steelstag4 said:Well, wouldn't a different approach work better: 1. A donor comes in, they take a dose and a sample; the sample gets tested, and if it comes back negative... 2. ...they call them back in a month just for another sample; if that one is also negative, then the blood dose from a month ago is finally cleared for use.
Wouldn't that solve the issue? Maybe not here if we're actually facing such a massive shortage of donors, but I'm speaking in general terms.
Actually, it wouldn't—because certain blood products have a shelf life of only five days. Take platelets, for instance; the patient over at Mount Sinai was infected specifically because of platelet transfusions.😱
Elizabeth Perez70 said:It’s obvious this was passed along by someone who doesn't have a clue... 🙂 the reality of the situation is this...
At month zero: a volunteer donor shows up... you only take a SAMPLE of blood, not a full unit... At month three or six (depending on the protocol): they return, and then you take a full UNIT and a SAMPLE... That is how they mitigate the window period for high-risk donors—specifically those donating for the very first time...
P.S.: Note that there was mention of an "established" donor here, and the procedure described above applies strictly to first-time donors... P.P.S.: Storing blood for a six-month period isn't feasible because it has to be kept at 0-4°C precisely because certain clinically significant components are lost if the temperature drops below freezing...
Yes, I see now that the information was either miscommunicated or I simply misunderstood it—but honestly, 😕 what is actually gained from this 'window period' logic? After all, who can guarantee that a potential donor hasn't become infected, say, two weeks before providing their second sample?
(I genuinely believed blood could be kept frozen, but yesterday while browsing the Blood Bank website, I saw that red blood cells can only be stored for about 35 days, while platelets and white blood cells have even shorter lifespans)
I also noticed on the American Red Cross website that they utilize some kind of HIV RNA test—is that the type of test that detects the virus itself rather than waiting for antibodies to develop? If my understanding is correct, this test reacts within a much shorter timeframe. (Though, for what it's worth, I did stumble upon an article describing a case where a man was infected through a transfusion even though the blood had been screened with an RNA test)
We’re talking about a country where, right after a major multi-car pileup hits the news, you hear the radio stations begging blood donors to step up because the local hospitals have completely run out of supply..
And you honestly think you could just sit around waiting six months?
Unfortunately, but accidents like these are part of the reality we live in, and they have to be accepted as an inevitable risk.
I never actually said I would personally wait six months; I was simply pointing out that this is how things are handled in European countries. It is perfectly clear to me that such a thing is impossible here, given the constant shortages at the Blood Bank.
I have to admit, I’ve always been stuck wondering how they actually manage to screen blood for HIV when antibodies don't even show up right away. It seems like a fundamental flaw in the process, but apparently, the issue lies in how the samples are handled—specifically regarding freezing. Hebrang mentioned they recently re-tested those frozen blood samples and the results came back negative. This leaves me questioning whether antibodies simply fail to develop within blood that has been frozen.
Actually, I was just reading an article about how other countries have addressed this exact problem. Their protocol involves contacting the donor after a six-month window to run follow-up tests; if the donor tests negative at that point, only then is the blood they provided half a year earlier cleared for use.
Paul Newman2 said:I’ve been seeing Dr. Koracin for quite some time now, and I’m completely satisfied with her. Unlike certain other gynecologists I've encountered, she actually takes the time to explain every procedure and pinpoint exactly what the issue is—which is helpful, considering I've had my fair share of complications. >, from what I can gather, a chlamydia test is always a separate thing; a Pap smear might show some changes that suggest it's there, but it isn't a direct confirmation. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Chlamydia shows up on a Pap smear in about 60 to 70 percent of cases within the microbiological section, but a specific swab for chlamydia is its own distinct test.
(which means it is entirely possible to be infected with chlamydia without it showing up on a Pap smear at all.)
That’s true enough, though it seems my lack of hydration gave those bacteria exactly what they needed to thrive—when you're dealing with a urinary tract infection, the standard medical advice is always to flush your system with plenty of fluids.
Those who follow macrobiotic principles would likely agree with Nathan Collins2 that this trendy obsession with "flushing" your system with massive amounts of water isn't actually beneficial—the standard macrobiotic approach suggests drinking moderately, and only when you truly feel thirsty.
