Have you read that doctors now say that blood transfusions may have killed millions? JW's were right!?
Duke University Study: "Blood Transfusions May Have Killed Millions"
That shocking headline appears over a recent issue of HSI Panelist Jon baron's Baseline of Health e-letter. And the details are sobering.
This past October, Jon reported on a Duke University study that revealed how blood transfusions sharply increase the risk of heart attack and death. Here's why: In the U.S., the law allows blood banks to store red blood cells for a maximum of 42 days. The problem is that stored blood begins to deteriorate very quickly. In fact, in the first day of storage there's a
70 percent drop in levels of the molecule that carries nitric oxide in the blood, severely compromising the blood's ability to deliver oxygen.
Then comes the second half of this double whammy: When blood is deficient in nitric oxide, it pulls nitric oxide out of surrounding tissue, causing it to constrict and become deoxygenated. Fatalities occur when that tissue happens to be heart tissue.
Two recent studies confirm the Duke results (clearly showing that blood stored more than 14 days can be quite dangerous), and add another danger: Transfusions increase stroke risk.
Jon writes: 'Blood transfusions have been used as a standard medical procedure for over 100 years. And now it turns out they may be responsible for many millions of unnecessary deaths worldwide during that time. How could this be? Unlike alternative health, modern medicine is based on science - not anecdotal evidence. So why didn't all those scientific studies on blood transfusions figure out those blood transfusions are, at best, an iffy proposition that should be reserved only for the most dire of emergencies?'
You can read Jon's full article on his web site at
- angelmusicLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
Even for those individuals who were "saved" by a blood transfusion, for many it came at a price.
Please check the National Hemophilia Foundation website.
And the Ricky Ray Act that the USA Congress passed. It awarded $100,000 dollars damages to many whose lives were ruined by a blood transfusion that was considered "safe".
Yes they are "alive", but their quality of life is so decimated, that the USA Congress gave these individuals each a gift of $100,000 taxpayer money to make up for the misery that blood transfusions caused them.
I know several of the recipients. Their life is no picnic.
"Keep abstaining from blood." - Acts 15:29Source(s): One of Jehovah's Witnesses
- JuliaLv 71 decade ago
One of my best friend's life was saved by a blood transfusion. They save far more lives than they harm. This is just another crazy conspiracy theory. Consider how many lives are SAVED by a blood transfusion. Doctors rarely do a blood transfusion unless it's absolutely medically necessary.
Let's say your child/spouse/whatever gets into a car crash. They are bleeding profusely and will almost definitely die from blood loss. What do you do? Would you rather have them almost certainly die from blood loss, or would you take the slight (almost nonexistent) risk of a heart attack?
This study is flawed. Have you ever considered that those who need blood transfusions the most are also the unhealthiest people? These people ALREADY have an elevated risk of heart attacks and death.
I'm sure the people who are against blood transfusions are the same uneducated fools who think vaccines are riskier than getting a disease, seatbelts kill people, etc...
- momLv 71 decade ago
thank you for sharing. yes many doctors are starting to do away with blood transfusions. how many people have blood transfusions and die. many times you read in the paper that whole families have died from it. even if I was not a Jehovah Witness I would never take of someones blood. I trust Jehovah more then I trust doctors who are always making mistakesSource(s): JJJ
- MicahLv 61 decade ago
Thank you so much for sharing this with us. More and more hospitals are using bloodless surgery to save lives. We have one here in Tampa, Fla that has a bloodless unit. Jehovah's Witnesses take full advantage of such procedures. Those who take blood have slower recovery time and are at risk of contracting hepatitis, AIDS, etc. from tainted blood.
As more and more hospitals become aware of this new technology, we will eventually see blood transfusions phased out completely. Then all people will be able to obey God's command regarding abstaining from blood.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Nevada SmithLv 71 decade ago
Per the link you posted, this was published May 12, 2008
- sugarbeeLv 71 decade ago
Two scriptures come to mind after reading your post:
Who knows us better than the One who created us and all things?
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I'm afraid, Brothers and Sisters, in this time of the end, we are going to have to rely on Jehovah for His approval without any acknowledgment from the world that Jehovah is always correct in the counsel He gives us. We know the medical benefits of abstaining from blood are important, but respect for Jehovah and His Regulations is always paramount among His people. This, the world could care less about.
- IJAHLv 61 decade ago
Jehovah god was right! he was the reason we abstained.Twice they said take blood or you will surly die!!! HA! No blood for me + God is my only trusting source of information and study of the bible has saved my life many many times.
- hunterLv 61 decade ago
Thanks,I copied and pasted your link on an Email and sent it out to all on my list.
A long time ago and even today many call JWs scum -but they forgot scum rises to the top .
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Following Jehovah's Law on blood indeed saves lives. :-)