HIV tainted blood after 9/11/01? (page 2)

MrMoe

You are wrong julien - very wrong.

Take this article as an example that condom pores are up to 100 times larger than the HIV virus:

Industry admits naturally occurring defects
Even intact condoms have naturally occurring defects (tiny holes penetrating the entire thickness) measuring five to 50 microns in diameter -- 50 to 500 times the size of the HIV virus, writes C. Michael Roland, head of the Polymer Properties Section at the Naval Research laboratory in Washington, D.C. and editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology, in a published letter to the Washington Times. [In other words, just as rubber tires, over time, lose air, condoms (manufactured of the same product, rubber) also are porous.]

http://www.dianedew.com/condom.htm

Also note - my information is due to research as a former medical professional. I was also told my findings were true by a Pediatric Surgeon and a RN/IV nurse.

MrMoe

P.S.

From the same website I listed above - here is further information.

"... the rubber comprising latex condoms has intrinsic voids about 5 microns (0.0002 inches) in size," Roland states. "Contrarily, the AIDS virus is only 0.1 micron (4 millionths of an inch) in size. Since this is a factor of 50 smaller than the voids inherent in rubber, the virus can readily pass through the condom."

In addition, condom manufacturers allow 0.4 percent of any given batch to be defective, before a recall is ordered.

Latex glove specifications
Studies done by Georgetown Medical University and the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., published in Nature, Sept. 1, 1988, show that latex gloves, made to much higher specifications than the condom, have pores 50 times larger than the 0.1 micron HIV virus.

Even if there were no pores in latex, in-use breakage and slip-off rates are "so high as to make condoms ineffective for protection against HIV," says biochemist and molecular biologist Dr. David G. Collart, Ph.D., of Stone Mountain, Ga.

In fact, "the U.S. government has withdrawn a $2.6 million grant to study condoms because 'an unacceptably high number of condom users probably would have been infected in such a study,'" he says, citing a 1989 article published in Infection.

MrMoe

Another P.S. on polyurethane condums. Yes, they do NOT have pores - but the FDA has not allowed any manufacturers to make claims about the prevention STDs - although common sense would assume they are much much safer. Studies still need to be conducted.

http://www.postgradmed.com/issues/2000/04_00/pn_condoms.htm

Latex condoms are the only ones known for sure to prevent transmission of HIV. Newer, soft plastic (polyurethane) condoms may also be effective, but we do not yet have enough information to recommend them. However, they are an important option for people who are allergic to latex. Plastic condoms do not fit as well as the more flexible latex devices, and they may slip off during use.

Lambskin condoms are quite porous and do not protect against HIV. They block the flow of sperm but not the spread of viruses. Novelty condoms, such as those with extra "nubbies" or "hot" designs, often do not protect as well as standard latex condoms against STDs. Check the label on the package.

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

Another link for the below information:

http://www.aegis.com/pubs/cdchotb/1995/CDC00115.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

These are answers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to questions submitted by the CDC National AIDS Hotline concerning polyurethane condoms.
1. Is the use of polyurethane condoms recommended by CDC?

The FDA has approved the male polyurethane condom for sale in the United States, but has not allowed the manufacturer to make any claims about the prevention of pregnancy or STDs until ongoing studies are completed. Laboratory testing has shown that particles even as small as sperm and viruses like HIV cannot pass through this polyurethane material. An actual "recommendation" by CDC has not been made yet.

2. Latex condoms are regulated in the United States and must meet FDA standards. What kind of standards will polyurethane condoms need to meet?

Standards are currently being developed.

3. Are there microscopic holes or pores in polyurethane? How are we sure that polyurethane pores are small enough to keep HIV out?

There are no pores or holes in polyurethane.

4. Is there any information on reliability rates?

Laboratory testing has shown that particles, even ones as small as sperm and viruses like HIV, cannot pass through this polyurethane material. However, the manufacturer has not completed the clinical trials necessary to prove protection against pregnancy, HIV, and other STD's. Studies are now underway.

blondie

BTW, Hemopure is made from cow's blood so there should be no HIV risk...mad cow's disease is another thing.

Many of the larger Red Cross units are equipped with fully functional, transportable facilities that test blood for HIV right on the spot (I saw this on a major TV news show from a Red Cross official, sorry forgot which one). There was probably enough already tested blood available. The problem is not exhausting the onhand supply, keeping a backup supply for other disasters and to supply hospital day to day needs.

Come on, this is not the first major disaster the world has faced where blood has been supplied through the Red Cross in quick fashion. I think it was a CO quoting someone without checking with the real source. It could be possible to ask him politely, "Could you tell me what your source for that information was? I would like to be able to share it with my nonwitness relatives and workmates."

blondie

Here's the response from the Red Cross:

"Thanks for writing - I hope I can be of help. First of all, here's the link at the National site that talks about testing.

http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/blood/supply/back6a.html

I know you said you looked there but navigation is a little tricky and you may not have found this.

You're right about the blood that was used immediately; it was already
tested. Shortly after the event, the FDA lifted some of our testing
requirements in order to help all blood banks more quickly process the blood that donors came forward to share. It basically changed the timeline -blood could be shipped before testing was complete, but the idea was that the tests would be done and reported before the actual transfusion. It was simply a way of expediting the logistics. It was a very short term solution, though, and they rescinded it very quickly (I'm thinking even the very next day), so all the regular systems went back into place."

If anyone needs additional information, check on the main site

http://www.redcross.org

And check with your own local Red Cross.

DIM

thanks for that link, blondie. confirms what I had thought about what the circuit overseer said last night - BULLSHIT! Another WTS scare tactic.

Ranchette

I haven't personally heard anything about Hiv tainted blood getting into the blood supply since 9/11 but I have heard stories of people going to donate blood for the first time and later after their blood was tested finding out they had Hiv.This makes much more sense with what I have seen when donating blood.

Red Cross requires you to agree to have your blood tested for Hiv and hepititis before you donate here. Then you fill out a form and answer questions that feret out if you are at risk, then you put a sticker on the form in private that tells them if you want your blood used or not just in case you were too imbarrased to tell the truth on the form ,then your blood is tested anyway no matter what your answer is.

Also I have found this interesting,They informed me in the literature that I had to read ahead of time that my blood would be seperated into three components if found useable.The Red cross may do it differently in other areas but this is the way it is here.

Ranchette

Ranchette

Ranchette

Edited because of a double posting.

HIV tainted blood after 9/11/01?

Share this