This is fantastic. I love MacRumors a little more now. And I didn't think that was possible.
Macrumors didn't say anything about having to donate in any particular way. This is not a Red Cross event. Another poster added some links earlier to other organizations that accept blood donations.
that gay men are not allowed to give blood.
Original Post quotes:
"Our goal is to increase the number of blood donations by people in the Mac community."
Do 'Mac-people' have some sort of special blood?
I didn't imply otherwise. I simply said there was a reason (beyond basic trolling) for the negative votes for this story. I realize it catches some people off guard, but apparently the Red Cross love fest isn't universal.Macrumors is not responsible for Red Cross policies.
Slippery slope.Besides which, ask anyone who has contracted HIV or Hep B as a result of inadequate screening how much they would have opposed the current measures, imperfect as they are.
Who really gave this a negative lol...I mean really?
What evidence do you have that hysteria is trumping science? Statistically speaking, the probability is higher that a male homosexual donor, a person with multiple sexual partners, a prostitite, a drug user, or a donor who lived an an area where HIV is endemic will have HIV. Since the sensitivity of the HIV test is not 100%, and because there can also be a delay between exposure and positive test results, the risk of HIV transmission from donors in these populations is, by definition, higher. This is no comment on the suitability of individual donors, just an application of epidemiology and statistical probability.Hysteria triumphs over science. Fine, but then don't whine about blood shortages.
The FDA moves slowly and it's a valid concern that the eligibility requirements are out of date. Policies should be based on current statistics, for the good of everyone involved.This is no comment on the suitability of individual donors, just an application of epidemiology and statistical probability.
I'm not allowed to donate -- spent too much time in the United Kingdom and so the Red Cross fears that I may be a carrier of NVCJ, aka mad cow disease.
Here you go, at least with respect to HIV. http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf. Can't comment on the UK travel restrictions, however, because I haven't seen the evidence supporting them.The FDA moves slowly and it's a valid concern that the eligibility requirements are out of date. Policies should be based on current statistics, for the good of everyone involved.
Agreed.In the meantime, we can encourage people who are themselves excluded to pass the word to those who are eligible.
What evidence do you have that hysteria is trumping science? Statistically speaking, the probability is higher that a male homosexual donor, a person with multiple sexual partners, a prostitite, a drug user, or a donor who lived an an area where HIV is endemic will have HIV. Since the sensitivity of the HIV test is not 100%, and because there can also be a delay between exposure and positive test results, the risk of HIV transmission from donors in these populations is, by definition, higher. This is no comment on the suitability of individual donors, just an application of epidemiology and statistical probability.
What evidence do you have that hysteria is trumping science? Statistically speaking, the probability is higher that a male homosexual donor...
that gay men are not allowed to give blood.