The Associated Press reported this week that there is growing concern about blood stored for transfusions.
When we cut our finger, we see blood as a simple red liquid. It was perhaps that view that prompted doctors centuries ago to believe that blood that leaked out of one patient could simply be replaced by blood from another patient.
Such is not the belief of doctors today. There is a growing school of thought among the best doctors today that transfusing blood is as fraught with complications as transplanting organs.
What doctors in the 1700's couldn't have known is that blood is a complex mix of red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, plasma, and a myriad other small constituents. Likely you've heard blood being referred to as "type A," "type B, or "type O." These distinctions refer to antigens in the blood, and so far researchers have discovered 29 different "types." The antigens essentially make each person's blood unique; they do not play well with others. Mismatched blood was the reason for the death of nearly all early tranfusion patients. Even with all the technology available today, it is estimated that about one in 12,000 units of blood transfused in the United States is given to the wrong person.
Your body creates red blood cells at the astonishing rate of 2 million to 3 million per second! That's an amazing little factoid, but it makes you think: if your bone marrow is creating 2 million cells per second, it is doing so because 2 million blood cells are dying per second. Since a unit of blood, stored, waiting to be transfused, is about one tenth of a person's whole blood supply, that means that one tenth of that figure, about 200,000 red blood cells, are dying each second. If blood is stored for just one hour, that's 72,000,000 dead cells. I'm not feeling real great about 72,000,000 dead anything being pumped into my body. What's the number of dead cells after a day? A week? How long before they begin to putrify?
White blood cells come in many varieties. Some of them live for a year, but some die every 36 hours. So a unit of stored blood has millions of dead white cells in it also. Other blood constituents, such as antibodies and hormones, also begin to break down and die in stored blood.
In the normal course of things, these broken down and decaying blood constituents are filtered out by your liver and kidneys, and passed out of your body in your feces and urine. When a unit of blood is drawn from someone, some of this pre-feces-pre-urine material was on it's way to the donor's kidneys and liver, and got sidetracked into the IV needle, to be stored for someone's transfusion. If you're like me, you may be struggling to come to grips with how you would feel about having this quart of rotting material routed into your arteries. I think the word you're looking for is "eeeew."
But there's more. While blood is rushing around in your bloodstream, the motion generates a chemical called nitric oxide. Nitric oxide is vital to your blood's ability to carry oxygen. It helps dilate your smallest blood vessels to allow blood to squeeze through. If blood can't get to the smallest passageways, it can't offload it's oxygen. And transporting oxygen to your cells is kind of the whole point of transfusing blood.
However, when blood is removed from a donor and sits still in a storage bag, it no longer generates nitric oxide, and it immediately begins losing whatever nitric oxide it contains. Some tests indicate that stored blood has lost most of it's nitric oxide - hence most of it's oxygen-carrying capacity - within three hours of being removed from a donor. Three hours!
For these and other reasons, many doctors are taking a long, hard look at blood transfusions. Several studies have shown that patients that are treated without blood transfusions have shorter stays in the hospital, and fewer post-operative problems.
For example, it was reported this week that Dr Jimmy Chow of St. Luke's Medical Center in Phoenix has developed a micro-invasive hip replacement procedure. Hip replacement is typically a bloody operation, but Chow claims that with his method the patient loses no more than 200 cc's - about 6 ounces - of blood.
Next time you read a story that uses the expression "life saving blood transfusion," you might want to forward this article to the writer of that story.
Your comments are welcome. Comments containing insulting remarks or links will be deleted. If you would like to be notified when I publish a new column, simply click on the Subscribe button at the top of the page.
Comments
There are many hospitals that don't use blood at all now because of these reasons. As one of Jehovah's Witnesses I object to blood transfusions on scriptual grounds as the bible tells us to abstain from blood. Acts.15;20,28-29. The scriptures say that the soul is in the blood,Lev.17;11 and it was to be poured out to God as it was sacred anyone eating it was to be cut off from living. Jehovah has not changed,He still views it the same way.
Blood: I think I will stick to my own and if I lose enough to "need" a transfusion. . I will assume God is calling me home and I will go home.
thank you bonnie, and by being so ignorant about the reality of blood transfustions, you're showing us natural selection at work.
