Many countries don't allow male homosexuals to donate.

That's true, but not necessarily logical. Or helpful t the ones who need the blood.

Before the risks were understood, didn't Arthur Ashe, and Don Fogerty get infected by blood transfusions? I think Arthur Ashe went to court over newspapers labeling him homosexual.

The risks are understood now and the blood is being screened before being used for infusions, believe me.

After some research, it seems it is not the decision of The Red Cross, but the FDA's ruling, which the Red Cross and all blood banks must follow: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10540971

Though it does seem that there is still a slight risk, as not all HIV early cases are caught.

Edited February 28, 201313 yr by jij

Again, the incidence in Thailand among MSMs is high and that is very sad and shows a horrible failure in the education system here. But heterosexual punters, you might be interested that according to this 5 percent of Bangkok Female Sex Workers are HIV positive. Not so rare, is it? Intravenous Drug Users have the highest rate of infection.

http://transition.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/aids/Countries/asia/thailand_profile.pdf

Edited February 28, 201313 yr by Jingthing

But we're discussing Thai gay men, not gays or HIV infected worldwide, since Africa may drastically skew the numbers and while I agree that those nice boys may not want to as they assume the are negative, is not an ounce if prevention Worth a pound if cure. Bottom line is that in this day and age I hardly think the Red Cross does not take their blood because they hate gays or are "homophobic", but that's just my opinion.

I agree the blood screens aren't about hate as I've said previously.

FWIW when I gave blood in the UK. There was a box to tick if you went with prostitutes. Does the Thai form ask that question? If not that is equally crazy.

I would think that in Thailand the box is pre-ticked in pencil, and you have to rub it out if you don't go with prostitutes.

This is THAILAND. Every male has,gad cock.up him one day for a few baht.... Usually 1000.

So there is no need for a box. Just test the blood as they do.in every other country.

Would you accept non urgent blood here knowing who.gave it had sex (girl or boy) with their EXCLUSIVELY ONLY YOU farrang boyfriend???

Again, HIV does not show up for several months. Would you want to receive blood that tested negative but would later show up to be positive? Take the risk out, no matter how small. We are talking about peoples lives here, not whether they get offended easily.

This is THAILAND. Every male has,gad cock.up him one day for a few baht.... Usually 1000.

...

No they haven't. What's the point of writing such absurd stereotypes about all Thai males?

Again, HIV does not show up for several months. Would you want to receive blood that tested negative but would later show up to be positive? Take the risk out, no matter how small. We are talking about peoples lives here, not whether they get offended easily.

Exactly that's the whole point. HIV doesn't show up for months. That is the danger not who they are. Any person who is engaged in what is considered a high risk life style should not be offering to donate blood. The "gay" community, drug addicts, and prostitutes are considered to be high risk. The same as people who have received blood are not allowed to give blood later. It's a strange policy but it does happen. Although gays who are monogamous and their partner is the same, should be allowed if tested negative.

Here's the deal, kid; you are an admitted homosexual and you exercise your rights. Thank you for your honesty. The Red Cross is exercising their rights. You should be thanking them for their honesty. Be very careful what you push over on other people's and other businesses and other charity's rights. I am honest about being a heterosexual, white Caucasian male, and I experience a whole lot more discrimination than you in the name of minorities and their government-backed support for their silly, often stupid "rights"..

Take a number, shut the (Rule No.3 up), wait in the queue and enjoy your life in the mean time.

It's discrimination. Just thinking about people who want to donate blood to help others.

Nowadays it's pretty easy to check donated blood, or even the people donating it before. Making all gays to HIV carriers is absurd.

I personally don't think that all gays are having unprotected sex. What's next? No bisexual men and women?

It's not about who's donating blood. It's about who's checking it. What about all the women who have unprotected sex with many men?

The druggies.....etc....

Writeshack... Your information is about a,decade out of date. Asdays for HIV...TESTS...,show up immediately and,are now very accurate to.99.9999% and within 20 minutes. I know. I am a doctor.

Being gay using prostitutes whatever... All can be lied about. Testing all blood is,and,should ALWAYS occur.

