Gay Men Now Allowed to Donate Blood in Canada.

[Matt]

Gay men = "men who have sex with men", which includes bisexual too.

I'm sure we will see an increase in AIDS infected blood, as was the case in 1989-1990, which caused the ban in the first place.

[Matt]

Do insane left-wing Social Justice Warriors not understand why these laws are in place to begin with?

Why do these stupid fucks NEED to produce an increase in AIDS infected blood donations before we simply REINSTATE THE BAN?

[Flexacon]

So are you gonna finally start donating blood then Matt

[Spike]

didn't it used to be if you had a tattoo you couldn't donate blood ??


being gay and having tattoos isn't too diff


j/k

[Matt]

So are you gonna finally start donating blood then Matt

Lol!!

Possibly, yes. But not for the reasons implied in your post. 

Truth be told, I am somewhat concerned about the blood supply. Trudeau claims he has studies showing this is safe, but gay men are something like 4% of Canada's population, but comprise 72% of HIV and AIDS patients. 

And it's not like they don't test - it's that the tests aren't perfect.

I don't think it's easy to test for HIV infected blood. That's why it was decided to prevent it from coming in to begin with.

But whatever. People will die, and the policy will just be reversed anyway.

Someone on YouTube said this is just a way tp hide the VAIDS caused by the jabs. I don't know if that is true, but I had never thought of it.

[Matt]

didn't it used to be if you had a tattoo you couldn't donate blood ??


being gay and having tattoos isn't too diff


j/k

Correct. At least here in Canada.

We also had a requirement to be 105-lb.

Possibly because Tim Fogarty's numerous friends with AIDS were under 105-lb.

On that note, I'm starting to think AIDS may have been bullshit.

It's probably just some anal sex HPV.

As for "AIDS", you had gay men smoking meth full-time - no shit they ended up withering away.

I suspect that was just a correlation thing.

[falco]

Isn't Canada pro lgbt?
I am somewhat appalled i must say.

[Flexacon]

Lol!!

Possibly, yes. But not for the reasons implied in your post. 

Truth be told, I am somewhat concerned about the blood supply. Trudeau claims he has studies showing this is safe, but gay men are something like 4% of Canada's population, but comprise 72% of HIV and AIDS patients. 

And it's not like they don't test - it's that the tests aren't perfect.

I don't think it's easy to test for HIV infected blood. That's why it was decided to prevent it from coming in to begin with.

But whatever. People will die, and the policy will just be reversed anyway.

Someone on YouTube said this is just a way tp hide the VAIDS caused by the jabs. I don't know if that is true, but I had never thought of it.

They have that new drug (prep) that I'm assuming most gays now take and that prevents getting and spreading HIV. I'm presuming that's why the guidelines for donating have changed as they now have enough data to conclude the risk is sufficiently low/on par with hetros.

[Cook]

Where I donate they ask if you ever had sex with a man ( I assume they don’t ask women) if you answer no it says “ not even once?” Which I always thought sounded funny but I asked the lady can’t they just lie?
She said they test all blood not taking anyone’s word for it.

[titusisback]

Why do these stupid fucks NEED to produce an increase in AIDS infected blood donations before we simply REINSTATE THE BAN?

Why does stupid fuck like you not know that donated blood is tested so it won't endanger anyone? If anything, someone who's positive may find out about it this way, which is a positive thing overall to stop any unintentional spread.

[JackTheRipper]

 

[JustPlaneJane]

They have that new drug (prep) that I'm assuming most gays now take and that prevents getting and spreading HIV. I'm presuming that's why the guidelines for donating have changed as they now have enough data to conclude the risk is sufficiently low/on par with hetros.

PrEP does not prevent, it reduces the risk.

Not to split hairs, but there is a big difference between the two.

[BBSSchlemiel]

Gay men = "men who have sex with men", which includes bisexual too.

I'm sure we will see an increase in AIDS infected blood, as was the case in 1989-1990, which caused the ban in the first place.

You are risking offending all the real, “open-minded” men who are “comfortable with their sexuality” here, who condone man-on-man anal ramming , and all the pathologies that come from it and the “lifestyle” that goes along with it.

Men who don’t condone it are “secretly gay” because they’re repulsed by such an act. 

I mean, that’s what all the real men of the current day think, along within occasional cross dressing and LARPing as a homosexual.

[Matt]

They have that new drug (prep) that I'm assuming most gays now take and that prevents getting and spreading HIV. I'm presuming that's why the guidelines for donating have changed as they now have enough data to conclude the risk is sufficiently low/on par with hetros.

I hope it's something like this.

The MSM and risk factor ban was in place for a reason, and it was indeed from contaminated blood making it through testing.

Trudeau says they spent $5,000,000 on testing, and found that AIDS potential blood was not a risk.

I hope that's true, and not virtue-signalling.

Trudeau is the same person who sought to not have Covid vaccine deaths reported. If that stupid fuck TRULY believed the vaccines were safe, why not report on the data? 

