Categorized | World

“Celibacy Challenge” Mocks FDA Gay Blood-Donor Policy Change

“Actor Alan Cumming puts a cheeky spin on news that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recommended an end to the nation’s lifetime ban on gay and bisexual male blood donors only…

25 Responses to ““Celibacy Challenge” Mocks FDA Gay Blood-Donor Policy Change”

  1. Listenbuddy1 says:

    Who wants gay blood?

  2. cjbos81 says:

    Gay men still have the highest HIV transmission rates in the country.

  3. Militant Anti-theist says:

    Cenk just called all asexual people pathetic.He said that holding on to
    your virginity is pathetic, perpetuating the social pressure that young
    women and men endure, forcing them into having sex for the first time even
    if they don’t want to.
    Way to go Cenk. This definitely deserves a Twitter hate campaign.

  4. xRemiixCoder says:

    This blonde bitch is useless

  5. Akoual Mou says:

    looks like a pedophile… all whites look like pedophiles. its the
    pedophile race. 

  6. Sher Shah says:

    1 out of 5 gay men have aids… Keep your political correct blood to
    yourself. ..

  7. Rebekah Bartholomew says:

    America is so behind! What are we… Still living in the 50’s I mean come
    on!!! This BS has to stop! 

  8. Hermann Kateri says:

    If I get into a car crash and bleed out six courts of my own blood and the
    donor blood is absolutely clean of diseases and it matches my blood type, I
    don’t care who it comes from.

  9. BloodMoneyLLC says:

    It’s good the FDA has at least *tried* to embrace science over fear and,
    let’s face it, archaic bigotry. It took them a while, but it’s good they
    finally came around. The celibacy thing, however, is a bit excessive, not
    to mention, *unenforceable* from a practical perspective!

  10. MyTubeIsBetter20 says:

    omg, that woman has the most annoying grating voice. 

  11. Simran Simran says:

    OK, this is complete bullcrap. You guys know why they make it difficult for
    gay men to donate… HIV is just a front. The blood is always tested after
    donation and then then separated. It is not “bad” as in unusable because it
    can still be used for someone who is HIV positive.

    Everyone knows and should know why they don’t want gay people to donate. It
    is sin blood. And even if the guys at the FDA don’t care about that, they
    are worried that some religious nut would refuse transfusion … because
    they are not sure about the “quality” of the blood.

    FDA should just act more scientific and let the religious nuts depend on

  12. Charla Lee says:

    Isn’t all the blood tested anyway before they give to someone so what’s
    with the outdated rules and aren’t gay and bi sexual men are still the
    highest population of new HIV cases what’s with the gay black man throwing
    shade at straight black women. 

  13. gotham61 says:

    I’m not eligible to donate because I lived in the UK for one year over 30
    years ago. That seems kind of crazy.

  14. demonblade001 says:

    Says he hates gay people then asks his girlfriend for anal.
    Says they hate gay marriage and then watches gay porn.
    Says they want a traditional family system then cheats.
    Says they will protect and serve god then molests small children.
    Can you see where I’m going with this?

  15. SatanistSin says:

    They can not test blood for the HIV virus. They can only test for the
    symptoms that HIV causes. Which is why if you think you were exposed to
    HIV, and go to get tested, they will tell you to come back in 2 months, to
    give time for incubation to start, and if you test negative they may tell
    you to come back 2-3 months after that, because incubation periods vary.

    Technically there is a test that can find the genetic markers of the virus
    it’s self, but that doesn’t account for new mutations, and to look for
    every known mutation in all of the blood that gets donated, is unreasonably

    Bigotry isn’t motivating this law, statistics are.

  16. rorrt says:

    And what they didn’t mention here is that gay people can’t work at blood

    A good friend of mine was outed by a pathetic member of staff at my nearest
    blood bank, and forced to come out to his boss… Its stupid!!!

  17. K. De Metter says:

    You are tested when you give blood.
    However, the problem is that certain illnesses (HIV being one ) don’t show
    up in the test unless you have been infected for some time already. In
    short : the tests aren’t perfect.

    So if you just had intercourse with someone who has HIV, and then the next
    day went on to give a blood donation, it wouldn’t show up in the test, but
    your blood would still infect anyone you give it to.

    That’s why you have to wait 12 months. Because after 12 months, it will be
    visible in the tests.

    The reason for targeting gays in this regards is just statistics : it’s a
    higher risk group.
    They also ask you if you used drugs, been to exotic countries, etc… no
    one complains about that.

  18. LabTech says:

    Please read this if you want a medical/scientific grasp of the situation,
    from someone who works in this exact field.

    When Cenk is the most knowledgeable person in the panel on scientific
    matters, you done fucked up.
    I’ve said it before and I’ll never stop saying it to TYT: you seriously
    need a science correspondent on stories like this, and I’m willing to
    volunteer for free as an advisor just so that TYT doesn’t seem like
    idiots. It truly pains me when science stories come up, and almost nobody
    on the panel knows any details about what it is.

    A number of things to clear up:

    1 – the woman is way out of date, the Red Cross stopped giving money for
    blood decades ago, mostly because down and out people would essentially
    sell their blood, which because of their lifestyle choices would be more at
    risk for diseases.
    2 – the whole point of the questions you’re asked before you donate is to
    determine the likelihood that you’re a risk for having bloodborne disease.
    Past a certain threshold, you’re not worth the expense to go through the
    system only to find out your blood isn’t usable.
    3 – the Red Cross may have a noble purpose, but they are a BUSINESS, they
    don’t hand out blood for free, a single pack can cost hundreds of dollars.
    Even simple testing and screening can be costly, so limiting the number of
    people who can theoretically donate is simply a cost cutting measure.
    4 – the policy on homosexual donors may be anachronistic, but I don’t think
    they’re doing it out of bigotry, in their minds homosexual donors aren’t
    worth the trouble if they have an infection, and only hard data showing
    them that members of the LGBT community aren’t a higher risk factor than
    the hetero community is going to change their minds. These people are
    scientists, trust me, a public service announcement isn’t going to convince
    them, it’d only pressure them to change policy for fear of losing straight
    donors, which isn’t doing either side any good.
    5 – EVERYONE IS TESTED, NO EXCEPTIONS… PERIOD!!!, if you pay attention,
    when you donate blood what they’ll do is take a couple vials out of the
    blood pack which will be sent to the lab along with the pack for testing.
    It’s not practical to do the testing before the donation because you have
    to have blood taken anyway, and it can take days for the results to come
    back, depending on the circumstances. They do what they can to screen out
    the big risk people, then take the blood and confirm it’s safe later,
    tossing and blacklisting people who have certain diseases.
    6 – the prohibition on homosexual donors stems from the mid 80s when HIV
    and AIDS first game out, and it was believed to be a homosexual disease
    (AIDS used to be known as GRID, or gay related immune disease).
    7 – lying about risk factors doesn’t mean the blood will get a pass, it
    just means you’re potentially wasting hundreds of dollars for the Red Cross
    because your good will got in the way of your common sense. They’re not
    going to give tainted blood because you mean well, they’re going to be
    pissed that you lied.
    8 – We are scientists, and what we do is based on logic and reason, not
    malice and bigotry. If we do something, it’s because there’s a reason. If
    data shows the reasoning is false, we will change policy to take new data
    into consideration. If the blood is good, no harm no foul, if the blood is
    tainted, it’s wasted money and greater risk to the potential recipients.

  19. Alex Aurelian says:
    NO ITS SCIENCE, its not discriminatory if its true. “At the end of 2012, of
    the estimated 880,440 persons living with an HIV diagnosis, 451,656 (51%)
    were gay and bisexual men.” This is information straight from the CDC, you
    know the people whose job it is to ‘prevent’ and ‘control’ diseases. They
    take this very seriously and the main problem is you CAN’T test for HIV,
    only for a few strains which are constantly mutating. The main way to know
    if you have HIV is for the symptoms to kick in but that could take awhile
    depending on the person. With the kind of numbers and figures on the
    disease its an intelligent not discriminator thing for them to not allow
    gay men to donate because you CAN’T truly test for it. With the use of this
    policy it more then halves the number of chances for HIV corruption, and
    honestly the only loss is possible blood donations that ‘might’ be gained
    from a very small group in the population. So as you can see its a very
    smart and medically efficient policy, the only reason people are bent out
    of shape about it is because we try to be political correct to a fault. So
    for all protestors, rights people, politicans, lobbyists shut up and go
    play with your toys in the corner or something and leave science and
    medicine to the actual scientists and trained personal.

  20. Tyrion says:

    The cold hard truth of the matter is, 18-20% of gay/bi men have HIV,
    according to the CDC. Not only do you not want to risk undetected HIV
    getting into the blood supply, you also don’t want to waste resources
    drawing and testing tainted blood. Get a clue, TYT.

  21. John Tembo says:

    The blood banks test the blood that is donated and these tests are not free
    someone has to pay for the blood tests to be done so the blood bank doesn’t
    want to have to pay for a test and then end up throwing the blood away
    because the test came back positive. They want to have as much good blood
    as they possibly can hence the questionnaire to eliminate groups at high
    risk of being positive for a viral or other type of infection from the
    pool. Are you going to sit there and act like the homosexual community
    doesn’t account for a disproportionately large amount of HIV positive
    individuals in the U.S? No one on this panel is even a health expert or an
    expert on infectious disease and yet you are acting like you are
    authorities on the issue! You guys should be ashamed of yourselves!

  22. The night wanderer says:

    I’m pretty sure someone near death would not care whether the blood they
    are receiving came from a gay or straight person.

  23. corthew says:

    You know…If they made blood testing results a benefit of giving blood
    they’d get alot more donors.

    If they test a batch and its clean they can send certificates to everyone
    who donated giving them a “negative” status and if they tested a batch and
    it tested positive they could send out a letter informing them the batch
    their donation was part of tested “positive” and asking them to donate
    again for retesting.

  24. Sean Cooper says:

    You should tell the truth, I don’t want gay blood in my veins. 

  25. Gangrel Aussie says:

    So, Heather Mcdonald has never had anything to do with volunteering in her
    life, and is extremely ignorant to boot. There’s this little organization
    called the Red Cross, you may have heard of it, and they found that by not
    paying for blood donations tye risk of the donated blood being contaminated
    was drastically reduced. I think the percemtage was a drop of 80 to 90%.
    Following that, as Cenk said, testing the blood with an eye towards safety
    & surety, means nex to no risk. Pick up a book Heather, or get off your
    high chair, you need to get out in the world. Makes me a little concerned
    about any past experience of other TYT staff. Do they do blood drives, help
    out at soup kitchens or food banks? Or is that just for hard working


Call Now: 877-642-5321 ` ` . .