Who does the Red Cross think they're fooling?

Question

A few weeks ago I applied to the volunteer program at the American Red Cross. I received a packet of information from them including their history and volunteer policies. According to this information, The American Red Cross does not accept blood donations from homosexual men, with the explanation quote "To prevent transmission of HIV/AIDS, a policy instituted in 1973 by the American Red Cross" the passage further goes on to explain how this "policy" is not anti-gay, simply anti-AIDS.

Riiiight. Ok, I could be wrong, but (whispers) wasn't AIDS discovered in like 1980/81?!?!?

Please correct me if I am wrong on the discovery date.

Needless to say, the American Red Cross will NOT be acquiring my volunteer services.

My question is: Who do they think they're fooling?

Thanks DEATH> In case you didn't catch it, they claim their policy is anti-AIDS not anti-gay, a policy they founded in 1973, BEFORE the AIDS virus was discovered!

Ok are you guys just not reading the question? I agree that according to statistics homosexual men most likely are in fact at a higher risk of AIDS susecptablility, HOWEVER I am not questioning whether this policy is effective, I am questioning the Red Cross' REASONS for instituting this policy

Political correctness over safety? hmm, I suppose that was the same argument when there were "whites only" drinking fountians? Weren't they just protecting their water supply

Answer 1

You have stumbled upon a VERY interesting item here. IF the Red Cross had identified a contaminant in the blood supply obtained from the gay community and established a policy in 1973 where did the data come from and why was the information not published?

My second lover died of HIV/AIDS in 1976, about 3 years after we had decided to go our seperate ways. He was a very active person socially. I have never tested posititve so he must have contracted the virus after we seperated.

Looking at the article below as reference I would not doubt that the 1973 date is a typo and it should be 1983.

HIV and AIDS has been around a lot longer than most will admit. The following article shows references back to the early 20th century.

The virus was actually identified in 1981 but the actual illness was on record in the early '50's in isolated cases as an unknown illness unclassified in nature and not given real attention until the mid to late '70's because of the large increase in unexplained related symptom illnesses in the gay community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_HIV

AIDS origin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Origin of HIV)
Jump to: navigation, search

Scanning electron micrograph of HIV-1 budding from cultured lymphocyte.AIDS is thought to have originated in sub-Saharan Africa during the 20th century. It was transferred to humans by a similar route as some classic Old World infectious diseases. The ancient Old World was the incubator of many diseases like smallpox because it had large human populations in close association with large animal populations, especially those that lived in herds or social groups.

Contents [hide]
1 Possible spread from animal to human populations
2 History of known cases and spread
3 Identification of the virus
4 See Also
5 Further reading
6 Notes



[edit] Possible spread from animal to human populations
HIV originated in non-human primates as far as is known.

Researchers announced in May 2006 that the HIV virus most likely originated in wild chimpanzees in the southeastern rain forests of Cameroon (modern East Province) rather than in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire), as had previously been believed. Seven years of research and 1,300 chimpanzee genetic samples led Dr. Beatrice Hahn of the University of Alabama, Birmingham, to identify chimpanzee communities near Cameroon's Sanaga River as the most likely originators. The researchers say that transference from chimp to human most likely occurred when a human was bitten by a chimp or was cut while butchering one, and the human became infected.[1] Calculating based on a fixed mutation rate, the jump from chimpanzee to human likely occurred during the French colonial period (1919–1960). Comparative primatologist Jim Moore suggests that this may have been the result of colonial practices of forced labour, which could have suppressed the immune system of the initial hunter enough to allow the virus to infect and take hold. Likewise, forced immunisations (using one needle on many patients) may have sped the virus's spread through Cameroon and beyond.[2]

