Originally posted by FMFNo i have opinions but they are not the main guiding principle or reason why i dont take blood transfusion. This has been repeated three times already, i will not repeat it again, to do so is tedious and tiresome.
So we can say that you have no opinion on the medical risks associated with blood transfusions and those risks have no bearing on any discussion about your "principles" about blood transfusions?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe medical risks associated with blood transfusions was something you yourself raised, and you raised the issue early on in this discussion.
No i have opinions but they are not the main guiding principle or reason why i dont take blood transfusion. This has been repeated three times already, i will not repeat it again, to do so is tedious and tiresome.
Originally posted by FMFSorry you cannot reach me, i am listening to
The medical risks associated with blood transfusions was something you yourself raised, and you raised the issue early on in this discussion.
ZEN:MUSIC FOR BALANCE AND RELAXATION
Ill be back in a few hours 😀
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHundreds of thousands? Can you substantiate that number?
If those hundreds of thousands of person who died as a direct consequence of an intravenous blood transfusion had applied the Bible principle to abstain from blood, would it have saved them from dieing as a direct consequence of taking a blood transfusion?
In answer to your question, I don't know. Whether they would have died or not depends on what was wrong with them in the first case.
By the same token, how many people would have died if they followed the Biblical principle and 'abstained from blood' when they needed a life saving blood transfusion?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHere's some data for you. There are on average 14.6 million blood transfusions in the US alone each year.
If those hundreds of thousands of person who died as a direct consequence of an intravenous blood transfusion had applied the Bible principle to abstain from blood, would it have saved them from dieing as a direct consequence of taking a blood transfusion?
http://www.cdc.gov/bloodsafety/basics.html
Now let's just say that only 1% of those blood transfusions is life saving (a very conservative estimate I would say). That's still 146,000 life saving blood transfusions each year, if we multiply that by four decades, we get 5.8 million life saving blood transfusions in the US over the last 40 years.
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobhow many of those transfusions were life threatening? How many were offered alternative treatment?
Here's some data for you. There are on average 14.6 million blood transfusions in the US alone each year.
http://www.cdc.gov/bloodsafety/basics.html
Now let's just say that only 1% of those blood transfusions is life saving (a very conservative estimate I would say). That's still 146,000 life saving blood transfusions each year, if we multiply that ...[text shortened]... our decades, we get 5.8 million life saving blood transfusions in the US over the last 40 years.
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobyes, would you like it country by country, lets take, Canada first,
Hundreds of thousands? Can you substantiate that number?
In answer to your question, I don't know. Whether they would have died or not depends on what was wrong with them in the first case.
By the same token, how many people would have died if they followed the Biblical principle and 'abstained from blood' when they needed a life saving blood transfusion?
1. Canada 2,000 people were infected with HIV and up to 60,000 with Hepatitis C
2. France an estimated 4,000 people, many haemophiliacs, were given blood infected with HIV.
3.Italy 1,300 people, including almost 150 children, had died in Italy from infected blood infusions since 1985
4.Japan 1,400 Japanese haemophiliacs were exposed to HIV, and more than 500 were believed to have died by 2001.
and we have not even touched upon The unites States and the rest of Europe!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_haemophilia_blood_products
in the UK
4,800 British haemophiliacs were infected with Hepatitis C through their NHS treatment. 1,200+ of those people were also infected with HIV, the virus that leads to AIDS.
http://www.taintedblood.info/background.php
more than 8,000 people in the US were believed to have acquired HIV from blood transfusions during this period
http://www.avert.org/
Originally posted by robbie carrobierobbie [on the previous page]: "I dont have any problem nor issue with [blood transfusions], its a non issue for me, how you could possibly have misconstrued this, i cannot say."
yes, would you like it country by country, lets take, Canada first,
1. Canada 2,000 people were infected with HIV and up to 60,000 with Hepatitis C
2. France an estimated 4,000 people, many haemophiliacs, were given blood infected with HIV.
3.Italy 1,300 people, including almost 150 children, had died in Italy from infected blood infusions ...[text shortened]... infected with HIV, the virus that leads to AIDS.
http://www.taintedblood.info/background.php
Originally posted by FMFsomeone asked for data, they got the data, why you should be crying about it, i cannot say.
robbie [on the previous page]: "I dont have any problem nor issue with [blood transfusions], its a non issue for me, how you could possibly have misconstrued this, i cannot say."
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobEach year, 107 million units of blood are donated, half in high-income and half in low- and middle-income countries.46 In 2013, WHO reported that 25 countries lacked the resources to screen for transfusion-transmissible infections (TTIs), meaning 24 percent of blood donations in low-income countries are not screened.47 Worryingly it is often countries with a high HIV prevalence that have inadequate screening programmes in place. For example, although the HIV epidemic in Tanzania is generalised (HIV prevalence is 5.7 percent), blood screening is extremely limited, with only 35.7 percent tested in 2007.48
Here's some data for you. There are on average 14.6 million blood transfusions in the US alone each year.
http://www.cdc.gov/bloodsafety/basics.html
Now let's just say that only 1% of those blood transfusions is life saving (a very conservative estimate I would say). That's still 146,000 life saving blood transfusions each year, if we multiply that ...[text shortened]... our decades, we get 5.8 million life saving blood transfusions in the US over the last 40 years.
The situation in China during the early years of the epidemic highlights the need not only for voluntary, non-remunerated donors but also safe procedures for blood collection, testing and transfusion.49 Farmers from Henan province donated blood during the 1990s to collection sites where, to save money, the donors blood was pooled, the plasma extracted and then the remaining blood injected back into the donor.50 51 More than 100,000 farmers were infected with HIV in this way and unknowingly continued to donate infected blood, which was passed on through blood transfusions.
In 2012, around 270 children tested positive for HIV after being infected in hospitals in Kyrgyzstan during the past decade. Untested blood transfusions, and the use of contaminated medical equipment caused these HIV transmissions, reflecting the urgent need to follow universal precautions in healthcare settings.
http://www.avert.org/hiv-blood-safety.htm
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am not "crying about it". I am wondering if this really is, in fact, one of your main arguments. You keep going on about it while claiming ~ at the same time ~ it is a "non-issue" for you at the same time.
someone asked for data, they got the data, why you should be crying about it, i cannot say.
1 edit
and finally to stop FMF crying about it:
Although the majority of HIV infections via blood occur among people who inject drugs (PWID), medical settings still account for a significant number of new HIV infections
ouch that gotta hurt!
http://www.avert.org/hiv-blood-safety.htm
Originally posted by FMFsomeone asked for data and they received data. No need to cry about it.
I am not "crying about it". I am wondering if this really is, in fact, one of your main arguments. You keep going on about it while claiming ~ at the same time ~ it is a "non-issue" for you at the same time.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"Cry" in what sense? You seem to be oblivious to the whole tone of this discussion and your role in it. "Crying" is so far away from the reaction you are getting. Do you think you're faring well in this discussion? 🙂
someone asked for data and they received data. No need to cry about it.
4 edits
Originally posted by FMFyes i think i am crowing upon it like a cockerel on the farm fence, thanks for asking. You seem to be whinging when data is produced effhim, someone asked for data, they received the data and you decide to make an issue of it. Such pettiness cannot reflect well upon you effhim.
"Cry" in what sense? You seem to be oblivious to the whole tone of this discussion and your role in it. "Crying" is so far away from the reaction you are getting. Do you think you're faring well in this discussion? 🙂