Great article Bill,
I am opting for major surgery next next month and will be sure to draw this to the attention of the surgical team
Unless you're going to a JW hospital - god forbid that these exist, I think you'll find that the surgical team will stare at you with poorly concealed horror, confusion and dismay.
I think u missed the entire point of the article and are ignoring the common sense that the intellectuals in the medical world are highlighting -- blood transfusions are extremely dangerous; medical people all around the world are moving away from using them for many reasons. AND, you don't have to be a JW.
How much are the 29 types of blood group different from each other.. as near to blood group.. like , near ones from blood group which we know.. can it be threatening that a person having A , plus with other type(any of 29 ..types) get only A.. it's not easy searching for same blood group then..
All one has to do is Google "bloodless surgery" and numerous info pops up that shows that blood transfusion today is as antiquated as can be. Let the surgeons themselves tell you how dangerous it is to accept blood. What a tremendous liability for practising surgeons to use blood. My dad was a doctor and a non practising Presbyterian but married to my mom who was on of Jehovah's Witnesses (dad became a JW after being married to mom for 40 years). Nevertheless, he refused prior to take blood because of all the research he read on the dangers of blood management. Infact, my father stopped smoking (while in medical school)in 1952 from an "Awake" magazine he read on the dangers of smoking. This is back when many doctors endorsed tobacco. Scientific research from a book entitled "Life-How Did it Get Here, by Evolution or Creation?" was what convinced my dad that Jehovah's Witnesses had this all correct. Examine for yourself their great research at www.watchtower.org or www.jw.org.
Nice job Brother
You are quite correct. So many things that have been supported in the past by the 'professionals' but went contrary to Bible advice has proven years later that the Bible had it right all along. I spent my first half of my life believing that if the Medical field says it is okay to do this or that, they must know. The Bible's stance on Blood as promoted by Witnesses has been heckled by the 'mainstream' for decades, but then two decades ago it all started to come out about the dangers of Blood, the ability to perform surgery without blood (bloodless surgery), etc. How wise the counsel from the Bible once again proves to be! At the turn of the last century, Doctors would go from the morgue to the operating room without cleaning their hands. Then they learned after many senseless deaths about carrying germs and the need to wash. Yet again, the Bible taught this centuries ago! Science once thought the world was flat. The Bible has long held that the Earth was round. When will we finally get it? Loved this article!! Good job Bill.
Love your comment.
Keep up the good work. I am always impressed by your well researched and timely articles. Thank you.
I agree with Michael. JW's have shown doctors throughout the world the dangers of blood transfusions. Listening to what the Bible says has saved the lives of thousands. The Bible is God's word and is as up to date as anyone can get.
As one of Jehovah's Witnesses I have already do not accept blood transfusions because of Gods command. It is interesting to see as time goes on that there are good medical reasons why we should follow Jehovah's laws. Thanks Bill for this article and others that you write.
As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I too, agree whole-heartedly with my fellow brothers and sisters !! Earlier this year, I came across a video on YouTube on Bloodless Surgery. A hospital in Cleveland, Ohio has been 'bloodless' for some time now and has attracted the attention of the US Armed Forces. Through a US Senator, the Armed Forces has been encouraged to look into non-blood management with the treatment of injured soldiers.
Their findings have proved that many Armed Forces personnel die because of receiving blood transfusions whereas, in using 'non-blood substitutes', many fully recover. The cost of managing a Blood Bank in the Military is hideously expensive whereas, keeping 'non-blood substitutes' on hand instead of blood in extremely inexpensive.
Look it up for yourself on YouTube under "Bloodless Surgery"!!
Kinda makes me wonder about blood plasma and how it adversely affects the medicines that are made using it.
Great article as always!! Thanks too for the recent re-entry to facebook so I can get alerts on your articles...I don't want to miss a single one! Keep up the good work!
JWs do not set their own laws. We follow what the Bible tells us to do. Please read Acts chapters 10 and 15. Jesus made plain the message would go to all the earth. Since all Christians were Jews and Jews had no contacts with Gentiles, How could this be? In chapter 10, Peter was shown by vision that everything was clean from Jehovah's standpoint. The nmatter was brought before the older men in Jerusalem. They agreed and ruled in 15:28 not to add any further burden on Gentiles becoming Christians than to abstain from blood and fornication. How much clearer can it be? JWs do not set their rules. We follow only what the Bible tells us. So our religious stand has proven well as this article shows. Bill, keep up your good work!
