R
rdean
Guest
They give blood to you and your not normal.Why do disease ridden faggots want to donate blood to normal people? ......![]()
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They give blood to you and your not normal.Why do disease ridden faggots want to donate blood to normal people? ......![]()
And The last known case of HIV transmission from a blood transfusion was in 2002. Since then there has been over 50 million blood transfusions in the US. You are far more likely to be struck by lighting than to contract HIV through a blood transfusion.News flash: gays have been donating blood for years. How? Simple: they lie.
To the extent that any admit it, time and money is saved. If it is not asked then that option is moot and that time and money can't be saved.Someone on the streets selling their blood for $25 is going to admit there're homosexual and be rejected? Not gonna happen. The purpose of screening is to eliminate donations that would be rejected when the blood is tested. It simply reduces costs. The safeguard is the blood testing, not the screenings.That's my point. If they admit they're homo male you disallow any donations and you don't have to test those results because there won't be any to test. It simplifies the process and is less expensive.The only thing you can rely on is the testing of blood. Screening by questionnaire is unreliable because you don't know if the information is accurate. The donor may have lied or the donor may be a heterosexual who has had sex with an infected person, either homosexual or heterosexual.Like we're supposed to go by the honor system regarding how recently a homo packed fudge? All this does is slow down the screening process while making it cost more all in the name of appeasing the extortion of the homofascist agenda.
Well, they are still going to ask, but the question is going to be did they have sex with a man in the last 12 months. I doubt that there will be any significant difference in cost since the blood is tested in batches. Plus they will probably get additional donations.To the extent that any admit it, time and money is saved. If it is not asked then that option is moot and that time and money can't be saved.Someone on the streets selling their blood for $25 is going to admit there're homosexual and be rejected? Not gonna happen. The purpose of screening is to eliminate donations that would be rejected when the blood is tested. It simply reduces costs. The safeguard is the blood testing, not the screenings.That's my point. If they admit they're homo male you disallow any donations and you don't have to test those results because there won't be any to test. It simplifies the process and is less expensive.The only thing you can rely on is the testing of blood. Screening by questionnaire is unreliable because you don't know if the information is accurate. The donor may have lied or the donor may be a heterosexual who has had sex with an infected person, either homosexual or heterosexual.Like we're supposed to go by the honor system regarding how recently a homo packed fudge? All this does is slow down the screening process while making it cost more all in the name of appeasing the extortion of the homofascist agenda.
Yes, i did. I've provided you with the link. Are you more concerned about the missed passage or the whole problem? Gay couple can't help people with their blood and you speak about a year-ban for sex. Just a nonsense!!A decision by the Food and Drug Administration to move forward with a plan to allow “men who have sex with men” to donate blood under certain conditions amounts to caving to a social and political agenda, according to the Family Research Council.
“Research presented to the committee confirmed the dramatically elevated risk of HIV infection among men who have sex with men (MSM) — a risk 62 times higher than in the general public,” said Peter Sprigg, FRC senior fellow for policy studies, on Tuesday.
Blood-donor rules bent by 8216 politics 8217![]()
Did you miss that part where they can't have had sex in a year?
The vast majority of them are not going to be able donate blood because of that.
But, I got your number. We're done.
Wrong. Male-on-male sex is way more of a risk than any other mode. The sad part is that you have to do the CDC research yourself to find that out. The homofascist agenda and its buds in the mainstream media make a point to keep that reality obscured.Well, they are still going to ask, but the question is going to be did they have sex with a man in the last 12 months. I doubt that there will be any significant difference in cost since the blood is tested in batches. Plus they will probably get additional donations.To the extent that any admit it, time and money is saved. If it is not asked then that option is moot and that time and money can't be saved.Someone on the streets selling their blood for $25 is going to admit there're homosexual and be rejected? Not gonna happen. The purpose of screening is to eliminate donations that would be rejected when the blood is tested. It simply reduces costs. The safeguard is the blood testing, not the screenings.That's my point. If they admit they're homo male you disallow any donations and you don't have to test those results because there won't be any to test. It simplifies the process and is less expensive.The only thing you can rely on is the testing of blood. Screening by questionnaire is unreliable because you don't know if the information is accurate. The donor may have lied or the donor may be a heterosexual who has had sex with an infected person, either homosexual or heterosexual.Like we're supposed to go by the honor system regarding how recently a homo packed fudge? All this does is slow down the screening process while making it cost more all in the name of appeasing the extortion of the homofascist agenda.