A more controversial theory known as the OPV AIDS hypothesis suggests that the AIDS epidemic was inadvertently started in the Belgian Congo by Hilary Koprowski's 1950s research into a polio vaccine prepared from tissue cultures using locally captured non-human primates.[3][4] Edward Hooper rejects the dates calculated using a fixed mutation rate on the basis that phylogenetic dating of "the most recombinogenic organisms known to medical science", immunodeficiency viruses, is "inherently incapable of making any allowance for recombination". [5] However, in February 2000 one of the original developers of the polio vaccine, Philadelphia-based Wistar Institute, found in its stores a phial of the original vaccine used in the vaccination program. It was analysed in April 2001 and no traces of either HIV-1 or SIV were found in the sample.[6] A second analysis showed that only macaque monkey kindney cells,which cannot be infected with SIV or HIV, were used to produce the vaccine.[7] While the analysis was done on only one phial of vaccine, most scientists have concluded that the polio vaccine theory of the origins of HIV is not possible.

After the initial transfer of HIV from a non-human primate to humans, the virus ultimately spread via contact among humans to the rest of the world. Since a cross species jump is most likely the origin of HIV, and since HIV became a true epidemic, transmissible from human to human, then the following conditions were needed:

A large human population,
A large nearby population of the appropriate host animal,
An infectious pathogen in the host animal, that eventually produces a mutation that can spread from animal to human,
Interaction between the species to transmit enough of it to humans to establish a human foothold, which may take millions of individual exposures,
A mutation of same pathogen that can spread from human to human,
Some method that allows the pathogen to disperse widely. This prevents the infection from "burning out" by either killing off its human hosts or provoking immunity in a local population of humans.
Such requirements existed in the remote past with smallpox, and also with the 20th century Spanish Flu, despite the latter's New World origin at Fort Riley, Kansas (there the animal reservoir seems to have been two species, chickens and pigs, which were of Old World origin.)

Two species of HIV infect humans: HIV-1 and HIV-2. HIV-1 is more virulent and more easily transmitted. HIV-1 is the source of the majority of HIV infections throughout the world, while HIV-2 is less easily transmitted and is largely confined to West Africa.[8]

Both species of the virus (HIV-1 and HIV-2) are believed to have originated in West-Central Africa and jumped species (zoonosis) from a non-human primate to humans. HIV-1 evolved from a Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIVcpz) found in the chimpanzee subspecies Pan troglodytes troglodytes.[9] DNA sequencing indicates that HIV-1 (group M) entered the human population in the early 20th century, probably sometime between 1915 and 1941.[10][11] HIV-2 crossed species from a different strain of SIV, this one found in sooty mangabeys (an Old World monkey) of Guinea-Bissau.[12]

SIVs in non-human primates tend to cause non-fatal disease. Comparison of the gene sequence of SIV with HIV should therefore give us information about the factors necessary to cause disease in humans. The factors that determine the virulence of HIV as compared to most SIVs are only now being elucidated. Non-human SIVs contain a nef gene that down-regulates CD3, CD4, and MHC class I expression; most non-human SIV's therefore do not induce immunodeficiency; the HIV nef gene however has lost its ability to down-regulate CD3, which results in the immune activation and apoptosis that is characteristic of chronic HIV infection.[13]


