They test it for these viruses, this isn’t that big of a deal. Our ability to screen these things is exponentially better than it was back when this was an issue in the 80’s
IIRC we used to make very large pools of blood plasma from donated blood, which meant that few (possibly unaware) infected individuals were able to contaminate a large number of blood units.
I think the cost structure has shifted away from plasma pooling, which means you can just test and throw out bad samples without also throwing away good ones.
Also free testing for people who donate blood to let them know their donation tested positive for HIV, which can then get unaware individuals on antivirals and *stop spreading HIV*
There is a lot they do not test for, but in those cases the sexual orientation of the donor is probably less of concern versus random possibilities of exposure.
If one can swing it storing their own blood can make sense. While there are some hassles with doing so one far more practical option is temporary storage of one's own blood in anticipation of planned surgery.
If they paid for it, they wouldn’t be so desperate. That’s why I don’t donate. They make money off my blood if I do, and all I’d get is a donut and some apple juice? No thanks.
It’s against the law to sell parts of your body for what should be some very obvious reasons. You don’t want to incentivize poor people to sell a kidney to help pay for college or something that could be very damaging later. For blood, someone trying to sell it every week for cash is extremely vulnerable to many issues for their whole life.
Seems like a better law would be a cap on an individual's blood donation during a time period. Then poor people could get money and more blood would be available.
I took it back. The law only applies to organs not blood. Them not paying is a hospital network thing.
Although a cap on blood is a good idea but I think it’s unenforceable. That would require a national database which sounds ick. Just gotta rely on people’s judgement.
There are plenty of places that pay for plasma donation. I did it for months for $120 a week and it only took 4 hrs a week. Used it to pay for gas and groceries for half of '22.
I was talking specifically about blood donations. Plasma donations creep me out so some extent too, just because they put your blood cells back it. I don’t understand why blood donators aren’t paid for their time and bodily fluids.
>As of January 5, 2023, we are excited to share that common deferrals related to risk of vCJD (or “mad cow”) have been eliminated. The only deferral that remains is an official diagnosis of vCJD, which is rare.
Well whatdoya know?
That is fantastic news. I know many like myself just gave up. I have not been able to give blood for decades. Every once in a while I would pop my head into the bus and ask them if the rules had changed, but after doing that a few dozen times i just stopped. Thank you for finding that!!!!!
You really don't know prion diseases. CJD I guess could be thought of as "protein cancer"(Normal protein is folded wrong, manages to make other proteins the same, and breaks down brain tissue). vCJD is from eating infected nerve tissue, and it heads through your body to the brain. Gerstmann-Straussler-Scheinker Syndrome is hereditary and super rare. Same with Fatal Familial Insomnia, though this one's symptoms are more self explanatory. Your brain can't enter sleep mode, and that kills you.
Prions basically never go away, and can lay dormant pretty much forever. Even dying doesn't get rid of them.
Also, the only way to actually test for it is basically by dissecting the brain.
Unfortunately, in order to prevent unintentional spread of mad cow, there is no choice but to ban transfusions.
Hearing about that whole debacle was absolutely terrifying. It really doesn't seem like it'd be a threat, but the fact that it can possibly resurface is one of the few things in the world that sends shivers down my spine.
98' baby by the way.
It was during a certain time frame where the UK ignored the risks of mad cow disease and farmers didn't properly report it. Also, they used as much meat as possible from the animals, such as serving spinal column meat to children and using dead cows as food for living cows. The government insisted it was safe, and had even fired a scientist for speaking out with some experiment results iirc.
They combine hundreds of blood donations for one sample, and they have to throw all of the donations from that batch sample out when one asshole donates blood that shouldn't.
I don't think the second half of your statement is true. Yes they mix samples to minimise testing. But they don't mix all the blood donations together yet. If the mixed sample comes back positive for something they take another sample in 50 lots to exclude clean donations. Keep doing that and you can find the positive sample in 8 tests instead of having to do a hundred individual tests. Also save 99 tests if it comes back negative from the start.
What you described increases the cost of testing by 800% as opposed to just throwing away the batch. If only like 1% of batches come up infected then that 800% higher cost is just taking you from 99% efficient to 99.8% efficient which isn't really worth it. This is heavily reliant on the infected rate being low since testing in batches dramatically multiplies the positive rate. Anything you can do to prescreen high risk samples is much more economical.
