BREAKING: FDA Recommends Changes To Gay Blood Ban

GFR7

New member
Do we need to ask what could go wrong here?

1. There is NO proof that the incubation period is only one year for HIV.

2. There is no way to tell if these men are telling the truth, or what they consider to mean "having sex with a man".

Recently the FDA had wisely refused to even vote on this. Guess the gay lobby got to them. :think:

Saying she would be "very wary" in modifying the ban, Dr. Susan Leitman last week told the AP,

"It sounds to me like we're talking about policy and civil rights
rather than our primary duty, which is transfusion safety."


http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106306


BREAKING: FDA Recommends Changes To Gay Blood Ban
. . .

The restrictions? The FDA will recommend that men who have been not
had sex with another man for at least a year
may donate blood.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen..._fda_to_recommend_ending_gay_blood_ban_report
 

TracerBullet

New member
Do we need to ask what could go wrong here?
It could go wrong because the FDA doesn't test every donation for HIV anyway?

Because heterosexuals don't get HIV?

Because a man who has been married to another man for years is at risk for HIV?

Because making up conspiracies involving some secret all powerful "lobby" is easier that actually thinking about the subject?
 

GFR7

New member
Bad, bad idea.
Yes, and let's put it this way: To compromise public safety for a feel-good political agenda is going to bring dark things with it.

How many people would want their spouses, their children, their family, receiving blood from gay men who say they've been "clean" for a year?
 

GFR7

New member
It could go wrong because the FDA doesn't test every donation for HIV anyway?

Because heterosexuals don't get HIV?

Because a man who has been married to another man for years is at risk for HIV?

Because making up conspiracies involving some secret all powerful "lobby" is easier that actually thinking about the subject?
Well, this is a case in which you, dear, are on the innocent side.

So not to worry......old Geefer is not talking about you. :kiss:
 

shagster01

New member
It could go wrong because the FDA doesn't test every donation for HIV anyway?

Because heterosexuals don't get HIV?

Because a man who has been married to another man for years is at risk for HIV?

Because making up conspiracies involving some secret all powerful "lobby" is easier that actually thinking about the subject?

Or because heterosexual females are more likely to have HIV than gay ones?
 

resodko

BANNED
Banned
It could go wrong because the FDA doesn't test every donation for HIV anyway?




dunno about the fda, but the red cross does :idunno:







The American Red Cross performs laboratory tests for multiple infectious disease markers on every unit of donated blood. Tests are upgraded or replaced with more sensitive technologies as these become available. These tests include:

Chagas disease (T. cruzi)
Hepatitis B virus (HBV)
Hepatitis C virus (HCV 3.0)
Human Immunodeficiency viruses, Types 1 and 2 (HIV 1,2)
Human T-Lymphotropic virus (HTLV-I/II)
Syphilis (Treponema pallidum)
West Nile virus (WNV)





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------







Chagas disease (T. cruzi)
Antibody testing (2007)

Chagas disease is a serious, often fatal disease caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi (T. cruzi). The agent is endemic in the Americas but most commonly occurs in Latin America. The test used is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the qualitative detection of antibodies to T. cruzi in human serum and plasma specimens. A radioimmunoprecipitation assay (RIPA) is used in confirmatory testing. Because rates of recipient infection from transfusion are so low, the Red Cross qualifies each donor (rather than each donation) for negativity to antiboides to T. cruzi.




Back to Top






Hepatitis B virus (HBV)
B Surface Antigen (HBsAg) (1971), Hepatitis B Core Antibody (HBc) (1986), and Nucleic Acid Testing (NAT) (2009)

HBsAg and HBV DNA are the first viral markers to circulate in an individual infected with HBV. Anti-HBc appears in the serum of individuals infected with HBV one to four weeks after the appearance of HBsAg, and at the onset of symptoms for the minority of adults (5% or less) who develop symptoms. A chemiluminescent immunoassay (ChLIA) is used for the qualitative detection of HBsAg and anti-HBc in human serum and plasma specimens. Specific antigen neutralization is used for HBsAg reactive confirmation; anti-HBc confirmation is done by testing each individual reactive donation sample by ultrasensitive HBV DNA detection by polymerase chain reaction (PCR, a type of NAT). HBV DNA detection by NAT for routine blood donor screening is done using transcription mediated amplification (TMA) technology; a type of NAT similar to PCR. Screening is performed in small minipools of 16 donations using a combined test that detects HBV DNA as well as HIV and HCV RNA. All TMA-reactive donations are confirmed by PCR. NAT using TMA in minipools of 16 reduces the window as compared to HBsAg detection by 4-7 days. The risk of hepatitis B infection through blood transfusion is between 1 in 200,000 and 1 in 500,0001,2.