All this ignores the fact that unprotected vaginal intercourse is the most common mode of HIV infection today and there's no screening going to detect that.
No he just hates gay people.A decision by the Food and Drug Administration to move forward with a plan to allow “men who have sex with men” to donate blood under certain conditions amounts to caving to a social and political agenda, according to the Family Research Council.
“Research presented to the committee confirmed the dramatically elevated risk of HIV infection among men who have sex with men (MSM) — a risk 62 times higher than in the general public,” said Peter Sprigg, FRC senior fellow for policy studies, on Tuesday.
Blood-donor rules bent by 8216 politics 8217![]()
Did you miss that part where they can't have had sex in a year?
Yes, i did. I've provided you with the link. Are you more concerned about the missed passage or the whole problem? Gay couple can't help people with their blood and you speak about a year-ban for sex. Just a nonsense!!A decision by the Food and Drug Administration to move forward with a plan to allow “men who have sex with men” to donate blood under certain conditions amounts to caving to a social and political agenda, according to the Family Research Council.
“Research presented to the committee confirmed the dramatically elevated risk of HIV infection among men who have sex with men (MSM) — a risk 62 times higher than in the general public,” said Peter Sprigg, FRC senior fellow for policy studies, on Tuesday.
Blood-donor rules bent by 8216 politics 8217![]()
Did you miss that part where they can't have had sex in a year?
The vast majority of them are not going to be able donate blood because of that.
But, I got your number. We're done.
no one in their right mind would believe anyone regardless of sexual preference
about a self imposed sex ban
--LOL
testing of the blood after collection is key
No he just hates gay people.A decision by the Food and Drug Administration to move forward with a plan to allow “men who have sex with men” to donate blood under certain conditions amounts to caving to a social and political agenda, according to the Family Research Council.
“Research presented to the committee confirmed the dramatically elevated risk of HIV infection among men who have sex with men (MSM) — a risk 62 times higher than in the general public,” said Peter Sprigg, FRC senior fellow for policy studies, on Tuesday.
Blood-donor rules bent by 8216 politics 8217![]()
Did you miss that part where they can't have had sex in a year?
Well, they are still going to ask, but the question is going to be did they have sex with a man in the last 12 months. I doubt that there will be any significant difference in cost since the blood is tested in batches. Plus they will probably get additional donations.To the extent that any admit it, time and money is saved. If it is not asked then that option is moot and that time and money can't be saved.Someone on the streets selling their blood for $25 is going to admit there're homosexual and be rejected? Not gonna happen. The purpose of screening is to eliminate donations that would be rejected when the blood is tested. It simply reduces costs. The safeguard is the blood testing, not the screenings.That's my point. If they admit they're homo male you disallow any donations and you don't have to test those results because there won't be any to test. It simplifies the process and is less expensive.The only thing you can rely on is the testing of blood. Screening by questionnaire is unreliable because you don't know if the information is accurate. The donor may have lied or the donor may be a heterosexual who has had sex with an infected person, either homosexual or heterosexual.Like we're supposed to go by the honor system regarding how recently a homo packed fudge? All this does is slow down the screening process while making it cost more all in the name of appeasing the extortion of the homofascist agenda.
