and
OMGGGGG! could possibly have Mad Cow disease. I understand that is
must be frustrating because (kudos to you) you DO want to give blood.


However, I was not aware that the form did not ask if one has
unprotected sex. I wonder if that would be delving too much into
peoples' personal lives if the form had that question? I can
definitely see, though, how that question is a valid one, especially
when donating blood.

David, I understand how incredibly frustating it must be to want to
give blood, and be unable to. I think, in this case, you have to
assume the CDC has reasons for this guideline - and they do. What you
should be aware of, however, is that this is not an "anti-gay society"
thing.

I have a friend in New Zealand who's family once visited England,
sometime around when she was three or four years old. She is now 25.
She is not allowed to donate blood, because around the time she went
to England there was some kind of disease outbreak - mad cow,
something, I don't know. The point is, the Red Cross officials in NZ
aren't all Anglophobes. They don't hate the English, and aren't
disallowing her from donating because she might have caught "English"
disease...they disallow her from donating because there is a chance,
however slim, that she could be a carrier of this disease, and might
pass it on to others.

Another point - as you are probably aware, many blood donations are
used to treat people with hematological disorders, who need the
transfusions to make up for their own blood loss or lack of healthy
blood. What you may not be aware of is that when the process of
giving these patients blood transfusions to help them first began, the
blood products were not screened and tested as they are today. Many,
many people died of AIDS and other illnesses, and doctors who were
trying to save lives must now stand back and watch their patients die.
Those doctors feel fully the weight of their ignorance, and knowing
what they know now, would not take the SLIGHTEST risk with any
patient, for any reason. The recipients of these blood products are
often immune deficient already, and especially prone to catching
anything.

Finally, having given blood several times in the past two years, I
have myself filled out the same forms you have. And I can assure you
that homosexual male sex is not the only risk factor that they are
screening for. They screen for risky sex practices between
heterosexual couples, they screen for travel, they screen for exposure
such as tattoos and being a nurse. Surely, some of the people they
decide to not allow to donate blood do not actually have any
communicable disease. But when you consider the amount of blood that
must flow through the Red Cross (a non-profit organization) at any
given moment, and the amount of money that is wasted if they take
blood from an infected citizen that they then must destroy because it
was not usable, it seems logical that they would avoid loosing that
precious resource - time - and valuable tools such as needles and
blood bags and etc at any cost. They're watching their budget, trying
to put every penny into saving lives. They can't afford to take
risks.

As for the rights of the GLBT community, well...I think you will not
find anyone more openly and even vigorously supportive of gay rights
than I am. But that's simply not the issue at hand.

This isn't about you. It's about sick people getting better. I hope
that when you think about it, you will understand that. And I hope
that you will consider the many other ways you could help sick people,
such as donating time or even money.

Hey I feel for you, they would probably say I am too young to give
blood and discrimate on my age.

I feel bad for you, but thems the breaks. I give blood whenever I can
as well, and it makes me feel good to do something for others. (I'm
O- too)

Unfortunately, the forms are set up to dismiss certain applicants. IV
drug users, people that visit prostitutes, people that go to Africa
and other parts of the world, homosexuals, and others. I am in no way
saying that being gay is akin to using heroin. I know better, as do
most rational Americans.

The CDC is simply trying to weed out potential risks even before they
make it to the testing phase. You seem like a responsible person, and
I'm sure you have taken steps to ensure your safety. The CDC has
chosen to profile gays as a risk. Right or wrong, they have made the
decision and I know you are hurt by it. Perhaps you could look into
giving plasma and getting paid for it. That blood never makes it into
the system for donations and you would still be doing a good thing.

Good luck.

dJay,

You say you started giving blood through the Red Cross at 16. To my
recollection, the minimum age has always been 18 because that is the
age of majority (consent). Minors cannot consent to anything and
therefore, cannot agree to donate blood, so I'm wondering if by chance
you have your ages/dates off somewhat.

