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.