💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › conspiracy › CN › cn1-95.txt captured on 2022-06-12 at 07:06:19.
⬅️ Previous capture (2020-10-31)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 1 Num. 95
======================================
("Quid coniuratio est?")
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AIDS: What the Government Isn't Telling You
by Lorraine Day, M.D.
(Part 3)
As previously noted, HIV infection may occur at least 35 months
before antibodies can be detected. This means that, since a test
for antibodies is used to determine whether donated blood is
accepted or not by the blood banks, someone with an early stage
HIV infection, who therefore would pass the blood screening tests
because antibodies do not show up immediately, can easily donate
blood. This means that our blood supply is *still* infected,
though to what extent is not known.
Not to say that "blood bankers" are all that picky about blood
donors anyway. Dr. Day includes the following passage, written by
an anonymous blood banker:
The story has been "community spirit" for the good of the
community -- with no self-gain by those employed by the
blood bank.
In actuality, no blood bank in the United States has ever
gone bankrupt. They have all been profitable. They do not
distribute their profits to the shareholders, (i.e. the
public) but they certainly pay themselves handsome salaries
with significant "perks."
The only concern the fresh blood provider has is this: "How
can I get enough donors?" There is no trouble getting enough
customers -- i.e., every captive hospital in his territory
is a customer. While self-limiting in the sense that there
are a finite number of hospitals and a finite number of
patients which may use a finite amount of blood, any
business can operate profitably in a "known market" --
particularly if monopolizing 100% of that market.
The limited source of donors, however, is a different
matter. The fresh blood sector uses one basic recruiting
method which I refer to as the "guilt trip." There was a
time when other motivations were used -- that is, reduction
in the hospital bill, free lunches, free dinners, grocery
certificates, cash, etc. This is not so much done anymore.
One inducement other than the "laying on of guilt" is still
used today, although reduced somewhat by the currently
strained economics {1} of our society. Many unions include
in their contracts with employers the stipulation that if a
union member donates blood to the local blood provider, that
employee gets half a day (or a full day) off of work with
pay. This is particularly prevalent with government
employees. Some inducement to donate may be pure pressure
and competitiveness -- that is, between groups, departments,
etc.
Nevertheless, the basic message is the implication: "You are
a terrible person if you don't help your fellow man who's
going to die unless he gets your blood."
As expected, it is increasingly difficult for the fresh
blood sector to recruit donors. As a result, blood banks do
not want to reject donors for "minor" reasons -- for
example, mild infection, fast pulse, swollen lymph nodes,
etc.
While every attempt is made to see that a donor qualifies
within the limits set by law, no blood banks attempt to
apply higher standards than those required by law. Safer
blood products at the expense of losing donors is resisted
and justified on the grounds that a shortage of blood is
more dangerous than the "long odds" of acquiring a blood-
borne infection.
Donors are treated with kid gloves so as not to offend them.
The blood bankers have resisted performing physical
examinations which can be time-consuming or may reject and
embarrass donors. The only driving force behind a blood
bank's operation is " -- we do not want to lose donors."
This economic factor is particularly important in
understanding the basis of the lack of action of the fresh
blood sector in 1983-85 and their almost criminally late
recognition of the fact that AIDS can be transmitted by
blood.
Dr. Day charges that although the blood banks knew early on that
AIDS *could* be transmitted via the blood, they still did not
screen out homosexuals at risk for AIDS for the simple reason
that this would have cost them money to recruit new donors.
In 1987, it came to light that one of the blood banks had known
for 2 years that their previous calculations regarding the risk
of AIDS transmission from blood transfusion was not, as they had
been saying, between 1 in 100,000 and 1 in 250,000, but *1 in
100*. For hemophiliacs needing more frequent transfusions, the
chances were even worse. According to the *San Francisco
Examiner*, "fear of AIDS hysteria" was why the secret was kept
for so long.
"While blood bankers and health officials sat on precedent and
protocol so as not to 'panic the public,' anyone infected through
a transfusion could have transmitted the virus."
Of course, no one who *knew* they were infected with HIV would
still go ahead and donate blood, right? Wrong. Consider the
following from the *Dallas Gay News*, May 20, 1983:
There has come the idea that if research money (for AIDS) is
not forthcoming at a certain level by a certain date, all
gay males should give blood... Whatever action is required
to get national attention is valid. If that includes blood
terrorism, so be it.
Even today, blood banks do not test for the AIDS virus. "There is
no routinely available blood test that targets the virus
directly." Instead, tests are done for the antibodies to the
virus. Yet, as already mentioned, it can take up to 35 months