1.  05/09/2005, 12:19 PM Originally Posted by treo2die4 Keep in mind, these are gross numbers - they are not equated to contraction per catagory as it relates to total percent of population. I looked for a good answer to the question of what percent of the US population is homosexual and found the estimate to be 3 - 6% with just over 1/2 of that being male. Assuming an estimated population of 295 million, that would mean (if the estimate of 6% of the population were gay men) there are approximately 17.7 million gay men in the US. (Note I am showing the full 6% as if it were gay men in order to look at a best/worst case scenario). Conversly, in 2000 there were 138 million males in total. If you look at the male population that is 21 and over, there were a total of approximately 95 million males. Removing the 17.7 million males who are gay leaves 77.3 million hetrosexual males. So, Gay men total population: 17.7 million HIV contractions in 2003: 17,969 HIV contractions through 2003: 440,887 Straight men total population; 77.3 million HIV contractions in 2003: 5,133 HIV contractions thorugh 2003: 56,903 In order for straight men to contract HIV at the same rate as gay men, you would have to see a total number of straight men contractions in 2003 at 78,474 - a 15.3 fold difference. That would argue there is a meaningful statistical difference between these 2 groups. I have a hard time seeing how anyone could not consider gay men a high risk catagory given the numbers. Your calculations are interesting, but you use the wrong data. The numbers you picked are from the table showing new cases of AIDS. That is totally different from new (ot total) cases of HIV infection, because outbreak of AIDS after HIV infection takes several years and is mostly depressed or delayed by medication in the US. If you are infected, your blood or sperm can infect others, too, wheter you have got AIDS (the onset of immunodeficiency symtpoms) already or not is not that important. See my post above where I linked the CDC data on total HIV infection rates, or the same link here: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/2003Sur...ort/table8.htm Last edited by clulup; 05/09/2005 at 12:25 PM. “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
2.  05/09/2005, 12:36 PM Originally Posted by clulup Your calculations are interesting, but you use the wrong data. The numbers you picked are from the table showing new cases of AIDS. That is totally different from new (ot total) cases of HIV infection, because outbreak of AIDS after HIV infection takes several years and is mostly depressed or delayed by medication in the US. If you are infected, your blood or sperm can infect others, too, wheter you have got AIDS (the onset of immunodeficiency symtpoms) already or not is not that important. See my post above where I linked the CDC data on total HIV infection rates. I did realize this - was using the previous posters data to ensure a reasonable look at the statistics. Thanks for the other data, interestingly, the analysis yields the same basic results. HIV infections Male-to-male contact 160,433 Hetero contact 34,124 In order for hetro contact to equal the contraction rate of male-to-male contractn, hetero contact would have to be at 700,648 cases, a 20.5 fold increase. I did exit my previous post to correct HIV to AIDS. Last edited by treo2die4; 05/09/2005 at 12:56 PM.
3.  05/09/2005, 12:53 PM All of this says that the regulation is definately justified and necessary! Far cry from gay bashing
4.  05/09/2005, 03:17 PM Originally Posted by sxtg All of this says that the regulation is definately justified and necessary! Far cry from gay bashing No, you're wrong...forget the 2,000% increase in HIV cases...if you're doing ANYTHING that restricts homosexuals....you're a close-minded gay basher!
5.  05/09/2005, 04:01 PM A series of questions worth exploring: 1. Is sperm donation a right of every american male? 2. If my wife and I sought a donor, a) would it be ok for us to state that we would prefer an African-American donor, in the hopes of the birth of a child that more closely resembled our own appearance? b) Would it be ok for us to request the sperm of a non-smoker c) Would it be ok to request that the donor not be very religious? d) Are there any characteristics/traits/behaviors that we should not be allowed to filter against?