There's not a single view of someone opposed to me that I want hidden, because I know those views just make my own look good. And ultimately, I just believe I free speech and free inquiry.

[Matt]

Why does stupid fuck like you not know that donated blood is tested so it won't endanger anyone? If anything, someone who's positive may find out about it this way, which is a positive thing overall to stop any unintentional spread.

Because tests are far from perfect, and the HIV test is especially so.

There is going to be far more HIV infected blood coming in - that much is certain. Will the tests uncover it? According to Trudeau, yes. He said studies show this - you know, the same "studies" that made him spend a TRILLION dollars for a virus that has killed 85 people in over two years in my city of 108K.

I don't trust him. But time will tell.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_of_Inquiry_on_the_Blood_System_in_Canada

[Matt]

You are risking offending all the real, “open-minded” men who are “comfortable with their sexuality” here, who condone man-on-man anal ramming , and all the pathologies that come from it and the “lifestyle” that goes along with it.

Men who don’t condone it are “secretly gay” because they’re repulsed by such an act. 

I mean, that’s what all the real men of the current day think, along within occasional cross dressing and LARPing as a homosexual.

These are the same degenerate perverts that defend Rocco Siffredi. I should be grateful for that sick fuck - he has so sufficiently turned me off from fucking, I will never get an STD, at least.

[Rambone]

I actually donated blood today because they’ve been hounding me and since my hematocrit has been creeping up. I always think of Getbig when answering the multiple gay, HIV and steroid questions on the iPad. “Have you ever had sex with another male. Even if it was only once.” Wish I could write in IOGIYWITB. They also make it fairly enticing with the gift cards. Ended up with $45 and a free t-shirt that I will probably donate to that shirtless Jewboy Mike Katz.

[titusisback]

Because tests are far from perfect, and the HIV test is especially so.

Well that was the 80s - almost 40 years go. The blood test is close to 100% accurate now. There's always some level of risk, so by using that logic, no blood is safe - whether is from a heterosexual person or gay.

[Flexacon]

PrEP does not prevent, it reduces the risk.

Not to split hairs, but there is a big difference between the two.

From what I know it's 99% effective for an individual, so in that example it reduces the risk and yes there is a big difference between 99% effective and 100% when it comes to numbers (see covid)

What I assumed is if the majority, or better yet everyone were to take it then eventually its effectiveness approaches closer to or 100% or at least on par with hetros. Is that wrong?

[JustPlaneJane]

From what I know it's 99% effective for an individual, so in that example it reduces the risk and yes there is a big difference between 99% effective and 100% when it comes to numbers (see covid)

What I assumed is if the majority, or better yet everyone were to take it then eventually its effectiveness approaches closer to or 100% or at least on par with hetros. Is that wrong?

The Big Pharma companies behind the drug PrEP claim 99% protection against HIV for sexual transmission and 74% for intravenous drug users.

Claimed, with limited testing and data results available to support the claim.

Have we not learned anything over the past two years about claims of protection or drug/vaccine efficacy ? Have we forgotten the CDC mask claims or FDA Covid claims ?

[Flexacon]

The Big Pharma companies behind the drug PrEP claim 99% protection against HIV for sexual transmission and 74% for intravenous drug users.

Claimed, with limited testing and data results available to support the claim.

Have we not learned anything over the past two years about claims of protection or drug/vaccine efficacy ? Have we forgotten the CDC mask claims or FDA Covid claims ?

To be honest as a no homo man I know very little about the drug other than the 99% effective claim. I was just trying to go from A to B in a straight line for Matts sake, not down another rabbit hole

[ProudVirgin69]

The Big Pharma companies behind the drug PrEP claim 99% protection against HIV for sexual transmission and 74% for intravenous drug users.

Claimed, with limited testing and data results available to support the claim.

Have we not learned anything over the past two years about claims of protection or drug/vaccine efficacy ? Have we forgotten the CDC mask claims or FDA Covid claims ?

 

Not sure where you get 'limited testing and data results' from.  The efficacy of PrEP has been confirmed in multiple studies across different countries involving thousands of participants over several years--in both private & publicly funded studies.  It's one of the most well-supported medical therapies for ANY disease or illness.

[JackTheRipper]

The Big Pharma companies behind the drug PrEP claim 99% protection against HIV for sexual transmission and 74% for intravenous drug users.

Claimed, with limited testing and data results available to support the claim.

Have we not learned anything over the past two years about claims of protection or drug/vaccine efficacy ? Have we forgotten the CDC mask claims or FDA Covid claims ?

well don´t worry ...my jizz is clean baby

[LurkerNoMore]

You do realize that every single unit of blood donated is tested for HIV and other diseases.  Right?  No of course you didn't.  If you did, you wouldn't have made such an insipid thread.

[SF1900]

Matt, you continue to be the forums biggest loser.