Monday, May 18, 2015

Let's contaminate blood banks

Notice how political correctness as corrupted the AMA on this issue. It has catastrophic implications for major surgery. Arthur Ashe and Isaac Asimov both died of AIDS from contaminated blood transfusions.


  1. 1. Typical AMA kowtowing to political correctness.

    2. Blood donations should be about public risk assessment, not pleasing this or that group (e.g. LGBT, liberals). It's a simple fact that MSM are at significantly higher risk of contracting HIV/AIDS than the general populace. For example, receptive anal sex with ejaculation more easily damages and thus allows HIV to penetrate via the normally protective mucosal lining of the rectum. There are several other issues to consider which I could elaborate on but won't for now due to time constraints.

    3. To consider this from another angle, would it be prudent to accept blood donations from heterosexual men who have been gang raped by HIV-infected men say in prison?

    Would it be prudent to accept blood donations from heterosexuals who are currently Hepatitis B or C positive?

    Would it be prudent to accept blood donations from current drug users who most often use drugs via shared needles?

    If not, then why is it fine to accept blood donations from MSM who have regular anal intercourse? In fact, in general, a heterosexual man who has had sex with an HIV-infected man would not be allowed to donate blood.

    4. Of course, it's possible to screen for a person's HIV or other viral load prior to donation. If they have a non-existent viral load, then they've most likely been cleared of the virus.

    However, it's difficult and resource-intensive to screen by taking blood samples and having the blood samples sent to a lab to properly detect a person's viral load.

    Instead, mainly due to lack of personnel and resources as well as prohibitive costs, most screening in practice is based on a person simply answering a series of questions prior to donation. But obviously people can and do lie. For instance, if a Red Cross official were to ask a homosexual man wishing to donate blood, "Did you have protected or unprotected anal sex?" does anyone expect him to honestly admit to having unprotected sex?

    5. In addition, all blood pathology labs should clean the blood of pathogens (among other things) after receiving the blood. However, no matter how good the process happens to be, it's never perfect.

    Hence we have to weigh the benefits and risks of allowing donations from high-risk groups (e.g. homosexual MSM, needle-stick drug users).

    Perhaps I could understand if there's a huge shortage of blood in blood banks (e.g. red blood cells die after roughly 120 days) and no other options existed. But is that the case?

    1. What's the percentage of homosexual men in the nation? Is it even a large enough figure to make a difference in blood bank supplies? Or is it more of a negligible figure?

    2. According to the San Francisco AIDS Foundation: "[A] standard antibody test gives accurate results within 2 weeks to 3 months after exposure. So you can't be sure you're negative until three months after exposure, based on an antibody test."

  2. So they're relying on a honor code?
    Maybe we should become JWs? Nah. BTW, these HIV tests (if done) aren't 100%. A family member of mine had low blood count. The Dr. advised me to be very careful with making a decision for a transfusion. Most tests can't detect HIV in the blood of a person newly infected.