Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 156
  1. #81  
    Well said...yes. But, the point is they're not trying to eliminate homosexuals AND IV drug users just homosexuals. No one disputes the need to eliminate the risk of contaminated samples. The "selective" elimination is the issue.
  2. #82  
    I've never really heard of freezing blood, but I certainly have of sperm. This has been done and works from what I've read. As a matter of fact I believe there was a custody battle over frozen sperm at one point, but I'd have to try to dig up the facts on the matter. Women have become pregnant from it.

    No one here has voiced concern of risking our health and benefit in support of a political agenda -quite the opposite. They have voiced a concern that not enough is being done.

    Regarding retesting on material that has been frozen, that is a point, and I would love to hear more background on this matter.

    One then could also ask the very same question of you -what is your political agenda?
  3. #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christinac130
    Well said...yes. But, the point is they're not trying to eliminate homosexuals AND IV drug users just homosexuals. No one disputes the need to eliminate the risk of contaminated samples. The "selective" elimination is the issue.
    You don't know what they do with IV users. Why don't you know because thats not on Da's political agenda. True this particular law only addressess homosexuals, but that doesn't mean there are not laws addressing IV drug users. Could you imagine DA's reaction if they just lumped the two together in the same law???? His head would pop right off!

    I am certain that IV drug users are not allowed to donate blood or sperm.
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by funsnail
    The real shame here is that the FDA recommendations are based on medical science...
    Are they? Here are some statistics from the CDC webpage (I looked some of these up because I think, in general, we defer to arguments we have heard before, i.e. television, but we don't look at the 'facts' and determine things for ourselves )

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#exposure

    (Im posting these for those that cant look off the wap site )

    Estimated # of AIDS Cases, in 2003

    _________________________Male______Female______Total
    Male-to-male sexual contact_17,969____17,969______17,969
    Heterosexual contact_______5,133______8,127______13,260


    If you look at those numbers, then the argument that we should eliminate the 'gay HIV risk' doesnt really seem as strong (I am not saying that there isnt a higher risk, just that the risk doesnt seem to justify discriminating when you look at how many HIV cases there are between heterosexuals).

    Quote Originally Posted by funsnail
    and people with a political agenda are willing to risk our health to benefit their belief system.
    I am sure that is happening but I am not convinced its the basis of the decision here, the 'science' just doesnt seem to support the decision (assuming we are looking at it from a cost/benefit perspective).

    Quote Originally Posted by funsnail
    The facts are that homosexuals and IV drug users are at a much higher risk of HIV than the rest of the population. Eliminating them from the donor group greatly reduces the risk of HIV.
    If you look at the numbers, its not much higher so I would have to disagree. Are there more reported cases, yes, but you have to admit that HIV is a bigger problem overall (for everyone).

    On a different note, we know there are costs involved in screening. We have to screen everything because people do not tell the truth when they complete the screening forms. If we already have to screen every sample that comes in, then whats the real harm in letting gays donate? Are we really getting a benefit by discriminating here than we are incurring a detriment (because the homosexual category has about a 25% more cases of HIV occuring)? IMHO-no.
  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Are they? Here are some statistics from the CDC webpage (I looked some of these up because I think, in general, we defer to arguments we have heard before, i.e. television, but we don't look at the 'facts' and determine things for ourselves )

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#exposure

    (Im posting these for those that cant look off the wap site )

    Estimated # of AIDS Cases, in 2003

    _________________________Male______Female______Total
    Male-to-male sexual contact_17,969____17,969______17,969
    Heterosexual contact_______5,133______8,127______13,260


    If you look at those numbers, then the argument that we should eliminate the 'gay HIV risk' doesnt really seem as strong (I am not saying that there isnt a higher risk, just that the risk doesnt seem to justify discriminating when you look at how many HIV cases there are between heterosexuals).
    Heterosexual Male = 5,133
    Homosexual Male = 17,969
    Women = dont donate sperm so thier count is irrelevant in this argument.

    I would argue, that an over 300% increased risk is HUGE. Hardly something to dismiss as "not that strong"
  6. funsnail's Avatar
    Posts
    47 Posts
    Global Posts
    51 Global Posts
    #86  
    With reguard to freezing sperm, I know it can be frozen. The question is can it be frozen and still give the woman a reasonable chance of getting pregnant with a healthy child. Any degradation of the sperm will reduce the chance of getting pregnant and can result in an unhealthy child.

    In reguards to screening or testing, the test is not 100% accurate so eliminating risk factors is still a very real part of control.

