HIV tainted blood after 9/11/01?

DIM

Last night at meeting, the circuit overseer said in his talk "and there has even been talk of HIV / AIDS tainted blood that has slipped through the screening process in the aftermath of the world trade center bombing, contaminating the survivors of the tragedy. Can you imagine, surviving the world trade center bombing, then finding out you have contracted HIV?" He made no references to any newspapers or where he got this information from. Sounds like complete and utter bullshit. there is no way this is true.

bboyneko 2

I checked snopes dot com for any reports of this being an urban legend, but found nothing, i suspect it is a JW -only urban legend.

Seeker

There has "been talk" among the JWs at his Hall perhaps, but that's about it. I mean, think it through: Why would the disaster lead to this? Did the building collapse contaminate the blood supply with HIV? Of course not. So he must mean the Red Cross and the hospitals have let down their guard about screening people. But why would they do that? The thing about this disaster is that you either walked out of it alive, or you died. There were very few wounded. Hospitals in New York had almost nothing to do. So what would be the great crush of activity that would cause them to skip the screening process?

That story makes no sense, and any listening JW should have known better, as DIM did.

DIM

it sounded so off base, so uneducated, that i started giggling out loud. I wanted to leave, but we were situated in the front of the hall. I cannot wait until we stop going....hopefully by January. what a croc.

nelly136

that reminds me of something I was wondering about. How may pints of blood does it take to manufacture
allowed fractions, and how long would it take bse take to show up in hemapure?
nelly

and has anyone got a scanned blood directive they could send me please?

D wiltshire

I can tell you the Red Cross is very careful about excepting blood from doners.
After the 9/11 WTC tragedy I whent to donate blood and was turned down because 30 years ago I was a IV heroin user. I was told even though it's been 30 years since I last used heroin and had not had caught anything from dirty needle they would never except my blood ever.

If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?

MrMoe

I will play devil's advocate here.

When my brother contracted HIV, I did extensive research. I have a very good friend who is an RN and another friend who is a Pediatric Surgeon. I myself was a geriatric nurse for a short period of time, although I am a bit rusty. HIV can takes up to 5 years to show in a test and can therefore go undetected by a blood donor. So yes, you can still get HIV tainted blood from a blood transfusion and it does happen much more often then people would like to realize.

The odds that somebody that donated blood had HIV and it went undetected ARE VERY HIGH. HIV is not the only thing somebody needs to worry about either. There is also Hepatitis strains that can be very deadly. I myself would think twice before accepting a blood transfusion due to the risks it entails - but not on a religious basis.

If some of those who received a blood transfusion after the WTC disaster did contract HIV, it can literally take years to discover this. A very good friend of mine (who by the way slept around a lot) contracted HIV. It took 3 years before it showed in a blood test and she knew who gave it to her. She continually tested negative, thinking she was lucky and did not contract it. Her doctor advised that it can take very long for it to show in a blood test and eventually it did.

Sad to say, I know of well over a dozen people she slept with that more than likely have HIV by now. So - if I know of dozens of people with HIV, some of which a decent people who do not use drugs and so on - then odds are there are numerous blood donors with HIV. This disease works like stealth and should not be taken lightly.

DIM

Thank for that post mr. moe - basically, though, it would be almost impossible to detect just 6 weeks after being donated, correct?

MrMoe

Probably - unless they had full blown AIDS or progressed HIV. If somebody contracted HIV within 6 months - odds are it WILL NOT show on a test. It may, but then again it may not. If I were to have sex a week before with somebody with full blown AIDS and then donate my blood it would not show up on a test. Period. This is why they have a heavy screening process. I cannot donate blood because of my tattoos - I would have a significant waiting period. But, if my spouse cheats on me with an AIDS infected hooker, Red Cross should have no way of knowing. Very sad, huh?

P.S. - condoms only protect you for up to 40%. The HIV virus is smaller than the pores of a condom. Surgeons as a rule will try not to operate on a HIV patient if they have cuts or lacerations on their hands because their gloves may not protect them. It's very scary isn't it?

julien

HIV may be small enough to pass through the pores of a lambskin condom (does anyone actually use these?) but using latex or polyurethane you should be safe. Latex pores are too small for HIV to pass. Polyurethane has no pores. The failure rate with latex or polyurethane is mostly due to human error in using the thing.

HIV tainted blood after 9/11/01?

Share this