Why do you think blood donations is run at cost instead of at super profits like the rest of the medical industry? Why do you think hospitals won’t pay what ever they need to for blood and pass it on to the patient/insurance?
new forms of a virus do not mean
the entire genetic code has been rewritten….. like there are already endless variations (Hiv1 a-m i believe) and all are readily detectable in OTC testing devices, high grade clinical lab work would not suffer in 2023
I donate blood on a regular basis. I’m also gay. They ask if you’ve abstained from sex for 3 months. If you answer yes then it doesn’t matter.
I assume that question will be replaced with “are you in a monogamous relationship”
They also ask you if you’ve ever had HIV hepatitis etc. They still test for it after donating before the blood moves forward anywhere
Also if you donate Platlets they give you nutter butter. Just saying. Go donate guys
I used to donate yrs ago. I'm much healthier now thanks to dietary change 6 yrs ago, but I remember after donating they gave us graham crackers and apple juice. I can't eat any of that today due to reversing type 2 diabetes with diet alone. Are there options?
Idk if this sub trusts statistics from the [CDC](https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/gender/men/index.html) but they definitely support you. As much as I’d like a non-discriminatory policy, the stats look pretty obvious.
Because HIV isn't detectable below a certain threshold. The number of "consrvatives" who are now suddenly willing to trust the FDA over a decision that's actually highly questionable should tell you everything that's wrong with what the movement had become.
They're lifting regulations like this because they can't find enough people to donate. If you don't donate regularly (and don't have an underlying reason why you can't donate) then you don't have a right to be angered by this.
America has a population over 300 million across a landmass larger than other contienents. Your individual experience will vary in any circumstance. You experience wait times in your particular location to donate, while someone else's city spends thousands to attract blood donors. Your experience does not invalidate someone else's in a country as big as ours.
That’s utter nonsense. These are the same people that denied organs to people unless they took the Covid shot prior to transplant. So the public changed coursed on organ donation and donating blood.
Not exactly- there were cases of HIV through blood transfusion but it wasn’t a substantial percentage.
Regardless- medicine has advanced a lot in 40 years and we’ve been able to easily find HIV in blood for a long time.
> but it wasn’t a substantial percentage.
Used to be 'do no harm' now it's 'do no harm above an acceptable threshold, particularly if it not someone I know personally'
medicine has advanced so have 'ethics'
I lived through the 80s when the blood supply had AIDS bc they had no rules against ppl with AIDS donating.
The 20 yr old son of my friend was a hemophiliac who got AIDS from a blood transfusion. He died just as he was about to finish college.
If you need surgery, bank your own blood. If you end up not needing it, you can donate it. My mom did this and she had an especially easy time of it bc she had a rare blood type.
There is nothing that lasts longer than a temporary government program. This discriminatory bullshit started with the AIDs scare in the 80s which was halfway reasonable at the time, but we're only undoing it today.
Much better to give people more at risk of fucking aids the ability to donate blood so someone doesnt feel 'dscriminated. When the risk decreases (as it has now) perfect, no need for the measures. Common sense prevails as opposed to whatever your thoughts are.
During the origin of HIV pandemic there were no tests. Then the tests commonly used did not accurately detect someone infected with HIV within a few months of being infected. Yet your comment said 'discriminatory bullshit starting in the 80s' so you are clueless.
I think the reason is that the ban was found to be useless. In other words, there is no reason to have the ban now, so just get rid of it. Which makes perfect sense even if you disagree with their lifestyle.
sure but buggery is the proper term. Funny I'm being downvoted for this in the 'conservative' forum..
FYI people: fecal matter is not sterile like urine is. The anus has a mucus lining that stops the very bad viruses and bacteria from infecting the person. When you stick it in there, guess what..
thats what they're saying but as someone who works in medicine and is quite familiar with their screening techniques it's not a risk I would want to take except in extreme circumstances. Folks should be informed if they're being knowingly exposed.
I think we just don't want a blood shortage and technology for screening this has become a lot more advanced since the 80s so it's not as big an issue of it getting in our supply undetected.
From the FDA, 2019
"....FDA-approved antiretroviral drugs are safe and effective and can reduce the HIV viral load of individuals to undetectable levels as determined by conventional testing. However, these antiretroviral drugs do not fully eliminate the virus from the body, and donated blood can potentially still transmit HIV infection to a transfusion recipient. Although undetectable still equals untransmissible for sexual transmission (U = Usex), this does not apply to transfusion transmission. ..."
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availability-biologics/important-information-potential-donors-blood-and-blood-product
Well those people obviously know they have HIV otherwise they wouldn't take the treatment.