    In reguards to infection rates, keep in mind that homosexuals are a very small percentage of the population. The infection rates you quote are a very significant percentage of a small population. This makes for a high risk factor as compared to the much larger heterosexual population. I would guess that the infection rates in the heterosexual population are mostly among IV drug users. That is why IV drug users are also eliminated. They are a small population with high risk factors.

    As to political agenda, I was responding to the very inflammatory title of this discussion. A title that states the FDA is engaged in bigotry and not health regulation.
  7. #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by funsnail
    With reguard to freezing sperm, I know it can be frozen. The question is can it be frozen and still give the woman a reasonable chance of getting pregnant with a healthy child. Any degradation of the sperm will reduce the chance of getting pregnant and can result in an unhealthy child.

    In reguards to screening or testing, the test is not 100% accurate so eliminating risk factors is still a very real part of control.
    Sounds resonable to me

    Quote Originally Posted by funsnail
    In reguards to infection rates, keep in mind that homosexuals are a very small percentage of the population. The infection rates you quote are a very significant percentage of a small population. This makes for a high risk factor as compared to the much larger heterosexual population. I would guess that the infection rates in the heterosexual population are mostly among IV drug users. That is why IV drug users are also eliminated. They are a small population with high risk factors.
    So the increased risk is really MUCH MORE than 300% which is an outrageous jump already.
  8. #88  
    Yes, it can be frozen and is all the time. I performed a google search and up came a clinic. That is how they get their donations -frozen and shipped to them. It is standard operating procedure for them. They tell all about it on their fertility page.

    This clinic also stated that they test their samples for All Heps (a far bigger problem if you ask me) HIV- as well as other items. Are all clinics already doing this? I cannot answer but one of the first that popped up on a simple google search does, which begs the question of going about legislating in this manner.

    As to political agenda it makes me wonder why legislation is being passed when (this clinic at any rate) are already testing their samples? Why not have all clinics do this when apparently this one does and operates just fine?

    edit: here is but one such link (and they can be found all day)

    http://acfs2000.com/html/learn/sperm.html

    They mention cryogenics -sperm was first frozen in 1953 successfully and we've been doing it since. This is standard operating procedure for them. They freeze, test, hold for 6 months, and then they retest. Sound familiar? They claim to be the largest fertility clinic operating in the SW. They are located in AZ.

    There is my link, Funsnail. What clinics out there do not do this? If this clinic can why are we saying it's not financially feasible? I would also like to hear from SXTG on this
    Last edited by Tribalenvy; 05/08/2005 at 09:11 AM.
  9. #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by Tribalenvy
    Yes, it can be frozen and is all the time. I performed a google search and up came a clinic. That is how they get their donations -frozen and shipped to them. It is standard operating procedure for them. They tell all about it on their fertility page.

    This clinic also stated that they test their samples for All Heps (a far bigger problem if you ask me) HIV- as well as other items. Are all clinics already doing this? I cannot answer but one of the first that popped up on a simple google search does, which begs the question of going about legislating in this manner.

    As to political agenda it makes me wonder why legislation is being passed when (this clinic at any rate) are already testing their samples? Why not have all clinics do this when apparently this one does and operates just fine?

    edit: here is but one such link (and they can be found all day)

    http://acfs2000.com/html/learn/sperm.html

    They mention cryogenics -sperm was first frozen in 1953 successfully and we've been doing it since. This is standard operating procedure for them. They freeze, test, hold for 6 months, and then they retest. Sound familiar? They claim to be the largest fertility clinic operating in the SW. They are located in AZ.

    There is my link, Funsnail. What clinics out there do not do this? If this clinic can why are we saying it's not financially feasible? I would also like to hear from SXTG on this
    What percentage of the homosexual donations are unusable. I just think from a business perspective it would be a waste of rescources to accept donations from a group in which a large percentage of donations are unusable.

    Also is there evidence that the tests are 100% accurate? If not then as mentioned above screening would still be a necessary factor.
  10. #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    What percentage of the homosexual donations are unusable. I just think from a business perspective it would be a waste of rescources to accept donations from a group in which a large percentage of donations are unusable.

