The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Religion & Philosophy

Lies? or truth?

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: 1 2 3 ...13 14 15 · >>
MadCornishBiker On January 14, 2014

Banned



St Columb Road, United Kingdom
#1New Post! Dec 06, 2012 @ 01:24:59
I have been accused of lying because I claim that blood transfusions are dangerous medicine, bad medicine and provided links to prove it.

Interestingly, my accuser admits he did not check the links, which simply proves that he knows he has a weak case and following the inks would simply expose him for the bigot he is.

Rather than hijack the thread he was in when he said this, I have started this one.

"Blood is bad medicine" is not a lie. It has been known for decades, in the 1980s the Surgeon General publicly stated that because of it's dangers blood would not be granted a licence for use as a medicine because of those dangers, which are many. His comments were reported in The Observer newspaper, if memory serves. I don't read it myself but it was read out in public and I was amongst those who were listening.

Here are a few quotations for you:


Dr. C. Ropartz, Director of the Central Department of Transfusions in Rouen, France, commented that “a bottle of blood is a bomb.” Since the dangerous results may not appear until some time has passed, he added, “furthermore, it may also be a time bomb for the patient.”

A United States Government publication carried an article on the dangers of blood and said that
“ . . . donating blood can be compared to sending a loaded gun to an unsuspecting or unprepared person. . . . Like the loaded gun, there is a safety lever or button governing blood transfusions. But, how many persons have died from gun shot wounds as the result of believing the lever was on ‘safe’?”

Can knowledgeable doctors dismiss the stated dangers as being exaggerations? Hardly, for the reality of the dangers is often brought home to physicians.

“No biologic product,” wrote Winfield S. Miller in Medical Economics, “has a greater potential for fatal mistakes in medical practice than blood. More than one doctor has learned to his sorrow that every bottle of blood in the blood banks is a potential bottle of nitroglycerin.”

The patient or his family may not realize the dangers until it is too late.

Stanford University’s Dr. J. Garrott Allen, a leading expert on the blood problem, estimated that blood transfusions kill at least 3,500 Americans each year and injure another 50,000.

But there is strong reason to believe that this actually is an underestimation. For instance:

The Southern Medical Journal recently suggested that the estimate that “between 3,000 and 30,000 deaths attributable to transfusions” is probably a conservative estimate.

And bear in mind that these are figures for just one country, to say nothing of the rest of the world.

At a meeting of the American College of Surgeons, Dr. Robert J. Baker reported that the ‘danger of adverse effects from blood is far greater than previously believed with one out of 20 patients developing a reaction.’

How many persons realize this?

Showing why that report should concern us all, Dr. Charles E. Huggins, associate director of a large blood bank, added: “The report is frightening but realistic because the same problems are facing every institution [throughout] the world.”

What are the risks:

The textbook Hematology contains this table: (Italicised text mine)

Types of Transfusion Reactions

Febrile

Leukocyte antibodies

Platelet antibodies

Pyrogens

Allergic

Hemolytic (incompatible transfusion) and always present to some degree because no transfusion is 100% compatible

Transmission of disease including cancer as my own father's case proved as was admitted to me by the surgeon in charge of his case.

Serum hepatitis

Malaria

Syphilis

Cytomegalovirus infection

Gross bacterial contamination

Cardiac overload

Citrate intoxication

Potassium intoxication

Abnormal bleeding

Incompatible transfusion

Massive transfusion

Isosensitization

Transfusion hemosiderosis

Thrombophlebitis

Air embolism

Injection of foreign material

Blood transfusions dangerous!! very, no blood substitute carries any of the above dangers (except possible air embolysm.


Saying that evolution is a proven fact is a lie because it is not proven. All they have succeeded in proving is that some groups of animals adapted t their environments.

They have not been able to demonstrate that those groups were not created separately as "kinds. To state otherwise without evidence simply shows how weak your case is in that direction also.
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#2New Post! Dec 06, 2012 @ 02:31:42
Your links are all to religious websites and anecdotes.

Please post a link to a peer reviewed scientific study that shows better survivability for victims of massive blood loss who have chose not to have transfusions versus those that did.
Reviso On November 23, 2014

Banned



Trenton, Canada
#3New Post! Dec 06, 2012 @ 02:43:15
But how does the human embryo feed on it's living pro-creator"s blood lineage if you like?. which is priorly mire important? the cellular blood or the failure to protect the "survival" of empty justice that we just go on living?

Going on living must be absolute freedom.
Leon On December 21, 2023




San Diego, California
#4New Post! Dec 06, 2012 @ 02:46:47
All medical procedures have risks.
DorkySupergirl On November 02, 2017




, Canada
#5New Post! Dec 06, 2012 @ 03:56:19
It is fine by me and no judgment from me if you would chose for religious reasons not to get blood but I find it rather insulting to the people who have become better with getting blood or who had their lives saved by getting blood.

Everything has a risk. Much needed medications can make people very sick. Life saving procedures can have great risk. Even everyday procedures can go very bad but one must outweigh the pros and cons and decide for themselves if worth the risk.

