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

by Mastodon 168 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  rootcause

  hello jgnat,

  Below are some medical articles I found...

  Early in the 20th century, scientists deepened man’s understanding of the marvelous complexity of blood. They learned that there are different blood types. Matching a donor’s blood and a patient’s blood is critical in transfusions. If someone with type A blood receives type B, he may have a severe hemolytic reaction. This can destroy many of his red cells and quickly kill him. While blood-typing and cross matching are now routine, errors do occur. Every year people die of hemolytic reactions.

  The facts show that the issue of incompatibility goes far beyond the relatively few blood types that hospitals seek to match. Why? Well, in his article "Blood Transfusion: Uses, Abuses, and Hazards," Dr. Douglas H. Posey, Jr., writes: "Nearly 30 years ago Sampson described blood transfusion as a relatively dangerous procedure . . . [Since then] at least 400 additional red cell antigens have been identified and characterized. There is no doubt the number will continue to increase because the red cell membrane is enormously complex."—Journal of the National Medical Association, July 1989.

  Scientists are now studying the effect of transfused blood on the body’s defense, or immune, system. What might that mean for you or for a relative who needs surgery?

  When doctors transplant a heart, a liver, or another organ, the recipient’s immune system may sense the foreign tissue and reject it. Yet, a transfusion is a tissue transplant. Even blood that has been "properly" cross matched can suppress the immune system. At a conference of pathologists, the point was made that hundreds of medical papers "have linked blood transfusions to immunologic responses."—"Case Builds Against Transfusions," Medical World News, December 11, 1989.

  A prime task of your immune system is detecting and destroying malignant (cancer) cells. Could suppressed immunity lead to cancer and death? Note two reports.

  The journal Cancer (February 15, 1987) gave the results of a study done in the Netherlands: "In the patients with colon cancer, a significant adverse effect of transfusion on long-term survival was seen. In this group there was a cumulative 5-year overall survival of 48% for the transfused and 74% for the nontransfused patients." Physicians at the University of Southern California followed up on a hundred patients who underwent cancer surgery. "The recurrence rate for all cancers of the larynx was 14% for those who did not receive blood and 65% for those who did. For cancer of the oral cavity, pharynx, and nose or sinus, the recurrence rate was 31% without transfusions and 71% with transfusions."—Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, March 1989.

  What do such studies suggest regarding transfusions? In his article "Blood Transfusions and Surgery for Cancer," Dr. John S. Spratt concluded: "The cancer surgeon may need to become a bloodless surgeon."—The American Journal of Surgery, September 1986.

  Another primary task of your immune system is to defend against infection. So it is understandable that some studies show that patients receiving blood are more prone to infection. Dr. P. I. Tartter did a study of colorectal surgery. Of patients given transfusions, 25 percent developed infections, compared with 4 percent of those who received no transfusions. He reports: "Blood transfusions were associated with infectious complications when given pre-, intra-, or postoperatively . . . The risk of postoperative infection increased progressively with the number of units of blood given." (The British Journal of Surgery, August 1988) Those attending a 1989 meeting of the American Association of Blood Banks learned this: Whereas 23 percent of those who received donor blood during hip-replacement surgery developed infections, those given no blood had no infections at all.

  Dr. John A. Collins wrote concerning this effect of blood transfusions: "It would be ironic indeed if a ‘treatment’ which has very little evidence of accomplishing anything worthwhile should subsequently be found to intensify one of the main problems faced by such patients."—World Journal of Surgery, February 1987.

  Moving Into the Field of Pathology

  Masuko worked to help support us as I finished my schooling. The field of medicine fascinated me. I was in awe of how well the human body is made! Even so, I never thought about the existence of a Creator. I thought that medical research could give meaning to my life. So after becoming a physician, I chose to continue my studies in medicine by entering the field of pathology—the study of the characteristics, causes, and effects of disease.

  While performing autopsies on patients who had died of cancer, I began to have my doubts regarding the efficacy of blood transfusions. Patients with advanced cancer may be anemic as a result of bleeding. Because chemotherapy exacerbates anemia, doctors often prescribe blood transfusions. However, I came to suspect that transfusions might simply cause the cancer to spread. At any rate, today it is known that blood transfusions cause immunosuppression, which can increase the possibility of tumor recurrence and decrease the survival rate of cancer patients.

  Is it really saving people? or risking their lives?did we humans really found the safest blood transfusion in our geneneration today?

  Thanks,
• 

  jgnat

  There's a difference between safest and dead.

  Here's another example. My grandmother died of a fast-acting bone cancer. She had, tops, a year to live, which she did. She turned down radiation treatment, which would have slowed the growth of the cancer, because "radiation causes cancer", and blood transfusions because she was afraid of contracting AIDS. She was in her late seventies. Even if she HAD caught an HIV infection, it would not have affected her health for many years to come. The doctors did not contradict her choices since she was terminal anyways.

  As I said, patiently, carefully (I thought), it's a matter of mitigating risk. We know from AMPLE experience that nearly everybody survives a properly matched blood transfusion. We know from AMPLE experience that a bled-out body dies within minutes. Do the math.
• 

  rootcause

  hello jgnat,

  Since, you mentioned cancer, on what I read and experience this is not a disease but a symptom of undelying disease. the basic fact about cancer being an anaerobic type of symptom was always overlooked. pls check the ff web:

  www.cancer-coverup.com

  www.alkalizeforhealth.net

  http://educate-yourself.org/fc/

  Please, this are just 3 of tons of information which you can get from the web...Just remember we are after the best end results.

