How Long Until FDA’s Blood Donations Policy Creates the Next Ryan White?

908990_aids-activist-ryan-white_epsicuaitwlfo42x7yedw6mpvtncurxrbvj6lwuht2ya6mzmafma_610x343

The FDA decided to end the ban on blood donations from gay men because this administration puts the health of Americans behind the self-esteem of those infected with HIV or Ebola, as we learned this summer.

Gay men will be able to donate blood one year after their last sexual contact, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said on Tuesday, under a proposal that will be introduced early next year to end a ban that has been in place since 1983.

There are three problems with that.

1. Those gay men don’t exist

2. The next step is to remove the ban entirely

3. It takes a lot on faith

Why did we even have a policy like that? Two words: Ryan White.

Ryan was a hemophiliac who became infected because the blood supply wasn’t clean. He was cynically used as a poster child for AIDS even though the entire reason he had AIDS was because of blood donations from the population most likely to have it, namely gay men.

So now the FDA is trying to create more Ryan Whites because gay rights trumps the health of people who need transfusions. The very people who cynically used Ryan White now want to ensure a steady supply of them. You’ve gotta create new family friendly “AIDS activists”.

The facts are simple and straightforward

1. AIDS remains primarily a gay disease. Lately the media, after lying about it for decades, has been willing to admit it.

The  New York City health department reported that in 2008, 1,751 of the 4,022 new HIV-positive diagnoses in the city were gay/bi men, further swelling the ranks of the 106,590 New Yorkers (more than 34,000 of them gay and bi men) living with HIV.

2. The average number of sexual partners for a man is 6-8. For a gay men, the numbers are something else entirely.

The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.

Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.

3. That group of celebrate gay men the FDA just approved doesn’t exist. Which means that either…

A. There will be no blood donations of any significant number from gay men making that policy useless

B. The blood will be donated by gay men who mislead about their lifestyle.

Cue the next 13-year-old boy who becomes an AIDS activist against his will.

  • Carlos_Perera

    The whims of homosexuals–and other perverts granted “most favored deviant” status by Cultural-Marxist opinion molders–now take precedence over _everything_ else: Freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of speech, children’s welfare, the well-being and stability of the family as the core institution of society, and even basic public health concerns be damned, if they discommode privileged deviants.

    But I’m sure everything will turn out well for this civilization anyway.

    • Lightbringer

      More good sarcasm… the aim of the left is to subvert our foundational values, and the family is, as you say, the core institution of society. Without the family — as well as the freedoms you mention — we are much easier to manipulate. Our civilization is under serious attack.

  • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

    Another outrage, although predictable, by the Left. We must pretend that homosexuality is perfectly normal, science and logic notwithstanding, and we must therefore pretend that gays present no danger to the blood supply, science and logic notwithstanding. This is one of the things that a Republican Congress could reverse by adding a rider to a must-sign appropriations bill – if they hadn’t forfeited that leverage with CRapnibus. Thanks a lot, Republican “leadership”.

    • Carlos_Perera

      The country-club Republican set is embarrassed by social conservatives’ Medieval religious fundamentalism and defense of outdated moral codes. They are mortified that they get lumped in with us at the tony clubs and cocktail parties that they frequent, not to mention their embarrassment when the subject is brought up by mainstream news media types during interviews. The whole defense of traditional morality thing is so . . . 1990s!

      Consequently, the GOP leadership is now trying to distance itself from the concerns of social conservatives; they are betting that we shall simply hold our noses and continue to vote for the candidate with the (R) after his name, regardless of where he stands–or does not–on sociocultural issues; after all, they reason, what other choice do the peasants have?

      • Pete

        Per 1 author, part of the Puritan’s outdated code was a response to the Syphilis epidemic in the years immediately after 1492.
        The code of the much maligned Puritan code can keep groups like hemophiliacs alive. The code of the LGBT community made the hemophiliac community very much dead.

        • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

          Interesting history. Carlos, by the way, was being ironic when he wrote “outdated moral codes”.