Did you know sone drugs,affect blood results up to 10 years,after the last use. So.it goes,on....

Just to remind those who persist in saying the tests don't show up HIV for several months. If you don't believe a doctor, who do you believe?

I suppose you'll be asking for his qualification certificates! Plenty of prejudice around in this thread, even if you don't like to call it homophobia!

Writeshack... Your information is about a,decade out of date. Asdays for HIV...TESTS...,show up immediately and,are now very accurate to.99.9999% and within 20 minutes. I know. I am a doctor.

Being gay using prostitutes whatever... All can be lied about. Testing all blood is,and,should ALWAYS occur.

Did you know sone drugs,affect blood results up to 10 years,after the last use. So.it goes,on....

Just to remind those who persist in saying the tests don't show up HIV for several months. If you don't believe a doctor, who do you believe?

I suppose you'll be asking for his qualification certificates! Plenty of prejudice around in this thread, even if you don't like to call it homophobia!

I believed a Thai doctor who said my water on the knee was gout, and nearly caused my kidneys to fail.

I'll follow the "CDC" (Center for Disease Control) website guidelines thank you.

"Quote:

How long after a possible exposure should I wait to get tested for HIV?

Most HIV tests are antibody tests that measure the antibodies your body makes against HIV. It can take some time for the immune system to produce enough antibodies for the antibody test to detect and this time period can vary from person to person. This time period is commonly referred to as the “window period”. Most people will develop detectable antibodies within 2 to 8 weeks (the average is 25 days). Even so, there is a chance that some individuals will take longer to develop detectable antibodies. Therefore, if the initial negative HIV test was conducted within the first 3 months after possible exposure, repeat testing should be considered >3 months after the exposure occurred to account for the possibility of a false-negative result. Ninety seven percent will develop antibodies in the first 3 months following the time of their infection. In very rare cases, it can take up to 6 months to develop antibodies to HIV.

Another type of test is an RNA test, which detects the HIV virus directly. The time between HIV infection and RNA detection is 9-11 days. These tests, which are more costly and used less often than antibody tests, are used in some parts of the United States.

For information on HIV testing, you can talk to your health care provider or you can find the location of the HIV testing site nearest to you by calling CDC-INFO 24 Hours/Day at1-800-CDC-INFO (232-4636), 1-888-232-6348 (TTY), in English, en Español. Both of these resources are confidential.

Unquote"

The video seems to have gone private. Anyone have a link to a working video?

After some research, it seems it is not the decision of The Red Cross, but the FDA's ruling, which the Red Cross and all blood banks must follow: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10540971

Though it does seem that there is still a slight risk, as not all HIV early cases are caught.

Looks as through the above link has been overlooked. It is not Red Cross originated policy, but compliance to the US FDA directive to blood bank organisations. The US Red Cross is now seeking to overturn the directive.

FWIW when I gave blood in the UK. There was a box to tick if you went with prostitutes. Does the Thai form ask that question? If not that is equally crazy.

As I said in response to your previous post about gay men, not mosquitoes, many countries are considering lifting this ban. See the pages from BBC online

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14824310

Indeed there are more pressing problems for LBGT people in Thailand as the stories about arbitrary police rounding up of katoey in Pattaya illustrates, but this is part of a global sea change where countries as disparate as Mexico and China are reviewing their positions.

It is regrettable, in my view, that this video has now gone private as the young man who forcibly stated his annoyance at being discriminated against, is to be admired for his courage rather than ridiculed or even tutted at.

Strangely in the UK you have to wait 12 months after sex with another male but if you've had a blood transfusion anywhere in the world since 1980 you can't give blood and I think that's forever. Not sure what that says about blood transfusions and gay men. As someone said gay men or those who have been with prostitutes could easily lie.

I recall when the Red Cross round to my unit for blood donors in the UK I was automatically ineligible as I had been to Thailand within the previous 6 months. That seems pretty discriminatory (and probably not unreasonable, to be honest).

I recall when the Red Cross round to my unit for blood donors in the UK I was automatically ineligible as I had been to Thailand within the previous 6 months. That seems pretty discriminatory (and probably not unreasonable, to be honest).