Back to Top






Hepatitis C virus (HCV 3.0)
Antibody testing (1990) and Nucleic Acid Testing (NAT) (1999)

HCV is known to be the causative agent for most, if not all, blood-borne non-A, non-B hepatitis (NANBH). The enzyme-linked, immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test system used for blood donor screening is a third generation, qualitative test that detects antibodies to HCV in human serum or plasma. A recombinant immunoblot assay (RIBA) is used for confirmation of anti-HCV reactivity. HCV RNA detection, by NAT using TMA in minipools of 16 as described above, reduces the window period between infection and the detection of antibody by about 1-2 months. The current risk of transfusion-transmitted HCV is 1 in 1,390,0001.




Back to Top






Human Immunodeficiency viruses, Types 1 and 2 (HIV 1,2)
Antibody testing (1985) and NAT (1999)

Enzyme Immunoassay (EIA) is used for the qualitative detection of antibodies to both HIV-1 and HIV-2 in a combined ChLIA test that uses human serum or plasma. HIV-1 and HIV- 2 confirmation is performed using one or a combination of tests including an HIV-1 indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) and HIV-2 EIA; a rapid diagnostic test is used for HIV-1 and HIV-2 differentiation. HIV-1 antibody detection includes the major HIV groups and variants including HIV-1 Group O. HIV RNA detection by NAT, using TMA in minipools of 16 (as described for HBV testing), closes the window period between infection and the detection of antibody by about 4-7 days. The current risk of transfusion-transmission of HIV is approximately 1 in 2,000,0001.




Back to Top






Human T-Lymphotropic virus
Antibody testing (HTLV-I/II) (1988)

HTLV-I is a human Type-C retrovirus that has been associated with neoplastic conditions and a variety of demyelinating disorders. HTLV-II is not yet proven unequivocally to be of significant clinical concern. Qualitative antibody detection for both HTLV-I and HTLV-II in a combined test is performed with a ChLIA. The current risk of transfusion-transmitted (HTLV-I) is less than 1 in 2,000,0003.




Back to Top






Syphilis (Treponema pallidum)
Antibody testing (1940's)

The test used for syphilis is a qualitative screening test that detects the presence of antibodies to Treponema pallidum. The assay is based on the principle of agglutination and pattern recognition. Confirmation is performed using another serologic test for total antibodies, an EIA, as well as a test for reagin (a protein-like substance that is present during acute infection and for several months following resolution of infection). No cases of transfusion-transmitted syphilis have been recorded for more than 30 years.




Back to Top






West Nile virus (WNV)
Antibody testing (2003)



WNV is a flavivirus commonly found in Africa, West Asia, and the Middle East that is most commonly transmitted to humans through mosquito bites; it was first introduced in the US in 1999 and reached epidemic proportions in 2002, the same year that WNV was documented to be transmitted by blood and organs. WNV RNA is detected by NAT using the same type of assay as used for HBV, HIV-1 and HCV. Following the introduction of blood donor screening there have been 11 documented cases of transfusion transmission; all are due to donations having very low viral loads and none involved donations to the Red Cross. Measures are in place to reduce the risk of such transmissions from occurring in WNV epidemic areas during epidemic time periods by converting from testing donations in minipools of 16 (as described for HBV, HIV-1 and HCV NAT) to testing donors individually.




Back to Top

In addition to these tests, the Red Cross tests every unit to identify the donor’s blood group (O, A, B or AB) and Rh type, and screens for atypical or unusual red cell antibodies. Screening for antibodies to cytomegalovirus (CMV) is also available.
 

TracerBullet

New member
dunno about the fda, but the red cross does :idunno:


Because the FDA doesn't test every donation for HIV anyway? Because heterosexual men don't get HIV? Because a year of celibacy is a threshold for HIV infection? Because you can detect HIV infection from a questionnaire? Because a man who has been married to another man for years is at risk for HIV?

Which brings us to the central question. If all blood donation is screened for HIV why is the lifting of a useless blanket ban on an entire minority a "Bad bad idea" ?????
 
Top