As a member of the trans and gay communities, the push to unban

>>5561074
Is the testing really that unreliable though?

>>5561086
The tests still aren't adequately sensitive, and often aren't adequately performed, and NO test CAN be adequately sensitive for the sheer volume of transfusions. Even if it's 99.99% sensitive, a _lot_ of blood transfusions happen. Even a 0.001% infection rate is stupidly high. In just the past decade, about a million new HIV infections happened worldwide because screening failed or wasn't adequately performed. There are also many countries where screening is too expensive or the equipment doesn't exist. In these countries, banning gay and trans people from donating blood is especially critical.

the weird thing is, gay people discuss it all the time! I don't know a gay person sufficiently into gay culture who would be caught dead or alive saying that HIV isn't a gay disease.

It's mostly straight people that "want to help" or gay people that don't socialize with other gay people

>>5561086
It's about 1 in 1.5 million and about 10-50 people become hiv+ each year from blood transfusions currently.

aids isn't real

>>5561074
>"culture" (as bigots say)
that is literally a factor
when a group is more promiscuous they are going to be more likely to have hiv
>inb4 some retard thinks their personal behavior refutes a generalization

i agree with you though
it's stupid how people would rather brush issues under the rug than address them because of "muh feels"

this isn't just a gay issue either, it's a problem caused by progressives that affects any group with disproportionately high rates negative things

>>5561074
>Not because of "promiscuity" or whatever but because HIV literally infects more gay people for biological reasons. People exposed through gay sex are literally more likely to get HIV than people exposed through straight sex, because of how the AIDS virus permeates certain mucous membranes better than other mucous membranes.
Yeah but if people weren't taking anonymous unprotected loads in bath houses this wouldn't be an issue. Straight people do anal too. It's gay culture that encourages promiscuity and we all know it.

I've been dating an HIV positive guy for over a year now, he clearly got it from being promiscous, every single gay guy we know that's also HIV positive has been promiscous too. I get regular tests at an LGBT clinic and the counseling or whatever greatly encourages promiscuity and makes an effort of not judging it, instead focusing on protected sex only.

Of course protected sex is good but let's be real, promiscuity in gay "culture" is literally what's driving this thing and killing people, including the guy I love, so fuck it. Even when you get deranged crap like bugchasing it's literally promiscuous guys that want to get infected so they can stop worrying about getting tested and slut around all they want.

When and if so called gay culture changes and gays stop taking pride in being goddamn sluts, this thing will be over.

>>5561074
Same here. Actually speak up about it on social media, like when media actually runs these stories

>>5561074
I don't give blood out of principal. Some of us actually engage in safe sex and always have and the presumption of guilt simply for my sexual preference. The lift on the ban is actually quite insulting with the specifications that you may not have had sex in at least a year, a further slight and slap in the face.

There is talk of my work at hosting a blood drive when everything passes I'm the only gay guy, but my work environment is super LGB friendly, but people where shocked when I said I wouldn't participate. It's too bad because I'm O-

>>5561208
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/promised-fda-lift-ban-gay-blood-donation-n357816

>"No transmissions of HIV, hepatitis B virus, or hepatitis C virus have been documented through U.S.-licensed plasma derived products in the past two decades," the FDA says in its recommendation.

Stop making shit up and expecting people to believe it.

>>5561417
What meds does he take? I used to work as an analytical chemist at Gilead in the Edmonton production plant when I did my industrial internship but it seems recently a lot of gays hate Gilead because of Truvada.
We used to go to gay pride parades but we're no longer allowed, or at least accepted anyway.

I think a lot of people are using big pharma as a scapegoat for their promiscuous behaviour. Not going to lie, it's brought up in the meetings but it's not like big pharma creates the problem, they just exploit it.

>>5561574
Yeah he's on Truvada, I think, undetectable thankfully. I'm not on prep though, our healthcare provider says it's not necessary considering that we use condoms all the time and I only top.

He's also turned over a new leaf from all the promiscuous crap, his family actually thanked me for helping him change. I hope he does good. Not giving up hope for a cure, even if it's far away. Him not being a slut won't really change much in regards to the virus but it definitely helps him psychologically a lot.

Interesting to know big pharma is well aware of what the root of the problem is. I have also heard it used as a scapegoat, gays can't be criticized for being promiscuous without anybody saying you're homophobic or sex negative or slut shaming. I'm biscum but honestly there needs to be a change in gay culture, it needs to face its own shit instead of blaming companies (do you even free market, of course they'll take advantage of a slut market) or "biology" like OP tries to. What a crock of shit.

What's the beef between Gilead and Truvada anyway?

>>5561086
>Is the testing really that unreliable though?

HIV can take up to one year to show up in the tests, usually you can detect it after 2-3 months.

>>5561554
>The lift on the ban is actually quite insulting with the specifications that you may not have had sex in at least a year, a further slight and slap in the face.

Almost the same rules apply for straight people. Only those in a 100% monogamous relationship of over a year can donate.

I'm personally opposed to the ban on a matter of principle about discrimination.

Statistically, African Americans make up the largest portion of those infected with hiv/aids (47%) (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/racialethnic/africanamericans/), and yet there is no ban on black people giving blood.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if the solution was banning black people AND gay people from giving blood. But to say you can't ban black people because that's "racist" bit you can ban gays without it being homophobic, I take offense at that.

Also, since we started testing every batch of blood for disease, there hasn't been a case of someone getting hiv from a blood transfusion. The tests have become extremely accurate.

Also also, there's a blood shortage in this country.

>>5562994
Black people don't donate blood. It's something like less than 1% of blacks have ever donated lol
There's no need to ban them and stir up controversy.

Many trans folk don't give a fuck about anyone except normalizing their shit. Ever see how they treat feminists? Wanting to give the world aids doesn't surprise me coming from those loonies.

>>5566417
I'm not saying they should be banned. I'm just saying that you know everyone would cry "racist" if black people were banned. "Racist fuckers. You don't want black blood?"
And yet nobody minds when they ban gays.

I'd rather gays be able to donate than blacks be banned from donating.

TFW I need to tell someone I am HIV+

Here is the crux of it. Bugchasers are someone who want a reason to live. These are people who feel unright or empty. They want to feel like they are dying to feel a pressure to survive and thrive.
If there is not a problem, create one.

>>5561074
>I hate that my friends just assume that this is discrimination
i mean it is discrimination. but some discrimination is good. people need to wake up and realize that.

Non-degen gay here. I donate blood often, I'm also O- so my blood is highly sought after.