ChatterBank22 mins ago
Giving Blood
23 Answers
I gave blood the other day and was asked numerous questions about potential harms of diseases.
It popped into my head that, say for example you had unprotected sex or shared a needle (potentially contracting HIV) a couple of days before giving blood. Could they still trace things like HIV at that early stage when they test your donation? My understanding is that this disease has a lengthy incubation period.
So what happens if you shows up negative and further down the line after you've already given blood you get it?
It popped into my head that, say for example you had unprotected sex or shared a needle (potentially contracting HIV) a couple of days before giving blood. Could they still trace things like HIV at that early stage when they test your donation? My understanding is that this disease has a lengthy incubation period.
So what happens if you shows up negative and further down the line after you've already given blood you get it?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by BobbyBobBob. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Any infection (even if you are not yet showing symptoms) should be spotted by these checks :
http://
http://
A good question by BBB to which I do not know the answer.
I think BBB is saying....what if a blood donor has intercourse with an HIV patient one week BEFORE giving blood and the blood test pre blood letting was negative (as it may well be) what are the chances of transmission?
I don't know the answer as bacteriology is not my forte, but i suppose that the answer may be that if the blood test is negative then the HIV virus is not "active" and hence ......no transmission.
Is that what you mean BBB?
I think BBB is saying....what if a blood donor has intercourse with an HIV patient one week BEFORE giving blood and the blood test pre blood letting was negative (as it may well be) what are the chances of transmission?
I don't know the answer as bacteriology is not my forte, but i suppose that the answer may be that if the blood test is negative then the HIV virus is not "active" and hence ......no transmission.
Is that what you mean BBB?
These are presumably ECG tracings and denote runs of rather bizarre abnormal heart beats. The bigenimus and trigeminus are bouts where the heart beat (pulse) has two beats followed by a long pause and trigeminus where the puse has three beats (triple rhythm)
At a guess, this patient has a long history of heart disease and is taking probably beta blockers and ACE inhibitors ( BP tablets)
At a guess, this patient has a long history of heart disease and is taking probably beta blockers and ACE inhibitors ( BP tablets)
First all you must not give blood if you know or suspect you have hepatitis, ebola and so on....
and yes in the good old days there was a movement for men who had had unprotected sex to just go off and donate blood ! - coz they test it for HIV and so on.... oh lord save us.
so what happens if you are in the early stages of X before the test they use will detect X ? um, the same that happened in the good old days before they had good detection - you got the disease. see starsky or was it hutch who got HIV from blood transfusion
BUT it is rare or doesnt occur - pooled plasma for haemophilia was heavily contaminated in the late seventies with HIV and the last sero-conversion was blimey fifteen or twenty years ago which means that the detection schemes are efficient.
If it is a disease that you dont have a test for - and then you do (!)
you can write a paper like this:
Incidence of seroconversion to positivity for hepatitis C antibody in repeat blood donors in England, 1993-5
or you can do a look - back series. The same authoress the beautiful and brilliant Julia Heptonstall organised a look-back testing for Hep C of an incredibly number of units of blood - 5 million I think... but I cant find it.
I think those who have sero-converted for Hep C following transfusion are now entitled to statutory compensation....
Do you go around and shoot the people who have sero-converted and then given blood ?
um no I dont think you do....
Someone may have more modern information - you will notice most of these papers are the nineties....
Have there been cases when people have knowingly carried on when they knew they were infected ? yes I think there was one but can't find it - I think he ended up in prison.
unwitting infection from health care workers fills the journals
here is one from the beautiful Dr H again, in the new england journal: Transmission of hepatitis B to patients from four infected surgeons without hepatitis B e antigen
I wandered off infected bllod to infected people but the principles are the same.
and yes in the good old days there was a movement for men who had had unprotected sex to just go off and donate blood ! - coz they test it for HIV and so on.... oh lord save us.
so what happens if you are in the early stages of X before the test they use will detect X ? um, the same that happened in the good old days before they had good detection - you got the disease. see starsky or was it hutch who got HIV from blood transfusion
BUT it is rare or doesnt occur - pooled plasma for haemophilia was heavily contaminated in the late seventies with HIV and the last sero-conversion was blimey fifteen or twenty years ago which means that the detection schemes are efficient.
If it is a disease that you dont have a test for - and then you do (!)
you can write a paper like this:
Incidence of seroconversion to positivity for hepatitis C antibody in repeat blood donors in England, 1993-5
or you can do a look - back series. The same authoress the beautiful and brilliant Julia Heptonstall organised a look-back testing for Hep C of an incredibly number of units of blood - 5 million I think... but I cant find it.
I think those who have sero-converted for Hep C following transfusion are now entitled to statutory compensation....
Do you go around and shoot the people who have sero-converted and then given blood ?
um no I dont think you do....
Someone may have more modern information - you will notice most of these papers are the nineties....
Have there been cases when people have knowingly carried on when they knew they were infected ? yes I think there was one but can't find it - I think he ended up in prison.
unwitting infection from health care workers fills the journals
here is one from the beautiful Dr H again, in the new england journal: Transmission of hepatitis B to patients from four infected surgeons without hepatitis B e antigen
I wandered off infected bllod to infected people but the principles are the same.
Hi Sqad - I did this in the eighties.
Years ago there was in infectious window
which clearly they have been working hard to close with more and more sensitive tests - and I have to admit I dont know if it is closed. I dont think so.
The test I was thinking about was the viral load test - and that is taken as neg means neg. But of course we are talking about early infection.
It is a scientific hypothesis that can be tested - you can measure the seroconversion rate after transfusion
and the answer is here:
http://
three in 25 million units apparently
[
Years ago there was in infectious window
which clearly they have been working hard to close with more and more sensitive tests - and I have to admit I dont know if it is closed. I dont think so.
The test I was thinking about was the viral load test - and that is taken as neg means neg. But of course we are talking about early infection.
It is a scientific hypothesis that can be tested - you can measure the seroconversion rate after transfusion
and the answer is here:
http://
three in 25 million units apparently
[
