HIV positive sperm bank. Really??

[Troubleatmill]

Edit. Should have read Sperm Bank. ( thank you predictive text)


The vitriol that HIV affected had in our past - I’m with supporting Gareth Thomas on the status on the virus now.

But really???

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/...

[Fundoreen]

there must be enough pukka goo spashed about on a daily basis so as not to need this tainted source.
Im guessing precursor to trying to water down rules and regulations myself by saying its no big deal.
Nice work for a government enquiry in 50 years time.

[Pesty]

Op
More than likely when you find out bug parties are a real thing then anything goes.

[BevR]

Whats the argument against it when there is no chance of the virus being passed on? The men are on anti viral drugs and even if they were not sperm washing has shown to be enough to get rid of the virus.

[Gameface]

What woman would use this HIV service when there is the normal service also available?

Why take the risk with your unborn child, however miniscule?

[anonymous-user]

BevR said:

Whats the argument against it when there is no chance of the virus being passed on? The men are on anti viral drugs and even if they were not sperm washing has shown to be enough to get rid of the virus.

What about the fact that overpopulation is the biggest single threat to the future of the planet and is the foundation of every issue, real or perceived, concerning climate change, MMGW etc. and that we shouldn’t be doing anything to encourage unnecessary procreation of any kind?

[RemyMartin81D]

Isn't HIV sperm bank a posh name for incinerator?

[BevR]

REALIST123 said:

What about the fact that overpopulation is the biggest single threat to the future of the planet and is the foundation of every issue, real or perceived, concerning climate change, MMGW etc. and that we shouldn’t be doing anything to encourage unnecessary procreation of any kind?

None of which is an argument against HIV positive men donating to sperm banks. Its an argument against sperm banks in general, but the story is on this subset of individuals.

I agree with your sentiments though.

[Jasandjules]

BevR said:

Whats the argument against it when there is no chance of the virus being passed on? The men are on anti viral drugs and even if they were not sperm washing has shown to be enough to get rid of the virus.

Well many things have "no chance" according to doctors. Yet......... Why would anyone risk it?

[gregs656]

Jasandjules said:

Well many things have "no chance" according to doctors. Yet......... Why would anyone risk it?

The risk of catching HIV is higher if women using this service had unprotected sex with strangers instead.

[Fundoreen]

Sounds like someone is stuck with gallons of the stuff .

[jakesmith]

gregs656 said:

Jasandjules said:

Well many things have "no chance" according to doctors. Yet......... Why would anyone risk it?

The risk of catching HIV is higher if women using this service had unprotected sex with strangers instead.

Logic fail
A is more dangerous than B but less dangerous than C
Why do either of them when D is available and 100% safe.

[Terminator X]

Troubleatmill said:

Edit. Should have read Sperm Bank. ( thank you predictive text)


The vitriol that HIV affected had in our past - I’m with supporting Gareth Thomas on the status on the virus now.

But really???

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/...

Yet my wife is not allowed to give blood because she had a blood transfusion 19 years ago

TX.

[gregs656]

jakesmith said:

Logic fail
A is more dangerous than B but less dangerous than C
Why do either of them when D is available and 100% safe.

It's not a logic fail.

If they have an undetectable viral load they cannot transmit the disease.

[Fundoreen]

We seem to be trying to normalize things in every situation so as the people affected feel less bad.
The whole world seems to be gummer feeding his sprog a cjd burger now.

[gregs656]

Fundoreen said:

We seem to be trying to normalize things in every situation so as the people affected feel less bad.
The whole world seems to be gummer feeding his sprog a cjd burger now.

Surely we should be ok with evidence based policy? It is nothing like what you describe, it is the opposite really.

[jakesmith]

gregs656 said:

jakesmith said:

Logic fail
A is more dangerous than B but less dangerous than C
Why do either of them when D is available and 100% safe.

It's not a logic fail.

If they have an undetectable viral load they cannot transmit the disease.

Why take a chance to spare someone's feeling when the impact is so great if it doesn't go to plan.

[gregs656]

jakesmith said:

Why take a chance to spare someone's feeling when the impact is so great if it doesn't go to plan.

This is evidence based policy. HIV positive men who have an undetectable viral load cannot pass on the virus. I am sure any samples will be properly tested.

There is a huge stigma around HIV which is counter productive to eradicating it. How much research on HIV have you done? When was the first time you heard the phrase 'undetectable viral load' - did you even know such treatment was possible for HIV?

I only ask to make you think whether your opinion is based on current knowledge or historic campaigns designed to shock people into protecting themselves against HIV/AIDS?

This is science in action.

edit: anyone at risk in Britain should be trying to get onto the PReP trial, there are loads of places available currently.

Edited by gregs656 on Wednesday 27th November 15:53

[jakesmith]

Of course my knowledge on this is literally zero as you correctly point out however new and sometimes surprising phenomena occur and are discovered all the time. There are many things that have an infinitesimally small chance of occurring but if it did, would be devastating, this is one of them and whilst there is plenty of good sperm out there why bother with HIV sperm. You’re asking people to place the health of the woman and child completely in the faith of scientists, medecin is not an exact science with every matter and effect completely understood.

[Fundoreen]

Surely the inferrence here is that micro hiv sperm is so safe that why tell anyone it is infected?
This then becomes why tell as sexual partner the interesting contents of your problematic nuts as at the end of the
day there are drugs to control it blah blah .