jw takes blood over plasma in b.c.

by orbison11 42 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  undercover

  "Between 5 and 10% of new HIV infections worldwide are

  transmitted through unsafe blood transfusions, with a

  further 5% through unsafe medical injections.

  Okay, you're right. 5%-10% of HIV infections worldwide are transmitted throught blood transfusions. Don't take blood.

  Now, 5% of HIV infections come through unsafe medical injections. If you dont' take blood because of the 5-10% infection rate, then you have to stop taking injections because of the infectoin possiblity. No more shots. Don't take them because you might get HIV.

  Do you see how stupid that argument is now?
• 

  JustTickledPink

  The real clue is the word WORLDWIDE where they have unsafe medical practises in almost all they do.

  Look at the tsunami victims, do you see any clean hospitals? sterile areas? they work with what they have. Worldwide includes Africa and India. That is my point.
• 

  MySuperSecret

  this is scary, they cant detect WNV in current blood screening methods.

  WNV can be effectively transmitted through blood transfusions. The burden of WNV blood transfusion related disease is probably underestimated owing to the low rate of symptomatic disease among recipients and the difficulty in establishing blood transfusion as the source of WNV infection.

  8 The presence of infectious WNV in donated blood necessitates the application of viral detection testing such as NAT. Additional studies are needed to define the sensitivity of current NAT assays, their ability to detect low-level viremic donations, and their costeffectiveness. This would allow optimization of testing protocols.

  http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/resources/MacedoeaTransfusion2004.pdf

  full article

  I will find statistics on the internet to find out how many die from blood complications. You you try to find that number you will find it very hard to find. I bet everyday 1 person dies in every hospital because of blood, They go public to say how many people are saved bacuse of blood transfusions when in reality there saying how many people recieved blood transfusions and a large percent of that number, they didnt even have to use blood.

  DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY IS IN BLOOD???????????????????????????????? IM GONNA DO MORE RESEARCH WHEN I GET HOME FROM WORK, IF YOUR A DECENT PERSON THIS SHOULD MAKE YOU SICK.

  remember 5 to 10 percent of hiv have it cuz of blood, THATS ALOT OF DEAD PEOPLE. But then again act like it dosnt matter. Wait for more and more viruses to come out that will past the screening test, for every virus they have to upgrade every blood bank in the world. Alot more people are gonna die if people keep advertising get blood/ give blood. You know the gov pays alot for blood, the red cross make major major major dough off blood. Only a fraction gets back into the third world. say what you say do as you wish but when i get back from work im gonna post some stuff on here about blood....alll sides of it. Then you can say what you want.

  And doctors do not use blood in life threatening situations, They use blood as a standard in most major surgerys.

  Oh and I appologize for my rude comments and language, Im not here to turn any of you back so i used it as an excuse to say whatever. But I shouldnt have been like that. Anyway off to work.
• 

  RunningMan

  Let's get a couple of things straight. First of all, no one WANTS a blood transfusion any more than they want their appendix removed. Secondly, there is no activity, medical or otherwise that is without risk.

  For example, imagine that you have leukemia. The doctor tells you that you will die without treatment. The likelihood of death without treatment is very near 100%. However, if you take chemotherapy followed by blood transfusions, the death rate drops to 50%. The chemotherapy comes with a risk, so does the blood transfusion, but in total, you are better off taking the chance.

  Yes, there are some people who will be infected through blood transfusions, but the number saved by them far outstrips the risk. You wouldn't decline an appendectomy because of the risk of infection, surgeon error, or reaction to the anesthetic, would you? Those are all valid risks, but in the face of a burst appendix, you take the chance.

  You appear to be trying to justify an irrational belief through fearmongering - something that we all did when we were JWs.
• 

  JustTickledPink

  You should also look into how many people die from STAPH infection, and also reaction to ANESTHESIA. Did you know that lots of healthy people go into hospitals and get staph and end up dying from it? What can you do about that?

  I have worked in hospitals as a student, I have witnessed surgeries, and have worked with Doctors. I didn't end up making it my profession but I was around it long enough to know that without medicine we would be chit up a creek. With every medical advance there are risks and death.

  About making money off blood, what is your point? The manufacturers of Tylenol make money too, does that make me sick? Not really. It doesn't bother me a bit. It's the individuals choice to donate blood, we are aware they make money off of it. Thanks for the breaking news. FYI it actually costs money to process and screen blood too. It's not direct from vein to vein... storage, handling, processing costs add up. The Red Cross is a great organization, they are in fact helping out Thailand and donating all sorts of help to people. For every dollar that the Red Cross collects 91% goes directly to helping people.

  What help is the Watchtower doing? So if the Red Cross is "making money" I think that is a good thing, it's actually paying for water and food and supplies to victims of tragedy. I live in FL and we got hit by 3 hurricanes this year. Our house had roof damage twice. The Red Cross set up a shelter about a mile from my house and were there for MONTHS. They have away tons of stuff. I saw it with my own eyes. So, pretty much congratulate them for their wise use of money.
• 

  undercover

  http://www.aabb.org/All_About_Blood/FAQs/aabb_faqs.htm

  HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus)

  Transfusion transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, has been almost completely eradicated, since blood banks began interviewing donors about at-risk behaviors and a blood test became available in early 1985. The HIV antibody tests, used on every blood donation since then, have undergone continuous improvement. Starting in 1999 nucleic acid amplification testing (NAT) has been used to directly detect the genetic material of the HIV virus in blood, and current estimates are that fewer than 1 in 1,900,000 blood components is capable of transmitting HIV. Transfusion medicine specialists are continually researching new technologies to further reduce the transmission of HIV. Examples of technologies on the horizon include methods to kill viruses in donated blood (called viral inactivation) and blood component substitutes.

