* the owner of the lab that realized the tests (PCS Lab Saleme) is the cousin of the former secretary of health from Rio, Dr.Luizinho.
* Anvisa (brazil health regulatory agency) alleges the lab didn't have the kits to realize the blood exams and didn't present the receipts proving their purchases, leading to the suspicion
they didn't do the tests at all and forged the results.
* Since many hospitals outsourced donor organ tests to the 3rd party lab, there is a precedent for more cases of infected organs, so the stored material of 286 donors will be retested by HemoRio, a state health unity.
No. That is just naive pattern-matching against a hot-button issue that you read a lot about on HN. For both this story AND Boeing, the explanation is more complicated than “outsourcing bad!”
In this particular case you're saying you need to test the organs once at the outsource place and then again at the hospital? Why not just get rid of outsourcing then?
No, that is not what the parent said. "Check an verfiy" can come in diffrent forms and tastes eg. having some samples (not all) checked by another lab, asking for standards and inspection performed by 3rd parties, asking and checking for documentation...the hell how do you think anybody could work with suppliers?
Further context: In Brazil since we have universal health care provided by the government, generally speaking non outsourced or contractors becomes public servants.
The issue is: Public service in Brazil is expensive and is virtually impossible to fire anyone. On top of that the cost of public service has second order effects in the public balance sheet for the municipalities plus it has a huge burden in the public retirement system.
Not saying that is right or wrong, but this is very common in the Brazilian heath system.
Nothing wrong with outsourcing as long as it doesn't allow the user of the third-party operation to escape legal liability for failures and fraud committed by said third party that affect the user's clients.
Why? If you have HIV you need to be on antiretroviral drugs. They keep your viral load to undetectable levels, so your immune system does not need to fight it.
Yep, if HIV progresses to the point of AIDS, suppressing your already-suppressed immune system would be bad. But with today's treatment regimens HIV won't progress anywhere near that point. Which is borderline miraculous, really.
HIV is the virus that makes you develop (or "acquire") AIDS; AIDS is the condition that weakens and kills you. If you pump the breaks as soon as possible, HIV on its own won't have catastrophic health implications, although it's obviously better not to have it at all.
AIDS is the immune deficiency-causing virus, and that begins (usually) way after an HIV infection takes place — months, years. So until then, they’d still need to take immunosuppressants.
to be clear, I believe modern antiretrovirals can prevent the virus from replicating for an entire lifetime. They bring the viral load down to undetectable levels.
Rio de Janeiro is by far the most corrupt Brazilian state. Its hard to explain how bad it is if you are not Brazilian, but imagine that every single former state governor and many of the mayors have been sent to prison for corruption after their term ended.
So what usually happens is that someone from the public sector opens up a public bidding for some service to be done by the private sector, and usually who wins is someone who has ties with the local government.
Most of the time whoever wins the bid (usually some shell company) is going to barely offer the service, and share most of the profits with their associates in the local gov.
This is one of such cases: The private lab doing the tests is owned by the cousin of the former state secretary of health Dr.Luizinho. Its very likely that they just did not do the tests at all (yes, that how bad it is)
I usually direct people to watch the movies Elite Squad 1 and 2. They're entertaining and pretty much explain why Rio is so violent and so corrupt and how both things feed off each other.
Interesting perspective on the impact of corruption across different countries. It's striking how two countries with similar levels of corruption can have vastly different outcomes in specific areas. Take Argentina as an example: while it's highly corrupt, organ transplants are remarkably well-organized under a single entity, INCUCAI [1]. You can even see crystal clear stats there.
Corruption is not a single axis, for example college entrance exams and voting in brazil are very trustworthy in my opinion.
Institutions are corrupt, not a whole country. Sure there is some level of infection between institutions but there is still a lot of a single one can do.
Similarly to the Mongolian government, except that only major cases are targeted, and instead of the actual culprits, people who were just doing their jobs under them end up in prison. Case closed.
How free do people feel to speak up against corruption? Like could they go public on Twitter/X and call out the issues they see? Or would they face legal retribution or physical violence?
It really depends. Locally, factions like criminal associations and retired cops mafias (militias), who always have city councelors and mayors in their pockets, may retaliate if someone with an audience is being too annoying (see Marielle Franco's case).
Nationally, not all politicians enjoy any protection from the supreme court against critiscism, only the best connected ones and the supreme court itself. Recently, a former YouTuber who lost all his social accounts and had to self-exile to the US for some disrespectful comments against the supreme court was sentenced to 1.5 years in jail for calling the newest supreme court judge a "fatty".
Except for the supreme court itself, the average Brazilian can voice their concerns and speak up against corruption with very low chances of repercussions if they don't display wholly anti-democratic discourse, like wishing the military to execute a coup.
Freedom of expression is guaranteed in Brazil. In general people feel free to speak and that hasn't changed.
What has become a crime is the spread of misinformation in the form of fake news. For the most part these are still legislated fairly IMHO. But the precedent feels a bit dangerous
Isn't the window period large enough for the HIV test that it could slip through that way, i.e. you get infected on Friday, die and organs get harvested/get tested on Monday (or possibly longer) but you have not been infected long enough for the test to detect it? I had to sign a waiver acknowledging this possibility when I had some dental procedure last year.
Yes, incredible. When HIV/AIDS emerged, dentists were among the first professionals to adopt protective measures.
I don't have more details than what's mentioned in the article, but situations like this can sometimes reflect a deeper issue within the underlying professional and organizational structures, almost as if they're "calcifying", not just negligence, but a symptom of how things are functioning beneath the surface. On the other hand, it might simply be a case of individual malpractice, though I think the latter will be rare in the context of transplants.
It is but the test isn’t fully considered accurate for the first 30 days (45-90 days to be conclusive). That’s a long window of time for the virus to spread.
> laboratory responsible for conducting tests on donated organs had been suspended after the organs from two donors were transplanted into six people
So they missed the same thing twice, presumably at around the same time.
> and all stored organs from donors are being tested back to December 2023 when the lab was hired
I had the impression that there was a very short time limit, like maybe as long as a couple days. Is this just wrong, or does it only apply to same things?
For those who watch medical shows, this is somewhat reminiscent of a case of several patients who contracted rabies through organ transplants - a story that was portrayed in Scrubs season 5 episode 20, "My Lunch".
* the owner of the lab that realized the tests (PCS Lab Saleme) is the cousin of the former secretary of health from Rio, Dr.Luizinho.
* Anvisa (brazil health regulatory agency) alleges the lab didn't have the kits to realize the blood exams and didn't present the receipts proving their purchases, leading to the suspicion they didn't do the tests at all and forged the results.
* Since many hospitals outsourced donor organ tests to the 3rd party lab, there is a precedent for more cases of infected organs, so the stored material of 286 donors will be retested by HemoRio, a state health unity.
reply