          • Pete

            I know. I was just trying to back him up. My support would have be more valuable if I could remember the name of the book. I read a review of the book and not book itself, which accounts for me not knowing the title. I have done several web searches.

            I did find a good site doing a fact check on the Puritans. One of the things mentioned was that that while the super advanced Europeans were burning people that Puritans did not go there. The site took to task all the modern day stigma of the Puritans from the Scarlett Letter and the Witch Trials.

            I guess my point is that if someone will build a strawman of something that is water under the bridge like the Puritans, you know d_mn sure they will come for you at the some point.

            Funny thing is my view of the Puritans is colored. They enjoyed dancing, singing and drinking alcohol. A person would not know that from English Lit. in HS or college.

            ” In the rare instances that Puritans turn up in romance novels, they are almost always portrayed as malevolent, hypocritical bigots
            The Scarlet Letter really pisses me off considering what the society of the era of 12 Angry women was trying to accomplish. They did not want to paying for other people’s kids due the other people engaging in a it if slap and tickle.

          • Dan Knight

            Pete … on a level playing field Liberals couldn’t hold a candle to anyone else. …

            Liberals are hypocritical when they’re not hypocritical: Hypocrisy is a fundamental virtue in their ideology.

            Merry Christmas!

      • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

        Good post, but without the tags someone might not realize that you’re on our (social Conservatives) side.

        • Carlos_Perera

          Thanks for the compliment . . . and for the gentle criticism; I thought the irony was readily apparent, but I forget sometimes that not everyone has a natural feel for it. (Maybe I shouldn’t have read so many Maugham short stories in my misspent youth.)

          • Dan Knight

            Having posted for years here … your post was pretty clear to the regulars (I think’s it’s great, but Pete stole the thunder there): But I think Nahalikides was concerned about ‘Out-of-Towners’ sliding in from a Google search or doing some internet surfing.

            Merry Christmas Carlos …

          • Pete

            I would not want to steal anyone’s thunder. Carlos I would say is a better writer than me. When I said he wrote succinctly I meant it. There are several here who are much better writers. Paul the retired linguist from NYC is really sharp.

          • Dan Knight

            Quite right you are: Actually the parenthetical referred to me. I don’t think I could have replied as well as you did in your earlier post.

            Cheers!

          • Carlos_Perera

            Merry Christmas!

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            Didn’t mean it as a criticism, just advice. There’s usually someone who takes everything in a post at absolute value. So you read Maugham? So did I!

          • Carlos_Perera

            I didn’t take your response as criticism in the sense of “disapproval based on perceived faults or mistakes,” but in the older, broader–though now less used–sense of “literary analysis.” Perhaps I should have used _critique_. In any case, no offense was taken; I always welcome constructive criticism.

            Regarding Maugham, my dad was a great fan of his writing. One of the first discretionary items he bought after arriving in this country (as a political exile from Cuba), out of his meager wages as a supermarket stockboy, was Maugham’s collected short stories, in two volumes; I still have them. I’m glad to meet a fellow fan of his work.

        • Pete

          “The country-club Republican set is embarrassed by social conservatives’ Medieval religious fundamentalism and defense of outdated moral codes. They are mortified that they get lumped in with us at the tony clubs and cocktail parties that they frequent, not to mention their embarrassment when the subject is brought up by mainstream news media types during interviews”

          This does not look like irony.

          It looks like a succinct and well deserved criticism of the country club wing of the Republican party, who are justly having their perfidy and stupidity being exposed.
          I have considered how to vote none of the above in an election or how voters can say they are politically engaged but will not be herded into the vote for us or else routine (hold your noses).

          A solution I like is voting dog catcher or however many people you actually like, can stomach voting for, or have not let you down yet. What I want is 100% voter participation at the polls. The message sent is, if local, some state, a few federal offices are voted on but, the office of president, senator or representative are not we might be able to drive the RINOs out. We have to leave some choice blank, because then it not a choice of none of the above. That and primary very SOB with Tea Party candidates or someone.

          A type like Jeb Bush might have to do engage in a Silverado scandal or trade with the N_ZIs (or their modern equivalent) to stay in the country club set.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            “Medieval religious fundamentalism” since it was not in quotes I took to be irony. In any event, I didn’t mean to stir up disagreement where there really is none; I was just worried that someone was going to misunderstand.

