("Quid coniuratio est?")
AIDS: What the Government Isn't Telling You
by Lorraine Day, M.D.
(Part 4)
In the last installment, the concept that the donor can be relied on to be careful not to donate blood when he knows he himself has been infected with the AIDS virus was introduced. Dr. Day delves further into this myth in a chapter called "The Myth of Self- Deferral". This concept of self-deferral may have influenced the fact that, although a test was available for detecting AIDS antibodies by 1985, testing of donors blood was not required until 1988. As included excerpts from an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer point out,
The FDA did not require an AIDS test on donated blood until January 5, 1988, almost three years after the first test for detecting AIDS antibodies in blood came into use in March 1985.
Between 1987 and 1988, the number of recalls of suspect blood almost tripled.
For at least a year, people who had tested positive for the deadly AIDS virus were allowed to walk the streets of Philadelphia without knowing it. They had sold their blood plasma to the Community Bank and Plasma Center... The Center tested the blood for the AIDS virus and until 1987 notified in writing anyone who tested positive, according to a company executive. But that year, the Center stopped mailing these notifications after a city-funded AIDS group objected to the way it was being done.
There is no federal regulation requiring blood banks to notify donors who test positive for AIDS. The Food and Drug Administration, the federal agency responsible for the safety of the American blood supply, recommends notifying donors but leaves the decision up to the blood banks and plasma centers.
From March 1988 to March 1989, blood banks and commercial plasma centers had to recall nearly 100,000 blood components and medicines made from blood that had been erroneously released, FDA records show.
In this marketplace, blood, a vital resource, gets less government protection than grapes or poultry or pretzels. Dog kennels in Pennsylvania are inspected more frequently than blood banks. {1}.
"Self-deferral", in practice, means that potential donors are asked a barrage of sometimes obtuse questions (e.g. "Have you engaged in prostitution since 1977 or had sex within the last 12 months with someone who has even once?") to screen out those who may be already infected with HIV. Dr. Day gives other reasons why the screening of potential donors does not inspire confidence:
-- Work places may put pressure on people to donate blood who should not have to do so.
-- Some corporations offer perks for donating blood.
-- The self-deferral form is hard to read.
-- Previously mentioned, "blood terrorism"; i.e., willingly infecting the blood supply.
Dr. Day explores the money factor behind the reluctance to make improvements in the current setup. "There are vested interests" and "there is money to be made".
Hang on. It gets worse. What about bone banks, semen banks, and tissue and organ transplant banks? The first CDC guidelines for bone banks weren't even written until August 1988. Why the delay? "Every doctor in the world knows that the substance that nourishes a bone is blood. Did it not dawn on you," asked Dr. Day, "that if blood transmitted HIV, then bone, semen, connective tissue, tendons and all organs should also transmit HIV?"
"Well," replied the "experts", "we've never seen it happen."
"The consensus in that CDC room was sheer textbook AIDSpeak: to infer transmission without evidence would have been unwarranted and highly suspect speculation unworthy of this august fellowship." In other words, since it has not yet been proven, they aren't going to worry about it.
--------------------------<< Notes >>---------------------------- {1} Quotes from the Philadelphia Inquirer, Sept. 24-28, Five- part series on Blood Banks, Gilbert M. Gaul, Reporter.
I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."
"Justice" = "Just us" = "History is written by the assassins."