Thanks to all.
Multiple good reasons.
Wide safety margin,
Economics.
Time needed
The unknown.
All makes perfect sense.
Don't feel so discriminated against now!
Hi Deb, glad to see you back in one piece.
ALso I imagine it would be almost impossible for them to know if perhaps one just finished treatment and was UND but not SVR - what if in the next month a relapse showed up? Plus as I learned myself recently many doctors do NOT believe we are cured and believe it's only in remission or something equal to that.
"Reasons for Permanent Deferral from Blood Donation
"Hepatitis after age 11"
http://www.cbccts.org/donating/index.htm"
Yet, hepatitis is not a virus and would not be picked up by a pcr.
Hepatitis is swelling and inflammation of the liver and one of the results of a virus.
So a broad disqualification of donating blood seems strange.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002139/
I suspect you are correct about cost when a virus' antibodies are detected.
But as I also mentioned earlier, having "toxic" hepatitis--not viral associated, also disqualified me.
I believe it's also as simple as they screen for antibodies and a positive test is enough for them to not take any further chances with that blood nor pay any additional monies to investigate whether that blood is acceptable - they would need a PCR and a sensitive one. Perhaps it's a cost vs benefit thing along with weighing out risks.
Hi Pro, good to hear from you. That's quite a list of Permanant Deferrals. Would discount quite a lot of us without the HCV angle. I read somewhere that viruses are on the cusp of life and death. That they can remain dead-like for hundreds of years and then come to life again. I wondered if that had something to do with it. We must have antibodies to so many diseases in our blood, why the HCV antibodies are special?
Is toxic hepatitis a term to describe a sick liver?
I hope you work out the health, family and work problems,
Take care.
You will always test positive for HCV antibodies .
No one can give blood who test positive for the antibodies and you will
always have the antibodies. They have strict guidelines in
place now days . You can't give blood if you've been in
contact with someone who has HCV/or with their blood.
You can however, donate organs.
Reasons for Permanent Deferral from Blood Donation
"Hepatitis after age 11"
--don't know the reason, but do know the answer
http://www.cbccts.org/donating/index.htm
Hello Murari, nice to see you posting (I've been super busy, work, family health problems). I suspect the answer lies in the antibodies we still carry after reaching SVR.
Back when I was 14 or so, I contracted toxic hepatitis and was also told I could never donate blood. Not sure at all why that would be, I didn't have a virus, only hepatitis..
Be well my friend,
Pro
Don't know, but with all of the blood draws I've had over the past couple of years, I don't think it would be very easy or desirable to give blood.
Kathy
Although long term SVR rates are extremely durable (i.e. very, very few people relapse several years after successful treatment), there is still some uncertainty within the scientific community if some viable vestige of the virus may remain within our blood. No uninfected person has ever been injected with the blood of an HCV SVR patient to see what happens (for opbvious ethical reasons). So it's not conclusively known if an infection can be passed on in this way or not. There's also the issue of testing for the actual virus which can be more expensive and time consuming than the standard AB test.
I suspect the thinking is that if you were exposed to HCV, you may also have been exposed to other, yet unknown, blood pathogens. HCV is only transmitted via blood to blood contact, so its presence, or a marker for its presence (antibodies), demonstrates foreign blood exposure. At one time HCV was unknown and so was HIV and many other blood borne diseases. I think the CDC has finally recognized that just because someone tests negative for all known diseases, that doesn't mean they're not carrying a hitchhiker that's yet to be discovered. I was transfused with "clean" blood back in 1983 that in actuality had the yet to be discovered Hepatitis C virus in it. And that's how many of the early cases of HIV were contracted around the same timeframe as well.
Lastly, when you consider the relatively high incidence of IV drug users and HCV infection status, you also have to factor in the statistical likelihood of a relapsed drug user scenario. IV drug users are not the safest bets when it comes to a reliable source of clean blood for obvious reasons. From what I understand, years ago they used to pay "street people" for their blood donations, which would then use that money to buy more drugs. That may well be how myself and many other people got HCV in years past via their pre-1990 transfusions.