            The “country club wing” of the Republican Party as you call them, or “Establishment-men” as I call them, must indeed be drive out of the Party or at least be forced to accept our leadership and program.

          • Pete

            No worries.

    • Bob Leavitt

      The thing is they don’t present a threat. They are only asked not to donate now it isn’t like their license says they are gay. Now they are being told if they are celibate their blood is needed. All blood is tested. it isn’t about lifestyle it is about a shortage of dinars

      • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

        Who says there’s a shortage of donors? The politically-correct folks who work for Obama at FDA? I hope you don’t expect us to take their word for it. And if there were a shortage of donors, why reach out to gay men who are a tiny part of the population (say 1%)? And as Daniel points out, celibate gay men are awfully rare, and the last thing we need is blood from the one group seriously at risk of having AIDS – promiscuous gay males. They should be banned from giving blood and sent to prison if they do despite the prohibition.

        • Bob Leavitt

          . As to general shortages I assumed it was common knowledge so sourced it. The point is if we expect them to self police on whether they are gay How does that change the status quo since celibacy means no risk. promiscuous gay males are a high risk and they are asked not to give blood for that reason. The idea this is driven by political correctness is silly. It is the honor system now so it remains reliant on the donors honesty. All they did was adjust the ban to match what is the science. I think perhaps in seeing pandering in so many things you are not being different than those minorities who see racism in many things when it isn’t present because in some things it is. Our experience are subjective and like some blacks who get pulled over and think it is racist perhaps the lifting of what is something that separates gay men from the rest of us going away because of science but blame political correctness instead. I will agree to disagree with you without being disagreeable. g . …………….. Frankly, the greater threat to the blood supply is Hep c and hiv from the 25 percent who are not gay men and have no clue they have it. I know someone who works in the field. Giving blood is a leading reason people find out they have a blood borne diseases. http://www.redcross.org/news/article/Blood-Shortage-Looms-Red-Cross-Issues-Urgent-Call-for-Donors

  • Tim N

    If I remember right, this happened before AIDS was really known or understood. There were no tests in place to see if donated blood carried the AIDS virus.
    Interestingly, blood collection often specifically sought out drug abusers as donors because they make a great supply for Hepatitis antigens, which can be harvested for use. I believe some of the blood products from those sources (minus the hepatitis) wound up mixed in to plasma for general use.
    It’s been a long time ago though so my memory is sketchy.

    • Carlos_Perera

      Yes. The first HIV+ patient I had, as a physical therapist, was a white-bread, church-lady-type grandmother who was infected by HIV in the 1980s when transfused during hip surgery. You may remember that the hapless Arthur Ashe, the great tennis champion, died from AIDS contracted from a blood transfusion in the course of cardiac surgery at about this time.

      The blood supply is much safer now, due to immune-factor testing; however, antibodies are not present, in sufficient concentration to be detectable by such testing, in the blood of the HIV-infected for some weeks after contracting the virus. That is why keeping the ban on blood donations by homosexuals and IV-drug users is important.

      • Lanna

        Exactly Right! Some switch partners….. and frequently, not knowing all the sexual partners of their last escapade and their medical history.

  • Pete

    Gays are going to double the risk to America. They do not give a flying ____ about America. They could care less about the Window Period or the fact they make up 50+% of HIV infections.

    Window period

    “Antibody tests may give false negative (no antibodies were detected despite the presence of HIV) results during the window period, an interval of three weeks to six months between the time of HIV infection and the production of measurable antibodies to HIV seroconversion. Most people develop detectable antibodies approximately 30 days after infection, although some seroconvert later. The vast majority of people (97%) have detectable antibodies by three months after HIV infection; a six-month window is extremely rare with modern antibody testing.”

