posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 03:43 PM
Something needs to be cleared up first before I proceed. AIDS is a syndrome brought about by HIV; just because someone has HIV does not necessarily
mean that it will advance to AIDS. So, it is essentially wrong for someone to say "AIDS infected blood" for the mere fact that blood can only be
infected with HIV, and the misrepresentation of the term "AIDS" in common language seems to be growing. The only thing that differentiates someone
that has HIV from AIDS is the amount of the CD4+ cell count (white blood cells). Someone with just HIV infection ususally has anywhere between
300-1200 per mml, and someone with an AIDS diagnosis has a count around 200 mml. If a person injects blood from someone with a low CD4+ count around
200 mml it would not mean that they have AIDS...they would have HIV.
The first HIV test was developed in 1985 and is commonly known as ELISA, and was developed to screen out HIV from the blood supply. Reading through
various articles on this subject it seems that most of the vials that were contaminated with HIV were sent out prior to this date, and thus there
would be no way to detect it in the supply before this date. As FredT stated, it seems that the bigger issue is that Bayer continued to distribute
the drug in other parts of the world after the known contamination in the US supply. The question has to be asked then...For previously infected
individuals before the advent of the ELISA test, should Bayer be held accountable for their actions in these cases? It appears that Bayer, over the
years, has paid an estimated $600 Million in lawsuit settlements to the victims of the contaminated drug supply. Although I cannot find whether this
money includes includes that paid out to people infected before the development of the ELISA test in 1985. It's just my opinion, but I don't think
Bayer can be held responsible for infections pre-1985. Does anyone know the exact number of people infected through Factor VIII across the rest of
the world post-1985? I'm curious as to the distribution rates of people claiming they contracted HIV through Bayer's medicine and those that
contracted it through risky behavior since it is extemely difficult to prove where someone actually got their original infection from.
The one thing I have run into when researching this issue is that I see no reliable and credible sources as to where this whole story developed. The
internet, as usual, offers very little credible evidence in the case of Bayer's distribution of HIV infection medication, and I cannot seem to
pinpoint any news source documenting Bayer's involvement in the issue. In fact, the only source I can find is this video which is even referenced on
a Factor VIII page on Wikipedia:
Factor VIII