Good article, Bill. Very well researched! Anyone considering accepting blood transfusions should think twice.
Actually, there is very little science in this article and some misinformation. I would encourage you to seek out multiple information sources before deciding against a medical procedure that could save your life or the life of a loved one. My grandmother's life was saved by transfusion and she is fine. I thank God for that.
Of course anyone undergoing a life threatening procedure should research the risks. However an article cautioning against a potentially harmful procedure shouldn't be viewed as misleading, especially as it is not specifically endorsing an alternative as a means to make money. As your grandmother may have survived due to a transfusion, another end of the spectrum shows transfusions can kill, as my aunts mother was dye to be released from a hospital but they gave her a transfusion because they mentioned she "looked a bit anemic." blood us an organ and can be rejected by the body. The truth is blood transfusions are as antiquated as "blood letting" abd is based off of old misinformation.
Shorn.. My wife had open heart surgery 9 years ago. She told the Canadian surgeon that as one of Jehovahs Witnesses she would not accept a transfusion. She was surprised to hear what the surgeon had to say, to quote " I've done over a hundred of these ops. in the last 5 years and haven't used blood for three years." The op. included replacing a main valve in the heart. Six days after the op. she came home, healthy & happy. Similar situation with myself when a quarter of my cancerous large bowel was removed. My Australian doctor had the same attitude...
Also you can look into cell savers or cell salvage machines that they use to suck up your own blood clean it and put it right back into you.
Seems a no brainer to me.
As a jehovah's witness, i know he has already done enough research to know that using blood is more dangerous than its worth taking a risk for. Not to mention its against our practices, and we are told to abstain from blood. Dying and listening to what Jehovah has commanded us would be better off taking a chance with blood and having to answer for it when armageddon comes.
@ Andrew.
"As a jehovah's witness, i know he has already done enough research to know that using blood is more dangerous than its worth taking a risk for."
Bill may or may not have done any research. What is clear however, is that he is misrepresenting the data.
Bill babbles numbers, and clearly has no concept of their application - a clear sign of somone who would rather appear informed, but completetly fail to to more than read the words on the page - i.e. bill does not think about them.
Bill cites that one out of 12000 blood transfusions is given to the "wrong" person. He implies that this is a horrific rate that validates the paranoia of the JW faith.
While the statistics might be true, it is misrepresented, and bill is doing this on purpose. The ACTUAL statistic, when you look at it with anything more than a hysterical mind, is very, very dull.
a one in 12000 rate is actually0.083% chance, per unit.
Consider what this actually means - for example, you have a VASTLY greater chance of being hit by a car when you cross the road. You have a vastly greater chance of being in an airline crash AND being hit by a car AND being involved in a terroist attack - all these probabilities multiply up to be LESS than the probability of being given the wrong unit of blood.
So much for hysteria in that case.
consider also the misinformation that bill fails to point out, or probably even understand - being given the wrong blood type is not always fatal - In fact, you may have heard the term "universal Donor" or "universal Acceptor". A universal acceptor is those with a AB+ type blood - they can accept ANY blood type without complications. ergo it is impossible to give an AB+ person the "wrong" kind of blood. Ipsofacto, a "universal donor" is somone with O- type blood - ANYONE can be transfused with this blood - but O- can ONLY accept O-, and no other.
So - the real concern here is what bill is not telling you He is DELIBERATELY lying and misrepresenting your information.
1. the probability of getting the wrong blood type is almost stupidly low, you would have to receive many hundreds of transfustions before the probabilties of the "wrong" transfusion even approached similar danger levels to simply crossing the road.
2. Getting the "wrong" blood type is not necessarily fatal at all!
Bill has taken the idea of bloodless surgery as an excuse to bash his bible without actually understanding WHY bloodless surgery is useful. He thinks that it's because the JW says so - he has no idea that the motivations are much, much more tangible than his fabricaged myth.
I suggest that you probe into Bill-'s rants a little more than just his written words, often, his written words are contrived, misrepreseted and utterly disingenuous rubbish that fail to look further than his own nose - buried in his little book.