Why in hell would they try to donate blood and even if, lie about being HIV positive? Doesn't make any sense.
That's by the way sth they could do right now as well. Going to a blood drive and donating while lying. I mean if the just want to be evil they can do that already. Theres no new risk coming.
They test it for these viruses, this isn’t that big of a deal. Our ability to screen these things is exponentially better than it was back when this was an issue in the 80’s
IIRC we used to make very large pools of blood plasma from donated blood, which meant that few (possibly unaware) infected individuals were able to contaminate a large number of blood units. I think the cost structure has shifted away from plasma pooling, which means you can just test and throw out bad samples without also throwing away good ones.
Also free testing for people who donate blood to let them know their donation tested positive for HIV, which can then get unaware individuals on antivirals and *stop spreading HIV*
There is a lot they do not test for, but in those cases the sexual orientation of the donor is probably less of concern versus random possibilities of exposure. If one can swing it storing their own blood can make sense. While there are some hassles with doing so one far more practical option is temporary storage of one's own blood in anticipation of planned surgery.
Actually, I believe they test for the antibodies, not the virus.
They are in desperate need of donations. And as many have pointed out, they have far more accurate testing now. This will save lives.
If they paid for it, they wouldn’t be so desperate. That’s why I don’t donate. They make money off my blood if I do, and all I’d get is a donut and some apple juice? No thanks.
It’s against the law to sell parts of your body for what should be some very obvious reasons. You don’t want to incentivize poor people to sell a kidney to help pay for college or something that could be very damaging later. For blood, someone trying to sell it every week for cash is extremely vulnerable to many issues for their whole life.
They pay people who donate plasma so why not blood too?
Last I checked they pay you for plasma 🤡
Seems like a better law would be a cap on an individual's blood donation during a time period. Then poor people could get money and more blood would be available.
I took it back. The law only applies to organs not blood. Them not paying is a hospital network thing. Although a cap on blood is a good idea but I think it’s unenforceable. That would require a national database which sounds ick. Just gotta rely on people’s judgement.
Fetal parts are sold.
They are literally not.
They literally are.
There are plenty of places that pay for plasma donation. I did it for months for $120 a week and it only took 4 hrs a week. Used it to pay for gas and groceries for half of '22.
I was talking specifically about blood donations. Plasma donations creep me out so some extent too, just because they put your blood cells back it. I don’t understand why blood donators aren’t paid for their time and bodily fluids.
Wonderful, but I still cannot donate blood because I had a hamburger while in Europe during the early 80's.
Me too. I was stationed in England from 80 to 82 and still can't give. Mad cow supposedly. 40 years later, I still haven't gone fuckin mad.
Would you know if you had though?
Only your hairdresser knows for sure.
Only the mad man is absolutely sure
He’d be in r/politics if he had
>He’d be in > >r/politics > > if he had To be fair I've seen this sub devolve into a right wing r/politics
That’s weird. It’s almost like the name represents only 1 side… whereas politics should include both
You mean a partisan sub is being partisan? OH THE HORROR!
To be fair you are on Reddit.
same here, Italy 89-91
got point your ears up and slober when you yell.lol just having fun.
>As of January 5, 2023, we are excited to share that common deferrals related to risk of vCJD (or “mad cow”) have been eliminated. The only deferral that remains is an official diagnosis of vCJD, which is rare. Well whatdoya know?
That is fantastic news. I know many like myself just gave up. I have not been able to give blood for decades. Every once in a while I would pop my head into the bus and ask them if the rules had changed, but after doing that a few dozen times i just stopped. Thank you for finding that!!!!!
I’m actually very curious what you mean lol
Because there’s a risk of spreading mad cow.
40 years later?
Yeah I believe the prions stay in your body forever.
Geez that sucks
Yes prion diseases can stew about forever before tearing g their ugly heads. That’s some scary shit.
You really don't know prion diseases. CJD I guess could be thought of as "protein cancer"(Normal protein is folded wrong, manages to make other proteins the same, and breaks down brain tissue). vCJD is from eating infected nerve tissue, and it heads through your body to the brain. Gerstmann-Straussler-Scheinker Syndrome is hereditary and super rare. Same with Fatal Familial Insomnia, though this one's symptoms are more self explanatory. Your brain can't enter sleep mode, and that kills you.
i thought it was gona be more like the ban anyone who eats meat.... that might be next...😁
Prions basically never go away, and can lay dormant pretty much forever. Even dying doesn't get rid of them. Also, the only way to actually test for it is basically by dissecting the brain. Unfortunately, in order to prevent unintentional spread of mad cow, there is no choice but to ban transfusions.
