themallHunt:


S H A M E. S H A M E. S H A M E >>>>> S H A M E. S H A M E. S H A M E. The same David who you claim broke the mosaic law refused to drink the water of blood and I wonder if king David is a Christian for him to follow the new law of christ
Of course people like you continue to accuse our father eternal, Jesus Christ of breaking a sabbath law, just like your predecessors, the pharisees and the scribes and the Sadducees all H Y P O C R I T E S.

But how can a man who fails to comprehend a simple conversation between Jesus and the H Y PO C R I T E S about the sabbath, be able to reason the law on abstinence. H Y P O C R I T E. I hope you are 70 years old so that it can remain the biggest rip off you will ever see in your entire life.

#SoCalledBroadWay please stay on that road because your heart has become like JI your predecessor!

Hairyrapunzel:

Sucide bombers die for what they believe in. If religious doctrines will make you kill yourself either by refusing a medical procedure or bombing yourself you are still killing yourself it is different from people killing you because of what you believe in

Blood transfusion is a medical procedure. You cant compare a medical Doctor to a witch doctor they are not and will never be thesame thing. If you receive care and certain drugs and procedures from medical doctors you have no right to equate them to witch doctors and their concotions. Your analogy is false and deceitful. Let me ask you some questions

The Bible verses against “taking in blood” refer to eating or drinking it. What scripture extends this to blood transfusion?

If the scriptures ban blood transfusion why do you allow transfusion/injection of all blood fractions while banning transfusion of whole blood?

Why do JWs to accept all the separate components of plasma, yet forbid plasma itself?

Why are components such as platelets (0.17% of blood volume) and white cells (1% of blood volume) forbidden whereas a larger component like albumin (2.2%) is allowed?

What sort of ethics allows JWs to accept numerous Watchtower -permitted blood products and benefit from the donated blood of non-JWs, yet not allow them to contribute to the blood supply?

Since permitted haemophiliac treatments require collection and storage of massive quantities of blood (up to 2,500 units for a single treatment), why does the WTS forbid JWs from storing their own blood? Why the double standard?

Could you, as a JW, please explain to me which blood therapies you can accept, which you cannot, and why the difference?” “I am especially interested in knowing where the Bible explains which parts of the blood you may or may not accept? It's important that I understand what you are thinking and why you are prepared to die over this issue if non-blood alternatives are exhausted

JMAN05:


I dont see ur point. my analogy is quite fitting, just that you dont understand it. Secondly, you assume that any who refuse to take blood transfusion inevitably dies. Thats very wrong.


I never said every one who refuses blood transfusion inevitably dies. I said blood transfusion is necessary in some cases and if you refuse it will lead to death in these cases. When some people refuse blood they die. I never said all. What is doing good on sabbath. Is it that on sabbath days it's only bad things that happen? I remember a commandment from the old Testament that said remember the sabbath day and keep it holy. Or are you equating holy to bad? My point is life is important to Jesus Christ and God. They where used to doing good things on sabbath day.


You missed the point. the point is on his medical procedure to save life. his procedure is unscriptural just like that of the doctor was unscriptural. The questions remains:

For example: you are sick, and your friend recommended a concoction mixed by a witch doctor. This mixture has worked for people having similar illness. But you refuse it cos you don't want to accept anything from demons. That's your faith. You died in that sickness. Did you die as a matyre? Did you kill yourself or died for what you believe?

OK let's say you have been collecting other concotions from the witch doctor to save your life but you refuse to collect one particular concotion to save your life because you say it is unscriptural if you die you didn't die a matyr because you have been collecting other concoctions from thesame witch doctor to survive. You didnt die a martyr, you killed yourself and you didnt die from what you believed in cos you accepted other concotions from the witch doctor. Abstaining from Blood transfusion isn't biblical.


Taking in hard drugs is banned, but what if you inject it throught your veins, can you be accused of having taking hard drugs?

Whether taking through the vein or eating it, it accomplishes the same thing.

