Re: Artifical Blood

July 9, 2006

Blood is often in short supply as well. Around here, there have been numerous occasions where the supply was down to a few days and a major incident could have run it out. Artificial blood will probably be a good thing because it will stretch supply. I think what could be done once the blood becomes widespread, would be to have people carry a card just like they do for organ donors or medic alerts saying that you only want real blood, not the artificial stuff.

Also there needs to be considered the risk of blood borne disease. One clinic that was set up here in town was closed down because so much blood it collected was tainted with one thing or another. Perhaps not paying people to donate blood and not farming prison inmates would help with that problem though. It is because of that that so long as I don't have any allergic reaction to it that I would probably take the artificial blood over the real thing.

July 9, 2006

In a message dated 7/8/2006 11:28:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, 6emini@... writes:

If your chances of dying in an accident were 100% without it, I'd have to say why not..give it to me.

I agree with you there. If the choice was certain death or a chance of contracting a disease, then I would take the blood. My preference would still be for the artificial stuff when it comes online and is proven safe.

July 9, 2006

In my area O neg is down to a four day supply, I just got my call to

come in. The card to carry would be a great plan for those opposed

to anything but the real thing. I was reading that these trials are

also taking place in countries in Africa where HIV is so widespread.

Even if a person had a negative HIV result on a test they could

still have it and pass along the tainted blood, that goes for here

or anywhere. LifeSource and other donation centers ask you to call

if you believe your blood may be infectious but how many people

call? If your chances of dying in an accident were 100% without it,

I'd have to say why not..give it to me.

>

> Blood is often in short supply as well. Around here, there have

been

> numerous occasions where the supply was down to a few days and a

major incident

> could have run it out. Artificial blood will probably be a good

thing because it

> will stretch supply. I think what could be done once the blood

becomes

> widespread, would be to have people carry a card just like they do

for organ donors

> or medic alerts saying that you only want real blood, not the

artificial

> stuff.

>

> Also there needs to be considered the risk of blood borne disease.

One

> clinic that was set up here in town was closed down because so

much blood it

> collected was tainted with one thing or another. Perhaps not

paying people to

> donate blood and not farming prison inmates would help with that

problem though.

> It is because of that that so long as I don't have any allergic

reaction to it

> that I would probably take the artificial blood over the real

thing.

>

July 9, 2006

In a message dated 7/9/2006 5:41:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, acsnag@... writes:

Geesh, not all gays have aids. If the blood is tested for HIV what is the problem? What gives you the idea that their blood is not tested properly? All donated blood is by law required to be tested, why do you think it is not?Ace

There have been cases where tainted blood has made it through, particularly from prisons. Several Arkansas prisons farmed their inmates to dangerous degrees and with no testing of the blood. That blood was sent to Canada, where the health service used it without testing it. As a result, hundreds of people got infected with from HIV to Hepatitis. No real surprise since this happened when Clinton was governor.

Even with the testing, tainted blood does make it through now and then. It is a rarity now, but people still do get infected with diseases by transfusion. My concern is that there might be diseases that aren't tested for that could get through. This particularly be some foreign disease brought in by immigrants or a totally new strain that doesn't register on current tests.

So, synthetic blood might not be such a bad idea. We're also not too far away from synthetic organs to replace things like kidneys. If more money was put into that than cloning and stem cell research, they'd have these lab built "type O" organs ready much faster. For that matter, they are also developing blood borne bacteria that will control insulin levels. Lots of thing coming down the pike.

July 9, 2006

I keep hoping I will never need blood from anyone else. There was a

fellow in one of my prior places of employment who regularly gave blood

along with many of his friends. He and his friends are gay and give the

blood because they know all blood is supposed to be screened for AIDS.

I think what they are doing might be illegal.

A bigger concern is that their donation is NOT tested properly or not

tested at all and some AIDS tainted blood gets through to some innocent

who just needs blood for an operation or whatnot.

