In spite of CDC statistics documenting the dramatically higher rate of HIV infection among homosexual males in contrast with the general population -- so much so that more than 60 percent of AIDS patients are homosexual men -- CNN host Anderson Cooper and medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta on Thursday's Anderson Cooper 360 seemed befuddled at why the Obama administration FDA would bar homosexual men from donating blood in the aftermath of the Orlando nightclub terror attack.
Gupta fretted that the ban "added insult to injury" for gays and lamented that the FDA is a "conservative institution" that is stuck in a "cultural sort of hangover from the eighties." At one point, Cooper oddly seemed to suggest it would be acceptable for HIV patients to donate blood as long as they are taking their medication regularly.
At 9:27 p.m. ET, host Cooper worried that the FDA rules "perpetuate a stigma" as he introduced the piece:
So many people lined up to give blood. It was incredible to see. But gay and bisexual men who wanted to help have been turned away, which have renewed calls to loosen restrictions that many say perpetuate a stigma.
After recalling the case of a gay resident in Orlando -- Scott Garstka -- who was disappointed that his offer to donate blood was turned down by the local blood bank and called the rejection "another shock to the system" -- Dr. Gupta suggested that such precautions were outdated:
Dr. SANJAY GUPTA: The FDA says it's a matter of risk, but this has become a contentious issue on the floors of government, the White House, and among scientists.
SEAN CAHILL, THE FENWAY INSTITUTE: The policy we have really prevents a lot of HIV negative gay men -- the vast majority of us are HIV negative -- and it prevents us from being able to donate and contribute to emergency preparedness and, you know, in this case, to help people who have been shot.
GUPTA: It's a policy that may no longer make sense in the wake of advancing science and tremendous need.
The CNN correspondent then lamented that it "added insult to injury" for gays in Orlando when they were barred from donating blood:
Fortunately, there was enough goodwill here in Orlando to keep up with the tremendous demand for blood. But the inability of people like Scott to donate has added insult to injury.
Then came a soundbite of Garstka complaining that he was "discriminated" against:
I think the word would be, you feel discriminated, right? I mean, you go down there, you're crying, all of our friends are coming together at that moment, we just wanted to help, and then to be told we couldn't because, again, it's the same thing you felt for the last few days. Just because we love each other, just because we care for each other, that we can't do this. And it's infuriating. It makes us want to stand up and scream from the mountaintops, like, why is our blood not good enough?
Dr. Gupta then appeared live with Cooper, and, after recalling that gays used to be banned from blood donation for life -- but it was recently changed to 12 months after last having gay sex -- Gupta complained that "It doesn't follow a lot of logic scientifically."
Without acknowledging that medical testing can, in spite of high accuracy rates, sometimes be wrong, the two reiterated their belief that the ability to test for HIV testing makes it unnecessary to exclude gay blood donors without testing them first:
COOPER: Because the blood itself it tested.
GUPTA: Blood is going to be tested, regardless of who the donor is. You know, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Gupta tagged the FDA as a "pretty conservative institution" as he soon continued:
It doesn't make sense, and I think, you know, you heard from the scientist there from the Fenway Institute, you're hearing from the people from the Broad Institute in Massachusetts. I think the science is going to eventually drive this. It's kind of remarkable. I think the FDA is a pretty conservative institution.
Cooper then suggested it was not so dangerous for someone who was actually HIV positive to donate blood as long as they were taking medication:
Because, even if somebody knows they are HIV positive and takes their medicine every day, the chance of them transmitting the virus to somebody else is almost nonexistent. The studies that I've seen that in (unintelligible) couples, somebody who's positive, as long as they're taking their medicine as they should every day, they're haven't been examples of them transmitting the virus to someone who's not positive.
Gupta then suggested the FDA adheres to the ban for outdated "cultural" reasons:
Right, I don't think there's been a case. I don't think there's been an example where it's actually transmitted that way. And so the science hasn't really followed this particular thing. This has been more of a cultural sort of hangover from the eighties and maybe even the early nineties, but I think it's changing.
Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Thursday, June 16, Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN, with critical portions in bold::
ANDERSON COOPER: Well, you probably know 53 people were wounded in the Pulse shooting. Tonight, more than 20 remain hospitalized. The gunshot wounds the victims sustained were the kind you see in war zones -- there's no doubt about it. Blood banks in Orlando put out the desperate call for donors. So many people lined up to give blood. It was incredible to see. But gay and bisexual men who wanted to help have been turned away, which have renewed calls to loosen restrictions that many say perpetuate a stigma. Our chief medical correspondent, Sanjay Gupta, takes a look.