Hard drugs cannot be likened to a blood transfusion. Eating blood will never give you thesame effect as blood transfusion. Blood transfusion is not food. Taking blood through veins and eating blood never accomplishes thesame thing

Hard drugs have thesame effects whether you smoke ,eat, inject or sniff it gives thesame effect. Eating blood and blood transfusion never and will never have thesame effect. If you like o eat, sniff, smoke blood they will never accomplish thesame thing blood transfusion will accomplish

Imagine a scenerio you have two patients in coma and they need nutrient and are hypoglycemic. They start one on total parenteral nutrition ie intravenous feeding and they start the other on blood transfusion who do you think will survive? The one on total parenteral nutrition


In the book Hemorrhage and Transfusion, by George W. Crile, A.M., M.D., who quotes a letter from Denys, French physician and early researcher in the field of transfusions. It says: “In performing transfusion it is nothing else than nourishing by a shorter road than ordinary—that is to say, placing in the veins blood all made in place of taking food which only turns to blood after several changes.”

Crile was not really stating his own opinion, he was quoting Jean Baptiste Denys, a French physician that lived during the 1600’s and who had passed away in the year 1704. What follows is the complete quote from the original book as it appears in Chapter VII "A Brief History Of Transfusion."


[b]"In the same year Denys of Montpellier, wrote concerning experiments which he performed on animals. He followed Lower's method in a general way except that he did not withdraw enough blood from the donor to cause death. He also tried transfusion from three calves to three dogs with success in each case. In a letter to M. de Montmore he describes two transfusions which he made on patients. His idea was that "In practicing transfusion one can only imitate the example of nature which, in order to nourish the fetus in the uterus of the mother, makes a continuous transfusion of the blood of the mother into the body of the infant through the umbilical vein. In performing transfusion it is nothing else than nourishing by a shorter road than ordinary--that is to say, placing in the veins blood all made in place of taking food which only turns to blood after several changes." (Crile, George W. Hemorrhage and Transfusion: An Experimental and Clinical Research; pp. 153,154 New York And London D. Appleton And Company 1909)
[/b]
When viewed in its proper context, it is apparent that Crile was simply providing a historical narrative of the early research in this field and had not actually agreed with the humorous level of ignorance that he had found in a 252 year old (in 1909) research paper. No surgeon in 1909 would have agreed either with Deny’s conclusion or the premises upon which he based that conclusion ---that food "only turns to blood after several changes" and that the blood of the mother was continuously transfused into the body of the infant. If this were true, as Watchtower writers well knew, it would have justified transfusion as a natural rather than a preternatural therapy.

Watchtower writers were not only ignorant, but dishonest as well. So you misquote people because you want to prove a point? This is being deceitful. look for the book and read instead. So your watchtower uses centuries old references well I am not suprised.



All those fractions of the primary blood components are not allowed. If you think its wrong to accept it, then dont accept it.

The bible forbade blood transfusion whether for hemophiliac treatment or otherwise.

I am talking about rhogam and other immunoglobulins, albumin, factor 8 and 9 derived from plasma. So the bible says that you should abstain from primary blood components and accept minor component of blood plasma donated by other people?

OK another question since acts 15 said we should abstain from blood and from fornication, and you allow the fractions listed above what fractions of fornication are allowed in your religion?


I ve told you. maybe you werent paying attention.

Hairyrapunzel:

1. Lol 2 sam 23 vs 15-17. 15David had a craving and said, "Oh that someone would give me water to drink from the well of Bethlehem which is by the gate!" 16So the three mighty men broke through the camp of the Philistines, and drew water from the well of Bethlehem which was by the gate, and took it and brought it to David. Nevertheless he would not drink it, but poured it out to the LORD; 17and he said, "Be it far from me, O LORD, that I should do this. Shall I drink the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives?" Therefore he would not drink it. These things the three mighty men did.…
The same David poured out water in place of blood for the lives of the men who risked their lives to get the water. It is still for life. Life is sacred. Life is important not blood. Life of human beings is what is sacred not their blood.


