another. So why can't some people give blood? Is this science, or prejudice?

Hello humans, Trace here for DNews. Blood donation is seen by some, as a civil right.

People making a sacrifice, literally weakening themselves, to help strangers. But, according

to the FDA, men who have sex with men -- known as MSM -- aren't treated equally when it comes

to blood donation, and some have gone as far to imply they're banned from doing so. Firstly,

that's not true. Men who have sex with men, (as well as women and transgender persons

who have sex with MSM) are all required to wait 12 months after their most recent risky

sexual contact before they can donate. But they CAN donate.

But does that even make sense? MSM populations have blood, we need blood… why not allow

them donation? It all comes back to HIV. In 1981, a severe disease of epidemic proportions

was spreading through the gay community, killing hundreds of thousands of men and women. At

first, it was called GRID -- gay-related immunodeficiency disease. Later, it was renamed the Acquired

Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).

AIDS put the public in a frenzy, and rightly so. 229-thousand people died due to AIDS from

1981 to 1992. And once it was discovered to be bloodborne, people realized some had acquired

it through infected blood transfusion. So, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration decided

to act passing a lifetime ban on blood donation from any men who had ever had sex with another

man (again known as MSM -- men who have sex with men); this was in 1983...

In 1985, a test called ELISA was invented which could detect antibodies created by the

human immune system in response to infection by the HIV virus which causes AIDS! So, now

that blood could be screened, we didn't need the ban, right? We just needed to know if

someone had HIV, and screen those who weren't sure! Right? Nope. The Ban remained until

2015, when it was revised to the current -- abstain from sex for a year, bro. Then come back.

Even though, since 1987, HIV blood screening tests have become nearly 100 percent accurate,

putting it on par with Hepatitis screening; MSM populations are still singled out. Which

is weird, because I'm pretty sure anal sex isn't confined to just gay, and bisexual men…

women can have anal intercourse, and can carry and spread HIV. So why aren't they subject

to the same restrictions? Well, because 72 percent of new HIV infections occur in gay

men, who only make up 2 percent of the population.

Because of the thin lining of the rectum, unprotected anal intercourse is up to 18 times

more risky than vaginal sex. Blood and fluids are more easily exchanged, meaning HIV transmission

risk increases. But not everyone in the MSM community has HIV, or has unprotected sex.

I mean, monogamous gay, transgender, and bisexual partners without HIV literally cannot spread

a virus they don't have! But they're subject to the same 12-month deferment.

So, yes, the original ban came from fear of the unknown; fear of AIDS and HIV drove the

FDA to simply eliminate the risk entirely, but now according to AIDS dot gov, we have

some of the safest blood in the world. Donated blood goes through more than a dozen screens

and tests looking for evidence of West Nile, Syphilis, Hepatitis, HIV and parasites like

Malaria, among other things. And though it's perceived as unfair, the CDC and FDA believe

it's better to ask gay men to wait a year to ensure the HIV appears in the tests. That

being said, The Columbia Medical Review writes that HIV infection can be tested accurately

within two weeks of exposure, and in light of blood shortages, they recommend a new process:

Simply this: ask everyone about their risky sexual behaviors before they donate blood:

Men, women, transgender, non-binary, asexual, everyone. Then, those who are unsure of their

HIV exposure, can be deferred until they're sure, and everyone else can donate frickin'

blood. Especially since we're screening everyone anyway. As they put it, succinctly: a "lifetime

ban is medically and scientifically unwarranted."

According to the American Red Cross, someone needs blood every two seconds, and while 38

percent of the U.S. population could donate blood, only 10 percent does. Changing this

deferment would mean more blood for everyone, even if it came from a dude who boned another

dude, blood is blood is blood is blood…

I mean it is, except when it's a different blood type. Why do we even have different

blood types? And what happens if you put A blood into a B person? Find out from my blood-buddy

Julian, right here.

What do y'all think? Should we take all the blood donations we can and screen later? How

do you feel about the so-called Blood Ban?