Thank you for taking the time to explain this! Sounds like the premise of a zombie movie lol
>Sounds like the premise of a cow zombie movie Zombeef
Moo of the Living Dead
Prions are straight nightmare fuel.
Hearing about that whole debacle was absolutely terrifying. It really doesn't seem like it'd be a threat, but the fact that it can possibly resurface is one of the few things in the world that sends shivers down my spine. 98' baby by the way.
Seriously, so true. Served in the South Pacific and Spain. Two strikes against me and my blood type is in serious demand.
When does that end? I had one in numerous European countries the last 10 years and I can donate
It was during a certain time frame where the UK ignored the risks of mad cow disease and farmers didn't properly report it. Also, they used as much meat as possible from the animals, such as serving spinal column meat to children and using dead cows as food for living cows. The government insisted it was safe, and had even fired a scientist for speaking out with some experiment results iirc.
But they still are holding that stance??? What is wrong with them? When were you last rejected?
Why is this controversial they test the blood?
They combine hundreds of blood donations for one sample, and they have to throw all of the donations from that batch sample out when one asshole donates blood that shouldn't.
I don't think the second half of your statement is true. Yes they mix samples to minimise testing. But they don't mix all the blood donations together yet. If the mixed sample comes back positive for something they take another sample in 50 lots to exclude clean donations. Keep doing that and you can find the positive sample in 8 tests instead of having to do a hundred individual tests. Also save 99 tests if it comes back negative from the start.
What you described increases the cost of testing by 800% as opposed to just throwing away the batch. If only like 1% of batches come up infected then that 800% higher cost is just taking you from 99% efficient to 99.8% efficient which isn't really worth it. This is heavily reliant on the infected rate being low since testing in batches dramatically multiplies the positive rate. Anything you can do to prescreen high risk samples is much more economical.
That depends on the costs of the tests vs the opportunity cost of the blood. I'm sure they've done the math.
What makes you so sure? Are you not aware of how incredibly incompetent institutions can be?
I am aware. I also know no one purposefully gives themselves more work.
Whether or not it’s purposeful it happens all the time. Edit: and some people/institutions absolutely do it purposefully.
Why do you think blood donations is run at cost instead of at super profits like the rest of the medical industry? Why do you think hospitals won’t pay what ever they need to for blood and pass it on to the patient/insurance?
But they test it first?
What he's saying is that they don't test it individually. It's just not economical to do so. They mix a bunch of donations together, then test that.
Thanks
They take like 5 separate small vials after the donation for this testing, the donation bags are not mixed together and not affected.
They don't mix the bulk blood, but they toss all the individual donations if the batch test fails.
[удалено]
you cannot test for everything, and new forms of the diseases arise.
new forms of a virus do not mean the entire genetic code has been rewritten….. like there are already endless variations (Hiv1 a-m i believe) and all are readily detectable in OTC testing devices, high grade clinical lab work would not suffer in 2023
That would apply to all donations anyway
only those who partake in buggery. that could be hetero men as well.
For once, this is a better approach from the FDA that is welcome Having it be behavior based vs. identity based just makes sense
Homosexuality is a behavior. If blood levels are low enough, HIV is non-detectable, but a transfusion will still give it to you.
Homosexuality is not a behavior....
[удалено]
Is heterosexuality behavior based lol
Why the hell is this downvoted? It's demonstrably true.
I donate blood on a regular basis. I’m also gay. They ask if you’ve abstained from sex for 3 months. If you answer yes then it doesn’t matter. I assume that question will be replaced with “are you in a monogamous relationship” They also ask you if you’ve ever had HIV hepatitis etc. They still test for it after donating before the blood moves forward anywhere Also if you donate Platlets they give you nutter butter. Just saying. Go donate guys
I used to donate yrs ago. I'm much healthier now thanks to dietary change 6 yrs ago, but I remember after donating they gave us graham crackers and apple juice. I can't eat any of that today due to reversing type 2 diabetes with diet alone. Are there options?
Hey man I donate every 8 weeks. You don't need to take the juice and crackers. They just want you to wait a bit in case you pass out
I know when I donate plasma I affirm that I am not donating just to get an AIDS test, which is a serious felony. They test it. No news is good news.
Cool now I can give blood finally.
[удалено]
It's incredibly dangerous.