[edit] History of known cases and spread
One of the earliest documented HIV-1 infection dates from 1959, and was discovered in the preserved blood sample of a man from Leopoldville, Belgian Congo (now Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo).[14] However, it is unknown whether this anonymous person ever developed AIDS and died of its complications. The oldest documented case of the then-unknown syndrome was detected that same year, when a 25-year-old British sailor who had traveled in the navy between 1955 and 1957 (but apparently not to Africa), sought help at the Royal Infirmary of Manchester, England. He reported to have been suffering from puzzling symptoms, among them purplish skin lesions, for nearly two years. His condition had taken a turn for worse during Christmas 1958, when he started suffering from shortness of breath, extreme fatigue, rapid weight loss, night sweats and high fever. The doctors thought he might be suffering from tuberculosis and, even though they found no evidence of bacterial infection, they treated him for tuberculosis just to be safe, to no avail. The sailor continued to weaken and he died shortly after in August 1959. His autopsy revealed evidence of two unusual infections, cytomegalovirus and Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP, later, when redetermined as P. jirovecii, renamed Pneumocystis pneumonia), very rare at the time but now commonly associated with AIDS patients. His case had puzzled his doctors, who preserved tissue samples from him and for years retained some interest in solving the mystery. Sir Robert Platt, then president of the Royal College of Physicians, wrote in the sailor's hospital chart that he wondered "if we are in for a new wave of virus disease now that the bacterial illnesses are so nearly conquered". It was only 31 years later, after the AIDS pandemic had become well-known and widespread, that they decided to perform HIV-tests on the preserved tissues of the sailor, which eventually turned out a positive result. The case was reported in the July 7, 1990 issue of the British medical journal The Lancet; their claim was retracted in a letter in the January 20, 1996 issue where they admitted that the tissue sample was contaminated in the laboratory (Corbitt G, Bailey A, Williams G. HIV infection in Manchester, 1959 . Lancet 1990; ii: 51.)[15][16] Another early case was probably detected that same year, 1959, in a 48-year-old Haitian, who 30 years before had immigrated to the United States and at the time was working as a shipping clerk for a garment manufacturer in Manhattan. He developed similar symptoms to those just described for the British sailor, and died the same year, apparently of the same very rare kind of pneumonia. Many years later, Dr. Gordon R. Hennigar, who had performed this man's autopsy, was asked whether he thought his patient had died of AIDS; he replied "You bet" and added "It was so unusual at the time. Lord knows how many cases of AIDS have been autopsied that we didn't even know had AIDS. I think it's such a strong possibility that I've often thought about getting them to send me the tissue samples."[17]

In 1969, a 15-year-old African-American male known to medicine as Robert R. died at the St. Louis City Hospital from aggressive Kaposi's sarcoma. AIDS was suspected as early as 1984, and in 1987, researchers at Tulane University School of Medicine confirmed this, finding HIV-1 in his preserved blood and tissues. The doctors who worked on his case at the time suspected he was a prostitute, though the patient did not discuss his sexual history with them in detail.[18][19][20][21][22]

In 1976, a Norwegian sailor named Arvid Noe, his wife, and his nine-year-old daughter died of AIDS. The sailor had first presented symptoms in 1969, four years after he had spent time in ports along the West African coastline. Tissue samples from the sailor and his wife were tested in 1988 and found to contain the HIV-1 virus (Group O).[23][24] The next documented western death from AIDS was that of Dr. Grethe Rask in 1977. Rask, a Danish surgeon, had worked in the Congo in the early 1970s.

According to research of old bloodsamples HIV did not exist before year 1978 in the United States of America. A very rapid spread of HIV-infections is still an officially unexplained phenomenon but HIV-infections appeared exactly at the same time in different areas of world while simultaneously matching the smallpox vaccine program of World Health Organisation (WHO) in Haiti, Brazil, and in Africa within Zaire (Democratic Republic of the Congo) the most vaccinated state also had the most HIV-infections. WHO itself started to suspect there may have been some kind of connection with its vaccine program and the AIDS-epidemic. To find out WHO hired an outside investigator who spotted a very clear connection with HIV-infections and the vaccine program. WHO never published the report it ordered and has kept its contents secret. [25]

It appears that either HIV existed in very low levels in the United States in periods prior to 1981, or it may have gone extinct in the United States at times, with the present infection established in the USA about 1976. HIV in Africa likewise was at first at levels too low to be noticed. In the United States and Africa HIV was at first mostly found only in residents of large cities. The infection is now more widespread in rural areas, and has appeared in regions such as China and India, where it was previously not evident.

Author Randy Shilts mentioned that what was later called AIDS became evident in the gay community in the Fire Island, New York area in the four years after the 1976 Bicentennial celebrations. The infection tended to double in numbers about every nine to ten months. It therefore took a couple of years before a new disease was suspected because there were at first not enough symptomatic individuals to be noticed.