WHAT A GREAT DUMB BLIND! I am still ROTF
(a) Shall I drink the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives?" To you this statement shows that blood is not important but life. Why are you always in a double speak. Are you related to Donald J. T. Ah ah.
(b) So the water in this instance does NOT represent the blood that then represent the life?!
(c) So in this instance he should have taken the water, since his "life" is more important than the water? - INTODUCTION TO LOGIC. Come and see American Wonder, Come and see American Wonder, Come and see American Wonder, Come and see American Wonder.tralalala
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. When you understand the conversation between Jesus and the pharisees you will know that there is something called life and life is important.

Alright sire
_____________________________________________________________________

So if you accept blood transfusion or support accepting it you will not make eternal life hmmmm this is the first time I am hearing of this abi it is only in your bible. So refusing blood transfusion is now a criteria for eternal life. LOL

Oh , I don't know about that, and as you rightly observed, the ancient physician knows nothing about blood transfusions, and I guess from your own earlier submissions, God did not remember to remind the apostles to prophesy Christian position with respect to blood transfusions and I sure never said the above except in reply to your abusive comments about choice of non-blood medical procedure over whole blood transfusions. But one thing I would tell you in EMMANUELLA's voice is to "use your head"
___________________________________________________________________________
I love your so called broad way. You sound angry, aggressive and frustrated. If your narrow way is full of people like you there will be so much hatred, wickedness, selfishness and sadness. SHAME SHAME SHAME
Hehehehehehehe , hehehehehehehehe , Hihihhihihihihihih , Hohohohohohohoho , Hahahahahahahah
_________________________________________________________________________________
Jesus Christ healed someone on sabbath which was unlawful for people to do deal with the situation. And abstaining from blood transfusion isn't biblical. SHAME ON YOU
unlawful for people
Is it not the apostates, hypocrites, scribes who said it was unlawful in that instant?! If it is unlawful for people, is it also unlawful for the divine one? Is it also unlawful for our Savior? .
Teacher no teach me nonsense ooo. Jesus NEVER BROKE ANY LAW. But people like said he did back in the day and you will remain one of their offsprings if you continue to accuse the eternal father of sins. Leave their camp.

In Acts 15 it said abstain from blood and from fornication. I am aware that you people accept other fractions of blood e.g albumin, immunoglobulins, factor 9 concentrate etc. So if the bible told us to accept some fractions of blood what fractions of fornication are we to accept? #HYPOCRITES. LIAR LIAR
(a) So In Acts 15 it said abstain from blood and from fornication OK!

(b) While some Christians may drink albumin, immunoglobulins, factor 9 concentrate etc some choose to eat fat, bone marrow or even unbled meat (if their conscience allows). But as you noted "In Acts 15 it said abstain from blood and from fornication"

(c) I am just hearing for the first time that fornication and the law on blood are in fractions!
I'm off to researching the species of humans who can be described as spiritually blind bats.

......................................................................................................................................................................................
So this is how you instill fear in people. You tell them if they accept blood transfusion they will not make eternal life. SHAME ON YOU. I think JI the predecessor I don't even know what JI means though sounds like a happy, good and peaceful person, doesn't like the death of human beings, not judgemental, doesn't tell people if they accept blood transfusion they won't make eternal life. ThIS JI SOUNDS REALLY NICE
OH, OH! So hell fire does not instill fear in people. It is to choose non-blood medical management, praised and hailed by Christians, Moslems, Buddhists, atheists, doctors, chaplains-in-battle etc that instils fear in peolple who choose from the beginning to do that...
#SoCalledBroadWay please stay on that road because your heart has become like JI your predecessor!

Hairyrapunzel:

FlirtyKaren:
http://www.lailasblog.com/2017/02/jehovah-witness-lady-dies-after-refusing-transfusion-childbirth-photo.html

softwerk:
Surprisingly the church allowed her to receive Semen from her husband that got her pregnant in the first place but NOT his blood to save her life?! I'm not understanding this Ohh

newyorks:
faith gone wrong.rip pretty

benzics:
How foolish can religious people be? The doctor should have transfused the blood by force, let's see what she would do after a successful childbirth. Modified: though it's wrong, but if you can die for your beliefs, you can as well kill for your beliefs.. So you are a real problem to the society... That's how suicide bombers are formed, they believe dying and killing for their beliefs are right, I see no difference here

