The donors you don't want donating are already excluded by existing questions. And if you are that concerned about completely hypothetical unknowns then you might as well also not trust any of the batch testing done on the donors blood anyway. The questions can only ever be a useful prefilter, not a perfect safety net.
Anti bodies are produced to combat a pathogen if the levels of the pathogen are below of what would trigger the immune system you will not produce anti bodies and the ones that you have had produced will fade of over time you don’t have anti bodies for every pathogen you encounter flowing through your blood that would likely kill you.
If the pill can reduce the virus to trace levels and prevent HIV from developing into AIDS it’s not unreasonable to question if it can affect current HIV detection protocols.
Heck it wouldn’t surprise me if they measured the levels of anti bodies dropping while the levels of immune cells remaining normal to test the efficiency of the new drug.
That said I know some HIV tests check for the levels of virions in the blood these are often used for AIDS prognosis I don’t know how sensitive these are and if they’ll be able to detect trace levels of the virus if anti bodies response tests will become unreliable.
Also like with everything it’s not binary if this new treatment regiment can reduce the effectiveness of HIV testing by any meaningful margin it will be a problem.
I have very hard time believing that current HIV testing is 100% false negative proof.
The only unknown would be whether if you are one of the very, very few people that manages to contract HIV while taking prep, your antibody response is different during that initial window.
But: Anyone in that situation is already covered by the questions about recent partners and already is not donating if answering the existing questions in good faith. If they are donating in this situation at all they are already just ignoring the questions.
Where is that stated?
>But: Anyone in that situation is already covered by the questions about recent partners and already is not donating if answering the existing questions in good faith. If they are donating in this situation at all they are already just ignoring the questions.
I think you missed the entire point of the GP this isn’t about someone acting in good faith or rationally.
It is, because
a) we're talking about PrEP, a treatment for HIV- people
b) Truvada has already been used to treat HIV+ for the past ~15 years.
c) HIV screening for blood donations uses antibody testing, which has nothing to do with viral load.
So if someone asks "Does strawberry intake affect HIV antibody tests?", the answer isn't "no"?
What? This sounds like completely made up scaremongering. Why wouldn't they just get their viral load tested?
Within my circle of friends (some of whom are quite adventurous) none of them says “let’s donate blood and see what happens”.
Furthermore being on PrEP requires strict complete STD testing (Chlamydia, Syphillis, HIV, included) testing every 3 months before allowed to be prescribed again. The same time interval as any recommended STD testing.
I had a discussion with my Dr last week about Truvada on similar topic. Her reply was that Truvada is not enough to suppress viral load and thus they can be detected if a person is infected still and is not on treatment. Also Truvada is not magic pill and can take time to take effect (about 1-2 weeks) and there have been cases of people getting infected while on PrEP because their drugs haven’t taken effect yet.
Do they not already ask if someone's ever been diagnosed with asthma, hepatitis, HIV, leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, etc? All of which are permanent disqualifications.
I'd imagine they'd face liability issues if they were taking blood from high risk individuals. This also applies to intravenous drug users as well (which has nothing to do with sexual orientation).
http://www.aabb.org/tm/questionnaires/Documents/dhq/v2/DHQ%2...