No. He should get tested regularly and lie.
-
-
-
Tweet unavailable
-
As is stated in the article, gay men are 44x more likely to contract HIV. It’s not rocket science Mrs. McGonagall.
-
It’s professor, sir. And that’s a great reason for gay men to make testing part of their lives if they have multiple partners. But all of red cross’s blood is tested for HIV which is why this entire thing is wild and not based in science
-
Wow, would you look at that. The author literally addresses your stupid counterpoint in the same paragraph.pic.twitter.com/OSN9Ov4WTh
-
Yes but that is literally the issue for ANYONE with HIV. Anyone recently infected can have a false negative. It would be one thing if HIV were vanishingly rare in the rest of the pop, but it’s not.
-
(It is)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
Should the New York times ditch human decency to play to Trump's base?
-
Is that what you think this article does?
-
That's what the New York times does all the time.
-
okey dokey!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
No. Perhaps these bloods banks should actually review the data and stop endorsing this homophobic policy.
-
The author of the article literally reviewed the data. That’s what this piece is.
-
Tatooed people, IV users, and lots of people all feel misrepresented by the data. It happens, safety is non-discriminatory.
-
I just wanted to say that “IV user” is the best euphemism for heroin addict I’ve ever heard.
-
Naming all the drugs would take forever.

-
"Junkie" sums it up pretty neatly
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.