Worldwide, vaginal intercourse is the primary means of transmission. In the US, the primary means is homosexual sex, 30,695 in 2012. The second most common means is vaginal intercourse, 12,150 in 2012.Wrong. Male-on-male sex is way more of a risk than any other mode. The sad part is that you have to do the CDC research yourself to find that out. The homofascist agenda and its buds in the mainstream media make a point to keep that reality obscured.Well, they are still going to ask, but the question is going to be did they have sex with a man in the last 12 months. I doubt that there will be any significant difference in cost since the blood is tested in batches. Plus they will probably get additional donations.To the extent that any admit it, time and money is saved. If it is not asked then that option is moot and that time and money can't be saved.Someone on the streets selling their blood for $25 is going to admit there're homosexual and be rejected? Not gonna happen. The purpose of screening is to eliminate donations that would be rejected when the blood is tested. It simply reduces costs. The safeguard is the blood testing, not the screenings.That's my point. If they admit they're homo male you disallow any donations and you don't have to test those results because there won't be any to test. It simplifies the process and is less expensive.The only thing you can rely on is the testing of blood. Screening by questionnaire is unreliable because you don't know if the information is accurate. The donor may have lied or the donor may be a heterosexual who has had sex with an infected person, either homosexual or heterosexual.
All this ignores the fact that unprotected vaginal intercourse is the most common mode of HIV infection today and there's no screening going to detect that.
I was referring to US transmission, that's why I mentioned the CDC.Well, they are still going to ask, but the question is going to be did they have sex with a man in the last 12 months. I doubt that there will be any significant difference in cost since the blood is tested in batches. Plus they will probably get additional donations.To the extent that any admit it, time and money is saved. If it is not asked then that option is moot and that time and money can't be saved.Someone on the streets selling their blood for $25 is going to admit there're homosexual and be rejected? Not gonna happen. The purpose of screening is to eliminate donations that would be rejected when the blood is tested. It simply reduces costs. The safeguard is the blood testing, not the screenings.That's my point. If they admit they're homo male you disallow any donations and you don't have to test those results because there won't be any to test. It simplifies the process and is less expensive.The only thing you can rely on is the testing of blood. Screening by questionnaire is unreliable because you don't know if the information is accurate. The donor may have lied or the donor may be a heterosexual who has had sex with an infected person, either homosexual or heterosexual.Worldwide, vaginal intercourse is the primary means of transmission. In the US, the primary means is homosexual sex, 30,695 in 2012. The second most common means is vaginal intercourse, 12,150 in 2012.Wrong. Male-on-male sex is way more of a risk than any other mode. The sad part is that you have to do the CDC research yourself to find that out. The homofascist agenda and its buds in the mainstream media make a point to keep that reality obscured.Well, they are still going to ask, but the question is going to be did they have sex with a man in the last 12 months. I doubt that there will be any significant difference in cost since the blood is tested in batches. Plus they will probably get additional donations.To the extent that any admit it, time and money is saved. If it is not asked then that option is moot and that time and money can't be saved.Someone on the streets selling their blood for $25 is going to admit there're homosexual and be rejected? Not gonna happen. The purpose of screening is to eliminate donations that would be rejected when the blood is tested. It simply reduces costs. The safeguard is the blood testing, not the screenings.That's my point. If they admit they're homo male you disallow any donations and you don't have to test those results because there won't be any to test. It simplifies the process and is less expensive.
All this ignores the fact that unprotected vaginal intercourse is the most common mode of HIV infection today and there's no screening going to detect that.
And you believe changing a screening question on a questionnaire asking if a person is a homosexual male to homosexual sex in the last the 12 months is going to increase the spread of aids? Over the last 12 years of testing over 50 million units of blood, not a single person has contracted aids due to a transfusion, This was not because of a ban on male homosexuals but rather the advanced testing we started in the late 1990's. Prior to that time we had the lifetime band but were still getting some infections due to transfusions.I was referring to US transmission, that's why I mentioned the CDC.Well, they are still going to ask, but the question is going to be did they have sex with a man in the last 12 months. I doubt that there will be any significant difference in cost since the blood is tested in batches. Plus they will probably get additional donations.To the extent that any admit it, time and money is saved. If it is not asked then that option is moot and that time and money can't be saved.Someone on the streets selling their blood for $25 is going to admit there're homosexual and be rejected? Not gonna happen. The purpose of screening is to eliminate donations that would be rejected when the blood is tested. It simply reduces costs. The safeguard is the blood testing, not the screenings.That's my point. If they admit they're homo male you disallow any donations and you don't have to test those results because there won't be any to test. It simplifies the process and is less expensive.Worldwide, vaginal intercourse is the primary means of transmission. In the US, the primary means is homosexual sex, 30,695 in 2012. The second most common means is vaginal intercourse, 12,150 in 2012.Wrong. Male-on-male sex is way more of a risk than any other mode. The sad part is that you have to do the CDC research yourself to find that out. The homofascist agenda and its buds in the mainstream media make a point to keep that reality obscured.Well, they are still going to ask, but the question is going to be did they have sex with a man in the last 12 months. I doubt that there will be any significant difference in cost since the blood is tested in batches. Plus they will probably get additional donations.To the extent that any admit it, time and money is saved. If it is not asked then that option is moot and that time and money can't be saved.Someone on the streets selling their blood for $25 is going to admit there're homosexual and be rejected? Not gonna happen. The purpose of screening is to eliminate donations that would be rejected when the blood is tested. It simply reduces costs. The safeguard is the blood testing, not the screenings.
