ainitfunny
Saved, to glorify God.
Blood donations are NOT TESTED FOR EBOLA.(or many other diseases, for that matter). Since blood, I understand, is POOLED, a pint taken from an infectious person could contaminate a much larger supply of transfusion supply. i do not know what affect this might have on the blood products supply, as i don't know what processes are used to obtain blood products, whether they might serve to eliminate Ebola virus contamination.
Not only can the blood supply be compromised by ISIS and a deliberate attack on America, but a significant part of donations come from cash poor college students who travel or who are closely exposed to fellow students who travel, and the down and outers who sell their blood to survive, who may have close exposure to recent W African relatives or travelers in their community.
For a REAL EBOLA sneak attack, All it takes is Ebola infected donors. No test for Ebola is done on donor blood. It may be a week or more before the blood is actually used, it is meanwhile refrigerated which PRESERVES THE EBOLA VIRUS. AFTER IT IS GIVEN TO A Sick or injured PATIENT, it may be up to 21 days before that patient starts showing Ebola symptoms, which may be misdiagnosed or overlooked because of their previous illness or injury!!
UNTIL they are correctly diagnosed with EBOLA, LONG AFTER they begin showing Ebola symptoms, (on top of their previous health problem) they will be Ebola symptomatic, CONTAGIOUS TO ALL AROUND THEM, and nobody even suspects their deadly REAL problem. Eventual Ebola symptoms arising from the transfusion might be dismissed for too long as ordinary "post surgical" or other "complications" arising from the original illness.
SOME thought should be given to how the safety of the transfusable blood supply could be better protected and NOT SIMPLY FOUNDED ON THE "HONOR SYSTEM" of asking questions to screen donors, who increasingly nowadays, may either have reasons to lie or a desire to actually harm others.
Do not forget that such an attack would be easiest if it was an "inside job" with fellow jihadis getting jobs in that industry, collecting blood from sick donors whom they deliberately "ok."
I DO UNDERSTAND that it is not YET a problem. But shouldn't we be proactive, not always waiting till the horse is out before we shut the barn door? Why are our security measures seemingly always too little, too late reactive?
Not only can the blood supply be compromised by ISIS and a deliberate attack on America, but a significant part of donations come from cash poor college students who travel or who are closely exposed to fellow students who travel, and the down and outers who sell their blood to survive, who may have close exposure to recent W African relatives or travelers in their community.
For a REAL EBOLA sneak attack, All it takes is Ebola infected donors. No test for Ebola is done on donor blood. It may be a week or more before the blood is actually used, it is meanwhile refrigerated which PRESERVES THE EBOLA VIRUS. AFTER IT IS GIVEN TO A Sick or injured PATIENT, it may be up to 21 days before that patient starts showing Ebola symptoms, which may be misdiagnosed or overlooked because of their previous illness or injury!!
UNTIL they are correctly diagnosed with EBOLA, LONG AFTER they begin showing Ebola symptoms, (on top of their previous health problem) they will be Ebola symptomatic, CONTAGIOUS TO ALL AROUND THEM, and nobody even suspects their deadly REAL problem. Eventual Ebola symptoms arising from the transfusion might be dismissed for too long as ordinary "post surgical" or other "complications" arising from the original illness.
SOME thought should be given to how the safety of the transfusable blood supply could be better protected and NOT SIMPLY FOUNDED ON THE "HONOR SYSTEM" of asking questions to screen donors, who increasingly nowadays, may either have reasons to lie or a desire to actually harm others.
Do not forget that such an attack would be easiest if it was an "inside job" with fellow jihadis getting jobs in that industry, collecting blood from sick donors whom they deliberately "ok."
I DO UNDERSTAND that it is not YET a problem. But shouldn't we be proactive, not always waiting till the horse is out before we shut the barn door? Why are our security measures seemingly always too little, too late reactive?
Last edited:
