Uploaded by Masem 
1073x1165 PNG 450 kB
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
No description provided.
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
No description provided.
Pretty sure those doctors would be using it in the sense of “There IS no (known) cure NOW, but there might be one LATER.”.
They are just omitting words for speed of talking since most people would assume the omitted content. Or maybe just most intelligent people. Not insulting you, since the fact that you are thinking about such distinctions means you are PROBABLY of above-average intelligence.
Because of Brownie Bun. That’s all you need to know really; she often shot arrows into things. Dishwasher, stove, cuckoo clock… Whatever. She also changed Richard’s car’s oil with (extra virgin) olive oil.
Edited
Answer; Yes. Nice to see Fred Rogers showing up again. :)
Wouldn’t you like to be, my neighbor.
Edited because: Forgot image
Retract that to no known cure. Humans might not know it but I’m somehow certain a cure exists somehow beyond knowledge; a miraculous non-imaginary real way that lots of people just don’t know and “high and mighty” doctors may have said “there is no cure” to but they’re really only speaking of their knowledge which doesn’t encompass all of what could be.
200 years before the automobile was invented the process to make one was theoretically still possible physically. Of course, getting people to not burn you at the stake for it on the other hand… Well, that’s something else entirely! That isn’t to say everyone around would be putting you to death for being cured of something if you even have it but would you mind if I prayed for you? No idea if you even have it but still, I’m trying to be neighborly here!
Ever heard of mad cow disease? Bovine spongiform encephalopathy? It’s a disease that literally eats holes in the brain. Imagine that, but in humans, and it shows no symptoms until around your sixties. There’s no cure; if you get it, it kills you. Testing is almost impossible, since the only surefire test is a brain biopsy, and even that only works after it becomes symptomatic. There was a concern that anyone who spent time in a hospital in England before the advent of the current screening processes might have received tainted blood. Nasty stuff.
Oh okay, and again I’m sorry.
As much of an off-topic mess it is, I think it’s best I don’t make it more of a mess by trying to awkwardly slice into it. I spoilered what I was sure went too far on rule 7.
Um, can you remove my comments here? you’re right I shouldn’t have brought this up in the comments.
Okay I just went back to my source to post it here and at the very bottom it actually did say what you said about the infection rate so my bad.
I didn’t realize wearing a condom and taking things like prophylaxis was considered a sexual position, I’ll have to remember that.
I didn’t reject the first, I merely pointed out that’s a vacous argument to lift the ban when face with the disparity, and refusing to believe evidence with sources which demonstrate your assertion is wrong is an issue I cannot hope to fix if you are so willling to reject reality.
And the fact you somehow missed the parenthetical only furthers shows you are willfully ignoring what is there. Sexual positions have nothing to do with sexual patterns.
Okay you clearly didn’t read my last comment or you would know I said everyone should provide proof of no diseases, also I don’t believe that there have been as many infections through transfusion as you say there have been.
Gay men need to change their sexual patterns? The fuck, most of use condoms and practice safe sex and you can’t exactly change something that already has only a couple of ways of doing it, I don’t think you were trying to be offensive but it did come off that way.
Edited because: Rule #7
Since 1982. There’s reports there all the way up to 2009, which was to point out your 1950s number to be blatantly incorrect. And the question is not a matter of possibility, but probability. It is entirely possible for men to get breast cancer, but the probability of it remains relatively low. Same applies to heterosexual men (and women as a group, with studies apparently not agreeing if being a lesbian increase or leave your risk the same, or even reduces it) and the rate of HIV infection. Test failure rates (mentioned in the link), difficulties in procedures to filter all blood in an easy and useful manner (mentioned in the link), and other factors lead to there being a choice: do you significantly increase risk and costs involved with the transfusion because you feel you shouldn’t discriminate under any circumstances, or do you decide to not recieve blood from the group that’s going to cause these issues in the first place? With blood donations bring tricky enough with non-infected blood as, only someone with an agenda would choose the first merely because you feel it’s wrong.
Again, it’s not perfect, it’s not great, but until the sexual patterns of homosexual men change (older infected males topping younger, non-infected males), or there’s an active attempt at preventing further infections so that the rates lower to a point they aren’t league more likely to be infected, not doing so is putting a bunch of people at risk for no reason.
1982 is still a pretty long time ago, I never said that the risk is never there, gay men do have a higher risk of getting infected but straight men can get infected just as well and to turn potential donations based on sexuality and not proof of no diseases is just wrong and as I said gay men were absolutely not allowed to donate blood period.
That’s… Just not true. Heterosexual males are the second lowest risk of having hiv by a wide margin from other groups. I’m not talking raw numbers either, I’m talking the rate per hundred. This has held from the USA, to South Africa, to China.
And that’s exactly what hospitals do. They see the aveilable donors, and if no one is the right fit, then there is no blood. Just injecting them with “what’s available” will get them killed.
Also, pagan pls
@Minus
Then your research is terrible. The main transmition channels is men having sex with other men (regardless if they consider themselves homosexuals or not), which is a very important distinction from what you said. Such is the rate disparity that the presumption holds true in just about every country, and it gets furthered increased due to the HIV testing issue I mentioned. There’s nothing insane about it. It’s a necessary step to protect others from infection.
Exactly, straight men were at just as much risk of getting HIV or AIDS as any gay man, there hasn’t even been a single reported case of someone getting infected through blood transfusion since the 1950’s and they are only now just letting gay men donate blood and they still have to meet higher expectations than straight men to do so it’s completely inexcusable.
Could you imagine being in a hospital and needing a blood transfusion but they are low on blood and the only volunteers are gay men and the hospitals just like “Well sorry those people are gay so no blood for you, have a nice day.”
I assumed this was something from before the 2000s, to think that people still think gays are full of AIDS is absolutely insane. As far as my research got me, it wasn’t even gays that spread it so much as it was just mainly men. Thus I presume gay women are allowed to donate blood? Whatever the case, it’s easy to see there’s a problem here.
It’s not just stupid and offensive, it’s VERY DANGEROUS to assume that straight people wouldn’t lie about how many partners they’ve been with, and how well they protected themselves. Everyone should be checked the same way.
They really should let gay people donate blood, the FDA has only just started letting gay people donate blood in 2014 and they have to provide proof they have not had sex for an entire year before that gay people were completely prohibited from donating blood period even if you could provide proof that you had no diseases.
Edited because: Rule #7
Some people abuse, then all the others lose. Yup, sounds like humans…
I’m not angry at them I understand the risks.
Is a reasonable precaution because some people use the blood drives to test for HIV. If you think you have hiv they will, of course, not bother, so people lie and say everything you just said, allowing them to be tested for free. Thing is, HIV is difficult to detect and false negatives are far too common (5-15%, depending on who you ask), meaning that if you take a chance, you can easily end up with infected blood inside someone else.
Add to this the huge disparity of distribution between homosexuals and other groups, and it’s either deny homosexuals and hope the heterosexuals aren’t a false negative, or seriously increase the chances someone will grt infected blood.
It’s not perfect, but considering the risks, I find it perfectly reasonable. Same reason I’m not allowed into some countries until I have proven my trips to remote and unsanitary areas haven’t resulted in me getting super-malaria or something.
Apparently being gay means you can’t donate because of a higher risk of HIV but I had never even had sex and they still said no.
Edited because: Rule #7