I am not sure where you received your information that gay men are not
the number one carriers of HIV/AIDS, but your information is wrong.
According to AVERT.ORG, an International organization that tracks
HIV/AIDS stats and publishes information on the disease
(http://www.avert.org/aidsyounggaymen.htm), HIV/AIDS affects young gay
men in the US/UK and other Euro nations at a higher rate than any
other affected group.

While you may practice safe sex, there is no way of knowing if any of
the other gay men you have encountered did. Furthermore, since you
already admitted that you submitted early questionaires with fales
information because you figured it didn't matter, how many other gay
men do you think have done the same thing because they figured they
either weren't at risk?

In the US, the estimate of people who are infected and do not know
they are is roughly 50%. (http://www.aidsprojectri.org/hiv101.htm#4)
and since newly reported cases are 40,000 per year, that's a risk the
Red Cross has opted not to take.

So again, I applaud you that you are a responsible gay man, but many
others aren't and the risk factors for your demographic are high
enough that they warranted the Red Cross to create this stipultaion.

I apologize that you cannot be the contributing member of society
because of your status, but plesae understand that it is merely
precautionary and is not a personal judgement on you.

When I read your letter, the first thing that came to mind was if I
needed blood, the only thing I would want to know was that it was
tested and clean. Would anyone really care where it came from as long
as it's clean going in? Who in their right mind would rely on people
answering truthfully on those questionnaires? Some people might even
give false information unknowingly or unintentionally.

Maybe I'm just naive, but I was under the impression that the chances
of being infected with AIDS/HIV through a transfusion were nil in this
day of high-tech testing capabilities.

This is clearly discrimination. It matters not to me who's doing what
with whom as long as it's consentual and dosen't involve minors,
animals, or certain vegtetables. There are effective tests today to
monitor the blood donated for hiv, hepatitis, sickle cell, and a
whole list of other things.
There are false positives, false negatives, and human errors every
day.

This particular person's experience was clearly wrong.

There are Homosexual, Heterosexual, Bisexual, Transexual and Aesexual
males and females who continue to practice less than safe sex. And the
safest sex is still not a hundred percent safe by any means.

There's also discrimination against Haitians and other "high risk"
groups being perpetrated under the guise of "economics and screening"
because of some actuarial statistics somewhere that are flawed or
outdated or just wrong.

With the advances in medicine and science these days, Aids is bad, but
it's no longer a death sentence. So say Gino needs a kidey. The kidney
may give Gino ten, twenty, or thirty or more years. Or Gino may reject
the kidney. But Gino had a chance and a choice.

If Gino takes the risk and gets a "manageble disease" while getting
maybe ten or fifteen years of a somewhat useful life, what difference
does it make who the donor was, and how they lived their lives?

So this whole "gay" angle??????? No matter at what point the person is
in finding out which label actually fits and why.Or refuses to accept
a label society so needs to place. Life is in a continuum(sp?). So
Gino at eighteen was different from Gino at 30, 41 and so on. I knew
it all and was invincible at 16. Now I realize I was in denial. So Am
I A better or worse person now?

I admire people who speak up, who do things to try to help others with
no expectation of reward or return other in knowing they tried to
help. It's not Gino's place to judge anyone, because, belive me, Gino
is far from perfect.

While well intentioned, the CDC and other organizations (and all of
us, including me) need to look at things, evaluate the risks involved,
and make the best decisions we can. Unfortuately we don't always get
the information we need so we have to rely on what's available at any
given time and roll the bones.

Why, when we take the risk, do we have to sign forms releasing them of
liability in the future??

Basically, I'd rather, being in my late forties, take the risk and
recieve blood products and organs if it means it delays my death and
possibly give me another label "A person (first) living with AIDS/HIV
(second). And perhaps a little more time.

Thanks Dave, for an insightful letter... I hope something positive
comes from it or at least others will learn from your experience. Very
brave and honest and refrshing to see. Good Luck!!!

I think that since all blood gets tested and the amount of cases of
heterosexuals getting AIDS has increased significantly over the years,
your being gay is irrelevant. I wouldn't want the blood of a
heterosexual or homosexual without it being tested and I wouldn't mind
anyone's tested blood that is found to be disease free.