Heavance:
A serious example of what people say " die with what you believe in".

hopefulLandlord:
Mynd44 sounds like he's ignorant of JW's antics

Hairyrapunzel:
Lol, #ILOVETHESOCALLEDBROADWAY.

themallHunt:

The number of blood transfusion yearly are in millions. Blood is given in fractions these days not whole blood you hardly give whole blood. Do you know you resuscitate using fluids before you use blood? Most people get to survive before even needing a blood transfusion. When you need it you need it no alternative will work.I said when you need a blood transfusion and you choose to die instead of taking it and you die you killed yourself which is sucide. You even lied to drive home your point that blood transfusion increased risk of heart disease. You didnt even read the write up you just took the heading. LIAR LIAR


LET ME GIVE SOMETHING TO GLOAT ABOUT BECAUSE YOU'VE RUN OUT OF STEAM.
The following arguments based on work of those who should know; Blood is a profitable business for hospitals (and the Red Cross), just like anti-retroviral drugs in the hands of big drug and pharmaceutical companies. In such instances hospitals tend to be reluctant to consider alternatives. But you would NOT know
With about 2, 827 hospitals providing comprehensive bloodless medicine and surgery programs in the U.S.A, and only 127 hospitals in 31 mostly northern states of the U.S - 53 of which are only in 5 states - leaving only a few in other countries in the entire world, it is easy to see why Christians may find it challenging to get the care they want and need.
If there were bloodless medicine and surgery programs in every hospital in the world, do you really think there would be anywhere near so many casualties among Christians? Of course not, because they would be getting the care we need when we need it. So there are evil people like you, who turn the word of God and it commandments upside - down and gleefully condemn any who may want to to obey them, by making sure that use whatever is in their power ridicule, oppress, deny and to cause HATE. But you would NOT know

My point is there are cases where only blood transfusion will work. At least you have agreed that blood transfusion has helped people not only soldiers in war you don't have to be a soldier before blood transfusion. If soldiers are human beings other people are human beings too. The scriptures did not say blood transfusion. The scriptures have been in existence for thousands of years. Blood transfusion has been for centuries. But blood transfusion ban has been si ce 1945. So it is a man made doctrine. When it comes to saving lives you don't need what is not in the scriptures. So now blood transfusion is materialism lol. Life is very important
Saying people should kill themselves over a law not in the bible is wickedness and shows you have no conscience for human life. SHAME SHAME SHAME. Not only have people died so many people have still survived. Nobody is saying technology is not helpful. There are situations when you will require blood transfusion. People have benefited from technology. You cant compare an underdeveloped country to a developed country. You die from refusal of blood transfusion doesn't guarantee you eternal life. Those dead souls had a chance to live but chose to die as a result of a man made belief. People bomb places and human beings on religious grounds so we should applaud them. No religion has a right to impose that kind of belief on anyone. Any religion that imposes a ban on a medical procedure is a false religion and a cult. They have no right to interfere with treatment which can save life.

So much rubbish. So since you can't compare an underdeveloped country to a developed country, therefore sacredness of one of God's law will have to be interpreted by different countries as it suits them. So if you die from refusal of blood transfusion it doesn't guarantee you eternal life, but if you die after refusing blood transfusion you will go to heaven to live with the angels and if you live after refusing a blood transfusion you will be condemned to hellfire. S H A M E ON PHARISEES and HYPOCRITES

The bloodiest star comment of the year, on behalf of all haters is..Blood is given in fractions these days not whole blood you hardly give whole blood








