30 Sep 14
3 edits
Originally posted by stellspalfiethen answer the question, have not tens of thousands and quite possibly millions of persons been killed as a direct or indirect consequence of receiving an intravenous blood transfusion?
talking like a loony is enough proof for me that he understands his position is logically indefensible.
Lets see if you logic and integrity can answer that instead of subjecting us to the usual tabloid opinions you like to pander as reason?
can none of the people here bring themselves to address the reality, oh dear, perhaps you are incapable of addressing reality? and even rational thought as well😲
30 Sep 14
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy don't you answer my question:
then answer the question, have not tens of thousands and quite possibly millions of persons been killed as a direct or indirect consequence of receiving an intravenous blood transfusion?
If blood transfusions were 100% safe, would you permit them?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
30 Sep 14
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieill answer yours but im expecting an honest answer to my questions in reply (a chance for you to show your integrity).
then answer the question, have not tens of thousands and quite possibly millions of persons been killed as a direct or indirect consequence of receiving an intravenous blood transfusion?
Lets see if you logic and integrity can answer that instead of subjecting us to the usual tabloid opinions you like to pander as reason?
can none of the people ...[text shortened]... y, oh dear, perhaps you are incapable of addressing reality? and even rational thought as well😲
i have no doubt that over the years thousands of people have been killed as a direct or indirect consequence of receiving a blood transfusion.
if we take into consideration 3rd world countries then i would agree that the number is probably in the millions.
however there are many factors to take into consideration - how many of the millions were down to issues with process itself or down to human error and insufficient medical equipment. the fact remains that if the proper steps are taken and followed by qualified practitioners that blood transfusions are extremely safe.
and just as a comparison to the potential millions you mentioned. just look at one year alone in the u.s. medical system as a comparison. in 2008 there were over 24million transfusions and only 54 reported cases of potential life threatening conditions caused. thats 24 million in one year, in one country.
there you go an honest and in depth answer.....your turn.
30 Sep 14
5 edits
Originally posted by stellspalfieyou think it matters how they died, yes hundreds of thousands of people have been killed by intravenous blood transfusions, thank you, it seems you have admitted what none of these fantasy merchants could bring themselves to admit.
ill answer yours but im expecting an honest answer to my questions in reply (a chance for you to show your integrity).
i have no doubt that over the years thousands of people have been killed as a direct or indirect consequence of receiving a blood transfusion.
if we take into consideration 3rd world countries then i would agree that the number ...[text shortened]... illion in one year, in one country.
there you go an honest and in depth answer.....your turn.
why limit it to the US, lets look at China, shall we?
Much of the current spread of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in China has been through intravenous drug use and prostitution. In China, the number of people affected by HIV has been estimated at between 430,000 and 1.5 million,[1] with some estimates going much higher.[2][3] In many rural areas of China during the 1990s, particularly in the province of Henan, hundreds of thousands up to millions of farmers and peasants were infected with HIV through participation in state-run blood collection programs in which contaminated equipment was reused!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_China
let me read that again so you get the import of it,
millions of farmers and peasants were infected with HIV through participation in state-run blood collection programs in which contaminated equipment was reused!
your attempts to mitigate both the scale and the seriousness of the matter are intellectually dishonest, it matters not how they were killed/infected, whether it was human error or contraction through infection, it kiils.
30 Sep 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf blood transfusions were 100% safe, would you permit them?
you think it matters how they died, yes hundreds of thousands of people have been killed by intravenous blood transfusions, thank you, it seems you have admitted what none of these fantasy merchants could bring themselves to admit.
why limit it to the US, lets look at China, shall we?
Much of the current spread of the human immunodeficiency vir ...[text shortened]... hey were killed/infected, whether it was human error or contraction through infection, it kiils.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
30 Sep 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyour turn to show your integrity.
you think it matters how they died, yes hundreds of thousands of people have been killed by intravenous blood transfusions, thank you, it seems you have admitted what none of these fantasy merchants could bring themselves to admit.
why limit it to the US, lets look at China, shall we?