Bottom line, you being gay should have no bearing on your ability to
give blood. It is a noble thing to do and they shouldn't have made
you feel bad for volunteering to do so.

If you dont mind me asking, you siad u found out u were gay when u
were 18, just curious, how old r u now?

Just wanted to say that it is sad that they allow ignorant people to
work out in public. Please, please don't let this keep you from trying
to do good works in your life.
As an aside, is there any sort of appeal process? From a strictly
practical standpoint, your blood is rare and needed. You would think
that they could (assuming donors would be willing) have a regular
testing program of sorts, where you agree to get tested at "x"
interval and report regularly. If I were a parent of a new born, I
think if the option were death for my child vs a one in a million
chance of HIV,well what do you think?

I've heard this rule before, and I too feel it is completely unfair.
Anyone can get or transmit AIDS. That's why they test the blood when
it's donated.

The donor's time, and often money, as well as the Red Cross's time and
money. Why make someone go through the entire process, only to find
out that the blood cannot be used for saving lives?

The questions and short medical exam(temp, pulse, BP, iron test) help
to screen out unsafe blood. If my temp is too high, I may have an
infection that I don't know about. So instead of going through the
entire donation, I can get up and leave pretty quickly. If my BP is
too low, at least I know I won't pass out on the cot(which could be
really embarrassing).

I would rather not receive blood from someone who unknowingly has,
say, mono.

Yes, the Red Cross does run tests on all the blood, too. But they
can't test for everything. It can also take a while for the body to
start producing antibodies, which are what most AIDS tests look for.
I could have unprotected sex today with someone who is HIV positive,
and give blood tomorrow. That isn't going to show up on any AIDS test
that's available. But my blood could be infected, and it would pass
on to the recipient.

I sympathize with the OP, in that he wants to donate blood. But we
need to make sure the nation's blood supply is safe for everyone.

This has been a debate for years, my gay friend. There are gay men
who are a safer blood supply than many straight women. I'm on your
side. But you're fighting a losing battle, and it's not your fault.
It's a shame the Red Cross doesn't also ask questions like, "have you
ever had unprotected sex?" 99% of the people who donate would have to
answer that "yes"!

I'm sorry you can't donate. I donate every eight weeks and my blood
is used for premature infants, so that's my main motivation for being
a regular donor.

I am on the no-donor list in my county's blood bank too for a really
stupid reason - a lab error. The first time they tested my blood it
tested positive for HIV, so they ran it again and it came out
negative. They sent me a certified letter stating that the test was
"false positive" but I still needed to come into their office for
counseling. I was young, naive, and afraid that the test meant I was
"pre-HIV" or something like that - even though I was married and in a
so-called "low risk group" (I agree with your post though that anyone
having unprotected sex is high risk, no matter their sexual
preference).

When I went in to talk to them, they were very stern with me. I was
told that they had to throw away my blood and I was never allowed to
donate again. They doctor at the blood bank said I should follow-up
with my own doctor, which I did. My doctor told me that lab errors
aren't uncommon for the blood bank, and not to worry. That was over
five years ago and I have had two HIV tests since then (with both of
my pregnancies) and have been fine. I figure that it's just their
loss... (I don't think they can deny you a transfusion because you
don't donate)

".....I got pulled aside and told since im a gay male I will
eventually get AIDS and pass it off to someone..."


I find it hard to believe that the Red Cross actually said this to
someone.

Offhand I can think of 2 reasons:

1. Snyder v. American Association of Blood Banks
2. Jappell v. American Association of Blood Banks

Unfortunately, a significant number of homosexual males do not use
adequate protection. Therefore the CDC and the Red Cross have adopted
these policies.

Now I am going to get personal, for which I apologize in advance. You
admit you lied to the Red Cross about having sex with a male when you
were 18 and yet you expect us to believe you now when you say you've
NEVER had unprotected sex.....

I'm sorry - but I find your credibility somewhat lacking.