6.  05/09/2005, 04:06 PM Originally Posted by shopharim A series of questions worth exploring: 1. Is sperm donation a right of every american male? 2. If my wife and I sought a donor, a) would it be ok for us to state that we would prefer an African-American donor, in the hopes of the birth of a child that more closely resembled our own appearance? b) Would it be ok for us to request the sperm of a non-smoker c) Would it be ok to request that the donor not be very religious? d) Are there any characteristics/traits/behaviors that we should not be allowed to filter against? As far as a right for every male, I don't believe it is a right at all in that the collector, in conjunction with government regulation, makes the rules with regard to which samples they are either interested in or willing to accept. My answer would be, you're within your rights to ask for anything you want, however I don't know if it's realistic or possible for the provider to cut the samples they receive in that many different directions. "within your rights to ask for anything you want" - in thinking about this while I finish my post it occurs to me this is a very broad statement. I do happen to believe only you can choose what you wish to ask for; even if it is offensive to others, it would not be my place to tell you what you can or cannot ask for. Last edited by treo2die4; 05/09/2005 at 06:12 PM.
7.  05/09/2005, 04:08 PM Originally Posted by RicoM No, you're wrong...forget the 2,000% increase in HIV cases...if you're doing ANYTHING that restricts homosexuals....you're a close-minded gay basher! Is your post a serious statement?
8.  05/09/2005, 05:50 PM Originally Posted by shopharim A series of questions worth exploring: 1. Is sperm donation a right of every american male? 2. If my wife and I sought a donor, a) would it be ok for us to state that we would prefer an African-American donor, in the hopes of the birth of a child that more closely resembled our own appearance? b) Would it be ok for us to request the sperm of a non-smoker c) Would it be ok to request that the donor not be very religious? d) Are there any characteristics/traits/behaviors that we should not be allowed to filter against? I believe it would be alright to ask for any or all of those listed above, and go elsewhere until you get what you want. You may not ultimately get it, but let the market determine what it wants. Is sperm donation a right of every american male? Why not let the market determine that as well. You can donate, but what you have to offer (tested and safe) may not be in demand. They may have enough already and not accepting donations at this time. This is a premium service being provided, not a need in society. If there is no demand for 'homosexual' sperm, why would a clinic need or accept any? I don't have a problem with a for profit business saying, "I'm sorry, we have sufficient supply at this time and are not accepting donations at the moment" to a given group. Why tell who cannot donate when adequate safety precautions are already in place? How many lawsuits have been initiated in the US against fertility clinics/sperm banks because of HIV infection? I haven't heard of any, let alone a winning case, but doesn't that help to determine such new guidelines? We have been dealing with HIV/AIDS for quite some time now...we have laws already in place regarding testing...why is this now necessary? What initiated these new guidelines anyway? Anyone curious?
9.  05/09/2005, 09:13 PM Originally Posted by clulup I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before: - There were some numbers about AIDS infections per year quoted. Those are not really important in this discussion, what matters more is the total number of people are infected with HIV (the virus which later may cause AIDS, unless surpressed by medication) and carry the virus in their blood/sperm. Here are those numbers: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/2003Sur...ort/table8.htm They show that male-to-male sexual contact is still the most frequent cause of the past HIV infections, about 180'000 cases (including Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use) out of a total of about 260'000 cases in 33 states of the US. I messed up on the statistics, I think that sxtg pointed that out. However, I do question the fact that you want to focus on overall numbers. When you focus on overall cases, don't you negate the advances we have made in education for gays (and heterosexuals) on the risk of unprotected sex (and possibly better testing - which is what this thread is questioning?)
10.  05/09/2005, 09:18 PM Originally Posted by shopharim 1. It's not difficult for a healthy adult to go 5 years without sex (may be a challenge for some in the sex-crazed popular culture of these united states). This is a little subjective isnt it? I would find it difficult (and I don't consider myself 'sex crazed' ) My wife probably does (but again...its all relative). Originally Posted by shopharim 2. A fair amount of people think and consequently behave as if it is. I would think more than a simple majority think its difficult and behave like it is. Originally Posted by shopharim 3. That behavior leads, in no small part, to the matters at hand in this discussion. It only leads to this discussion when its unprotected...I think if we look at the 'trend' in statistics (I mentioned this in the post to clulup) then it might be even less of a part.
11.  05/09/2005, 09:23 PM Originally Posted by sxtg All of this says that the regulation is definately justified and necessary! It may very well be...but I think its perfectly acceptable to consider that this action might have been prompted by a more conservative executive branch (and that it may not be based on 'science' alone. Originally Posted by sxtg Far cry from gay bashing I try not to use inflamatory language (it tends to take away from the message.)