    A generalized graph of the relationship between HIV copies (viral load) and CD4 counts over the average course of untreated HIV infection

    • Bob Leavitt

      did you not get the part about only those celibate for 6 months? The window is long closed. The risk does not rise because as before it relies on someone being honest about whether they met criteria which guarantees the blood will test positive if they have hiv. FYI your source material makes it clear at 6 months the blood will test for HIV

      • Pete

        Did you not get the part about people lying about their status? Most readers thought about and as did Daniel Greenfield wrote as much in his piece.
        Judging from the statistics in the piece if less than 1% of gay donors lie, it will be a disaster.
        Enough will lie. I don’t merely have the statistics. I have everything, I observed or read. Try JMG. I called him on one of his articles where he talked about coming home alone to the cat. He replied just because he live alone does not mean he comes home alone. Some of that was bravado. Judging from his stories a lot of it was not. Now he is not one to lie. But what about the others? You can trust this r that person you get to know, but trusting a large group, any group, is statistical insanity.

        • Bob Leavitt

          Anyone who wished to lie already could

          • Pete

            And now they are more likely to.

          • Bob Leavitt

            maybe they will be but I cant see why. why would they lie and say they are a celibate gay man when they can just say they are straight now/

        • Bob Leavitt

          we already trust gay men and those at risk for Hep C not to lie. This still requires us to trust the same group not to lie.

          • Pete

            The dynamics are different. The social narrative is different.

  • Malcolm Smith

    I’m writing from Australia, and perhaps the system is different over here. However, when I told the Red Cross I had been to South America, they refused to accept my blood corpuscles. (They did accept my plasma, and I ended up on the plasmaphoresis program.) When I was asked why, I was told South America produced some very nasty blood diseases and that, although there was only a remote chance that I was carrying any, they couldn’t take the risk.
    Personally, I think the chances of my having polluted blood was a whole lot less than if I had been a practising homosexual. The point, however, was that it never occurred to me that I was the victim of discrimination. They had their procedures; I had to live with them. Apart from that, a blood donation is just that: a donation, a gift. If somebody doesn’t want to accept my gift, who am I to argue?
    It’s bad enough being forced to do business with people you’d rather not. It’s really ridiculous if you are forced to accept somebody’s gift.

    • Pete

      I could not give blood for a while because I had visited England and presumably consumed beef products.

      If only I had been wise enough to take a course the victimology 101 in college.

      • m Si

        I know. I lived in Europe for several years in the early ’90s and they won’t take my blood either; apparently they’re more afraid of “mad cow” than HIV.

      • Bob Leavitt

        there was no test for mad cow in the blood and there is for HIV. One person with mad cow could pass the disease on to hundreds. I am not sure where the victimology comes in giving blood is an altruistic act. This is about the science of hiv testing. It remains an honor system on whether people meet what are criteria that makes sure they pose no risk of putting HIV into the blood supply. They still would need to be lying to put the blood supply art risk so what changed other than having a bit more blood?

        • Pete

          There is a vaccine in the works for CJD. It might fail.
          The one for HIV already has failed.
          Supplies of tainted beef have been cleaned up. Ranching practices have changed. They are no longer rendering dead ship into cow food. That was a freaking mistake. If they go back to it, they’ll be run out of business or lynched.
          What I read in a gay blog is that if they think they have a prophylactic drug, out go the condoms. Pity really all the $$$ we spend on PSAs and other outreach. It has already been shown that HIV gets more money per death than other diseases for research.
          The silver lining of ObamaCare and gay marriage is that we will have good stats on what the lifestyle is costing society.

        • Pete

          It remains an honor system on whether people meet what are criteria that makes sure they pose no risk of putting HIV into the blood supply.”
          If the supply get tainted or more tainted, watch Congress change the law. You questionnaire will be sored in a databases and linked to the donated blood. Computer storage is getting cheaper. So if you go to Britain, lie about, donate blood, well it is easy to bounce 2 databases together.
          Subject Query Language (SQL) is not that hard. Learn the peculiarities of the implementation you have to work with and go at it. Point is if you have access to the Red Cross database and the immigration (INS) database you can catch someone lying on a questionnaire. No honor system needed. You can do the same with other databases.