Tom

Administrator

Also there needs to be considered the risk of blood borne disease. One

clinic that was set up here in town was closed down because so much

blood it collected was tainted with one thing or another. Perhaps not

paying people to donate blood and not farming prison inmates would help

with that problem though. It is because of that that so long as I don't

have any allergic reaction to it that I would probably take the

artificial blood over the real thing.

July 9, 2006

I would NOT take the bllod. I figure if it's my time to go, who am I

to argue with God?

Tom

Administrator

Re: Re: Artifical Blood

In a message dated 7/8/2006 11:28:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,

6emini@... writes:

If your chances of dying in an accident were 100% without it,

I'd have to say why not..give it to me.

I agree with you there. If the choice was certain death or a chance

of contracting a disease, then I would take the blood. My preference

would still be for the artificial stuff when it comes online and is

proven safe.

July 9, 2006

environmental1st2003 wrote:

>

> I keep hoping I will never need blood from anyone else. There was a

> fellow in one of my prior places of employment who regularly gave blood

> along with many of his friends. He and his friends are gay and give the

> blood because they know all blood is supposed to be screened for AIDS.

> I think what they are doing might be illegal.

>

> A bigger concern is that their donation is NOT tested properly or not

> tested at all and some AIDS tainted blood gets through to some innocent

> who just needs blood for an operation or whatnot.

>

Geesh, not all gays have aids. If the blood is tested for HIV what is

the problem? What gives you the idea that their blood is not tested

properly? All donated blood is by law required to be tested, why do you

think it is not?

Ace

July 9, 2006

Ace, I have worked at hospitals, tissue banks, Tom is right, people make mistakes, how do you know it wasn't friday after cocktails that the blood was processed. Why do you think hospitals get sued. or Dr's get sued. they are human they make mistakes. We all do, personally I don't think the testing methods are strict enough. Yes not all gay people have AIDS, but the gay lifes style on the most part leads to promiscuity. So does a lot of the straight life style, you can also get hepatitis from both blood and sex among many other transmitable diseases, in addition to infections. I don't believe Tom was trying to down an alternative life style, I believe he is worried about our blood supplies being tainted and I agree with him there. Bethacsnag@... wrote: environmental1st2003 wrote:> > > I keep hoping I will never need blood from anyone else. There was a> fellow in one of my prior places of employment who regularly gave blood> along with many of his friends. He and his friends are gay and give the> blood because they know all blood is supposed to be screened for AIDS.> I think what they are doing might be illegal.> > A bigger concern is that their donation is NOT tested properly or not> tested at all and some AIDS tainted blood gets through to some innocent> who just needs blood for an operation

or whatnot.> Geesh, not all gays have aids. If the blood is tested for HIV what is the problem? What gives you the idea that their blood is not tested properly? All donated blood is by law required to be tested, why do you think it is not?Ace

Sneak preview the all-new .com. It's not radically different. Just radically better.

July 10, 2006

Re: Re: Artifical Blood

" Geesh, not all gays have aids. "

I agree. However, these people were ones who knew they were engaging

in risky behavior and deliberately donated blood to get free HIV

testing knowing full well that there was always a slight chance that

A) The blood might test positive for HIV and The blood could find

its way untested into the blood supply.

" If the blood is tested for HIV what is the problem? What gives you

the idea that their blood is not tested properly? "

People are still getting donated blood tainted by viruses. That's

why. Most recently, it was hepatitis that some people got.

" All donated blood is by law required to be tested, why do you

think it is not? "

I think it might be tested, but not with 100% accuracy sometimes. If

someone thinks they might have HIV, let them get an HIV test. I don't

think some innocent ought to suffer because the infected blood made

it into the supply by accident.

Tom

Administrator

July 10, 2006

VISIGOTH@... wrote:

>

> There have been cases where tainted blood has made it through,

> particularly from prisons. Several Arkansas prisons farmed their inmates

> to dangerous degrees and with no testing of the blood. That blood was

> sent to Canada, where the health service used it without testing it. As

> a result, hundreds of people got infected with from HIV to Hepatitis.

