Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat "fallacy" of what argument do you think you have "pointed out"? I am addressing your objection to blood transfusions on efficacy grounds not your objection on "religious principles". You yourself raised the efficacy issue.
No i am merely pointing out the fallacy of the argument, for me personally it makes no difference as my stance is based on religious principles.
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFno I have said nothing about their actual efficacy as a mode of treatment, what I merely pointed out is that you cannot use an argument to prove their efficacy without looking at an alternative model.
What "fallacy" of what argument do you think you have "pointed out"? I am addressing your objection to blood transfusions on efficacy grounds not your objection on "religious principles". You yourself raised the efficacy issue.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMy questions are not "irrelevant". They address head on the issue of the efficacy of blood transfusions which you raised as one of your arguments.
why dont you do your own research for a change instead of trolling the forums with irrelevant questions?
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFbut i have not said anything with regard to the efficacy of blood transfusions as a mode of treatment within themselves. I have not said they are good or bad or anything else for that matter.
My questions are not "irrelevant". They address head on the issue of the efficacy of blood transfusions which you raised as one of your arguments.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat evidence have you presented about the efficacy of those "alternative models"? Don't you need to present some evidence about whether when where for whom "alternative models" could realistically replace blood transfusions?
no have said nothing about their efficacy, what i merely pointed out is that you cannot use an argument to prove their efficacy without looking at alternative model.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou said something about 3,000 people in Scotland dying because of contaminated blood ~ you seemed to be using it as an argument against blood transfusions, right?
but i have not said anything with regard to the efficacy of blood transfusions as a mode of treatment within themselves. I have not said the are good or bad or anything for that matter.
Originally posted by FMFI am sure that I could from cell salvage, to volume expanders to the use of recombinant drugs such as Erythropoietin and blood fractions.
What evidence have you presented about the efficacy of those "alternative models"? Don't you need to present some evidence about whether when where for whom "alternative models" could realistically replace blood transfusions?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy would I do your research for you? You have argued that we don't know how many blood transfusions were necessary in order to save the lives of the people we know they did save. Do you have any research you can cite to bolster this case against the use of blood transfusions?
i have no idea why dont you do your own research ?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat is the efficacy of these things in terms of the scale on which blood transfusions have saved lives?
I am sure that I could from cell salvage, to volume expanders to the use of recombinant drugs such as Erythropoietin and blood fractions.
Originally posted by FMFNo my stance is not dependent upon any medical factors, its a religious stance, these other 'events' like the 3000 haemophiliacs are merely presented as questioning the safety of blood transfusions, but there is no dependency for even if they had not been given contaminated blood our stance remains, for its based on religious principles.
You said something about 3,000 people in Scotland dying because of contaminated blood ~ you seemed to be using it as an argument against blood transfusions, right?
Originally posted by FMFyou dont have to do anything but your own research, is that not what I admonished you to do?
Why would I do your research for you? You have argued that we don't know how many blood transfusions were necessary in order to save the lives of the people we know they did save. Do you have any research you can cite to bolster this case against the use of blood transfusions?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf God forbids eating blood do you think it reasonable that he would approve of injecting it intravenously into your system?
It seems that this point is hard to grasp, so I shall attempt to appeal to your reason although its akin to plunking a message in a bottle in the hope that it reaches a distant shore. If God forbids eating blood do you think it reasonable that he would approve of injecting it intravenously into your system? let us take it further if God forbids drin ...[text shortened]... forbid) do you think that he would approve of injecting it intravenously into your blood stream?
it would depend on the reasons. you would need to know the exact reason why god forbids the eating of blood before you could extrapolate it to cover other areas such as transfusions. do you know the exact reason why blood should not be eaten.
is it not more likely that god was speaking specifically to the people of that time, hence the reason he does not mention the medical use of blood.
1 edit
Originally posted by stellspalfieGod forbids drinking whisky therefore its ok to inject it into your veins.
[b]If God forbids eating blood do you think it reasonable that he would approve of injecting it intravenously into your system?
it would depend on the reasons. you would need to know the exact reason why god forbids the eating of blood before you could extrapolate it to cover other areas such as transfusions. do you know the exact reason why bloo ...[text shortened]... cally to the people of that time, hence the reason he does not mention the medical use of blood.[/b]
God forbids eating blood therefore its ok to inject it into your veins!
can you see our point? I am not asking you to accept it, but can you see the reasoning behind our stance regardless of whether you think its a valid stance?