HIV Through Transfusion — Missouri and Colorado, 2008 (Gay Blood gives AIDS to Innocent)

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report ^ | October 22, 2010 | Staff

[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 2007–2008 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 patient’s infection was acquired from the donor’s 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....

[tlb]

>>> (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.

[Titus-Maximus]

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.

[Kozak]

That’s one of the reasons the military is the driving force behind blood substitutes for transfusions....

[Kozak]

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.

[Celtic Cross]

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.

[kearnyirish2]

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.