But I, for one, decided to stick strictly to those guidelines, and all it got me was a urinary tract infection.😢
Gargle with some sage instead, but whatever you do, don't swallow it. You also need to be careful with those various throat lozenges floating around—a lot of them actually contain alcohol. Generally speaking, just stay cautious with herbal remedies; if you aren't absolutely certain about something, it's better to just ask on Dr. Harni's forum hosted by Ines Buhač to see if they're safe to use during pregnancy.
It would be ideal if they just performed a throat swab—that way they could run an antibiogram and prescribe a targeted antibiotic instead of guessing. If there’s actually a bacterial infection present, you really have to take the antibiotics, because the bacteria itself is almost certainly a greater risk to the pregnancy than the medication is. There are specific antibiotics that are considered safe for use during pregnancy and are prescribed regularly; I personally had to take Cefdinir, even during my first trimester, because I dealt with a urinary tract infection. I can't say for certain about Zithromax, though, as I believe they tend to avoid prescribing that during the first trimester. You should probably ask Dr. Harvey on the forum for her take.
Betty Bennett10 said:That isn't quite right. It actually exists within Spirulina, though there is a constant, exhausting debate where some claim it’s unusable while others insist it works; I can't say for certain myself, but the label on my own bottle of Spirulina specifically states that the B12 is in a bioavailable form.
As I was saying—it remains an uncertainty, or more accurately, there simply isn't a reliable plant-based source for Vitamin B12. I have come across claims that B12 is present in Spirulina, and then further claims that it's only found in Nutrex Spirulina due to a specific processing method, yet I've also read that any B12 derived from Spirulina is ultimately unabsorbable.
rustyridge said:I’ve come across theories suggesting that excessive milk consumption actually leaches calcium from our bones, potentially serving as a primary driver for osteoporosis since dairy intake has become so widespread in the modern American diet.
That happens to be one of those standard arguments people use when they're trying to deconstruct the necessity of dairy, though I can't say for certain how much weight it actually carries. It seems the idea stems from a perceived link between high animal protein intake and calcium depletion—the notion being that the sheer amount of protein found in milk triggers bone loss—but current evidence suggests that connection is largely a fallacy.
As for Vitamin B12, there isn't any to be found in plant-based foods; as far as we know, it simply doesn't exist in the plant kingdom.
Amanda Mitchell17 said:On a different note, I’ve noticed that nobody seems to have brought up the impact of those hormones used to drive milk production in cows on our own bodies...
Exactly. To be clear, my doctor actually put me on a dairy-free diet specifically because of those hormone levels; I deal with uterine fibroids, which are estrogen-dependent tumors, so women facing similar issues are often advised to cut out dairy entirely. However, this really only applies to the mass-produced, industrial milk you find in a typical grocery store.
You actually have every right to request a chlamydia test at the University Health Center. Just ask for a referral; tell them you recently had a Pap smear and there’s some suspicion regarding chlamydia, then ask for the swab. They are obligated to provide you with the referral.
Look, let’s be realistic; it doesn't necessarily mean urbansailor68 would go around forcing anyone to have a child—it might just be her personal philosophy, which isn't quite the same thing as being pro-ban on Vacuum-abortus.
Personally, I view abortion as something wrong, though I tend to shy away from labeling it murder simply because that term creates these impossible moral deadlocks, yet I remain firmly opposed to it. That said, I am equally opposed to any legal ban, as the alternative is undeniably worse; in my view, there is no force in this country capable of compelling a woman to give birth if she has decided against it.
That’s a radical take, and honestly, quite an outlier. I suspect most people would instinctively side with the "born" over the "unborn." Especially when you consider the woman’s own family—it’s hard for me to picture a scenario where a husband would choose the potential life of a child over the actual life of his wife.
No, that isn't what I meant at all; I was referring to the posts preceding it, which makes my point perfectly clear within the context of the discussion happening there. If you're going to go out of your way to pull a specific comment just to critique it, it might be a wise move to actually read everything else written on the thread first.
shree_kali said:So you think finishing up with interferon injections and apple cider vinegar is the better move?!🙄
I am not interested in speculating or making things up; I only stick to the facts of what actually happened. If certain doctors want to engage in malpractice or shady business, they can deal with the consequences themselves. Personally, I’m all for receiving solid advice and recommendations, especially when it concerns my own health.
Look, did you even bother to read what my (original) post was actually about?