Why bring up something from a long bygone era? That was 25 years ago,

before any routine testing was done. It has no relevance today.

Ace

July 10, 2006

" There have been cases where tainted blood has made it through,

particularly from prisons. Several Arkansas prisons farmed their inmates

to dangerous degrees and with no testing of the blood. That blood was

sent to Canada, where the health service used it without testing it. As

a result, hundreds of people got infected with from HIV to Hepatitis. "

To which Ace replied:

" Why bring up something from a long bygone era? That was 25 years ago,

before any routine testing was done. It has no relevance today.

Ace "

is referring to this...

http://winnipegsun.com/News/Winnipeg/2006/07/06/1670444-sun.html

" SCREENING POLICY

" More than 1,000 Canadians became infected with blood-borne HIV and up

to 20,000 others contracted hepatitis C after receiving tainted blood

products in the 1980s and early 1990s. More than 3,000 people died. "

People still get infected in parts of the world today...

http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20060702/news/news2.html

FOLLOWING A report on the number of lawsuits for negligence facing some

medical institutions over the last 13 years, a further probe by The

Sunday Gleaner now identifies at least 28 cases. This is four more than

reported last week.

There were at least seven publicised cases that were not reported in

government documents obtained under the Access to Information Act.

Many of those unmentioned cases were against the National Blood

Transfusion Service (Blood Bank). The Sunday Gleaner has since learnt

that there have been at least four other cases against the institution

where four persons contracted HIV through blood transfusions. This

should bring the total number of people who have contracted HIV through

blood transfusions between 1997 and 2005 to seven, and the total number

of suits for negligence against the Blood Bank to eight.

The result is that some countries are more inclined to prosecute donors

so that the blood never gets into the system in the first place...

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/127643.asp

Malaysia may impose jail terms on people who donate HIV-contaminated

blood, deputy prime minister Najib Razak said as he sounded the alarm

over rising cases of the disease.

<snip>

" There have been several cases of HIV and AIDS sufferers who donated

blood. We want to make it a crime, " Najib was quoted as saying by

Bernama news agency.

Here is an interesting bit that explains how negligence caused mass

infections...

http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?

area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__africa/ & articleid=276459

The defence team for five Bulgarian nurses accused of infecting more

than 400 Libyan children with HIV-tainted blood, claims psychological-

torture measures were used against the nurses, Bulgarian newspapers

reported on Thursday.

<snip>

The nurses, who along with a Palestinian doctor have spent seven years

in detention, were sentenced to death by firing squad in May 2004

for " knowingly " causing an Aids epidemic in a children's hospital in

the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi.

During police interrogations, two of the nurses apparently confessed,

but they later testified in court that they had done so under duress

and appealed the ruling.

July 10, 2006

On 9 Jul 2006 environmental1st2003 wrote:

> I would NOT take the blood. I figure if it's my time to go, who am I

> to argue with God?

What if you just lost an argument with a car? Whatever your

beliefs are, the results could hinge on those medical

treatments.

- s

July 11, 2006

In a message dated 7/10/2006 11:46:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, ravenmagic2003@... writes:

In some locations, you can have your own blood stored so that you would receive your own blood in such a case. Another option is to have those you trust who are able to donate blood give blood should you need it.Raven

Some of the hospitals around here do that, allow you to store your own blood before you have surgery. Never had to do that though.

July 11, 2006

>

> I would NOT take the bllod. I figure if it's my time to go, who am I

> to argue with God?

>

> Tom

> Administrator

In some locations, you can have your own blood stored so that you

would receive your own blood in such a case. Another option is to

have those you trust who are able to donate blood give blood should

you need it.

Raven

July 12, 2006

environmental1st2003 wrote:

>

> is referring to this...