But getting blood is not bad.
floydgirrl On October 08, 2022
Stalkee





Pope's Wine Celler, Holy See (
#6New Post! Dec 06, 2012 @ 03:59:52
To be honest, the idea of someone else's blood mixing with mine is sort of creepy. However, I wouldn't say no to it if I needed it.
twilitezone911 On March 25, 2019




Saint Louis, Missouri
#7New Post! Dec 06, 2012 @ 05:32:24
most of the time, if you heard anything about any tainted blood or someone who had a blood transfusion that went bad to got aids from it. the most famous case of this is paul michael Glaser has been married twice. He married his first wife, Elizabeth (Meyer) Glaser, in 1980. In August 1981, Elizabeth contracted HIV through a blood transfusion while giving birth to the couple's first child, Ariel. Elizabeth did not find out about the virus until four years later, at which time both Ariel and son Jake (born October 1984) were also found to be HIV positive. Ariel Glaser died in August 1988; Elizabeth Glaser died in 1994, after founding the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation. After Elizabeth's death, Glaser served as chairman of the foundation until 2002 and remains Honorary Chairman, roles in which he has testified before the United States Congress and met with national leaders, as well as headlining annual fundraisers for the organization. as this a religion thing, i don't think it is wrong for you, if you need should get it. if you don't get a blood transfusion, you really need it, you will died. if you do get you will live long time. your choice?
chaski On about 17 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#8New Post! Dec 06, 2012 @ 05:43:57
Between 2001 and 2005, four out of 106 patients with the pig valves implanted in the aortic position developed severe impairment after less than four years, and the patients required surgery to replace the valves. The findings are published in the June issue of the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery.

Or... 3.8% of pig heart valves used in heart repair surgery fail sooner than expected.

Eating pigs is bad per the bible.

Better not use pig heart valves... even if you need them to live.
MadCornishBiker On January 14, 2014

Banned



St Columb Road, United Kingdom
#9New Post! Dec 06, 2012 @ 15:37:14
@chaski Said

Between 2001 and 2005, four out of 106 patients with the pig valves implanted in the aortic position developed severe impairment after less than four years, and the patients required surgery to replace the valves. The findings are published in the June issue of the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery.

Or... 3.8% of pig heart valves used in heart repair surgery fail sooner than expected.

Eating pigs is bad per the bible.

Better not use pig heart valves... even if you need them to live.


Lol, that was only the Mosaic Law and had goo health value at the time. Since the Mosaic Law is no longer in force it doesn't apply any more.

What is the point in using something dangerous to "stay alive" when the chances are you will die horrendously of cancer like my farther did, all because of a blood transfusion.

You are just was well of, no better off, using a safe alternative like saline solution which does the job as well without the dangers.
MadCornishBiker On January 14, 2014

Banned



St Columb Road, United Kingdom
#10New Post! Dec 06, 2012 @ 15:38:30
@Leon Said

All medical procedures have risks.


True but why not remove or reduce the risk when you can, and using blood in transfusion is never a good idea, especially when the risks are so high and can be so devastating.

Why do you think bloodless surgery is getting so poular?
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#11New Post! Dec 06, 2012 @ 15:39:27
@MadCornishBiker Said
What is the point in using something dangerous to "stay alive" when the chances are you will die horrendously of cancer like my farther did, all because of a blood transfusion.


You put "stay alive" in quotes like it's fake or something
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#12New Post! Dec 06, 2012 @ 15:42:44
@MadCornishBiker Said
Why do you think bloodless surgery is getting so poular?


Because getting someone else's blood is dangerous. The less the surgery makes you bleed the better. Our technology is getting to the point where we can do many procedures without blood loss.

But not all procedures. And surgery isn't the only reason people lose blood. Just because bloodless surgery is a good idea where possible doesn't mean it's always a bad idea to get blood.

The fact that people who perform transfusions refer to them as a "time bomb" and still do them anyway tells you a lot.
MadCornishBiker On January 14, 2014

Banned



St Columb Road, United Kingdom
#13New Post! Dec 06, 2012 @ 16:24:43
@jonnythan Said

Because getting someone else's blood is dangerous. The less the surgery makes you bleed the better. Our technology is getting to the point where we can do many procedures without blood loss.

But not all procedures. And surgery isn't the only reason people lose blood. Just because bloodless surgery is a good idea where possible doesn't mean it's always a bad idea to get blood.

The fact that people who perform transfusions refer to them as a "time bomb" and still do them anyway tells you a lot.


What procures cannot be done without transfused blood? do tell. I don't know of any. Even heart surgery and transplants of all sorts (including kidney and liver) have been preformed for decades without transfused blood. Ask Dr Denton Cooley of the Texas Heart Institute.

That is the whole point to those who care to find out the truth. There is nothing that cannot be done without transfused blood, and done safer at that. Spend a little time researching the truth rather than hiding from it as you have already admitted to doing.

Or are you just too arrogant to risk being proved wrong? Is that why you refused to check the links?
futilevoice On October 07, 2016

Deleted



, Illinois
#14New Post! Dec 06, 2012 @ 16:28:49
There are plenty of situations where blood is required to stabilize or save the patient's life.
Situations where the person comes into the hospital and has already lost a vast amount of blood.
Expanders are not used in these situations because they do not get the oxygen where it is needed fast enough.
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#15New Post! Dec 06, 2012 @ 16:36:36
@MadCornishBiker Said

What procures cannot be done without transfused blood? do tell. I don't know of any. Even heart surgery and transplants of all sorts (including kidney and liver) have been preformed for decades without transfused blood. Ask Dr Denton Cooley of the Texas Heart Institute.

That is the whole point to those who care to find out the truth. There is nothing that cannot be done without transfused blood, and done safer at that. Spend a little time researching the truth rather than hiding from it as you have already admitted to doing.

Or are you just too arrogant to risk being proved wrong? Is that why you refused to check the links?


Please see the very first reply in this thread. I've asked you this several times now and have never gotten an answer.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: 1 2 3 ...13 14 15 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Be Respectful of Others

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Religion & Philosophy
Wed Mar 14, 2012 @ 20:43
145 7242
New posts   Jokes & Humor
Mon Jun 28, 2010 @ 16:59
0 335
New posts   Politics
Thu Jan 14, 2010 @ 06:55
13 1547
New posts   Science
Mon Apr 02, 2007 @ 14:04
12 1277
New posts   Random
Wed Apr 19, 2006 @ 20:34
45 2398