          • Bob Leavitt

            I agree willful disregard should not be consequence free but it has been this way for years and there are no infections. They actually identify a LOT of hep c from people who try to give blood and some HIV cases where the donor had no knowledge. Once the blood is tested many blood banks break it down into a bunch of products and it seems unlikely what someone would receive has a pedigree and is likely from more than one source. the bottomline is if someone has lied it hasn’t resulted in one case because all blood is tested it’s working fine using the honor system. all the change does is continue to rely on people’s honesty and testing http://www.bloodcenters.org/blood-donation/facts-about-blood-donation/

          • Pete

            In any test there are alpha and beta risks. You are saying that alpha or beta risk is zero. They have never been zero.
            You are selling something.

  • truebearing

    This fits perfectly with the drastic population reduction goals of the Left. Whenever confronted with a deadly disease, they invariably choose policies that will spread those diseases. When people die, and they will, the Left can claim they did it for social justice.

  • JR Kipling

    So, homosexual activists arrive back where they started, they have created a society that sees them as pathological menaces to be feared and hated. Funny how that works.

  • Pete

    We are talking about 8 window periods per year on average!

    “The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.”

    • UCSPanther

      There are gay men out there who do form long term relationships with their chosen partners, but they seem so rare that they could almost be considered a mythical creature.

      Those types generally are not interested in flaunting their lifestyle and act like normal people, unlike what one may run across in San Francisco. In fact, there are gay Conservatives out there who have been criticizing the antics of the so-called “Gay Rights movement” for years.

      • Pete

        Reminds me of Joe Jervis. He had a post about an 80 year old gay couple. However, when you read about his exploits and those of his readers, the long term monogamous gay relationship does seem to be an exceedingly rare or mythical creature.

        I am surprised Joe does not have his own poster next to those who used tobacco products. He is busy.

        He use to post on FPM once in a blue moon to stir things up or as reconnaissance. Now he posts on the usual stories on the Truth Revolt site.

        Judging from his posts on his blog and at FPM, he probably average 8 a year (in line with the statistics).

      • Dan Knight

        LOL … I’ve worked with many ‘gay’ colleagues here in the Lone Star state. … and with the exception of the ‘professional’ Libtards my experience suggests:

        Texas ‘gay’s’ are politically ‘straighter’ than RINO’s on the Left coast, or any ‘conservative’ CINO from along the DC-Connecticut corridor …

        Just sayin … ;-)

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Monogamous? No.
      Octomanous? Yes.

  • http://raycaruso.com/ Ray Caruso

    Yet more evidence that liberals are not worthy of any position of authority or even of citizenship. In a reformed America, they should be encouraged to emigrate and would do so under a non-citizen travel document, preferably one featuring a cockroach on the cover.

  • JDinSTL

    They never stop. Cultural war 24/7

  • UCSPanther

    I remember reading about this same topic in an old BC Report magazine (A somewhat underground Canadian Conservative Magazine that circulated in the 1990s. Went defunct in the early 2000s.). A doctor interviewed for the article told how an order went out to omit mention of a blood donor’s sexual orientation on containers of donated blood, but him and his staff continued to discreetly mark packages of blood from known high risk individuals in order to protect his patients from blood-borne diseases.

    Canada was rocked by a large wave of people coming down with HIV and Hepatitis C, and it was discovered that most of these new cases stemmed from inadequately screened blood from high risk groups. The fallout led to the Canadian Tainted Blood Scandal and was in the news for a while in the 1990s.

  • TL2014

    Is there any way to stop this change of policy?

  • Lanna

    Homosexuals should not be giving blood at all. They are too high of a risk to get Aids because of their behavior. The lab tests do not always show the virus in the blood until after symptoms appear. This is another risk and another way to insure that Americans are getting all kinds of obstacles thrown in their paths, including tainted blood.

  • PI by Nature

    Given that the current situation relies mostly on self-reporting, it’s a minor miracle that the next Ryan White or Arthur Ashe hasn’t happened of late. What can be done though is to change the law on murder to say that if one knowingly has a sexually tramsitted disease, donates blood, and someone else dies from a tainted transfusion, the blood donor is guilty of capital murder, with the feds granted authority on this issue since donated blood usually crosses state lines.

