Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
This Seems Like a Big Deal
This seems like a big stinkin’ deal. But what do I know? Maybe the Ricochet team doctors can weigh on the elevated health risks this involves.
I myself had some health drama a few years ago, the survival from which involved needing to receive four units of blood. So the question is not really academic, I guess.
Why, it’s almost as if mass institutional delusion could have a negative effect on public health or something. Or maybe public health is just being made to take a backseat to the desire of American Red Cross execs to be viewed as some of the cool kids. Maybe the decision-makers at the American Red Cross are such horrible people they’re willing to risk harming their neighbors just to get more “likes” on social media.
Sheesh.
Published in General
Cool! Thanks for this info. After 30 years in quarantine!
I think all these “requirements” have depended for decades (if not forever) on the truthfulness of those declaring them.
So, to have changed from an environment in which we ask potential blood donors if they–men–have had sex with other men, to one in which we ask potential blood donors if they have had anal sex (which might have been hetero or homo) within the last three months might be, in some circumstances, regarded as a tightening of restrictions.
With the understanding that–perhaps–potential donors might still lie.
To be clear, this is not to say that I–in any way–favor the new regime. But, perhaps it is a suggestion that the bottom line (see what I did there) ought to be to test, in a guaranteeable and unarguably safe way, that the blood itself is free of dangerous poisons, rather than worrying too much about the not always pure, and sometimes unforeseeably self-interested, motives of those who provide it.
I believe that the testing is done, and probably on a statistical basis unfortunately, and the prohibitions on higher-risk groups are to reduce the reject rate of the eventual testing (not to mention the bleeding death) through initial selection. So I agree, just saying that I think it’s a belt-and-suspenders regime in which the ARC has now decided that we shall go bottomless.
This is an example of “The Science” vs “Scientific Method”. “The Science” is any policy that goes along with their narrative.
I have been thinking the same with the mrna vaccines. If I need blood will I have received an indirect vax?
Also to save on tests – no need to take the risk or expend the cost if we already have a reliable indicator of elevated risk.
‘swa’m saying.
Darn, yeah, that’s what you said. I said it better? Fewer words? Cost element added? Anyway. ;D
Is that the Babylon Bee or is it real?
My concern is with the training of the people screening the donors as they come through the door. If someone says that he’s a man who has sex with other men, no problem. The policy is clear. But if a man comes in and says he has sex with other men but says he identifies as a woman will the screener know if the incantation was said in the correct order or with the prescribed solemnity and intonation? You can bet that the left will want to turn this job into some sort of union sinecure. We can’t let that happen.
It’s real, from the Gomorrah Guardian.
I have been donating platelets from my blood for over thirty years (it’s known as “apheresis.”). It is similar to giving whole blood but requires a sophisticated machine and takes nearly two hours for each procedure. Before they will let me donate on any specific occasion, I am required to read through a whole bunch of material that includes – warnings about zillions of different activities, medicines, and such that would exclude me from donating. Conscientiously reading the voluminous material would take the average person nearly a half hour. Most people, after having done this many times, simply skim through or gloss over most of it just to get it out of the way. Then you sign a paper acknowledging that you have read it.
Then I am checked for body temperature, blood pressure, and a small blood sample is taken in order to measure the iron content. If any of those fall short, they eject me from donating. If I pass, then I spend more time answering a massive questionnaire that asks me about every little stinken’ detail of my medical history, personal lifestyle, where I’ve been, lived, or traveled, who I’ve slept with, who I’ve touched, and what I’ve done.
They ask if I’ve taken any of an enormous list of medicines, most of which I’ve never heard of, and if I’ve ever had any conditions or diseases from another humongous list of diseases and afflictions. They ask if I’ve ever traveled to or lived in another list of a dozen or more specific countries and for how long. They ask if I’ve ever been to jail or in a lock-up. If I’ve ever had sex with another man, a prostitute, a person who ever had hepatitis, and more. Have I ever been accidentally stuck with a needle? Ever taken drugs? Any vaccinations? It goes on and on and on………….