Dr. SANJAY GUPTA: Giving blood after a tragedy is not only necessary, but has become a symbol of resilience -- a way for grief to be channeled into action.
SCOTT GARSTKA, PROSPECTIVE BLOOD DONOR: We jumped in our car, went and got our friend Justin and Jordan, and we ran to the blood bank as they said we were in a crisis and they didn't have enough blood to help support what they were seeing on the street.
GUPTA: You want to go -- you want to go help -- but that morning you find out that you can't donate blood.
GARSTKA: Correct. There is a ban on men -- gay men -- giving blood. You know, it was just one of those -- another shock to the system that day.
GUPTA: According to the FDA, which oversees the safety of the U.S. blood supply, men who've had sex with men -- even protected sex -- within the past year, cannot donate.
GARSTKA: I know that I have had regular tests, and I know that I am an HIV negative person, and I felt like, "Why couldn't I give blood?" and, "Why couldn't they screen it?"
GUPTA: It's a good question. Fact is, all blood -- regardless of the donor -- is screened for a number of things, including Hepatitis B, C and HIV. So I decided to go down to the the One Blood blood bank to better understand this policy. People want to channel their grief in some way, and it's always seemed that blood donation is one of those things. They don't know what to do -- "This is something I can do -- maybe I can help." But there is something on the form that prevents certain populations of people from donating. Talk about that. What are the criteria? What are the restrictions?
(...)
GUPTA: The FDA says it's a matter of risk, but this has become a contentious issue on the floors of government, the White House, and among scientists.
SEAN CAHILL, THE FENWAY INSTITUTE: The policy we have really prevents a lot of HIV negative gay men -- the vast majority of us are HIV negative -- and it prevents us from being able to donate and contribute to emergency preparedness and, you know, in this case, to help people who have been shot.
GUPTA: It's a policy that may no longer make sense in the wake of advancing science and tremendous need.
[DR. MICHAEL CHEATHAM, ORLANDO REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER]
GUPTA: Fortunately, there was enough goodwill here in Orlando to keep up with the tremendous demand for blood. But the inability of people like Scott to donate has added insult to injury.
GARSTKA: I think the word would be, you feel discriminated, right? I mean, you go down there, you're crying, all of our friends are coming together at that moment, we just wanted to help, and then to be told we couldn't because, again, it's the same thing you felt for the last few days. Just because we love each other, just because we care for each other, that we can't do this. And it's infuriating. It makes us want to stand up and scream from the mountaintops, like, why is our blood not good enough?
COOPER: And Dr. Sanjay Gupta joins us now. I mean, I understand why the initial rules were made and they, you know, the awful days at the height of the epidemic, but there's testing now and straight people who have had sex within the past 12 months can give all the blood they want.
GUPTA: Yeah, I mean, the original rules, as you point out, were essentially a lifetime ban. That's what they used to say. And then just in December of last year -- so not that long ago -- they said they're going to make it 12 months. It doesn't follow a lot of logic scientifically.
COOPER: Because the blood itself it tested.
GUPTA: Blood is going to be tested, regardless of who the donor is. You know, it doesn't make a lot of sense. And I'll point out again, after a tragedy like this happens, a lot of people do give blood, they had enough blood at a place like this to take care of the tremendous need. But that's not typical. You know, typically, there's not enough people giving blood. Only about 10 percent of eligible donors are donating at a given time, so this can be a significant deal.
COOPER: Is this something that the FDA -- I mean, they've already changed the policy once to make this 12-month limit -- is this -- because now they're saying if gay men are celibate for 12 months, then they can give blood. and again, it's just -- from a medical standpoint, it doesn't seem to make sense. I mean-
GUPTA: It doesn't make sense, and I think, you know, you heard from the scientist there from the Fenway Institute, you're hearing from the people from the Broad Institute in Massachusetts. I think the science is going to eventually drive this. It's kind of remarkable. I think the FDA is a pretty conservative institution.
COOPER: Because, even if somebody knows they are HIV positive and takes their medicine every day, the chance of them transmitting the virus to somebody else is almost nonexistent. The studies that I've seen that in (unintelligible) couples, somebody who's positive, as long as they're taking their medicine as they should every day, there haven't been examples of them transmitting the virus to someone who's not positive.
GUPTA: Right, I don't think there's been a case. I don't think there's been an example where it's actually transmitted that way. And so the science hasn't really followed this particular thing. This has been more of a cultural sort of hangover from the eighties and maybe even the early nineties, but I think it's changing.
