Your Blood's No Good Here

Apparently, Lifesource doesn't think I have Hepatitis C. Which is good, because I don't. Nor could I begin to imagine where I would have picked it up.

They tested my last blood donation, and their initial screening test indicated it was positive for Hepatitis C.

They then put it through two more accurate tests. Negative. No indication of Hepatitis C (or, presumably, anything else).

They then send me a nice letter telling me all this, and saying that I apparently don't have Hepatitis C.

HOWEVER, because of the one false positive on the screening, I'm ineligible to donate blood in the future. They didn't actually say that in so many words, but it was implied strongly, and implied that it was the fault of federal regulations.

Doesn't this sound awfully goofy and over protective? Yes, I understand they don't want Hep C in the blood supply, but you'd think that the better testing that cleared me would then raise the green flag for future donation. The only reason I could understand it is if my blood were somehow more likely to raise false positives, and thus the cost of collecting the blood isn't worthwhile. But I've donated dozens of times in the past, and never had any such problem.

Anyway, this is why I'm generally against employment drug tests and other such wide screenings. I've never heard of one that deals sanely with false positives.