>

So first a story of how, in Canada at least, the testing is so vigorous

that even some who are proven to not have HIV don't get accepted. This

followed by stories far remover from North America where testing is not

so vigorous yet even there it is extremely rare that infected blood gets

through.

In my evaluation I'd say our blood is about as safe as it gets. It is

far more dangerous to cross the street, ride in a car or fly in a plane.

It is more likely that you will win the lottery or get struck by

lightning, twice, than be given tainted blood in the USA or Canada.

Ace.

July 12, 2006

In a message dated 7/12/2006 3:37:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

I believe in God. If I live, it's because God wants me to. If I die, then it is my time to go. TomAdministrator

God also allowed us to develop medicine. So you might have been meant to take advantage of it.

July 12, 2006

Re: Re: Artifical Blood

" Do you ever read what you write? I got the impression that those who

donated " illegally " might have done so because they wanted to know if

THEY had AIDS. If it is supposed to be screened, I suspect tainted

blood is tossed. For the record, donating blood is never a problem.

Yes, one should be careful. Most medical professionals, though, try

really hard to give patients the best possible care. "

In my state if you have shared needles, or use certain legal or

illegal drugs, or have had certain diseases (Hepatitis, HIV/AIDs,

etc.), or engage in behavior that increases your likelihhood of

contracting HIV/AIDS, you are prohibited from donating. You are asked

when donating if you fall into any of these categories and are

informed that if you are donating for the express purpose of testing

your blood for HIV you cannot donate. You are informed that if you

know you have it and you intentionally donate to confirm your HIV

status you will be arrested and charged with tainting the blood

supply and if someone gets your blood unit and contracts HIV you will

be charged with murder if that person dies. You are informed that if

you knowingly lie about any of these things before donating, you can

be prosecuted.

If your blood comes up positive for AIDS the asumption is that you

didn't know that you had it. But these folks always lie when they

donate. They have admitted it to me.

I only wonder what my responsibilities are? Should I have reported

them? I suppose I have no way of knowing whether or not they lied

when donating.

Tom

Administrator

July 12, 2006

I believe in God. If I live, it's because God wants me to. If I die,

then it is my time to go.

Tom

Administrator

> I would NOT take the blood. I figure if it's my time to go, who am I

> to argue with God?

What if you just lost an argument with a car? Whatever your

beliefs are, the results could hinge on those medical

treatments.

- s

July 12, 2006

I believe in God. If I live, it's because God wants me to. If I die,

then it is my time to go.

Tom

Administrator

> I would NOT take the blood. I figure if it's my time to go, who am I

> to argue with God?

What if you just lost an argument with a car? Whatever your

beliefs are, the results could hinge on those medical

treatments.

- s

July 12, 2006

snip > If your blood comes up positive for AIDS the asumption is that

you didn't know that you had it. But these folks always lie when they

donate. They have admitted it to me.

I only wonder what my responsibilities are? Should I have reported

them? I suppose I have no way of knowing whether or not they lied

when donating.

Tom

Administrator

I did some reading on the possiblity of infecting someone from

donating even if you have been recently infected after a discussion I

had with my husband. He thought the rapid testing would be able to

tell if a person was but I said no. Well, here's a clip from what I

read and if you want to know more I've included a link.

The risk for HIV transmission by transfusion of screened blood is

minimal. Nearly all cases of transfusion-associated HIV transmission

are now caused by blood donated during the infectious window period

(i.e., when recently infected donors are infectious but have not yet

developed detectable levels of HIV antibody). When whole-virus-lysate

enzyme immunosorbent assays (EIAs) were used to screen blood donations

from 1985 through 1990, the average length of the window period was 45

days (95% confidence interval {CI}=34- 55 days) (3). The average

window period of the most sensitive contemporary recombinant protein-

based EIA for HIV-1 and HIV-2 antibodies is now 20 days less (4),

yielding an average infectious window period of 25 days (95% CI=9-41

days) (5).

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00040546.htm

Kim

July 12, 2006