Bad Blood - when safe blood turns into bad blood - The patients' body reaction

by TheWonderofYou 29 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • TheWonderofYou

    Thanks for the information. The info about Dr. Earnshaw may be an error, if I understand your info correct. But certainly the Awake 2000 about blood less health care was displayed at the congress in Geneve. And that Awake had the pictures of the bloodless pioneers.

    Below you see that the "primary rocks" of bloodless treatment are actually very active this year....Isbister, Gombotz, Spahn, Shander, Hofmann, Goodnough publishing, publishing publishing, reviews, cinical trials, pivot studies as if somebody needed those studies as basis for argumentation. It seems this is sign of growth, a growth of publication since 2000 when at the conference many contacts could be established. Contacts with laywers, contacts with industry and colleagues. This event was seems to have been a great "push" for the bloodless world. Since than growth in studies and growth in acceptance and growth in income for consultants and physicians is palpable or better noticeable. J.W. were happy and bloodless health world was happy. Didnt also Dr. Farragua - advocate for patient groups - Australia/WHO/UNO of the necessity to produce many pivot studies? But who else could have played an important role. Wait.. I know.


    Prof. Lawrence Tim Goodnough and Prof. Todd Rosengart were however certainly a member of the scientic committee of the 1st European Congress on bloodless health care in Geneve.

    Prof. Goddnough is co-author of new review published 2016 in Transfus

    He is another one of those true pioneers of 2000 who spoke out about bloodless medicine. Who is he. Here you can see him speaking about safety of blood at youtube channel Patient Safety Movement.

    Following a newsagency report about the conference

    1st European Congress on Bloodless Healthcare in Geneva
    Geneva (ots) -

    A trend towards the
    Bloodless curative treatment. This is not least reinforced by the fact that this year the World Health Organization (WHO) has made the problem of the lack of safety in the medical use of blood an important issue at the World Health Day. One of four WHO recommendations on how the dangerous situation can be improved was that the unnecessary transfusions must be reduced!
    A scientific congress, which takes place in Geneva (Palexpo Convention Center) on 11 and 12 May, is a similar goal. With their presentations, the internationally recognized specialists want to rethink the medical profession and raise awareness about the use of blood products and alternatives to foreign blood. More than 500 doctors from various disciplines are expected to attend the international conference, the "First European Congress for Bloodless Medicine".
    Prof. Donat Spahn, a member of the Scientific Committee of the Fachtagung, clearly points out: "The prevention of foreign blood is an important goal in medical treatment."
    However, in order to offer this high-quality care, doctors need a wide range of blood-saving methods and alternatives to foreign blood, "adds Prof. Lawrence T. Goodnough, his fellow committee member.
    How dramatic it is to transfuse blood in a great way is evident from the urgent warning of Prof. Spahn. He comes to the conclusion that there are "transfusions without risk really not at all".
    Therefore, successfully applied alternatives to the generous treatment of blood in medical treatments are presented at the congress. The participating physicians will receive information about the latest methods for limiting blood loss, which medicines promote the blood formation in the patient, which techniques make it possible to reuse lost blood and the development status of artificial oxygen carriers have already reached. The spectrum of the internationally recognized specialists is clear:
    Surgery, obstetrics, neonatology and hematology.
    Prof. Todd Rosengart, who is also a member of the scientific committee, underlines the impetus of this medical congress. "We contribute to the practice of the theory of blood savings."
    The initiators of the congress are the Anesthesiology Institute of the University of Zurich, the Department of Anesthesiology of the Cantonal Hospital in Geneva and The Medical and Scientific Association for Informing and Assisting Patients.


  • TheWonderofYou


    The US army has always had an interest in blood research. The WT and the US Army have mutual interests.

    After my retrospect to 2000 and Geneve, where according to another info Dr. Earnshaw showcased the film that was produced by J.W., and not to bore with the old story that obvioulsy Zurich was a nucleus for the further succesive and succesful blood safety development and before making any reckless conclusions I may call your attention to some certainly already commonly known hard-facts and basic knowledge about PBM-history.

    We write 2010, we jump to Englewood. U.S. Military Dep. of Defence - Doctors learn bloodless surgery methods. This financial aid for Prof. Shander and his team was certainly a moving moment and impulse for further research activity and (quote) " to serve a J.W. community." Since 1994 Blood Managment was practised.