The official date for the beginning of the AIDS epidemic is marked as June 5, 1981, when the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report newsletter that unusual clusters of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia had been discovered in gay men in Los Angeles in the early 1980s.[26] Over the next eighteen months, more PCP clusters were discovered among otherwise healthy men in cities throughout the country, along with other opportunistic diseases (such as Kaposi's sarcoma[27] and persistent, generalized lymphadenopathy [28]), common in immunosuppressed patients.

In June 1982, a report of a group of cases amongst gay men in Southern California suggested that a sexually transmitted infectious agent might be the etiological agent,[29] and the syndrome was initially termed 'GRID' (Gay-Related Immune Deficiency[30]). However, the same opportunistic infections also began to be reported among hemophiliacs,[31] heterosexual intravenous drug users, and Haitian immigrants.[32] By August 1982, the disease was being referred to by its new name: Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).[33] An anagram of AIDS, SIDA, was then coined for use in Portuguese (Síndrome da Imunodeficiência Adquirida) in French (Syndrome d'Immuno-Déficience Acquise) and Spanish (Síndrome de Inmunodeficiencia Adquirida).[34] In Russian it got the name SPID (Синдром Приобретенного ИмунноДефицита) and in Irish SEIF (Siondróm Easpa Imdhíonachta Faighte)


[edit] Identification of the virus
In May 1983, doctors from Dr. Luc Montagnier's team at the Pasteur Institute in France, reported that they had isolated a new retrovirus from lymphoid ganglions that they believed was the cause of AIDS.[35] The virus was later named lymphadenopathy-associated virus (LAV) and a sample was sent to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, which was later passed to the National Cancer Institute (NCI).[36] In May 1984, Dr Robert Gallo of the NCI also isolated a virus that caused AIDS, and named it Human T-cell Lymphotropic Virus-III (HTLV-III).[37] In January 1985 a number of more detailed reports were published concerning LAV and HTLV-III, and by March it was clear that the viruses were the same, from the same source, and was the etiological agent of AIDS.[38][39] In May 1986, the International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses ruled that both names should be dropped and a new name, HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus), be used.[4

Answer 2

There are many other risk groups that the ARC does not accept donations from, I can't donate cause I'm mildly anemic. Those that travel to other country's can not donate. The ARC has to follow SQuIPP (safety, quality, identity, potency, purity) an FDA regulation. My wife (I am a woman also) works for the ARC in Portland Or. and at least 70% of the employees and volunteers there are homosexual, that's not anti-gay. This may sound bad or whatever, but you have to remember that when you are talking about saving peoples lives, the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few. They don't think they are fooling anyone, they have their rules they have to follow, just like any one else.

BTW yes, AIDS was identified in the 80's it was first called GRID. The ARC instituted this policy in 73 because of AABB (association of American blood banks) policy, in the early 70's gay men were a major risk group for STD's.

Answer 3

I know that Blood Banks do the same thing. In their qyestioneer about your lifestyle, if answer yes to having any kind os anal sex, they bar you for life.
I was a member if the two gallon club(meaning I had donated 2 gallons of blood over the years when I was in High school and college), but got barred when I said I did the back door thingy, go figure, huh?

Also, I'm pretty sure that HIV/Aids popped up in about '79 or '80, it was a topic in the election that year between Reagan and Carter on what to do about this new disease.
Of course, neither had an answer, nothing is being done to help stop the spread now, thinks to Bush's policy coming from his closed minded right-wing religious fanatics.

