Do they not still test the blood for HIV regardless of how "high risk" the donor is? You should be tested immediately prior to donation and the donation rejected if you test positive, this is a fuck-up on whoever took the blood. Also, prisoners??? Why in the fuck are we paying prisoners for their blood? Every private prison company should be nationalized and have its leaders tried for their crimes istg.

[–] Wahots@pawb.social 16 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This was in the 70s and 80s, they probably didn't have the tech. Kinda old news.

The new hotness is vampire facials at unlicensed clinics. They mix up your own blood with someone else's, or don't clean the centrifuge, you get infected.

[–] gh0stcassette@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Ah fair, I didn't actually read the article, I just assumed it was semi-recent lol. Probably should have read it first

[–] GammaGames@beehaw.org 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The investigation only finished Monday, thousands of people already died and over 30k were infected

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 months ago

Paying anyone for blood is a bad idea and this is why.

[–] kungen@feddit.nu 3 points 5 months ago

This was from the 80s.

But yes, they do that nowadays... but viral loads can be so small that it won't be detected on a test, but will likely infect the patient. So don't give blood if you're unsure.