Will some survive after a blood transfusion? Of course, if it does not cause enough complications to cause death. But does this remove the fact that blood should not be used for this purpose? No. I'm happy that your Grandmother survived. That being the case, she would likely have survived by using a non-blood substitute and done much better in recovery, etc. Why? Because the only thing that the blood transfusion did for your grandmother was to provide her with VOLUME. She needed volume for the blood she lost. It has been found that our bodies cannot use the 'stuff' that comes from someone else blood. While this article did not go into the major depth of science behind blood transfusions, it brought out enough to warrant a closer look. You'll find that there is plenty of science available today to further support what this article brought out. Oh, and as for misinformation, where is it? I see no misinformation in this article. You should point it out rather than making a blanket statement. All the best. :-)
What are the specifics that you are talking about?
Actually blood isn't what saved her life. It was the volume of the blood keeping her veins from collapsing. It is you that needs to do some research ie google. I think this article was well written i recently did some research on Blood Transfusions myself for an essay I did in school. I was curious about the subject and wasn't sure what I would find, Infact your Grandma could have had coconut water transfused into her veins and you would have been thanking God for that because it probably would have worked. I came to the conclusion that I will not accept a blood transfusion myself in the future. Anyone who will accept a blood transfusion is a mindless sheep and is ignorant and would probably drink poison if someone told them it would save their life. In my research I found that before transfusing human blood docotors used pig or other animal blood and before that they thought that it was the blood that was causing what ever medical problem that they had and would drill a hole in their patients skull to drain their blood or slit their wrists, and before that they believed that it was demons that were the root of their illness. BRAVO to the many in the medical fields who are going agains the stream and finding the best medical treatments known. And thank you Jehovah's Witnesses and others who are doing their best to help no matter for what reason!
Shorn you need to be informed of the facts and hear what the doctors say how dangerous blood transfusione are and the risks involved. Blood transfusions may save some lives but that does not mean alternative medicine would not have saved the same life as well without the risks.
What an astonishing article. My daughter is facing an operation in which there is a 5% chance that she will need blood due to the complexity of her heart problem. Some docs and hospitals are as good as they may be are quick to use blood and others are hightly skilled at what they do and have decided not too for very good reason( too many risks and complications). Why I read that Barbara Bush recently had open heart surgery without blood at a hospital in Texas. Go Figure? The bible said it long ago and now the top hospitals in the country are on board. I want to send a message to all...advocate for yourself and your family. Don't believe everything the docs tell you. They will make you feel that you have no options when if fact you do. Do your research. Get 2nd and even 3rd opinions. Along with this article there are many others that point in the direction to stay away from someone elses blood. EEWW is right. How about GROSS!
My 4 year old is about to have her gall bladder removed.We have been dealing with a children's hospital in Atlanta who is not friendly to our view on blood,so we have decided to go to Birmingham to get care from doctors willing to work with us. Please if you are considering surgery, check into alternatives before accepting something so Filthy.
Well Blood is a money maker for the hospitals.
An average major surgery will bring in about $10k for the hospital, there are a lot of other charges related to it other than just the cost per unit.
That is the main reason many hospitals are so quick to use it.
YOUR blood might be filthy, but mine is sterile. It goes through my kidney at a rate of a few litres a minute, is constantly and automatically patrolled by virus-search-and-destroy cells, and has an exceptional haemoglobin count.
How sad that you think your blood is so filthy - what have you been doing with it???
lol - educate yourself.
Hope all goes well for her.
The fact is thousands die every year from blood transfusions even with blood screening. H.I.V. has a window period that doesnot always show up the infection untill latter. Hepatitis etc. So why run the risk when there are safe alternatives.
Just so we have the facts straight - 1 in 500,000 die as a result of transfusion. Not "thousands" every year. And Michael, I agree that alternatives should be sought, but Acts is about eating blood and sacrifice and has nothing what so every to do with blood transfusion.
if i had an alcohol problem, and ate or drank it or if i put it in my vein it is still going into your body!!!- Don't eat blood is the same as putting it into your body No matter how it is done- Just listen to the One who made you- He knows your design Better than you do--see Psalms 139:13-16-------That is why He has all His words inspired and preserved- it is your road map to life- Listen to Him!