    Congressman Rep. Steven Rothman had lobbied for this project. Further Wilbur Malloy, U.S. Army Telemedicine was present on this important event.

    Next... Dr. Denton Cooley mentioned

  • Vidiot
    OrphanCrow - "The army has reverted back to using packed red blood cells as first response - Dextran is out."

    Early signs that the WT's "bloodless" med-tech gold mine is running dry, perhaps?

  • OrphanCrow
    Next... Dr. Denton Cooley mentioned

    That is quite the spin.

    A ridiculous cherry picking of an important contribution to cardiac surgery. I wouldn't even know where to start...such a misrepresentation of medical history.

    Vidiot: ...Early signs that the WT's "bloodless" med-tech gold mine is running dry, perhaps?

    I don't know. I think it is simply an indication that red blood cells are still superior in all ways to synthetic products. Economically and safety-wise, blood outperforms alternatives.

    In spite of the WT spin about blood being unsafe, expensive, etc, their blood myths just don't hold water - they don't stand up to scientific scrutiny or practice. A six sigma rating is pretty hard to beat, after all.

    The WT blood myths are driven by superstition and phobias and $$$ and they have desperately manipulated science and evidence to bolster their position.

    *to add - to comment on the title of this thread - the patient's body reaction to blood...never once does the PBM world or the BM industry (along with the WT propaganda), never once do they speak about the body's reaction to the alternatives to blood that they propose. Never once do they speak of the increased risks associated with the drugs and products used to build red blood cells or the synthetic blood substitute risks. Never once do they say how these alternative procedures have risks that exceed blood transfusions themselves

  • Vidiot
    OrphanCrow - "A ridiculous cherry picking of an important contribution to cardiac surgery. I wouldn't even know where to start...such a misrepresentation of medical history... The WT blood myths are driven by superstition and phobias and $$$ and they have desperately manipulated science and evidence to bolster their position..."

    Sounds exactly like creationists throwing stones at evolution.

    Once again, for the newbies, lurkers, and trolls...

    ...if you have to cheat to defend your beliefs, your beliefs don't deserve to be defended.

  • TheWonderofYou

    Dr. Arthur Caplan, Medical Ethicist, 2009, quote: youtube at 3:19

    "That went to that weird alliance between very strange bedfellows J.W. who never liked blood didnt wanna use blood and a scientific community that wanted to figure out how we gonna do surgery if we cant use the blood because it might be infected."

  • TheWonderofYou

    Already seen?

    This book was published in 2000 the same year as the Geneve

    1st European Congress on Bloodless Health Care“


    Shannon Farmer is Coordinator of the Center for Bloodless Medicine and Surgery at Freemantle Kaleeya Hospital in Perth, Western Australia. Farmer was involved in setting up Kaleeya's bloodless surgery program in 1990, the first private hospital in Australia to establish such a center.

    There are currently more than 200 hospitals throughout the United States offering similar medical services. Farmer is a member of the National Association for Bloodless Medicine and Surgery (NABMS), part of a worldwide network linking coordinators, researchers and some of the world's leading surgeons and medical specialists. He is also a member of the Network for Advancement of Transfusion Alternatives (NATA) founded in Graz, Austria.

