Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

FDA Proposes Easing Restrictions on Blood Donations from Gay/Bisexual Men

FDA Proposes Easing Restrictions on Blood Donations from Gay/Bisexual Men

“Current federal rules prohibit blood banks from collecting donations from men who have had sex with men within the last three months.”

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently announced that it intends to end a blanket ban on blood donations from sexually active gay men.

Research backed by the Food and Drug Administration “will likely support” ending a blanket ban on blood donations from sexually active gay men, the agency said Wednesday. The move would mark a significant reversal of a measure aimed at curbing the spread of HIV that experts and activists have long criticized as overly broad and misguided.

Current federal rules prohibit blood banks from collecting donations from men who have had sex with men within the last three months. An alternative approach researched in the FDA-funded ADVANCE study tested out relying on questionnaires to screen donors, instead of broad “time-based deferrals.”

“Although we do not have a specific timeline for when our analysis will be complete, the agency believes the initial data from the study, taken in the context of other data available from blood surveillance in the U.S. and in other countries, will likely support a policy transition to individual risk-based donor screening questions for reducing the risk of HIV transmission,” the FDA’s Carly Kempler said in a statement.

The total ban on blood donations from gay/bisexual men was lifted in 2015, donors were required to abstain from sex for a year before donating. This abstinence time-frame was further reduced to three months in 2020.

According to plans being drawn up by the FDA, seen by the WSJ [link], men and women donating blood will now have to fill out a questionnaire that asks them about their recent sexual activity.

Sources said they would be asked if they had any new sexual partners in the past three months.

People who say they have not would be free to donate.

But those who say they have would be asked if they had anal intercourse over the past three months.

People who say they have not would also be allowed to donate.

But those who say they have will likely be asked to wait three months before donating blood.

Medical and blood donation organizations support the FDA’s move.

“The AMA [American Medical Association] relentlessly advocates for eliminating public policies that do not align with scientific evidence and best ethical practices, which is why we have urged the FDA to use rational, scientifically-based deferral periods for donation of blood, corneas and other tissues that are fairly and consistently applied to donors according to their individual risk,” AMA President Dr. Jack Resneck Jr. told CNN.

The American Red Cross said Wednesday it “believes blood donation eligibility should not be determined by methods that are based upon sexual orientation and is committed to working with partners toward achieving this goal.”

The Red Cross added that it has been involved in the FDA-funded ADVANCE study to determine whether a questionnaire that assessed individual risks in gay and bisexual donors could replace a blanket time-based policy.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:
, ,

Comments

I have homosexual friends and I do not want an ounce of blood from them. Ever.

    Otto Kringelein in reply to Close The Fed. | December 4, 2022 at 12:15 pm

    But you’re willing to accept the blood from the heterosexual man who has sex with multiple, how should I put it politely, ladies of the evening partners (I guess that’ll work. I’ve got another word for them but won’t use it here.) every month and who doesn’t have to answer any embarrassing questions about his sex life before donating blood?

    Gay orgies are a ‘norm’ these days. And it’s driving Monkeypox into danger to the rest of us:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=monkey+pox%2C+gay+orgies&oq=monkey+pox%2C+gay+orgies&aqs=chrome..69i57.4679j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

      Think twice before renting any property on Airbnb I would think

        henrybowman in reply to Concise. | December 4, 2022 at 9:20 pm

        Especially AirBNB.
        Dealing with AirBNB renters is like dealing with audience members of The View.

        “Can we walk to downtown Tucson / bike to the Canyon from your place?”
        Sure, if you don’t mind walking/pedaling for 2-3 days each way. Do you even have any idea where we are? Learn to read a map, Bunky!
        “it is OK if I bring my two cats?”
        As long as you bring outdoor cages for them. What part of “hypoallergenic home, no pets” did you miss?
        “Do you have a vegan menu?”
        Cook whatever you like. We’re a vacation rental, not a bed and breakfast.

        Compared to all our prospects from VRBO and HomeAway, AirBNB prospects were almost entirely Karens with unreasonable expectations and diminished comprehension.