  Now going back to the math. Since, you were here in JWs forum I presumed you read or got full knowledge of the bible. As it was also written there how we can really prevent the symptoms mentioned above.

  The question now :

  1. what if you knew you will die from a terminal disease even if you get the precious blood saving transfusion, will you still undergo the process?

  2. even if we extended our life now through blood tranfussion, Are you not copying what Israel did in Moses time and what babylon's done in the past? that is they did not listen just what we are doing today:

  (Genesis 9:4) 4

  Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat.

  (Acts 15:19-21) 19

  Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, 20 but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. 21 For from ancient times Moses has had in city after city those who preach him, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every sabbath."

  Thanks,
• 

  Cygnus

  Holy yellow!

  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?

  That's absosmurfly brilliant, jgnat.

  rootcause, you're obviously not a native English speaker so I'll try to keep this simple. The command to Noah was to make sure the animal was dead, the Levitical command was to show respect for the life taken (that's why at 17:5 if the animal was already dead and blood was consumed all the Hebrew had to do was bathe and change clothes), and the apostolic decree was given to gentile churches and consisted of 4 specific things, the same four in the same order that is found in Leviticus 17 & 18 for an alien resident to be found acceptible in a Jewish community. That's why murder, stealing, lying, and other bad stuff ain't bein' in there.
• 

  jgnat

  Please, this are just 3 of tons of information which you can get from the web.

  ..and how do we discern the quackery from science? Use your brain. Did you understand my explanation of "degree of risk"?

  ..Just remember we are after the best end results.

  The best end results is life. Reverence for life, respect for life is a recurring theme in the bible. Abstaining from life-saving medical treatment is spitting on God's creation. IMO.
• 

  rootcause

  hello cygnus, thanks for understanding I am no native english....

  jgnat/cygnus would it be correct to call the bible as our manual of life? just like all appliances comes with one when you buy. I hope I can explain it better this time....one good example that we humans always forget, we were not meant to eat inorganic foods and those artificially prepared, the best, were all plant assimulated and from meat fed with organic foods. Did the bible mentioned we should eat inorganics or artificials? pls compare the statistics of disease occurrence in the rate of increase of artificial and inorganic foods.

  Now, below is also one of the web which dicussed Death by Doctoring :

  http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/doctoring1.html

  Are the previous web site I sent the quacks or is the medicine we knew the best, was the real quack? Also, what is the cancer patient blood pH compared with a normal no-cancer human? Who manufactured drugs that kills?

  Risks or no risks the question now is, do you believe what the bible said or what our creator told us to do? or are we just another Adam and Eve? I hope you're one of the ONE to see beyond the Matrix of this temporary life arrangement...The real life

  (Revelation 21:1-4)

  And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea is no more. 2 I saw also the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: "Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away."

  (Psalm 37:29) The righteous themselves will possess the earth, And they will reside forever upon it.

  What our operations manual said:

  (Acts 15:29) to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!"

  (Leviticus 3:17) "‘It is a statute to time indefinite for YOUR generations, in all YOUR dwelling places: YOU must not eat any fat or any blood at all.’"

  (Leviticus 17:10) "‘As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst who eats any sort of blood, I shall certainly set my face against the soul that is eating the blood, and I shall indeed cut him off from among his people.

  Is "Abstaining from life-saving medical treatment is spitting on God's creation?" or are we spitting on God when we use blood?

  Thanks,
• 

  jgnat

  Rootcause, before we go further, please answer me a few questions.

  1. Do you abstain from blood because of religious belief?

  2. Would you die for that belief?

  3. Does it make it easier to abstain from blood when you read articles about it's dangers?

  4. Does it make it easier to abstain from blood when you read articles about safe substitutes?

  5. If science made blood 100% safe for your body, would you take it?

  6. Are all scientific articles on blood on the internet trustworthy like the bible?
• 

  rootcause

  hello jgnat,

  In 6, you trusted the BIBLE rather than scientific evidence or contradicting scientific evidence (Are all scientific articles on blood on the internet trustworthy like the bible?). In my case, somebody have to die before we opened-up our mind and followed the biblical instructions.

  So my answer to your question : I WILL FOLLOW the BIBLE Instructions.

  Hope also, you answer some of my question:

  1. Are we humans designed to die?
  2. Will you follow the same mistakes of those people mentioned in the bible who did not obey and did not believed Jehovah exists ?

  Thanks,
• 

  jgnat

  So, rootcause, you don't need to quote ANY scientific article to support your belief. You would obey it regardless. Why do you post scientific articles then, if they are not necessary to your belief?

  1. And to answer your question, God put eternity in our hearts, we are made in His image. I don't think we were ever designed to die.

  2. Now, about obeying bible principles. I think there different levels of sin and some commands are open to interpretation. I am going to give you some examples of bible commands and I would like to know if you obey them.

  • Have you ever said, "you fool, or, you idiot" to another human being?
  • Have you ever looked at a woman with lust in your eye?

  It is obvious that not all religions honor the command, "no blood" the same way that JW's do. Even the Jewish people who still follow the dietary restrictions, accept blood transfusions. The Jewish people are much more strict about abstaining from eating meat, which is the original command from the bible that Paul was talking about. There were NO blood transfusions in the first century. So a final quiz:

  • After you learned about the command to abstain from blood, have you eaten meat that was not bled?
• 

  jgnat

  Also, if a pagan who followed none of God's commands except abstaining from blood transfusions, would his eternal life be spared because he followed this one command?