Louisiana boy punished for talking about gay mom

See the links in my post to Evie as to transmission methods for HIV.

Ian

Hi, James.

>>One thing always overlooked when people point to spread of HIV among heterosexuals in Africa is their version of "safe sex" to avoid pregnancy which is sodomy. <<
That statement is very controversial -- many believe it, while others say it's a myth.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Worldwide: UNAIDS estimates that as of December 2000, there were an estimated 36.1 million people living with HIV/AIDS (34.7 million adults and 1.4 million children under 15). Since the epidemic began, an estimated 21.8 million people have died of AIDS (17.5 million adults and 4.3 million children under 15).

An estimated 5.3 million new HIV infections occurred in 2000. During 2000, HIV- and AIDS-associated illnesses caused deaths of an estimated 3 million people, including 500,000 children under the age of 15.

In the United States: According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there are between 800,000 and 900,000 people living with HIV. Through December 2000, a total of 774,467 cases of AIDS have been reported to the CDC; of this number, 448,060 persons (representing 58% of cases) have died. (Source: Centers for Disease Control - CDC)


That's a lot of "gay men" under the age of 15.

or Bike or whatever. Wife and possibly kids and maybe even a trusted friend drive it ocassionally but it is primarily Rick who will be found at the wheel.

Hi, James.

Don't talk to me about the Red Cross and their wisdom in blood donations. The only reason we still have a blood shortage is that, in the face of scientific studies and FDA approval, they refuse to accept donations from the ca. 1% of the population who have iron overload disease, and thus must be relieved of a pint of blood about
once a week. The Red Cross refuses to accept such blood into its blood banks because the blood represents a byproduct of the hemochromatosis patients' medical treatment, and not a "strictly voluntary contribution." What arrogance and hubris -- I'm sure those who aren't properly treated or must delay surgery because of the chronically low blood supply would be really concerned about whether the donation was "completely voluntary." Europe, which has used such blood for over a decade, has no chronic shortages. Think this is unbelievable -- so do I, but check out Blood that could be donated goes to waste, doctor says
.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

The Red Cross has certain bylaws under which it was formed and operates. I seriously doubt you personally contribute enough money or blood to think you should have ANY say in how they operate.

If the blood is "going to waste" it is the fault NOT of the Red Cross but of the Patient and his/her Doctor as there are MANY institutions across the country that can and would make good use of it and many are willing to pay for it.

Bad mouth them all you want Dave but remember it and decline their assistance should (HOPEFULLY NEVER!) disaster strike you or yours personally. Remember, integrity is something you have or do not have--it is NOT situational.

I have family members with HH, so am personally aware of the stance taken by the Red Cross. It is a genetic condition - not a diease- and it is estimated that as much as 50% of the US population either are carriers or have the condition as it effects those of Northern European extraction. ("O'Daniel" might fit that category.)

It became known as people began to live longer. However, screening for it is not a part of routine medical testing. The initial screen costs, in my area, about $75.

Go to a "private" blood center and get paid for it? Sorry, but they are "out of the loop" for most HH people. You can view the list of those approved by the FDA at this site. You will note that there are not that many.

http://www.americanhs.org/

There have been concerted efforts to change the Red Cross policy, and some local ones around the country are softening their stance.

I do have to shudder at their "volunteer" bit. When a major plane crash happened in KY in the early 50's, some of us nurses went to help in the disaster. We were turned away by the Red Cross as we were not "Red Cross nurses". So much for volunteerism.

Angeline
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

In Australia blood donations are managed, well overall, by the Red Cross, and we donate for free.

Both of my wife's brothers have haemochromatosis.

The fight to get the fortnightly pint used to help people, at least as extracts, eg platelets, is refused by the Red Cross because the HQ people say "NO, their blood is tainted".

Its got nothing to do with the FDA or the CDC. Its got to do with the international leadership of the Red Cross being scared of further court caes, circa what has happened when they gave people HEP, AIDS etc.

Its a financial decision by money loving bureaucrats, and has nothing to do with health at all.

Ian

LINK LINK LINK. Get stuffed.

here in the US the Red Cross has to adhere to FDA regulations and guidelines.