I now return to the first paragraph where I find a typical example of inferiority complex. Our third world country people, like you, proposing different behavior for underdeveloped country Christians and developed country Christians. S-H-A-M-E ON ALL PHARISEES and HYPOCRITES

themallHunt:
BLOOD I: Very useful but NOT the Almighty
Transfusions kill patients, say doctors
@jeremylaurance
Thursday 11 February 1999 00:02 GMT
1. BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS given routinely to tens of thousands of critically ill patients may be killing them, doctors have found.
Canadian researchers have found that giving extra blood, despite its essential role in maintaining life, can cause more harm than good in those who have been thought in greatest need of it.
2. The unexpected finding, from a study of more than 800 critically ill patients, will deliver a serious blow to the idea of accident victims being stretchered into hospital with a bag of life-giving blood suspended above them.
3. Doctors had assumed that any means of boosting oxygen supply to the body's tissues in those who were seriously ill would improve their chances of survival. But the Canadian research shows that critically ill patients who received more blood were up to twice as likely to die as those who received less.
4. In Britain, an estimated 800,000 patients receive blood transfusions each year, most after routine surgery, and demand for blood is rising. Using less blood would also save costs and conserve a scarce resource.
5. The aim of a transfusion is to restore levels of haemoglobin, the oxygen- carrying constituent of red blood cells. Normal levels of haemoglobin range from 14 to 17 grams per decilitre. In the Canadian study, half of the 838 seriously unwell patients were given enough blood to raise their haemoglobin over 10 grams per decilitre, while the other half were restricted to only 7-9 grams per decilitre, half the normal level. One third of the restricted group received no blood at all.
6. On average the restricted group received three units of blood (one and a half litres) less than the unrestricted group - but more of them survived. Among patients under 55 and the less severely ill, those who received less blood (or no blood at all) were half as likely to die as those who received more. The only exceptions were patients with heart attacks and unstable angina (chest pain).
7. Dr Paul Hebert and his colleagues from the University of Ottawa say in the New England Journal of Medicine: "Our findings indicate that the use of a threshold ... as low as 7 grams of haemoglobin per decilitre ... was at least as effective as and possibly superior to a liberal transfusion strategy ... in critically ill patients."
8. It is well-known that giving too much blood or other infusions can cause heart attacks or water on the lungs because of the effort required to pump the extra liquid round the body. But the researchers found these factors could not explain the differences they found.
9. In a commentary on the findings, Wesley Ely and Gordon Bernard of the Vanderbilt School of Medicine, Nashville, say it is difficult to explain the harm caused by liberal transfusion. One possibility is that a transfusion, like a transplant, delivers a shock to the immune system. "Harmless" viruses in the blood may also be implicated.
10. They say more trials are needed to determine the best treatment for critically ill patients. "With such knowledge, more physicians will be able to adhere to the dictum `first do no harm', and we will have a surplus of blood for transfusion rather than a shortage."

themallHunt:
BLOOD V: Will this happen with non blood medical management

MOBARA, Japan, Dec. 21 (UPI) -- A 92-year-old woman died in Mobara, Japan, after receiving a transfusion of a wrong blood type after a nurse mixed her name with another patient.

A nurse at a public hospital in the Chiba prefecture mixed up the blood type of the woman who was type O with a man with the same surname who had type A blood, the Mainichi Daily News reported.

Nagao Hospital officials apologized to the woman's family, reported the case to the police and promised to ensure such a mishap would not be repeated.

Hospital officials said the woman was hospitalized Dec. 17 for a broken leg and underwent surgery Friday. After the operation she was given the transfusion. Her condition subsequently worsened and she died after her internal organs failed.

themallHunt:
BLOOD IV: Something may go fatally wrong even if we complied with the stringent transfusion protocol and guidelines
Man dies after blood transfusion reaction

A Tuen Mun Hospital patient has died after suffering a rare, major blood transfusion reaction.

The 52-year-old man was admitted for a red-cell blood transfusion on January 3. After two hours of transfusion he went into shock with severe shortness of breath and a drop in blood pressure. He was transferred to the intensive care unit, and died at 2:16am today.

Secretary for Food & Health Dr York Chow expressed his sincere condolences to the patient's family. He said he is concerned about the case and has instructed an independent expert panel to try every means to track down the likely contamination source, and examine the blood collection, donation and administration procedures to minimise future risks.

The hospital will keep in close communication with the patient's family and render all necessary support.

The case will be referred to the Coroner.

The hospital has confirmed the staff conducting the transfusion complied with the stringent transfusion protocol and guidelines. It also confirmed the blood being transfused had been stored and handled properly.