  Runningman has an excellent point: No one wants a blood transfusion. No one wants to be in a situation where it is necessary. If I have to have surgery, I will discuss all possibilities with the doctors and do some personal research and make a decision then and only then. If I'm in an accident and the risk of contaminated blood is less than dying from bleeding, I'll take my chances with the blood instead of bleeding to death.

  The Bible is a big book, lots of little books, lots of verses, lots of words. Out of all those writings the subject of not eating blood or abstaining from blood is minimal. If this was such a big deal to God, and the Bible is his Word on all matters, and blood was such a big deal to him, don't you think he would have made matters a little clearer? The JWs are the only religion that makes such a big deal out of blood transfusions. All because they tried to be so damn literal about what it says. Now they are painted into a corner and to save face have to present some kind of rationalization of why blood is so wrong. It wouldn't be such a big deal, except, and it's a big except, people die listening to them.

  The WTS has been proven wrong in other doctrinal issues. They have been caught in hypocritical scandals. They are NOT God's organization. If people die listening to them, then the WTS is bloodguilty. I will not be one of their statistics. I will not die for them.
• 

  Greenpalmtreestillmine

  MySuperSecret,

  I agree with you. Blood transfusions are a risk. They are also overly used and not always, as some have claimed, only used to save a life about to be lost. Blood transfusions are a medical procedure and as with almost all medical procedures and/or choices they have their risks. No one should take a blood transfusion unless it is a life and death matter, imo.

  But Jehovah's Witnesses do not avoid blood because of risk do they? JWs do not take blood transfusions because in their opinion the Bible forbids it. So the discussion on the safety of blood transfusions is a moot one since even if blood transfusions were as safe as drinking a glass of water, JWs would still not take transfusions. Right?

  Since the safety of blood transfusions has really nothing to do with the existence of the JW blood doctrine the only way to prove the rightness of that doctrine is by proving it is based on sound scripture and soundness of mind. All the stats in the world showing the risks of transfusions mean nothing since we all take many risks almost everyday of our lives. It is not risk that matters it's what you believe God requires isn't that so?

  Sabrina
• 

  MySuperSecret

  Objectives To prospectively define the incidence of anemia and use of red blood cell (RBC) transfusions in critically ill patients and to explore the potential benefits and risks associated with transfusion in the ICU.

  Design Prospective observational study conducted November 1999, with 2 components: a blood sampling study and an anemia and blood transfusion study.

  Setting and Patients The blood sampling study included 1136 patients from 145 western European ICUs, and the anemia and blood transfusion study included 3534 patients from 146 western European ICUs. Patients were followed up for 28 days or until hospital discharge, interinstitutional transfer, or death.

  Main Outcome Measures Frequency of blood drawing and associated volume of blood drawn, collected over a 24-hour period; hemoglobin levels, transfusion rate, organ dysfunction (assessed using the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score), and mortality, collected throughout a 2-week period.

  Results The mean (SD) volume per blood draw was 10.3 (6.6) mL, with an average total volume of 41.1 (39.7) mL during the 24-hour period. There was a positive correlation between organ dysfunction and the number of blood draws (r = 0.34; P<.001) and total volume drawn (r = 0.28; P<.001). The mean hemoglobin concentration at ICU admission was 11.3 (2.3) g/dL, with 29% (963/3295) having a concentration of less than 10 g/dL. The transfusion rate during the ICU period was 37.0% (1307/3534). Older patients and those with a longer ICU length of stay were more commonly transfused. Both ICU and overall mortality rates were significantly higher in patients who had vs had not received a transfusion (ICU rates: 18.5% vs 10.1%, respectively; P<.001; overall rates: 29.0% vs 14.9%, respectively; P<.001). For similar degrees of organ dysfunction, patients who had a transfusion had a higher mortality rate. For matched patients in the propensity analysis, the 28-day mortality was 22.7% among patients with transfusions and 17.1% among those without (P = .02); the Kaplan-Meier log-rank test confirmed this difference.

  Conclusions This multicenter observational study reveals the common occurrence of anemia and the large use of blood transfusion in critically ill patients. Additionally, this epidemiologic study provides evidence of an association between transfusions and diminished organ function as well as between transfusions and mortality.

  so blood kills anemia patience faster. This according to your book. I will find more I swear it.
• 

  SixofNine

  Let's not forget though, that JW's DO mix the "risk" factor into their decisions and doctrine. They do this by officially arguing as MySuperSecret has been arguing, that "blood is not safe" or "more people die from blood than are saved". They do this by publishing Watchtower articles about respect for the sanctity of life. We can try and hold this individuals feet to the fire by saying that it should only be a "biblical" issue, but the organisation has strayed far, far away from that.
  
  
  So, with "risk" as a factor, the concept of respect for the sanctity of life is rightly an issue. Respect for the sactity of life would preclude propogating an URBAN LEGEND that "more people die from blood than are saved by it". This is not anywhere close to true.
• 

  JustTickledPink

  Supersecret.. what is the PURPOSE of your posts? What is the point? To convert us to your way of thinking? I don't get it.

  I already have read all the Watchtower literature about blood, I used to go to meetings, I was immersed in it for 20 years, I know all about it. What is the your purpose in telling us all this information?