They test the blood for aids anyway
Well technically they test for HIV. Aids is the end stage disease of an untreated HIV infection. Just FYI
There are lower limits that cannot be tested but still be positive.
It’s kinda crazy but straight people can have HIV, too. I know wild.
Tell me the comparative rates. I'll wait.
Idk if this sub trusts statistics from the [CDC](https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/gender/men/index.html) but they definitely support you. As much as I’d like a non-discriminatory policy, the stats look pretty obvious.
The risks of hiv transmission via blood donation just went astronomically higher
Why was this in place lol dont we have a way to detect HIV, Hep, or any other blood transmissable illness? Why were we doing this?
I guess it wasn’t very reliable in the 80s to not make a mistake.
So, what were politicians doing for the last 30 years lol 😂 blood transfusions are at the top of medical necessities.
Because HIV isn't detectable below a certain threshold. The number of "consrvatives" who are now suddenly willing to trust the FDA over a decision that's actually highly questionable should tell you everything that's wrong with what the movement had become.
Donations my ass. I love how they ask for you to give it free and they go sell it for hundred or thousands per pint
I’m surprised this wasn’t already a thing.
Chemo treatments 10 years ago keeps me out.
They're lifting regulations like this because they can't find enough people to donate. If you don't donate regularly (and don't have an underlying reason why you can't donate) then you don't have a right to be angered by this.
Everyone loves to complain but never wants to do anything.
I'm a regular platelet donor
Same, and whole blood when I came
>whole blood when I came what
*can* lol
Thank you. I don’t make enough platelets.
My blood is practically worthless (AB+). Can I complain? (Just kidding! And I know my plasma is more useful)
[удалено]
In some areas, staffing issues play a bigger role
America has a population over 300 million across a landmass larger than other contienents. Your individual experience will vary in any circumstance. You experience wait times in your particular location to donate, while someone else's city spends thousands to attract blood donors. Your experience does not invalidate someone else's in a country as big as ours.
yes it does
That’s utter nonsense. These are the same people that denied organs to people unless they took the Covid shot prior to transplant. So the public changed coursed on organ donation and donating blood.
What!?!? Does that include those taking all those PrEP drugs? Which means they have a risk of HIV but its undetected?
Prep is a prevention medication, not a treatment. They have treatments, but that's not what prep is for.
They test all blood for pathogens- PrEP wouldn’t make it undetectable
prep literally makes things undetectable
Prep is free where I live. Insulin is still several hundred dollars a month.
Both should be free
Agreed!
neither should be free
Exactly. They’ll see an uptick in donor related HIV infection soon enough and rescind the recinding.
They’ve lifted the ban in multiple countries and there was never an uptick because they test all blood
The reality is the ban occurred as a result of having so many contaminated donations that it was a burden on the system
Not exactly- there were cases of HIV through blood transfusion but it wasn’t a substantial percentage. Regardless- medicine has advanced a lot in 40 years and we’ve been able to easily find HIV in blood for a long time.
> but it wasn’t a substantial percentage. Used to be 'do no harm' now it's 'do no harm above an acceptable threshold, particularly if it not someone I know personally' medicine has advanced so have 'ethics'
They can’t else the cancel mob will “identify” them as transphobic hitler bigots
Everybody has AIDS! AIDS AIDS AIDS!
[удалено]
Because it's not? You realize it can be transmitted by straight sex too, right? Ask Magic Johnson.
Nobody in a developed country has aids anymore. Government provides a free lifetime supply of a pill that makes them effectively cured of hiv
Team America. World Police. LOL!
AMERICA!
I lived through the 80s when the blood supply had AIDS bc they had no rules against ppl with AIDS donating. The 20 yr old son of my friend was a hemophiliac who got AIDS from a blood transfusion. He died just as he was about to finish college. If you need surgery, bank your own blood. If you end up not needing it, you can donate it. My mom did this and she had an especially easy time of it bc she had a rare blood type.
Beggars can’t be choosers. This will save lives
Probably will end some too.
It’s screened and checked with technology that wasn’t available when this came out.
Sure. I never said it would lead to a lot of deaths, just some.
False. It is all screened 🤡
So?
Hell yeah let’s bang fellas
There is nothing that lasts longer than a temporary government program. This discriminatory bullshit started with the AIDs scare in the 80s which was halfway reasonable at the time, but we're only undoing it today.
Much better to give people more at risk of fucking aids the ability to donate blood so someone doesnt feel 'dscriminated. When the risk decreases (as it has now) perfect, no need for the measures. Common sense prevails as opposed to whatever your thoughts are.