Much of the current spread of the human immunodeficiency vir ...[text shortened]... hey were killed/infected, whether it was human error or contraction through infection, it kiils.
do you agree that currently there are some medical conditions in which blood is more effective than blood substitutes.
do you agree that there are some medical conditions in which it would be dangerous to the patient to use blood substitutes rather than blood.
is using blood substitutes.................natural.
and....If blood transfusions were 100% safe, would you permit them?
30 Sep 14
2 edits
Originally posted by stellspalfieno i dont agree
your turn to show your integrity.
do you agree that currently there are some medical conditions in which blood is more effective than blood substitutes.
do you agree that there are some medical conditions in which it would be dangerous to the patient to use blood substitutes rather than blood.
is using blood substitutes.................natural.
and....If blood transfusions were 100% safe, would you permit them?
no i dont agree
and some blood substitutes are recombinant and entirely artificially produced, such as Erythropoietin. I have no idea why you are slobbering about natural. It hardly natural to take someone else blood into your body.
and finally, No my objection is not whether it is safe or not, but based on a religious principle (abstain from blood) and philosophical (the right of self determination) , safety of procedure is meaningless in this context.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
30 Sep 14
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethis probably irrelevant to you now that you have admitted the safety of the procedure is meaningless....but just so you know. in some procedures blood substitutes do not increase the red cell count quick enough resulting in the risk of death to the patient. although i fully support the future of blood substitutes and believe one day we will not need human blood, it should not be ignored that there are also health risks associated with using substitutes such as increased risk of heart attacks (around 30% ).
no i dont agree
no i dont agree
and some blood substitutes are recombinant and entirely artificially produced, such as Erythropoietin. I have no idea why you are slobbering about natural. It hardly natural to take someone else blood into your body.
and finally, No my objection is not whether it is safe or not, but based on a religious pri ...[text shortened]... sophical (the right of self determination) , safety of procedure is meaningless in this context.
30 Sep 14
Originally posted by stellspalfiewhat procedures are you talking about, you have not said? and although i have no reason to doubt you, well you know, as a man of empiricism, i need the readies., so ummmm, make with them!
this probably irrelevant to you now that you have admitted the safety of the procedure is meaningless....but just so you know. in some procedures blood substitutes do not increase the red cell count quick enough resulting in the risk of death to the patient. although i fully support the future of blood substitutes and believe one day we will not need hu ...[text shortened]... h risks associated with using substitutes such as increased risk of heart attacks (around 30% ).
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat's with the incessant sighing? Are you that fat you're continually out of breath?
sigh, lets ask you the same question, has a blood transfusion either directly or indirectly killed someone? I have already stated that it may have saved a life although so might an alternative if it had been offered.
May have saved a life? Curious answer, but if that's the best you can do. As for your question, I have no doubt people have died as a result of blood transfusions. Every, I'll repeat that, EVERY medical procedure carries a degree of risk.
01 Oct 14
Originally posted by menace71Well your right with that statement, blood belongs in veins. Lol I never thought of that!!! Sorry.
Think about it for a minute .....blood belongs where ? Easy answer in your veins ( we all agree there is a small risk in receiving blood ) However you can get a disease by ingesting bad food or breathing in air and your right you could get a disease by drinking infected blood so what ? Scientifically receiving blood into your veins is very different from ea ...[text shortened]... ingest food to be digested but that is not the same as receiving blood into your veins
Manny
And yes there are many ways to contact diseases, nothing new there.
But if someone elses blood has a disease in it, you have a greater chance of getting it if injected into your veins then if you ate it. Right?
So how do your statements improve your stand on transfusing it into your body?
The point here is this. More have died from transfusions then haven't as far as JW's and I'm all ears if anyone can prove differently.
And I'm all ears if anyone can show me from the bible that God would approve of transfusions in light of his comand to abstain, do not touch or eat blood....
God knows the dangers of humans even touching anothers blood and something that man has finally learned just in the last hundred years or so.
If science continues learning more about blood and the consequences of using it as it is now used with transfusions, there will be a day in the future it will never be used again. We'll see huh?