They didn't do transfusions back in Bible times but the eating or taking it in the body is basicly the same thing. It was because the blood is holy to God . He told Noah to pour it out on the ground, the Mosaic Law said tonot eat. (of course actually would be drinking it) and under christian congregation said to be free from blood and fornication etc (showing it along same line) So 3 major points in Bibical history it says to be free from blood. It is pretty clear and is because it was holy to God. So would it be wrong to drink(eat) but ok to put in veins?
You differentiate eating from infusion?
So using that logic, if a doctor tells an Alcoholic that he must not drink alcohol because it will kill him, it is okay to infuse it?
Either way, it enters the body.
Why would God have a problem with eating Blood unless he did not want you to put it in your body?
Think!
2 PARTS What?? Acts 15:20, 28, 29 is not talking about blood transfusions, but only eating it??
Part 1
Okay lets reason... Why was the command not to eat blood issued? Because blood was set aside by God as a symbol, being held sacred for the future atonement of man. (That came later through the Christs shed blood, represented earlier by the blood of the lamb over the Israelites doorposts.) Why was blood chosen to be sacred? Because in Gods eyes it represented the soul (or life) in it. (Read Leviticus 17:11-14) Therefore, the soul of that life (person or animal) is represented by the blood! Whether you congeal it in sausage to eat it, dry it in order to snort it, drink it, soak it in through osmosis, or transfuse it...it represents the soul of that person or animal !
To further illustrate...lets reason...this command is a spiritual representation for Gods true followers to respect His right to call the shots, his sovereignty; the same principle that the forbidden tree represented in the Garden of Eden.
Part 2
To further illustrate...lets reason...this command is a spiritual representation for Gods true followers to respect His right to call the shots, his sovereignty; the same principle that the forbidden tree represented in the Garden of Eden.
However, with the gradual influx of false doctrine (immortality of the soul) some began to view Gods injunction on blood physically, instead of spiritually, (the same as Adam and Eve viewed the forbidden fruit physically instead of spiritually) and therefore began to think that the persons immortal 'soul' (life) was literally in the blood, and that eating that blood from another being would sustain the consumers life indefinitely. Beginning to sound familiar? That's right, the currently ever popular and disgusting Vampires! I even saw candy yesterday in our local small town "Bible belt" upper Midwest store...a blood bag of liquid strawberry candy! I Have pictures! If the commercial system sees the link, its certainly not out of range of our vision! After all, how do we sustain life, is it not by eating? Using blood to sustain life, whether eaten or transfused, is still a Vampire like use of blood to sustain life! And some might even consider it cannibalism as, "the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it." Consider before you stand in opposition to God!
I'm JW too I also belive what God says in the bible but my country Docs don't believe non use of blood is posible and JWs have many problems. I hope some of them read your research. it's really good
Shorn, the next time you or a loved one are in the hospital and can't eat, make sure and tell them not to feed you by IV; since you say it is not the same as eating. Taking blood by IV is the same as eating it...
watch youtube video www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAWhRqCjT9w
You mean the Jehaovah's Witnesses had it right all along? Who woulda thunk it?!
It's not that Jehovah's Witnesses 'had it right all along' -- it i s God who had it right -- from the beginning!
Shorn if the doctor told you to abstain from alchol would that mean you could inject it in your veins? He means not to take it into your system whatever way eat drink inject whatever the same is when God says to abstain from blood He means not to take it into your system eat drink inject whatever.We don't justify disobeying God's law just because we might think it could be a hardship on us.
Thanks for a most informative article. Never thought about the angle of all the dead cells that accumulate in stored blood. Someone complained about the lack of 'science' in this article. Who really needs scientists to tell you that putting dead blood cells into your system is bad for you? I'll make my own decisions, thank you. I had read elsewhere about the nitrous oxide issue.
Mr. Underwood, thanks for the honest reporting on this and other matters.
And there is more to worry about. Transfusions of contaminated blood continue to infect many, especially in countries where screening for HBV is limited or nonexistent. HBV is 100 times more infectious than HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Even a tiny amount of infected blood found on a razor can pass HBV and a DRIED BLOODSTAIN can remain infectious for a week or more.
The bottom line is - the Creator knows how his creation operates - what's good for them and what's bad for them. Mankind is intelligent to reason that any inventor has the instructions, do's and don'ts for their invention.
If the Creator says "no blood" - then, no blood. Just as the car maker will tell you that the car he made won't work or run if you put anything other than gas in the tank.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!