All this ignores the fact that unprotected vaginal intercourse is the most common mode of HIV infection today and there's no screening going to detect that.
If you factor in those numbers with the percentage of women vs the percentage of homo males you'll see why the real problem still vastly lies with male homos. All other rationale is a smokescreen.
Asking if someone is homo male reduces the amount of blood that needs to be tested, reducing cost.And you believe changing a screening question on a questionnaire asking if a person is a homosexual male to homosexual sex in the last the 12 months is going to increase the spread of aids? Over the last 12 years of testing over 50 million units of blood, not a single person has contracted aids due to a transfusion, This was not because of a ban on male homosexuals but rather the advanced testing we started in the late 1990's. Prior to that time we had the lifetime band but were still getting some infections due to transfusions.I was referring to US transmission, that's why I mentioned the CDC.Well, they are still going to ask, but the question is going to be did they have sex with a man in the last 12 months. I doubt that there will be any significant difference in cost since the blood is tested in batches. Plus they will probably get additional donations.To the extent that any admit it, time and money is saved. If it is not asked then that option is moot and that time and money can't be saved.Someone on the streets selling their blood for $25 is going to admit there're homosexual and be rejected? Not gonna happen. The purpose of screening is to eliminate donations that would be rejected when the blood is tested. It simply reduces costs. The safeguard is the blood testing, not the screenings.Worldwide, vaginal intercourse is the primary means of transmission. In the US, the primary means is homosexual sex, 30,695 in 2012. The second most common means is vaginal intercourse, 12,150 in 2012.Wrong. Male-on-male sex is way more of a risk than any other mode. The sad part is that you have to do the CDC research yourself to find that out. The homofascist agenda and its buds in the mainstream media make a point to keep that reality obscured.Well, they are still going to ask, but the question is going to be did they have sex with a man in the last 12 months. I doubt that there will be any significant difference in cost since the blood is tested in batches. Plus they will probably get additional donations.To the extent that any admit it, time and money is saved. If it is not asked then that option is moot and that time and money can't be saved.
All this ignores the fact that unprotected vaginal intercourse is the most common mode of HIV infection today and there's no screening going to detect that.
If you factor in those numbers with the percentage of women vs the percentage of homo males you'll see why the real problem still vastly lies with male homos. All other rationale is a smokescreen.
Possibly a bit. However, increased donations from gays that were previously banned may well offset any cost savings.Asking if someone is homo male reduces the amount of blood that needs to be tested, reducing cost.And you believe changing a screening question on a questionnaire asking if a person is a homosexual male to homosexual sex in the last the 12 months is going to increase the spread of aids? Over the last 12 years of testing over 50 million units of blood, not a single person has contracted aids due to a transfusion, This was not because of a ban on male homosexuals but rather the advanced testing we started in the late 1990's. Prior to that time we had the lifetime band but were still getting some infections due to transfusions.I was referring to US transmission, that's why I mentioned the CDC.Well, they are still going to ask, but the question is going to be did they have sex with a man in the last 12 months. I doubt that there will be any significant difference in cost since the blood is tested in batches. Plus they will probably get additional donations.To the extent that any admit it, time and money is saved. If it is not asked then that option is moot and that time and money can't be saved.Worldwide, vaginal intercourse is the primary means of transmission. In the US, the primary means is homosexual sex, 30,695 in 2012. The second most common means is vaginal intercourse, 12,150 in 2012.Wrong. Male-on-male sex is way more of a risk than any other mode. The sad part is that you have to do the CDC research yourself to find that out. The homofascist agenda and its buds in the mainstream media make a point to keep that reality obscured.Well, they are still going to ask, but the question is going to be did they have sex with a man in the last 12 months. I doubt that there will be any significant difference in cost since the blood is tested in batches. Plus they will probably get additional donations.