12.  05/10/2005, 09:14 AM Originally Posted by t2gungho This is a little subjective isnt it? I would find it difficult (and I don't consider myself 'sex crazed' ) My wife probably does (but again...its all relative). Definitely subjective. I left out the parts about when and why a healthy adult should forego sexual activity Originally Posted by t2gungho I would think more than a simple majority think its difficult and behave like it is. Not sold on that. The media (tv news, newspapaers, entertainment) present rampant sexuality as the norm, but that may not be the case. Even in the mid 80's when I was in high school, I learned the art of acting like I was doing things that 1) I certainly wasn't doing; and 2) I had no plans to do. Originally Posted by t2gungho It only leads to this discussion when its unprotected...I think if we look at the 'trend' in statistics (I mentioned this in the post to clulup) then it might be even less of a part. I suppose so.
13.  05/10/2005, 12:53 PM Originally Posted by t2gungho However, I do question the fact that you want to focus on overall numbers. When you focus on overall cases, don't you negate the advances we have made in education for gays (and heterosexuals) on the risk of unprotected sex (and possibly better testing - which is what this thread is questioning?) I was more focussing on the fact that one has to look at HIV infections, not at AIDS cases. However, I think it makes sense to look at the annual rates of new infections (even if I am not sure what you mean by this education thing), for the following reason: If a person is infected with HIV since more than three months (about, not sure exactly) and donates sperm, he will be excluded with a high likelyhood. This is not the case if somebody was infected less than three months ago. Those newly infected pose the greatest risk, so yes, we should look at those cases specifically: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/2003Sur...rt/table20.htm As shown in that table (under "Total", lower right), in 2003 about 46 % of all newly diagnosed cases of HIV infection were due to male-to-male sexual contact. So by excluding people with male-to-male contacts, almost half of the highest risk cases (new infections) could be avoided even when tested only once. However, I still think testing only once is risky, because you can never be totally sure if you test only at the time of sperm donation and not again a few months later. So by testing twice, it would probably be safe (and at the same time less discriminating) not to exclude people with male-to-male sexual contacts. “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
14.  05/10/2005, 09:05 PM Originally Posted by clulup I was more focussing on the fact that one has to look at HIV infections, not at AIDS cases. Agreed. Originally Posted by clulup However, I think it makes sense to look at the annual rates of new infections (even if I am not sure what you mean by this education thing) My point was that aids/hiv awareness and education has dramatically improved since we first learned of the virus. By looking at overall numbers, we cant see the trend of how this awareness/education has played out. By limiting our data to the last 3 years, it gives us a different 'picture' of which groups are more at risk and possibly why. Originally Posted by clulup If a person is infected with HIV since more than three months (about, not sure exactly) and donates sperm, he will be excluded with a high likelyhood. This is not the case if somebody was infected less than three months ago. Those newly infected pose the greatest risk, so yes, we should look at those cases specifically. Agreed. Why have to test more than once (and have a waiting period between tests). Originally Posted by clulup As shown in that table (under "Total", lower right), in 2003 about 46 % of all newly diagnosed cases of HIV infection were due to male-to-male sexual contact. So by excluding people with male-to-male contacts, almost half of the highest risk cases (new infections) could be avoided even when tested only once. Fair enough but before we go forward with a discriminatory policy, I would be curious to know what made up the "Other/risk factor not reported or identified" category which was at 31% (and I don't think we can assume its homosexuals because the study claims that it was done with "confidential name-based HIV infection reporting"? Originally Posted by clulup However, I still think testing only once is risky, because you can never be totally sure if you test only at the time of sperm donation and not again a few months later. So by testing twice, it would probably be safe (and at the same time less discriminating) not to exclude people with male-to-male sexual contacts. If this position is as reasonable as it sounds (at least to me) then I think there is a legitimate question of why we the FDA would institute a policy that discriminates so blatantly .
15.  05/11/2005, 07:28 AM Originally Posted by treo2die4 Is your post a serious statement? lol, you mean you didn't see the sarcasm dripping off?! should of used [sarcasm][/sarcasm]....or at least used the !
16.  05/11/2005, 11:39 AM Originally Posted by RicoM lol, you mean you didn't see the sarcasm dripping off?! should of used [sarcasm][/sarcasm]....or at least used the ! I figured it was but in this forum you just neven know...
Page 8 of 8 First ... 345678