MVPEL,
My apologies . . . I intended my response with the postings of the specific NJAC postings as a response to MVPEL's comment. But, the information is now out there! Thanks for his comments. Yes, I hope McGreevey did insert the "Do Not Use" message in the envelop. But it certainly seems to me that, even if he did, the misuse of the system and the waste of resources at a time of blood shortage is an outrage in itself.
Trochilus
The story hit the regular press, including Channel 3 KYW TV News in Philadelphia this evening. Here is the Gannett story, which was in the Camden Courier Post.
http://www.courierpostonline.com/news/southjersey/m111604d.htm
The story unfortunately downplayed the ex-Governor's intentional lie on the screening application, and does not focus on the fact that there is an incubation period between contraction of HIV and the ability to detect it in the donated blood. Even when donated blood is tested using Nucleic Acid Testing (NAT), there is a 10 day or longer gap, during which contracted HIV would not be detected. That fact continues to underscore the reason for the CDC's continuing policies regarding donation.
http://www.thebody.com/cdc/news_updates_archive/aug8_02/cleansing_blood.html
As noted in the above article posted on the CDC's public service HIV/AIDS Newsroom website,
"Since 1999, American blood banks using highly sensitive nucleic acid have tested for HIV in donated blood, cutting the transfusion transmission risk to just 1 in 2 million. The procedure works very well except when a donor gives blood up to ten days after becoming infected, as is believed to have happened in the Florida Blood Services case. Within that window there may not be enough virus in the sample for the test to detect."