HIV transmission via blood transfusion

fadedsailor932 Active MemberOP

101 messages
joined Oct 2004

#1 · Jul 16, 2004

...just heard on the news that it actually happened here too—two patients ended up catching HIV through a blood transfusion. You'll probably see all the details in the papers later this week
. It’s just another case eating away at the trust people already have in our healthcare system.

swiftscout8 Active Member

87 messages
joined Apr 2007

#2 · Jul 16, 2004

If only it were just the healthcare system. The whole damn country is a mess! 🙄

Emily Myers78 Newcomer

9 messages
joined Jul 2011

#3 · Jul 16, 2004

The worst part is that I actually believe these kinds of incidents are nearly impossible to prevent.
The blood was tested and came back negative for HIV, simply because not enough time had passed since the infection for antibodies to even develop.
It’s horrific.

Angela Kern69 Member

13 messages
joined Oct 2003

#4 · Jul 16, 2004

Emily Myers78 said:The most unsettling part is actually believing that these kinds of incidents are practically unavoidable.
The blood was tested and came back negative for HIV, simply because there wasn't enough time for antibodies to develop following the infection.
It’s a terrifying reality.

I don't follow. It has been common knowledge for twenty years now that HIV antibodies typically manifest in the bloodstream after a two-to-three-week window. Hasn't some method been developed to re-test blood after that three-week mark? Or perhaps even prior to use?

Joshua Jones Member

19 messages
joined Apr 2004

#5 · Jul 16, 2004

😲 😲 😲

Absolutely appalling!!

Betty Bennett10 Active Member

92 messages
joined May 2005

#6 · Jul 16, 2004

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.

Casey Palmer5 Regular

470 messages
joined Jan 2016

#7 · Jul 16, 2004

This is honestly terrifying, but unfortunately, that's just the kind of risk we have to deal with. It’s pretty clear that America doesn't have the budget for those more extensive testing protocols they run over in Europe...

Alex Foster6 Active Member

54 messages
joined Feb 2004

#8 · Jul 16, 2004

The serological tests currently utilized here have a significant flaw: if blood is tested during the three-week incubation period, the virus remains undetectable. In many other developed nations, they don't just rely on standard serology; they implement supplemental NAT testing. By utilizing molecular technology, they can shave seven to ten days off the detection window for this lethal virus.
In America, however, implementing such technology is deemed "too expensive." It is quite a curious irony when one considers that just two infected patients can demand massive settlements—though, predictably, there is no limit to how much those payouts can climb.

Gary Sanchez Active Member

59 messages
joined Dec 2004

#9 · Jul 16, 2004

Mayo Clinic

Just heard the news on the radio a few minutes ago
I am actually shaking😱

Absolutely horrific😲 😲 😲

..I mean, how are those people even coping right now?
...all the potential lawsuits and sympathy in the world won't fix this😢

...they said on the radio that they're probably looking at a volunteer blood donor who was recently infected with HIV, since the initial tests didn't catch it
...and the incubation period is about three weeks

Damn😢
My heart goes out to those patients; they did nothing wrong

😢 😢 😢

Kate Smith90 Newcomer

4 messages
joined Jun 2004

#10 · Jul 16, 2004

Casey Palmer5 said:This is absolutely appalling, but unfortunately, it’s a risk we have to face. It seems America clearly doesn't have the budget for the kind of extensive testing they perform over in Europe.

It's always the same story—there's never any money allocated for things like this. Honestly, my mind immediately jumps to a different solution: why don't those self-proclaimed moral compasses at Hebrang, the glavaš crowd, and all those other folks who spend their days playing therapist should take all the legal settlements they win for their "emotional distress" caused by news headlines and donate them toward this cause? I guarantee you, if they actually did that, we'd find plenty of funding from sources just like them...😉

Bradley Smith Member

43 messages
joined Jul 2005

#11 · Jul 16, 2004

Megan Long96 said:bad 😢
I feel terrible for those people; they didn't do anything wrong.

😢 😢 😢

😱 🙂

As if it wasn't bad enough that they had to take someone else's blood in the first place—whether it was for surgery because of an illness or some freak accident.

Oh, for crying out loud! I don't get how many people donate blood in America without them being able to test it properly. It’s not like they aren't always whining about blood shortages anyway. 🙂

And this whole "over-testing is too expensive" argument is just plain stupid. Betty Bennett10 actually brought up one way they could verify everything without even needing that famous extra test.

Honestly, it’s kind of satisfying knowing that because of this mess, the permanent fixture at the Department of Health isn't going to be kicked out of his ministerial seat just yet. 🙂 🙂

If it were 1984 and nobody had a clue how to handle the HIV situation, sure, fine. But they’re getting too comfortable because there hasn't been a massive outbreak in the US, so they think they can just use this as another tool to harass young girls who are just trying to go to school. 👎

Mark Lee65 Member

21 messages
joined Jan 2005

#12 · Jul 16, 2004

Oh, sure...