        Then in October of 2016, when AirBNB demanded I sign a “loyalty oath” (“Community Commitment”) pledging I would never discriminate on a spreadsheet full of intersectionality badges, I told them their request was “offensive and insulting,” and to cancel our account entirely, since they’d sent me exactly one sane renter in all our time together.

        I would recommend that rational people (such as those on this board) deal through VRBO and avoid AirBNB entirely. AirBNB is truly the TikTok of rental services.

This seems like a bad idea unless they are going to perform a series of tests to screen out any potential issues with the donors and their blood/plasma. Which given the increasing numbers of folks with STD and other issues may need to become the norm. That would raise the costs of blood available.

Let’s face facts. Men enjoy sex. The average man would have sex far more often if he could. The curb on male sexual activity is females and their lessor sex drive for overwhelming majority of men. Homosexual men, by default, lack that curb and have far higher numbers of sexual partners and activity on average than heterosexual men as a result. I am sure there are exceptions but on average I don’t believe that’s an unfair presumption. More sexual activity increases risk of exposure to all sorts of unpleasant things.

I want a screen for mRNA goo. I don’t want any of that in a transfusion after avoiding the jab at all costs.

Methinks capitulating to the sexually perverse and mentally deranged is not the best way to run a country. Romans 1, baby!

    Normalize, tolerate, or reject? Lions, lionesses, and their Posterity playing in gay fashion, excluded.

    That said, Schumer laments that social contagion, sexual dysfunction, and the wicked solution have forced a progressive condition that has left American less than viable… without immigration reform to fill in the missing links.

    Concise in reply to LB1901. | December 4, 2022 at 2:32 pm

    It’s not the best way to run anything, except maybe hell.

and yet, since I was in Germany in mid to late 1980s I can never donate blood.

Will they be screening for monkey pox

Asking for a friend

    Otto Kringelein in reply to gonzotx. | December 4, 2022 at 12:25 pm

    Contrary to what they’d have you believe they blood banks screen for very little. The standard STDs, HIV, hepatitis and perhaps a couple other blood-borne diseases but by and large that’s about it. They depend on the honesty of those donating the blood. And they’d never lie when answering the pre-donation questionnaire, right?

Of course, there are millions and millions of pesky people that need exterminating to complete their utopian dream.

It’s not sex, it’s digestion. That said, transgender virology through the back… black hole… whore h/t NAACP.

And yet I have been prohibited from giving blood since 1988 due to a false positive on one of the tests introduced at that time because of the AIDS “crisis.”

Since then, I haven’t felt a lot of sympathy whenever they cry and moan about blood bank shortages.

When white collar perks meet blue collar accountability. #HowDareYou

When liberal excess laments equity and inclusion. #NotMe

Wow, a six-digit salary subsidizes a lot of Musk-o-phobia.

Dolce Far Niente | December 4, 2022 at 12:34 pm

Is monkeypox transmittable by blood, or is it just through feces?

Asking for a friend.

    You will not be allowed to know… that is being judgmental. Only the Left is allowed to do that.

    “Monkeypox spreads in a few ways.

    “Close or Intimate Contact:
    Monkeypox can spread to anyone through close, personal, often skin-to-skin contact, including:

    “Direct contact with monkeypox rash and scabs from a person with monkeypox, as well as contact with their saliva, upper respiratory secretions (snot, mucus), and areas around the anus, rectum, or vagina
    This direct contact can happen during intimate contact, including:

    “Oral, anal, or vaginal sex, or touching the genitals (penis, testicles, labia, and vagina) or anus of a person with monkeypox
    Hugging, massage, and kissing
    Prolonged face-to-face contact
    The risk is considered low for getting monkeypox by touching objects, fabrics, and surfaces that have been used by someone with monkeypox and not disinfected, such as clothing, bedding, towels, fetish gear, or sex toys.

    “A person with monkeypox can spread it to others from the time symptoms start until the rash has fully healed and a fresh layer of skin has formed. Some people have been found to have infection but no symptoms. To date, however, there is no evidence that monkeypox spreads from people with no symptoms. CDC will continue to monitor for new or changing information about transmission.
    https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/monkeypox/if-sick/transmission.html

    Then again, this is from the CDC, so it could be b.s.