All this ignores the fact that unprotected vaginal intercourse is the most common mode of HIV infection today and there's no screening going to detect that.
If you factor in those numbers with the percentage of women vs the percentage of homo males you'll see why the real problem still vastly lies with male homos. All other rationale is a smokescreen.
That's my point. Allowing homo male donations offsets cost savings because it will cost more.Possibly a bit. However, increased donations from gays that were previously banned may well offset any cost savings.Asking if someone is homo male reduces the amount of blood that needs to be tested, reducing cost.And you believe changing a screening question on a questionnaire asking if a person is a homosexual male to homosexual sex in the last the 12 months is going to increase the spread of aids? Over the last 12 years of testing over 50 million units of blood, not a single person has contracted aids due to a transfusion, This was not because of a ban on male homosexuals but rather the advanced testing we started in the late 1990's. Prior to that time we had the lifetime band but were still getting some infections due to transfusions.I was referring to US transmission, that's why I mentioned the CDC.Well, they are still going to ask, but the question is going to be did they have sex with a man in the last 12 months. I doubt that there will be any significant difference in cost since the blood is tested in batches. Plus they will probably get additional donations.Worldwide, vaginal intercourse is the primary means of transmission. In the US, the primary means is homosexual sex, 30,695 in 2012. The second most common means is vaginal intercourse, 12,150 in 2012.Wrong. Male-on-male sex is way more of a risk than any other mode. The sad part is that you have to do the CDC research yourself to find that out. The homofascist agenda and its buds in the mainstream media make a point to keep that reality obscured.
If you factor in those numbers with the percentage of women vs the percentage of homo males you'll see why the real problem still vastly lies with male homos. All other rationale is a smokescreen.
bullshit! the tests have to be done anyway..That's my point. Allowing homo male donations offsets cost savings because it will cost more.Possibly a bit. However, increased donations from gays that were previously banned may well offset any cost savings.Asking if someone is homo male reduces the amount of blood that needs to be tested, reducing cost.And you believe changing a screening question on a questionnaire asking if a person is a homosexual male to homosexual sex in the last the 12 months is going to increase the spread of aids? Over the last 12 years of testing over 50 million units of blood, not a single person has contracted aids due to a transfusion, This was not because of a ban on male homosexuals but rather the advanced testing we started in the late 1990's. Prior to that time we had the lifetime band but were still getting some infections due to transfusions.I was referring to US transmission, that's why I mentioned the CDC.Worldwide, vaginal intercourse is the primary means of transmission. In the US, the primary means is homosexual sex, 30,695 in 2012. The second most common means is vaginal intercourse, 12,150 in 2012.
If you factor in those numbers with the percentage of women vs the percentage of homo males you'll see why the real problem still vastly lies with male homos. All other rationale is a smokescreen.
How does the Family Research Council feel about men who have sex with hookers donating blood? Or women who have sex with male hookers? Is that your husband or wife?A decision by the Food and Drug Administration to move forward with a plan to allow “men who have sex with men” to donate blood under certain conditions amounts to caving to a social and political agenda, according to the Family Research Council.
“Research presented to the committee confirmed the dramatically elevated risk of HIV infection among men who have sex with men (MSM) — a risk 62 times higher than in the general public,” said Peter Sprigg, FRC senior fellow for policy studies, on Tuesday.
Blood-donor rules bent by 8216 politics 8217![]()