That's an interest point. Such policies are by definition discriminatory. But I guess the bottom line is that sometimes there is a reasonable rationale for discrimination.

I recall when the Red Cross round to my unit for blood donors in the UK I was automatically ineligible as I had been to Thailand within the previous 6 months. That seems pretty discriminatory (and probably not unreasonable, to be honest).

Mozzies

I am open to new information. I hadn't realized that the blood testing for donating blood was that amazingly accurate even with NEW HIV infections. If that is really true, that should eventually change screening policies. I agree people can lie about anything on a screening form. That said, assuming the tests are that perfect, we are ALSO assuming the testing is done that perfectly, and after all, sorry, this is still Thailand. So follow my logic here, as we know that statistics show MSM infection rate in Bangkok is about 25 percent, if there is ANY issue with the testing not being done perfectly in Thailand, is it really worth the risk to stop screening out MSM people when that is possible?

Anyway, can someone provide a link documenting the test accuracy even for new infections? Cheers.

Edited March 1, 201313 yr by Jingthing

FWIW when I gave blood in the UK. There was a box to tick if you went with prostitutes. Does the Thai form ask that question? If not that is equally crazy.

That box is automatically checked, for a good reason

Given how you can pay your way out of a situation here. If you become HIV positive via a transfusion. Who do you sue? People with an high risk life style should not donate, and sod the pc arguement.

Since the topic is Red Cross Thailand I came across the following; source http://www.aegis.org/DisplayContent/?SectionID=376656

The Thai Red Cross tracked 174 MSM cases from Jan 2007 to April 2008 and found 118 men, or 67.8% contracted HIV. Forty per cent of those infected with HIV had also contracted the human papilloma virus, which is associated with anal cancer.

Has their been a dramatic reduction in infection rates since 04/2008?

Since the topic is Red Cross Thailand I came across the following; source http://www.aegis.org/DisplayContent/?SectionID=376656

The Thai Red Cross tracked 174 MSM cases from Jan 2007 to April 2008 and found 118 men, or 67.8% contracted HIV. Forty per cent of those infected with HIV had also contracted the human papilloma virus, which is associated with anal cancer.

Has their been a dramatic reduction in infection rates since 04/2008?

I wonder how (and why) they tracked those particular individuals - if you take that statistic as a general one, which seems to be the implication, it would mean that 67.8% of Thai MSM contract HIV every 16 months.

Many countries don't allow male homosexuals to donate.

I would say the Thai Red Cross are 100% right for not accepting blood from homosexuals. The reasons are obvious.

Many countries don't allow male homosexuals to donate.

I would say the Thai Red Cross are 100% right for not accepting blood from homosexuals. The reasons are obvious.

There is no reason to screen out female homosexuals.

Nearly all the statistics *I* have seen on HIV or other infections in Thailand were seriously misrepresented- generally the reason being that the populations were very much askew for one reason or another once you finally got back to the source papers- quite common to find the persons selected from red light districts, coming out of gay saunas, persons of the same age range in bars, etc., etc.

If those enormously inflated numbers were true, we'd be seeing a national emergency on par with Botswana's problems.

Leaving that aside for the moment, there are other issues besides HIV- including hepatitis, which is much easier to catch, and also contagious from a significant portion of the population's blood supply- even if the donor is asymptomatic.

However, I would think that such risks were associated in Thailand with all sexually active persons- and the risks would be growing with the advent of MDR strains of the old favourites like syphilis or gonorrhea.

I wonder if the Red Cross is behind the times in this respect. However, I have not found any dealings with them to have any hint of homophobia- their statistics may or may not be justified in Thailand, but I doubt the reason would be prejudice.

Screening is discriminatory but it is also a most sensible precautionary measure. As a gay man I no more want to receive infected blood than to unknowingly donate any just because it is my "right".

Because of the latency period testing the donation can still produce false negatives.

However, there is no need to ban donations from anyone with a risky sexual history. I believe in Australia and most countries that screen donations the blood is still accepted and can be used to extract other useful blood products.

Flames have been removed.