Laboratory tests found the Pseudomonas fluorescens bacterium in the patient's blood and the blood bag. Further tests are underway.

The hospital said the case was a rare blood transfusion reaction and involved no staff or system error. It has formed an expert panel chaired by Hong Kong University Prof KY Yuen to investigate the case and submit a report to the Hospital Authority.

The authority has reminded public hospitals and staff to ensure strict compliance of transfusion procedures. The Blood Transfusion Service will review blood-collection procedures, screening and dispatching, and will remind frontline staff to strictly observe transfusion guidelines and report irregularities.

themallHunt:
Time to Draw the tail of the...







Long-term survival after blood transfusion.

Vamvakas EC
Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Taswell HF

Look-back investigations of populations of patients admitted to major tertiary-care hospitals in the 1980s found a 2-year posttransfusion mortality rate in excess of 50 percent. To quantify the association of blood transfusion with mortality in a more broadly based population, a cohort of all residents of a United States county who underwent transfusion in 1981 was studied.
Retrospective cohort study comprised 802 county residents. Complete follow-up (until death or for 10 years) was available on 93.9 percent.

The median length of survival was 95.0 (+/- 2.5) months. Twenty-four percent of patients died within 1 year after the transfusion, 30 percent within 2 years, 40 percent within 5 years, and 52 percent within 10 years. The relative risk of death within 10 years increased by 4.1 percent per unit of red cells (p < 0.0001), by 1.2 percent per unit of platelets (p = 0.0003), and by 7.3 percent per unit of fresh-frozen plasma (p = 0.0018) received in 1981, after adjustment for the effects on mortality of age, gender, and number of days of hospitalization in 1981.

CONCLUSION:
Receipt of a blood transfusion can be used as a descriptive epidemiologic index of morbidity in the general population, as it is independently predictive of mortality, adding to the predictive value of age, gender, and previous hospitalization. There is a dose-response relationship between the amount of blood components received and a reduction in the subsequent length of survival. However, when a county's entire population is studied, posttransfusion mortality due to underlying disease is substantially lower than that previously reported in look-back investigations.

But this OP below will say


OYA, Corn don land oo

themallHunt:
BLOOD III: Medically safe but something may go fatally wrong

Man, 84, Dies After Blood Transfusion Error at Brooklyn Hospital (Patients' blood is being sent elsewhere for testing while officials investigate)

Officials say an 84-year-old patient died after getting a transfusion of the wrong blood type at a Brooklyn hospital.
The city's Health and Hospitals Corp. said the patient died at Coney Island Hospital on June 9.
The hospital's lab misidentified the patient's blood type, according to the Daily News.

The state Health Department has ordered the city-run hospital to send patients' blood elsewhere for testing.
In a statement, the HHC said "our deepest condolences go out to the family."
According to the News, such errors typically occur in about one of every 14,000 transfusions.

Hairyrapunzel:


For every fourteen thousand persons in this brooklyn hospital one person may have an error related transfusion reaction. It is very rare still.
I think you have a phobia for blood transfusion and not bible based issue cos it isn't bible based in the first place.
One persons reaction doesn't mean transfusion is bad. It is rare for transfusion related reaction to happen. You have still not given a study that said millions of people yearly die or have transfusion related reaction.

Hairyrapunzel:


This study is faulty because the indication of blood transfusion in the first place is not even there. And there was no comparative study on people who received non blood alternatives for thesame illnesses and the same factors. You cant just make a conclusion based on the abstract from a study. So you cannot conclude that blood transfusion is the sole cause of reduced survival rate.

However, when a county's entire population is studied, posttransfusion mortality due to underlying disease is substantially lower than that previously reported in look-back investigations.

So at the end of the day the researchers didn't say blood transfusion is bad. Infact in underlying disease post transfusion mortality is lower to a great extent in this study.

Hairyrapunzel:


Every procedure has side effects. The side effects happen rarely. Blood transfusion doesn't kill all patients who receive it. It rarely ever kills. I know you have phobia for it don't tell me bible related bullshit

Hairyrapunzel:
The woman is 92 years sef. There are side effects in everything