Skip to comments.HIV Through Transfusion — Missouri and Colorado, 2008 (Gay Blood gives AIDS to Innocent)
Posted on 10/21/2010 5:33:38 PM PDT by Titus-Maximus
HIV Transmission Through Transfusion Missouri and Colorado, 2008 (Page 1335)
Transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) through transfusion of contaminated blood components was documented in the United States in 1982 (1). Since then, the risk for transfusion-transmitted HIV infection has been almost eliminated by the use of questionnaires to exclude donors at higher risk for HIV infection and the use of highly sensitive laboratory screening tests to identify infected blood donations. The risk for acquiring HIV infection through blood transfusion today is estimated conservatively to be one in 1.5 million, based on 20072008 data (2). This report describes the first U.S. case of transfusion-transmitted HIV infection reported to CDC since 2002 (3). A blood center in Missouri discovered that blood components from a donation in November 2008 tested positive for HIV infection. A lookback investigation determined that this donor had last donated in June 2008, at which time he incorrectly reported no HIV risk factors and his donation tested negative for the presence of HIV. One of the two recipients of blood components from this donation, a patient undergoing kidney transplantation was found to be HIV infected, and an investigation determined that the patients infection was acquired from the donors blood products. Even though such transmissions are rare, health-care providers should consider the possibility of transfusion-transmitted HIV in HIV-infected transfusion recipients with no other risk factors....
Here is some hard science that will scare the daylights out of you.
I am sure the Army is happy with this, especially when their soldiers need blood.
Words cannot destribe how I feel about this...I almost hope Franken catches it himself.
Words cannot describe how I feel about this...I almost hope Franken catches it himself.
I agree with the principle, but the morbidity report gave some low figures for HIV transmission through blood.
The company I work for specializes in blood technology. This company took off in the 80’s when investors realized that we make products that minimize the need for blood bank products. Most infused blood is required when a patient undergoes major surgery. Our products scavenge YOUR OWN blood which is usually lost during surgery, cleans it and returns it to you. So usually, if you are an open heart surgery candidate, you only lose about a tablespoon of blood. Without this technology, you would require about two plus pints of blood from an anonymous donor. And, even though donated blood is tested, the confidence level is greatly reduced due to the number of processing\storage steps that the blood goes through.
I’ll be enhancing my participation in the Employee Stock Purchase Plan, should this gain traction...
Then these pigs can yell....need more money for AIDs patients/study/whatever excuse they have... more money...more money.
Thanks, that is reassuring.
I went through an 11 hour quintuplet bypass surgery and I’ve been a little worried about the blood. Didn’t get a chance to talk to anyone about it at the time.
My son’s surgeon used something like this - they called it “cell capture”. He had spinal surgery in June and they were able to catch all his blood and give it back to him.
I was so relieved, I had hoped to donate for him but they found I was severely anemic.
I don’t put much value on the questionaires (which are very thorough); I have no reason to suspect the deviants would be honest about it.
Does your doctor have any theories about what's causing the anemia? Has your kidney function been tested?
She did some testing and is treating me as if I have PCOS - I retest in a few months.
this is pure B.S. highly dangerous. This is one of the first things the “Fraud” in the whitehouse did,was lift the ban on foreigners with Aids,so they could fly into this country, He is one sick S.O.B. George Bush had put a ban on them for our protection.
How better to eliminate the stigma of a homosexual and junkie disease?
No - I'm not being sarcastic, just recognizing apparent motivations.
This donor should be charged with the most serious felony murder charge possible and summarily executed. He's a domestic terrorist.
So, you'd be willing to play Russian Roulette with a theoretical 1,000 shooter pistol with one round in it?
The odds are much lower than 1:1000. If I read the report correctly, that’s TWO cases in ten years.
There is no reason to be exposed even to this small risk. Homosexuals and others who engage in high-risk behaviors MUST not donate, on the threat of being tried for a serious crime. There is no reason whatsoever for us to listen to their demands that they be allowed to donate.
Was this an isolated incident or an across-the-board thing?
I’m shocked by this. As a blood donor myself, I’ve seen the questionnaires and they’re pretty basic stuff. The only way someone could give an incorrect answer about HIV factors without deliberate malice would be if they were too drunk to remember who they had sex with (not that there aren’t plenty of college kids who fit that bill).
The one beef I have with blood donation questionnaires is that they don’t ask about how many sexual partners of the opposite sex the would-be donor has had. HIV can be spread heterosexually too, so a few questions to weed out the campus Don Juans and their female counterparts wouldn’t hurt.
I fully agree. Stray dogs in heat shouldn't be donors either.
>>> (Gay Blood gives AIDS to Innocent)
It’s hemoglobin. Not homoglobin. A med student writing in his Blue Book an answer referencing anything like “gay blood” would fail the course. Hematology hasn’t found any sexual attraction amongst blood cells. This reminds me of the MASH episode where the wounded soldier insisted the doctors not make a mistake and give him “colored” blood.
Now instead if you’d like to discuss blood donors from high risk groups, I’d agree in principle. The standard tests are not yet 100% reliable in screening out those donors (gay or otherwise) who may carry the virus.
The problem isn’t that the blood scans don’t find and exclude those with active HIV. They do. The difficulty lies in diagnosing those not yet visibly infected, but instead still incubating the disease.
The tests are improving. Wiki mentions the latest type test lessen the period of uncertainty from six months since initial exposure, down to just twelve days. At some point soon the detection problem will be resolved.
It was “Gay Blood Donor” but abbreviated and it is distressing that it offends your sensibilities and that of NPR. Liberals are funny, never mind the victims of this incredible selfishness, those poor innocents who have to die, we only care if gay people are offended. Never mind that we are all at immense risk if we get blood from gay donors but we can’t talk about it because it’s politically incorrect, or we are declared bigots.
Don’t we get enough sanctimonious piety from the media that we can get a respite from it here.
By the way, NPR is looking for a new analyst.
That’s one of the reasons the military is the driving force behind blood substitutes for transfusions....
I know some folks who worked in blood banks. When they get someone who donates who they think lied on the questionnaire, they smile, take the blood, and dump it.
I believe you are correct. There is no other reason why they would demand that diseased people be allowed to contaminate the nation blood supply.
Understandable, but probably not the most effective screen. I wonder how they’ll defend having people serve with (and supposedly expect to render first aid to) others that aren’t allowed (for very good reason) to donate blood.