    Also, keep in mind that the OraQuick HIV blood test is a 12-week test. Blood supplies are only good for 6 weeks.

  • Bob Leavitt

    Don’t facts or science matter? No one stops gay men from giving blood now they ask them not to. if they have not been celibate they are still being asked to give blood. All the blood is tested and at 6 months infected blood. the ehole ebola HIV thing is ridiculous fear mongering a virus that you cant catch till someone is sick ids much different than one where someone is sick and walks around feeling fine for years.

    • Pete

      Can you rewrite your post? The grammar is sufficiently messed up. Your point is obscured.

      • Bob Leavitt

        I am sorry. I understand why it may be difficult to get the point. it doesn’t have to do with grammar but rather a blind spot in your argument. You seem to start with the false notion that something prevented those who do not qualify to give blood from giving it today. I do not claim to of used good proper written grammar as I have been gifted with dysgraphia. I do find grammar Nazis tedious and amusing. I took no offense and you pointed out I have horrible written grammar. Your blindspot being nothing prevents anyone from lying it was and is an honor system The only criteria for not wanting the blood in the medical field is actual risk in an honest donor. What I also find amusing in the outrage over this is the two groups that constantly see the world through a distorted lens are minorities and extreme conservatives. where one groups sees discrimination everywhere the other sees political pandering and conspiracy everywhere. There is no scientific basis for any group that is allowed to give blood now not to give blood. Nor can you produce any convincing argument to turn down what is needed blood products beyond people who could already lie would lie. If the logic for not wanting blood is risk of someone lying why do we collect any blood? That risk always present

        • Pete

          It does not have anything to do with grammar? Then diagram you sentence if you can and get back to me.
          I was once asked by an accountant if I understood what they meant. However from the new corporate terms, accounting terms and their poor grammar, I had a heck of a time. I told the truth mostly. I did not understand what they meant. They were pizzed. So much for telling the truth.
          Having dysgraphia is problematic. I would not use that crutch too long if I were you. I did not think much of dyslexia until last fall. Science Daily had an article about genetics, mathematical ability and reading ability. It seems they were interrelated. There will be genetic tests for that soon. I would think people will be tested in grade school, which will be a mixed blessing.

  • hiernonymous

    So, as a journalist, you did some rudimentary background work, of course. What did you discover about the Bell and Weinberg study that underpins your arguments ((well, the arguments you’re repeating) about male homosexual behavior? How intellectually honest is it to use those figures to generalize about current male homosexual behavior?

    You assert that AIDS is primarily a disease of male homosexuals. Then you cite figures that indicate that some 34,000 of just under 107,000 cases of AIDS in NYC afflict gay or bi men. Who are the other 72,000+ victims? It seems to strain credulity to suggest that they are all or mostly Ryanesque victims of male homosexual tainting.

    The basic logic underlying your assertion B needs some fleshing out. If the current system tests on the premise that donors will not intentionally misrepresent their sexual behavior, on what basis do you argue that those who were previously honest will suddenly become dishonest? In what way does this change in policy result in a basic shift in the values of male homosexuals? On the other hand, if you claim that male homosexuals are already, as a group, dishonest, then what has changed under the new policy?

    Operating on that premise, the policy change doesn’t alter the risks to the blood supply for good or ill, and a more objective means of vetting behavior is needed. Perhaps you think we should investigate sexual behavior and, oh, I don’t know, have male homosexuals wear a distinctive device on their clothing, or maybe a discreet tattoo, that ensures that their membership in this undesirable group is not concealed from the public they endanger?

    • CowsomeLoneboy

      Great comment but most likely too subtle for the intended audience.

      • hiernonymous

        I edited the last para out – I’m not convinced that the intended audience could read it intelligently.

        • CowsomeLoneboy

          Your instincts are spot on.

  • CowsomeLoneboy

    OK, Daniel. The first confirmed case of Ebola has been reported in Great Britain, in a hospital in Glasgow. I’ll be waiting for your outraged commentary–responsibly outraged, of course, but outraged all the same–on the irresponsible government of David Cameron.