Internationally it has to adhere to International guidelines and those guidelines are developed to cause the least harm for the greater numbers.

I posted a link previously that better explains EXACTLY why HH is a disqualification as well as a plethroa of other "problems". http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1537-2995.1999.39060578.x/abs/;jsessionid=cAxF6WWnCy-e

Yes, i agree that one of the underlying causes for rejecting all (including that percentage that would not be problematic) is to minimize potential liability and seeing the number of organizations, Doctors, Hospitals, etc. that are sued daily who can blame them!

Hi, Ed.

>>the Red Cross has to adhere to FDA regulations and guidelines.<<
If you'd bothered to read the linked article, you;d see that the FDA changed their guidelines over a year ago, and it is precisely the Red Cross, which operates the vast majority of American Blood Banks, which is refusing to accept the HH blood. And that means the perrenial blood shortage is entirely a creation of the Red Cross, as the HH blood would immediatetly eliminate the problem.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

you would have noted that the RED CROSS Exclusionary listing states pretty clearly:

Hemochromatosis
American Red Cross does not accept individuals with hemochromatosis as blood donors for other persons at this time. Red Cross will continually re-evaluate this policy as more information accumulates.

The FDA provides a method on essentially a case by case basis to allow for EXCEPTIONS and as stated in Red Cross policy, they choose not to and continue to evaluate.

You really need to QUIT SKIMMING Dave--you miss an awful lot!

PS - the can donate FOR THEMSELVES if they desire.

both for your thesis, and for information.

It basically said the majority were OK, yet recommended the blood not be accepted, without saying any of the reasons for the rejection.

I tried to read the full article, but it requires a paid subscription.

Ian

I agree.

The date on the abstract is 1999. The source of the journal in which it was published is not identified (though it might be in the full text version). The backgrounds of the authors is not identified (perhaps in the full text).

The full text may also contain the reasons why some units were "unacceptable". I suspect because there were incications of some aberationin the screening results, which would be understandable in the immediate post-diagnostic period.

It is frustrating!

My family members do not live near where any of the approved private blood banks will accept their blood.

It's like pouring somebody's life down the drain!

Angeline
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Sorry about that. I had forgotten that that was a paid site.

Here you go in Acrobat format.
http://people.delphiforums.com/EJOD/Files/transfusionbarton.pdf

This might serve also http://www.srlst.com/926.htm

Read paragraph 4 here
https://labs-sec.uhs-sa.com/clinical_ext/dols/hemachrom.htm

PS - "...all you have to do
to get a waiver from the FDA to use hemochromatosis blood like any other
donor blood (without stigmatizing it) is to write the FDA stating that you
request a waiver to use hemochromatosis blood like any other donor blood,
and state in your letter that you will not charge hemochromatosis patients
for phlebotomy, you will subject each donation to the same tests for safety
to which you subject the blood of any other donor before giving it to a
recipient, and you will follow the recipient for 10 years for untoward
events (which our Mount Sinai blood bank and many other blood banks already
routinely do for recipients of any donor blood)."

The associated costs and 10 year tracking...

I've saved the page to follow up the links.

As far as we know, Susie isn't a carrier. Which in theory makes no sense, as her two brothers are sufferers.

According to Susie's sister, her nephews are sufferers. According to her ex-BIL, they are not ???? Damned if we know.

We are aware Susie's Mum has endless stories as to who "may be" the father of any one of her four children, and the story changes, drunk or sober, every time it is told. So, we are concerned it may affect our children, but have no way of knowing until each is at least c12 years of age.

Ian

then it seems foolish since the only thing wrong is those people absorb too much iron and their bodies produce too many red blood cells from it.
Nevertheless, I can't help but feel there may be more to it than the single reason you stated. Leukemia is overproduction of white blood cells and I don't think they accept those type donations either, although someone might make a case for the use of extra white blood cells, especially for HIV infected people.