    Also is there evidence that the tests are 100% accurate? If not then as mentioned above screening would still be a necessary factor.
    At least for this clinic (since then I've found many more but was waiting to post additional links when someone says this is the only clinic) they don't mention nor seem to care who donated, it all will still be tested and retested 6 months later -without bias. I submit that they are testing everything because it makes SOUND FINANCIAL sense. They don't have to worry about getting sued, they have included the testing into the cost, and most importantly, they can advertise this benefit and have their clientel at ease knowing they made the right decision to shop at their fertility clinic. This puts a burden on all other (for profit) clinics to do the same thing to compete. So they offer it too to compete, for what woman wants to go to a fertility clinic that isn't up on the latest techniques and testing? She can already afford the expensive procedure after all. What woman is going to pick a substandard clinic?

    So, what is this legislation for again now? Why is this screening necessary when there are already clinics who do so much more?

    Are the tests 100% accurate? Is any test? You can bet a woman will sue if she contracts HIV from the clinic sample. I do not know if any test is 100% accurate -but I do believe there is a very high accuracy rate for the standard HIV tests -and I bet it's much more accurate than the legislation currently on the table
  11. #91  
    I agree they should test and retest and retsest. My point was why waste those efforts on a high failure group.

    Also, the purpose of waiting 6 months is to allow the AIDS to mature enough that it can even show up in testing.... Right?

    Is this "incubation process" even possible in a cryogenically frozen environment? I thought the purpose of such a deep frozen state was to stop biological progression
  12. #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    I agree they should test and retest and retsest. My point was why waste those efforts on a high failure group.

    Also, the purpose of waiting 6 months is to allow the AIDS to mature enough that it can even show up in testing.... Right?

    Is this "incubation process" even possible in a cryogenically frozen environment? I thought the purpose of such a deep frozen state was to stop biological progression
    Apparently the business model is such that it's not considered a waste.

    How many HIV/Aids infected men do you know that willingly donate sperm? As a group they get educated more and tend to test more. For the most part you are speaking of homosexual men who are sexually active and have NOT been tested and probably don't know they have HIV. That is a much smaller group by far who are actually donating. You see, there is a whole bunch of aids awareness in the gay community at large. They offer testing services all the time. You can't pickup a magazine or go to an event without hearing about it. These people that you mention have HIV KNOW they have it and don't donate anything. The last thing on their mind is donating their sperm. This reasoning hasn't been brought up all. So now let me ask this...which group of men are tested more, homosexual men or heterosexual ones? These statistics are based on men tested after all. True, heterosexual men are less likely to contract HIV.

    You bring up a point about the incubating period involving cryogenically frozen sperm -I don't know the answer. I bet the clinics do and I can pose that as a question to them. Truth is you and I don't know all the facts, but we can choose to learn them before we let our biases get in the way. Look at it from another vantage point. How can HIV live in a frozen environment? It is a virus, and it needs a warm blooded host to survive. Hep-C worries me more.

    I can tell you this -I will make use of just this type of service in the future. Do you think this legislation is of any use to me personally? No, I think at best it's a waste, and at worst -well it's homophobic and leads to a false sense of security when there are far better choices that can be made.
  13. #93  
    I'd like to know this too. I thought freezing material was to stop degradation. Does it also stop progression?
  14. #94  
    Flip seems awfully concerned about *****...
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  15. #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christinac130
    I'd like to know this too. I thought freezing material was to stop degradation. Does it also stop progression?
    Sxtg is going to research it and let us know I'll find out if freezing can actually kill the virus altogether.

    Lord knows I have a large amount of links now gathered regarding this subject. Not something I planned to fill my favorites with but...
  16. #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by Tribalenvy
    and leads to a false sense of security when there are far better choices that can be made.
    I agree that screening is not and should not be the only safety net. I just think it makes a starting point.
  17. #97  
    Just learned this too -infectious diseases are required to be tested for at all fertility clinics. Testing is already required by law. Knowing this makes the legislation seem a bit more homophobic or useless now.
  18. #98  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christinac130
    I'd like to know this too. I thought freezing material was to stop degradation. Does it also stop progression?
    With living organisms degradation is progression. Everything is dying.
  19. #99  
    I think this dicussion has been pretty good so far. Sxtg-good point made on the statistics I found...but I have another question. If we are worried about gay HIV men giving tainted samples...do we have any statistics on how often this 'group' donates? My point is that if that group only makes up 10 or even 25% of the donations, then how much protection would we get for excluding them?
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  20. #100  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I think this dicussion has been pretty good so far. Sxtg-good point made on the statistics I found...but I have another question. If we are worried about gay HIV men giving tainted samples...do we have any statistics on how often this 'group' donates? My point is that if that group only makes up 10 or even 25% of the donations, then how much protection would we get for excluding them?
    If they don't want to donate anyway why does anyone care if they cant?
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions