Printable View
How do you know that gay men have not had sex with men for three months, if they ask them, how do you know they are telling the truth? This is ridiculous and dangerous there is no way to prove what they say.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-40711341
There was no way to prove their answer when the question was 12 months.
Of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bloop
As all blood donations get screened anyway, it's just a self-regulating way (the donor's) of avoiding blood donations being unnecessarily futile by being screened and rejected.
Too true, you can't trust those gays, sooner bum you than look at you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Igovernor
Yes they are screened, but Hiv and the aids virus can take a long time to show up in tests, and there is only so long you can keep blood, so there is a big chance that mistakes can be made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock_Flock_of_Five
Is that fact?Quote:
Originally Posted by Igovernor
Why not keep all the blood that gay people donate for gay people?
How do you know if they're gay if they don't say.
How do you know if they're gay if they donated blood in the past?Quote:
Originally Posted by WJ99mobile
I think some gay people probably would not have bothered given blood if they didn't think they were being targeted.
Because they see this as being anti Gay, suddenly they all are so, so desperate to give blood...
As we know, only gay people can have aids or HIV so the rest of the blood is definitely safe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Igovernor
That's about three questions mate
So are you suggesting that they sometimes play Russian Roulette by not waiting for that period of time for the virus to show up because the blood can only be kept for a certain period of time?Quote:
Originally Posted by Igovernor
What is the time exactly for the virus to show up? - surely there has to be a set time-scale when it WILL show up and therefore surely they HAVE to wait for that time .... otherwise what's the point of screening?
They can't rely on the time calculations of a high risk donor and take their word as gospel when they last had sex?
:wave:the answer is still NO!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Igovernor
Ah,the good old days of the gay plague...Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
this thread is gay blud
What about the moody f uckers who are gayQuote:
Originally Posted by Llanedeyrnblue
What if I say I'm gay just to make female friends so they show me their boobs?
Where do I stand in this debate?
You matter too grumps.:-)Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUETIT
It is complete horse shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt. Pepper
Viral contaminated blood
It’s extremely rare for someone to develop a viral infection from a blood transfusion, as the blood services use strict testing processes. For example, it is estimated that:
the risk of getting hepatitis B is about 1 in 1.3 million
the risk of getting hepatitis C is about 1 in 28 million
the risk of getting HIV is about 1 in 6.5 million
There hasn't been a recorded case of someone developing a viral infection from a blood transfusion since 2005.
Igov should start researching before spouting crap.
Well indeed, I thought it was surely that kind of scenario these days, but I didn't have the facts at hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris
That never stops the OP getting hysterical and posting off his tripe as facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt. Pepper
:-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris
ITrumpernor