I think keeping the blood supply as safe as possible is of paramount importance. My mother had to delay a cancer operation in the 80's till a test to detect HIV was created and finally received 7 units during the operation and 2 more later. Recently due to her kidney disease she was in the hospital again and they discovered part of her weakness was due to a bleeding ulcer and she had become anemic. The ulcer was heat treated to seal it, she was given medicine to block acid production for awhile, and most importantly to this discussion, received a unit of blood to correct the anemia.

No, the nation's blood supply is not a place for PC inspired "political correctness" considering the potential expense to patient's lives.

Hi, Ed.

That's Red Cross hand-waving to try to deflect criticism for their stance. Europe has been using such blood for years w/o a problem, and the FDA investigated and consequently changed their ruling. The entire issue now revolves around the Red Cross's insistence that the blood be a "completely voluntary donation," and not a "bypreoduct of medical treatment." I didn't write the linked article -- a doctor who knows a lot more about the issue than you or I did!
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Psst..., Edward, the words "bypreoduct of medical treatment"(SP) (Ian- note the use of both quotation marks and "(SP)" so connected) might be an interesting future "opening". Think about blood from an umbilical cord and/or other byproducts of "medical treatment", especially in the area of fertility clinics.

There are COSTS INVOLVED and per the Red Cross it will be looked at later.

"...all you have to do
to get a waiver from the FDA to use hemochromatosis blood like any other
donor blood (without stigmatizing it) is to write the FDA stating that you
request a waiver to use hemochromatosis blood like any other donor blood,
and state in your letter that you will not charge hemochromatosis patients
for phlebotomy, you will subject each donation to the same tests for safety
to which you subject the blood of any other donor before giving it to a
recipient, and you will follow the recipient for 10 years for untoward
events (which our Mount Sinai blood bank and many other blood banks already
routinely do for recipients of any donor blood)."

You want to take care of the phlebotomy expense (even if found unsuitable for ANY REASON) and the 10 year tracking? Shouldn't run expenses up more than a few hundred thousand a year.

week, as I've read your links, in USA, or every fortnight in Australia, as my B'sIL undergi it.

So, that cost exists, and is not affected by usage or otherwise by the Red Cross.

Ian

Thanks for the eligibility link, Edward. You know, it find it interesting that under those rules, they would take blood from me. See Weight, and notice the limits, I've been working on it severely, and I think that I'm 110 lbs. (I probably lie, but give me that fantasy). But, I'm also 6'1 (If I could stand).
But it explained why a Red Cross worker once grabbed a big spoon and chased me for a distance screaming, "Get out of my Line!". It was humor, and both she and I were laughing, but Ted Turner saw it (he was eating lunch) and screamed, "Get over here, NOW!". BTW, I'd been taking a blood thinner for many years, and shortly he laughed too. Perhaps one day I'll post another Red Cross blood story, but this one is worthy of Stephen King in a sense.

.

"if removal of such Red Cross policy would expose larger numbers of people to HIV infection." --- all blood donations are tested against several deseases: HIV being one of them so..... how could that expose larger numbers of people to HIV infection?!! do you thing red cross distributes blood without having tested it?

That AIDS was originally refered to as "Gay Plague" or "Gay Disease", also GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency).

But that wasn't the medical name for it, which is what you initially said.

Despite your eagerness to believe it so, the title of that page is misleading. LaRouche has nothing to do with the Democratic party and that "hearing" or whatever it was had nothing to do with the Democratic party or its platforms.

but no one suggested he did but that address was indeed to the Ad Hoc Democratic Party Platform Hearings in Washington DC on 22 June, 2000, consisting of 11 Democratic State Legislatorsw AND former U.S. Senator Eugene McCarthy. Abdul Alim Muhammad was on the second panel (Health Care Policy) and it is his testimony.

You can deny the conspiracy theory presented (and I do join you there) and you can claim it wasn't "mainstream" representative, but you can't claim that it had "nothing to do with the Democratic party or its platforms" because it most certainly did.

On June 22, Pennsylvania State Rep. LeAnna Washington (D-Phila.), testified at Ad Hoc Democratic Party Platform Hearings, facilitated by Lyndon LaRouche's Presidential campaign committee, in Washington, D.C., and her testimony is almost as interesting -- "In 1987, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) was literally voted into existence by the American Psychiatric Association."