No, seriously, I was just reading this article about how other countries handle it—they call the donor back after six months to run tests, and if everything comes back clean, then they finally release the blood donated half a year ago.

Look, we’re talking about a country where, right after a major pile-up on the highway, we’re listening to radio pleas for blood donations because the local hospital is basically running on empty...

And you honestly think we can just sit around waiting six months?

Unfortunately,
but you have to expect these kinds of disasters to happen, and you just have to accept them as an unavoidable risk.

northernfalcon9 Newcomer

5 messages
joined Jul 2004

#13 · Jul 16, 2004

I swear, this country is going downhill fast. You can't even step foot inside a hospital these days without being hit over the head with nonsense like this.🙄

Betty Bennett10 Active Member

92 messages
joined May 2005

#14 · Jul 16, 2004

nn-st1 said:Of course...

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.

goldengull3 Regular

260 messages
joined Nov 2007

#15 · Jul 17, 2004

Hannah Barnes24 said:I find it particularly gratifying that this eternal bureaucrat won't be forced out of his cabinet position because of this.

There is no necessity for that (though he really ought to be ousted for other reasons)—simply because there was no medical malpractice involved.

The New York Post provided a full timeline of events here:

Based on the data, it isn't even certain that more recent testing would have detected the infection.

Regrettably, incidents like this are inherent risks in surgical procedures. Blood donation saves countless lives, but it is by no means a risk-free endeavor.

At this stage, one can only hope the infection was caught early enough that the drug cocktails administered to those affected will successfully prevent the onset of the disease.

Kenneth Johnson6 Newcomer

1 message
joined May 2004

#16 · Jul 17, 2004

Betty Bennett10 said:Actually, I just read in the papers that other countries have handled this differently—they call the donor back after six months to run tests, and if everything comes back negative, they only then use the blood donated during that initial period.

That was clearly just someone repeating rumors without actually knowing the facts... 🙂 here is how the situation actually works...

Month 0: a volunteer donor arrives... you only take a SAMPLE, not a full unit...
Month 3 or 6 (depending on the protocol): they return, and you take both the UNIT and a SAMPLE...
this effectively bypasses the window period for high-risk donors—specifically those donating for the first time.

P.S.: note that there was mention of an "established" donor earlier—the procedure described above applies strictly to first-time donors...
P.P.S.: storing blood for a six-month window isn't feasible because it has to be kept at 0-4°C—partly because certain clinically significant components degrade if the temperature drops below freezing...

Kenneth Johnson6 Newcomer

1 message
joined May 2004

#17 · Jul 17, 2004

lahor said:It’s tragic—though, frankly, that kind of risk is always on the table. It seems America just doesn't have the budget for those more extensive testing protocols they run overseas.

Believe it or not, about 90% of countries use the exact same test on the exact same machine (Vitros ECi)... what they have abroad is simply better screening procedures for first-time donors and high-risk individuals.

Kenneth Johnson6 Newcomer

1 message
joined May 2004

#18 · Jul 17, 2004

Hannah Scott69 said:I don't follow. It’s been common knowledge for twenty years that HIV antibodies show up in the blood within two to three weeks. Hasn't someone figured out how to re-test blood after that three-week mark? Or even before it's used?

If you wait a year to test, you'll just get another negative result... HIV can't reproduce outside the body—hint: there's no lymphocyte production available...

Betty Bennett10 Active Member

92 messages
joined May 2005

#19 · Jul 17, 2004

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)

Lisa Ortiz17 Active Member

50 messages
joined Sep 2003

#20 · Jul 17, 2004

It’s not directly related, but maybe this will give you some perspective...
My uncle was on the kidney transplant waiting list in Vienna for years—he tried getting it done back in Cleveland too, but things were a mess then and hospitals weren't performing transplants during wartime conflicts. Suddenly, they called him in the middle of the night because they found a match, and by morning, he was already in surgery. The operation itself went perfectly and his body initially accepted the organ, but about two weeks later, the rejection started. It turns out the donor's kidney was actually infected with cancer, which spread after the transplant. My uncle passed away about three or four months later—his weakened system just couldn't handle the chemo or the rest of the treatment. During one visit, I was talking to him—furious, obviously—asking if he was going to sue them. He just calmly told me there was no way he would, because what happened to him happens once in a million cases and he just had the worst luck imaginable...
He explained that if he filed a lawsuit, the hospital might be barred from doing transplants for a while, or the whole thing would just spark a massive panic—and in the end, the only people who truly understand the reality are him and those others whose kidneys have failed, living through dialysis every other day...

HIV transmission via blood transfusion

🔗 Similar threads