Has there been any "New Light" on the Blood Issue?

Mastodon

Someone asked me if I knew anything about that. Oblviuosly i don't, so I'm reaching to all of you in this enlightened crowd to shed some light on this for me. Thanks!

blondie

New since when?

Back to 2000?

or in the last few months?

Mastodon

Blondie, anything different from 2003 and on?

blondie

The best thing to do is check the www.ajwrb.org site which follows the recent events, has good comments from ex-JWs who were on the HLC. It has a good review of the 6-15-2004 WT info.

Blondie

rootcause

Has anyone got information if there are truly identical blood through DNA?

jgnat

Rootcause, people don't reject all kinds of donor blood. Only those whose "typing" is different. One doesn't need a perfect DNA match to accept blood.

Take a few more courses in school on Biology and Chemistry.

rootcause

hello jgnat, how come doctors still not giving a 0% rejection cofidence? they are always saying it, the occurrence is rare...check this out...

http://www.pennhealth.com/ency/article/001303.htm

http://www.noblood.com/forum/showthread.php?t=427

Is tranfusion another Viox or Ooooppppss sorry of the future?

jgnat

I find this confusion common with those not familiar with the concept of degree of risk. From that article,

The presence of antibodies against blood antigens results in blood group compatibility or incompatibility. Transfusion of blood between compatible groups (such as O+ to O+) usually causes no problem.

Crossing the street carries a degree of risk. We reduce the risk factors by installing traffic lights, penalizing offenders, and instructing pedestrians to check-before-they-step. Have we absolutely eliminated the risk of crossing the street? No, people still die needlessly every year. How could we eliminate risk of crossing the street? We could ban vehicles, or we could stop crossing the street. But chicken little needs to get to the other side of the road. How do we get chicken there?

All blood transfusions carry a degree of risk. We reduce the risk factors as low as possible, and use blood only when absolutely necessary. An example of "absolutely necessary" would be a severed jugular vein. People and animals both die very quickly from an injury like that. The ONLY life-saving option in that case is a blood transfusion. Is there a chance the person could die from an allergic reaction to the transfused blood? Possibly. But the alternative is fatal.

Another example a pregnant mother who carries her infant with non-identical genetic code in her body for nine months. We have found that in MOST CASES she will not have an allergic reaction to her own baby. The highest risk factor is if the mother has RH negative blood and the baby has RH positive. In that case, we have a treatment to prevent the mother from building up antibodies against her own baby. You wouldn't suggest abtension from pregnancy because of the risk of allergic reaction, would you?

jgnat

And NO, blood transfusions will not become the drug-scandal of the future. In a way it already has, by failing to screen for AIDS. The blood services have smartened up since then. We've been doing transfusions too long, understand the risk factors, and have saved too many lives using blood transfusions.

That's not to say a non-allergenic oxygen-carrying blood subsititute won't be created in the future.

Has there been any "New Light" on the Blood Issue?

Share this