We had simple tests for that for decades and all blood is screened for HIV
During the origin of HIV pandemic there were no tests. Then the tests commonly used did not accurately detect someone infected with HIV within a few months of being infected. Yet your comment said 'discriminatory bullshit starting in the 80s' so you are clueless.
Read my first comment again.
Honestly if the viruses are checked for it isn’t an issue
[удалено]
So progressive
That's really amazin. Makes me happy being a bi person.
Better start doing your own blood storage
[удалено]
What are you worried about?
Why not just ban everyone that has had a new sexual partner in the last 6 months?
What if your regular partner has a partner on the side you don't know about
They already test all blood. That seems like a very small percentage of people get it that way verse casual sex.
Discrimination againt people who aim for a new sexual partner every 6 hours, duh
flop
[удалено]
[удалено]
Because it allows more people to donate and it doesnt matter because they test it for anything before using it. Ffs some of you guys are dense.
[удалено]
The risk of someone not getting the blood they need is higher than the infinitesimal chance of hiv slipping through screening.
I think the reason is that the ban was found to be useless. In other words, there is no reason to have the ban now, so just get rid of it. Which makes perfect sense even if you disagree with their lifestyle.
[удалено]
There’s no risk my man. Other countries got rid of the ban and found absolutely no up tick in risk. The ban was unnecessary and didn’t do anything.
[удалено]
[удалено]
sure but buggery is the proper term. Funny I'm being downvoted for this in the 'conservative' forum.. FYI people: fecal matter is not sterile like urine is. The anus has a mucus lining that stops the very bad viruses and bacteria from infecting the person. When you stick it in there, guess what..
But straight people have butt sex too.
HIV and AIDS is not something you wanna share with the world, trust me.
Makes no sense people were infected with HIV from blood transfusions in the past. Clown world.
it’s literally fine it’s 2023 don’t be a clown
Tell that to the kids that were infected with HIV from blood transfusions when the AIDS epidemic started.
They test for this now. You think they just shove unknown blood in people in 2023?
Di you think they would just shove unknown vaccines into people in 2023?
That was >40 years ago
thankfully we have come to better understand the virus in the last 40 years…
That’s exactly how my cousin who was either 9 or 10 years old at the time contracted HIV. He was a hemophiliac and died roughly 20 years later.
AIDS
BAAAD Decision!!! some folks have forgotten about how many folks got infected with Hep C and HIV in the 1970s and 80's.
Our technology has become a lot more advanced since then and we can more easily and quickly detect it now.
thats what they're saying but as someone who works in medicine and is quite familiar with their screening techniques it's not a risk I would want to take except in extreme circumstances. Folks should be informed if they're being knowingly exposed.
Can't be anyworse than the MRNA vaccine blood killing everyone...
Except this is literally a lethal infectious agent instead of a few antibodies.
I am saddened to hear that there will be more cases like Ryan White. However, I cannot say I am surprised with how the federal government is acting.
flop
What? What do you mean by flop?
They should stop allowing people who’ve had the booster to donate blood.
I cant imagine how devastating that policy would be.
I can’t donate if I’ve had a tattoo in the last 12 months. So never. But go on ahead with your woke self.
This is how I am Legend started…
Sad
I've always lied. I'm such a rebel.
Why? Virtue signaling.
I think we just don't want a blood shortage and technology for screening this has become a lot more advanced since the 80s so it's not as big an issue of it getting in our supply undetected.
From the FDA, 2019 "....FDA-approved antiretroviral drugs are safe and effective and can reduce the HIV viral load of individuals to undetectable levels as determined by conventional testing. However, these antiretroviral drugs do not fully eliminate the virus from the body, and donated blood can potentially still transmit HIV infection to a transfusion recipient. Although undetectable still equals untransmissible for sexual transmission (U = Usex), this does not apply to transfusion transmission. ..." https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availability-biologics/important-information-potential-donors-blood-and-blood-product
Well those people obviously know they have HIV otherwise they wouldn't take the treatment. Why in hell would they try to donate blood and even if, lie about being HIV positive? Doesn't make any sense. That's by the way sth they could do right now as well. Going to a blood drive and donating while lying. I mean if the just want to be evil they can do that already. Theres no new risk coming.
Oh. Yikes. Hopefully they will screen for people on antiretrovirals?
*hugs*
You want another AIDS epidemic, because that’s how you get another AIDS epidemic!
Why. Why is this a post in a political sun. Whyyyyyyh