      Hey, let’s be fair, they didn’t specifically say anything about receiving a transfusion of monkey-pox infected blood.

        henrybowman in reply to Concise. | December 4, 2022 at 9:25 pm

        Yeah, I noticed that. They enumerated a lot of ways you COULD catch it, common things that family and friends normally do with each other (like common towels, and unlike transfusions), but didn’t actually rule any other possible ways out.

    Get your blood transfusion first. Find out later.

Consider California law now that says willfully giving someone HIV is no big deal. Core acceptance of life style is always broadened into the fringes by the activists. It is the normalization of everything.

AF_Chief_Master_Sgt | December 4, 2022 at 1:31 pm

For those who care, I suggest that you try autologous blood banking, which is storing your own blood prior to surgery or a known need.

I have done this and it is helpful. Good choice for those who do not want tainted blood by those who had the clot shot or are HIV+.

Your doctor will need to sign off on it. It helps that my son and my SIL are physicians, No one questions their approval.

    How many blood draws are required to build up a large enough bank of autologous blood to handle a typical surgery?

      AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to randian. | December 5, 2022 at 5:28 am

      Every procedure is different. That is why a physician is required to review and approve. I don’t keep a list of how many units of blood are needed for specific procedures. I also don’t plan on giving specific personal medical information on a public forum.

      Again, for anyone who cares, there is an option.

      You can donate 1 unit of blood at the same frequency that you would normally donate to a blood bank.

      The blood banking isn’t free, but has what I consider a reasonable cost.

      Jawbreaker in reply to randian. | December 5, 2022 at 11:14 am

      Men can donate about every 56 days, women 84. Unfortunately shelf life for whole blood is about 42 days. While you could shorten the time between donations a little the associated anemia (low blood count) may exacerbate certain medical conditions increasing their own associated risks. The catch 22 is that often you would not be transfused until you needed 2 units or more but you only have one banked.

Well, homosexuals make up about 1.5-2% of the population.

Are the blood banks that desperate, or is this a political “equity” decision.

Either way, you now know how the next political “pandemic” will start.

BierceAmbrose | December 4, 2022 at 3:37 pm

“Research … “will likely support””

That’s not how this works.

smalltownoklahoman | December 4, 2022 at 3:49 pm

Perfectly acceptable so long as patients are allowed to opt out of receiving blood from said donors. Be it for religious concerns, their own worries about whether it safe, or other reasons the patient who would receive this blood should have some say in what is being put into his, her, it’s body. As for those who may be incapacitated at the time they need blood, well guess you better update your medical information so that surgeons can see that before they operate.

Per wikipedia, more than a million U.S. men are on Avodart/Dutasteride for enlarged prostate and can’t donate blood. I would have thought it would have been many more, given how common the condition is.

No restrictions on MRNA-tainted blood, they don’t even test for it or require disclosure. Some hospitals are refusing to let surgical patients request MRNA-free blood.

HIV is permanent and incurable, time-based deferral is worthless.

Subotai Bahadur | December 4, 2022 at 8:18 pm

With all the blood borne diseases, and the medical authorities doing their best to spread them with [or in lieu of] treatment for whatever other medical problem you have, I am getting happier that I will not be around all that much longer.

Subotai Bahadur

At what point does automated assaying let us move to 100% QC on all blood taken for distribution.

Managing risk by categories is, like where the stuff came from, is a weaker, proxy solution. Aren’t we past this yet? (This isn’t the 21st century I was expecting. Also, where’s my flying cars?)

Donating blood is not a right. Donating blood when you’re part of a recognized high risk group for blood borne incurable disease serves only to endanger the recipient of that blood.

Further, knowingly transmitting such disease should be punishable by the most extreme punishment available.

Hell no.

If I’m ever in dire need of blood, I’ll take anything that is available and clean (which can be tested and screened), especially since I’m O

I can’t donate blood because 40+ years ago I was stationed in rural Europe and bought meat from a local butcher shop.

Yet the FDA thinks it is a good idea to accept blood from people currently engaging in a risky lifestyle?

One more reason not to trust the FDA about anything!