Answer 4

I USED to donate blood (hell..I DRAW it, might as well GIVE a little back,right?) UNTIL...I had ALL kinds of issues with giving blood since I transitioned. (I'm female to male) It became a HUGE issue, and all kind of people that I DIDN'T want to know, found out.
The reason? That stupid question that they ask that says "if you are male,have you ever had sex with another male?" Well..before my transiton, I had. I mean I have a kid..but, I had sex with a male as a "female". Now I'm a male. So..even though the whole gay male/AIDS thing doesn't even apply to me, I still fell in that category.
Also, once in trying to donate plasma, they denied me, because when they asked what medication I was on, I told them about the testosterone, and they asked why I was taking it. I told them about my transgender status, and they denied me saying that I was "high risk due to sexual practices"..insinuating I fell into the gay male category. I said.."I have testosterone in my body. I sleep with girls. I identify as male..now tell me how this makes me ANY different from any OTHER straight man that walks into this facility?" He (a DOCTOR) couldn't give a logical answer. All he told me was "well..it's my judgement and my discretion". I said, "you know, I'm not even a doctor, but I'm in the medical field, and it's kinda sad that I know more about this,and have done more research in the area of transsexuality than they ever teach you guys."

Answer 5

Since the Red Cross is about as corrupt as all other Government programs they want your money. Look at all the lost blood a few years ago. The Red Cross is one more Agency that needs to take care of the US people first.

Answer 6

Hmmm...clearly, the fact checker did not check their facts correctly.

Interestingly enough, they also bar women who have had sex with men who had sex with men from donating.

AND currently, in the US, Black Women happen to be the group with the fastest number of HIV and AIDS cases, NOT gay men.

And more over, they are required by law to test each and every pint of blood that they collect for HIV....sooooo...I really don't understand why that rule is *still* in existance.

A holdover from before AIDS was dicovered apparently. It's hard to be homophobic when those silly homosexuals call you on your factual erros.

-Essin' Em, hotmoviesforher.com

Answer 7

You should also note that a straight man only needs to wait a year (or maybe it's 3?) after having sex with prostitutes before giving blood. I believe it's 25 YEARS after having sex with another man... even if it was in a monogamous relationship. This is how they "protect" the blood supply, and they claim it doesn't demonstrate an anti-gay bias? They've been able to successfully screen donated blood for HIV and other STD's for a number of years, so this argument just doesn't make sense; kind of like the army discharging arabic linguists for being gay- because lord knows, who you sleep with affects your ability to translate, and making up for the resulting shortage by hiring people off the streets with no allegiance to the U.S. makes our troops safer.

Answer 8

It is to protect the blood supply: plain and simple. I work for the Red Cross and I am glad that they screen each and every donor and each and every unit of blood.
The policy was for a high risk group not as a discriminatory maneuver!

Answer 9

Okay, but no one should let that stop them from donating blood. I know of many people that fib a little when doing the pre-donation survey. The blood is tested thoroughly for everything regardless of your answers.

Anyway, it's very important to donate blood, so don't let a little bigotry stop you from saving lives. I couldn't even tell you how many transfusions (of different parts of the blood) I've had in my life, but there are a lot of people out there that I'd like to thank for having a hand in me being alive today.

Edit: Yea, I read your question and I understand the upset. I just think it's sad that this is going to do nothing but cause a few more "protests" against donating blood. Maybe one day (God forbid) you'll need some yourself and your feelings against the process will change.

Answer 10

The policy is there to keep high risk types from spreading the disease.
You can think it is all part of a plot for the red Cross to oppress gays if you wish.
I can think you delusional and paranoid if I wish.
Isn't living in a free country great?
Even the kooks are allowed to wander free.
aaahh...
Honey...listen. We know what you are asking and saying.
We are saying you are out of your mind and trying to make a conspiracy where there is none.
The motivation is to protect the population.
I am sure if you looked into it there may have been other health risks at that time that gay men posed to the public.
Or maybe...just maybe the dates are incorrect.
But we do get it ok. me personally I am as smart as a small terrier so you don't need to spell it o u t.
just bark...lol

Answer 11

They wouldn't take my blood because I was in the Middle East. The policy is designed to keep the blood from high risk people out of the supply. If you don't believe that homosexual men are a high-risk group, then you are just in denial.

As far as the date goes, there was probably a different disease associated with homosexual males in 1973. Notice also that they didn't ban the blood of homosexual females.