If that isn’t enough, they leave you alone in a room and ask you to paste one of two bar-coded stickers onto a piece of paper. One of the stickers carries the secret message to “use my blood platelets.” The other one says “don’t use mine.” That is for the wild chance that a person is not doing this of their own free will and is afraid to speak up, or is not sure their blood is really safe for medical purposes for whatever reason.
I sometimes marvel that anybody can actually qualify after going through this exhaustive screening. I would think that the qualifications for being an astronaut are not this rigorous. So if they are actually going to let people arbitrarily make up their sex on these questionnaires………….. it just makes a complete sham of the whole bloody process! (pun intended)
The senator from Arizona may not have passed such rigorous screening.
I’ve come to think El-Jibbity is probably the best way to make fun of it while pretending not to.
Does anyone have a link to anything from the Red Cross that says anything about blood being okay if the donor claims he’s female? That’s the premise of this whole post, and I don’t see it. Am I missing it? The only thing that is supposed to back it up is the claim that one of this site’s writers called up and allegedly got this answer over the phone. You’d think that would be in actual print. What’s the link?
@garymcvey Gary, I posted above what the Red Cross has on their website regarding the recommendation of the FDA. That’s all they have on their site.
Red Cross page
Thanks, EB. That’s the page I found too. It does not back up the claim in the article that kicks off this post. It has the usual yada-yada about sexual orientation, non-prejudice, etc, but nowhere does it make the ludicrous claim that the blood is okay if the donor claims they’re female.
I copied this from the Red Cross page linked above:
It sounds to me like they’re saying that the blood is ok if the donor claims they’re female. Although this stuff is confusing to me – perhaps I’m misinterpreting their virtue signaling.
It doesn’t sound like that to me. They’re saying they’ll accept blood from trannies. It doesn’t say that it gets treated any differently than anyone else’s. It doesn’t give that blood some sort of automatic OK because of the claimed sex of the donor.
If the article quoted in the post just stated, “Red Cross is no longer excluding gays from blood donation”, it would have been accurate, and we could have discussed that. But the claim in the post isn’t backed up by anything the Red Cross wrote.
But the question of whether the blood might carry artificial hormones etc does seem valid.
Here’s a link to get the draft guidance from FDA. As a draft guidance, they’re taking comments and suggestions for the next 60 days. Perhaps some of those brought up here (like exogenous hormones, etc.) are addressed or, if you’re interested enough, it would be worthwhile to make a statement through the provided mechanism. The document itself is 12 pages of text. What I’ve read so far looks fairly common sense, but, like with CDC referring to “pregnant persons,” the woke nonsense is irksome.
Here’s a sample from the document:
It’s short enough and worth reading before commenting.
I’ve been excluded from donating since I traveled in Europe and the UK during the mad cow years. The O+ supply just got a little better.
Go back to page 1, that restriction has been lifted.
Or maybe that’s what you meant.
That’s what he meant.
Part of the trouble with woke nonsense is that they obscure language and never come directly out and say what they mean. That makes it difficult to get clear answers. I read those two statements that you quoted above and I can’t figure out if they are just going to let people self identify their sex and go with that or not. Lefties in general are rarely honest or clear about their intentions.
From the first statement “eligibility should not be determined by methods that are based upon sexual orientation.” But those questionnaires I mentioned above clearly and unambiguously will reject you based on your sexual orientation. So I don’t know what to think.
Right. The two statements combined are sufficient for the left’s minions to understand their orders.
A question I ask myself more and more lately.
Read the FDA guidance for clarity. The change is to base it on behaviors rather than orientation. That’s not unreasonable. Female prostitutes with all male clientele are more disease-risky than long-term-monogamous gay couples. They are also targeting the behavior of anal intercourse–for men or women–because of its association with HIV and the various hepatitis viruses.
Are female prostitutes accepted donors?