    Review by Marvin Shilmer
    A reading of Your Body Your Choice, by Shannon Farmer and David Webb, is educational. As advertised, language usage and subject approach is kept reasonably readable for the medical layperson.
    I find Farmer and Webb's statements regarding the subject accurate for the most part, though here and there are found inconsistencies that are probably minor to most readers.
    For example, the Preface includes the statement that "some experts are predicting blood transfusion will be obsolete within 10 to 15 years." Yet in other sections of the book we find premises based on future increases in the use of blood medically. For example, regarding blood availability for transfusion, on page 76 and 77 we find the statement "Experts predict an annual four million unit deficit by the year 2030." Blood availability for transfusion is only a problem if blood transfusion remains a viable medical practice, and 2030 is well beyond a 10 to 15 year point of obsolescence. Farmer and Webb also cite medical authorities indicating that medical use of blood transfusion has viability extending beyond 10 to 15 years. For example, on page 144 Dr. Aryeh Shander is quoted as saying, "Long-term is establishing the fact that allogeneic transfusions are a thing of the past and will never be seen again in medicine." Such a statement contains no indication that all blood transfusions will be obsolete in the long-term but rather only allogeneic transfusions. So which of these expert opinions should we trust when it comes to blood transfusions 10 to 15 years from now? Farmer and Webb do not answer this question though the statement in the Preface leads readers to conclude something inconsistent with the main text.
    Notably Farmer and Webb frequently refer to patients refusing uses of blood for religious reasons. Since Farmer is a member of the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses and since members of this religion are most notable for refusing various uses of blood then we must conclude at least some of the references apply to Jehovah's Witness patients. (The bibliography also evidences this)
    As Farmer is a member of the Jehovah's Witness community I must applaud him in particular -- I have no idea of Webb's religious affiliation -- because he walks such a fine line of providing reasonably accurate information contrary to what many Jehovah's Witnesses want to believe, but without upsetting his religious affiliation. I say this because notable members of his religion have endorsed this book -- such as Jan Wade. Farmer has found a way of accurately informing the public and Jehovah's Witnesses that sometimes uses of blood are medically necessary even though a person's religious beliefs may forbid those uses. In the main he does this by letting experts do the talking rather than making the assertion himself. For example, rather than saying himself that sometimes transfusion of allogeneic blood is medically necessary he quotes an authority. In this instance he quotes Dr. Richard K. Spence as saying of "bloodless medicine" that "These alternatives are far ranging and include... predonation of blood,... modification of both transfusion triggers and surgical techniques and the use of leucoreduced allogeneic blood when it is necessary." Surely Farmer knows that his religion forbids predonation of blood and using leucoreduced allogeneic blood for transfusion, yet he has found a way to accurately convey that these are sound medical practices when indicated, and sometimes necessary. In this way Farmer, and Webb, help educated patients that in some cases use of allogeneic blood is necessary to preventing premature death and/or preserving health. In these cases a choice otherwise means suffering premature death, a sobering thought.
  • TheWonderofYou

    Note: The NATA congress will make some important latest techniques for J.W. make a subject of discussion. ....f.i.

    - "womans health ...focus on bleeding, iron deficiency, mortality

    - device for haemostatic monitoring of the TEG and ROTEM!

  • TheWonderofYou

    Issue of doubts


    With holy definiteness my partner in service said to the householder: "We ABSTAIN from blood, because here the apostels decret said abstain".

    More then once I wanted to ask him, when he told the people that simple argument "here it says ...a b s t a i n ....." What excactly wa the reason for God to impose on us this blood ban? But I was afraid of his certainly following asthonished look at me, as if I would doubt in gods word.

    So abstaining from blood became also my new manipulation, my preaching.

    How else I would explain my odd standpoint, the J.W. blood ban to not interested outsiders, ..."abstain" that was most easy.


    And if asked myself for a reason I found myself in a maze of arguments and I couldnt decide which one was the distinct , the basic reason for the blood ban.

    was it because..

    ...blood was holy

    ...blood was to pour out, because it was a symbol

    ...blood was to pour out, because it was life itself

    ...blood was something that only Christ should use for a purpose and we therefore should not use it for any purpose

    ...blood was not to transmit to another person because it was dangerous

    ..blood was not to transmit to another person because it was God possession

    easier was ..... simply believing in "abstain from blood" and being quiet!

  • TheWonderofYou

    Berlin 27th April, 2017, Ulrike 'Gehring, journalist was awared by the Berlin Charite and medtronic with the

    Media Award, 1 place € 5.000,-) for her film from 2016

    "Dangerous bloodtransfusions - what helps against the risk"

    Further she reports that during the recherche for her other film "Bad Blood" much resistance occured:

    .....Naturally, blood reserves would be used further because they saved lives, but a rethinking would have to take place in the future. This also includes the so-called "Patient Blood Management", which is intended to reduce the use of blood clots.
    "During the research we have experienced massive resistance, Ulrike Gehring was said to belong to Jehovah's Witnesses. In addition, members of the Red Cross were forbidden to speak with us, "argues Streit.

Share this