Since this board is THE best source of information on anything to do with lyme, I thought I'd post it here. I have a friend who's been sick a long time; her medical insurance is not great and will not cover IGENEX testing. She donates blood on a regular basis. The Red Cross does NAT (nucleic acid testing) for lyme. Her question is the following: since the red cross has never denied a donation from her, does it mean that she is negative for lyme? How reliable is the NAT? Of course, it doesn't take into account co-infections.
Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Nika
Posted by lymemomtooo (Member # 5396) on :
I am no expert by far, but anyone that is sick with anything should not be donating blood. It is only helpful if you are saving lives,not putting them in jeopardy.
Since the lyme specific tests are not very valid, I would think this test might fall into the same hole..If it were great, would not all drs be using it?
Tell your friend if she really wants to help the Red Cross, it might be safer if she volunteered to work at one of the stations to take down info.
Posted by groovy2 (Member # 6304) on :
Hi All
I saw a report on the Red Cross a few weeks ago-
The report said the RC only dose Minimal tests on blood donated--Ouch--
Tell your friend to Stop donating blood-
She could be doing Much Harm -Jay-
Posted by Jill E. (Member # 9121) on :
I am doing this from memory so can't vouch for the source, but I had read a published article posted on another Lyme forum that the blood supply is tainted with Lyme in endemic areas.
So that would certainly suggest that our nation's blood supply is not screened carefully for Lyme.
And given that the ELISA has such a poor accuracy rate, who knows about NAT?
If she wants to know more, perhaps she could call IGeneX and they could give their position on NAT testing.
But like the other posters, I cringe at the thought that someone who is knowingly ill with Lyme is passing this misery along to unsuspecting people - especially those who are probably already ill with other diseases that require blood transfusions or donations.
I know IGeneX testing costs a lot of money and my insurance doesn't pay either, but it's such essential testing, it is really worth scrimping and saving every penny to do it if at all possible.
Take care, Jill
Posted by bettyg (Member # 6147) on :
CDC goes bythe Dept. of Defense rules, if you have been CURED OF LYME FOR 1 FULL YEAR, you may donate blood! It's phrased something like this!
It came out of LYME UPDATE: SCIENCE, POLICY, & LAWS book by Marcus Cohen recently.
I checked with our local hospital CEO; they follow CDC rules. I informed her I gave blood for 20+ years; they made no effort to take info to inform anyone getting my blood! HOW SAD/MADDENING.
If you do a search on this subject, found at top under POST REPLY; you will read more comments!
DO NOT DONATE BLOOD and my personal feeling, NO PERSONAL ORGANS IF YOU HAVE LYME OR TICK-BORNE DISEASE.
Do you want to be responsible for those innocent people getting YOUR illness that you wouldn't give to your worse enemy? NO ME!
So I changed my driver's license to NO ORGAN donation.
Posted by nika (Member # 6779) on :
I agree completely with everyone that this friend should not be donating blood but I feel like I'm banging my head against the wall. Have given her books about lyme to read and online resources. Her symptoms mimic mine and she's been sick a long time. Unfortunately, she's with Kaiser HMO and their financial situation is not good so they can't afford out of pocket medical expenses.
I haven't donated blood since I got sick in 1991, even though I wasn't diagnosed with CFS until 96 but it just didn't feel right to donate.
Will pass on info about NAT and suggest she stop donating and get officially tested. Thanks everyone! Nika
Posted by bettyg (Member # 6147) on :
Nika, was reading the latest comments, and 1 more thing came to my mind. If your friend continues to donate, please call LOCAL hospital where she donates her blood and explain about strong possibility she may have undiagnosed lyme, and they should check it before it is used.
Ethical? In my mind, yes, to do this if someone is passing along AIDS, etc. intentionally.