Microbes

[Francis king]

thanks for replying, mee

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by mee

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.

Well I could not check the sources you quote as they charge a lot of money for the privelige. However I did check out some other studies specificly in regard to organ transplant and transfusion of blood products. It seems that there is indeed a significant (up to 8%) decrease in survival rates that is linked to the number of units of blood recieved. However this can be misleading as those that recieve a lot of blood usually do so due to complications during surgery and this in itself has not been discounted as the cause for the lower survival rate. No two cases are ever identical and there are variables that are very difficult to factor in.
When a surgeon has a problem of bleeding and significant blood loss it is ridiculous to think that witholding transfusion will aid that patiant. The perfectly smooth running surgery often requires no transfusion but when it does then it will greatly increase the survival potential of that patiant. So in one respect you are correct in quoting survival statistics but they are presented in a scewed way to support your contention and do not represent the chances of survival should blood be witheld. It is a dishonest logic that you use to support your claims.

TE

[mee]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

When a surgeon has a problem of bleeding and significant blood loss it is ridiculous to think that witholding transfusion will aid that patiant.

TE

there are other means to stop bleeding , it is not a case of withholding medical treatment, just one aspect of it , and that is blood . it would be ridiculous to stop treatment as you say.
Are there legitimate and effective ways to manage serious medical problems without using blood? Happily, the answer is yes.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by mee

there are other means to stop bleeding , it is not a case of withholding medical treatment, just one aspect of it , and that is blood . it would be ridiculous to stop treatment as you say.
Are there legitimate and effective ways to manage serious medical problems without using blood? Happily, the answer is yes.

I stated witholding transfusion, not treatment. And I think it is absolutely clear I am refering to cases where bleeding has caused significant blood loss.

[mee]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I stated witholding transfusion, not treatment. And I think it is absolutely clear I am refering to cases where bleeding has caused significant blood loss.

remember it is not transfusions that JW refuse ,it is only the blood ones that they refuse . there are other alternatives to transfuse .

[mee]

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.

[mee]

We have clear evidence that Jehovah God takes a keen interest in the health of mankind. Our immune system provides striking proof of this concern. Many laws that Jehovah gave to ancient Israel revealed his desire to protect them from infectious diseases.
The Mosaic Law contained instructions regarding waste disposal, sanitation, hygiene, and quarantine. Dr. H. O. Philips noted that "the facts of life, diagnosis, treatment, and preventive medicine as given in the Bible are far more advanced and reliable than the theories of Hippocrates."

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by mee

We have clear evidence that Jehovah God takes a keen interest in the health of mankind. Our immune system provides striking proof of this concern. Many laws that Jehovah gave to ancient Israel revealed his desire to protect them from infectious diseases.
The Mosaic Law contained instructions regarding waste disposal, sanitation, hygiene, and quarantine. Dr. H. O. Philips noted that "the facts of life, diagnosis, treatment, and preventive medicine as given in the Bible are far more advanced and reliable than the theories of Hippocrates."

Well can you copy and paste these Mosaic Laws that pertain to waste disposal, sanitation, hygiene, and quarantine.? - so that I might interpret them for myself

[mee]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Well can you copy and paste these Mosaic Laws that pertain to waste disposal, sanitation, hygiene, and quarantine.? - so that I might interpret them for myself

why not read the bible for yourself ,
Leviticus 13:1-59; 14:38, 46; Deuteronomy 23:13) This is remarkable considering that much of Egyptian medicine in Moses’ day was a dangerous mixture of quackery and superstition. In developing lands today, millions could be spared from disease and death if the standards of hygiene taught by Moses were practiced.
For instance, laws requiring the burying of human waste, the quarantining of the sick, and the washing of anyone who touched a dead body were many centuries ahead of the times.—Leviticus 13:4-8; Numbers 19:11-13, 17-19; Deuteronomy 23:13, 14.

[mee]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

Oh a cut and paste from the JW teaching titled "Blood Transfusions - How safe?" Seriously... You must be very trustworthy... I mean, you do not even know that is fact....

oh yes, i am glad you mentioned that ,here is another good read a very informative brochure , i like the way that it is very factual and lists many many medical people in the brochure . i enjoyed reading about what the medical people have to say . here is a link to that brochure , very informative indeed.How Can Blood Save Your Life?
Presents moral and medical aspects regarding the use of blood, and shows how this bears

[mee]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Well I could not check the sources you quote as they charge a lot of money for the privelige.

i thought that these were quite interesting.
Jehovah's Witnesses—The Surgical/Ethical ChallengeReprinted with permission of the American Medical Association from The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), November 27, 1981, Volume 246, No. 21, pages 2471, 2472. Copyright 1981, American Medical Association.Blood: Whose Choice And Whose Conscience?Reprinted by permission of the New York State Journal of Medicine, 1988; 88:463-464, copyright by the Medical Society of the State of New York.

[Tao_Equus]

Well what do you expect it to say, keep a barrel of your family body wastes in your kitchen? Even a cat burries its waste. Wash your hands after dealing with a corpse......refers to cleaning it of expelled waste at death no doubt....duh!! Someone gona leave **** of the dead on their hands? I dont think so.
Tired of hearing this line from you Mee. Its so weak. Its like a broken record. Tired of your endless links to swill. Congratulate your programers for me....tell them they did a fine job.

[17th Angel]

Mee, your a right wind up merchant eh? lol....

[Virtual_Cliff]

Originally Posted by mee

Guns were not around at one time but would it be ok to kill someone with a gun , or would the princible of return your sword to its place apply still. Jehovahs witnesses have medical treatment , but we still stick to the commands from God .

Now this is interesting. The world changes, you say, but the Bible doesn't. So you have to interpret the biblical text to extract what was the important thing it was telling us. So guns = swords. Fine.

What is the important thing that the verses dealing with consumption of blood telling us? Perhaps it is a prohibition on the ritual drinking of blood to gain the animal spirit, practised in some cultures even today. Perhaps it is a prohibition on consuming an animal's blood and keeping the animal alive, which still happens within some tribes in the Sahara. Or simply a prohibition on eating raw meat, as suggested in one of the verses.

What do you think? Remember this has to be interpreted for today's world, where we have transfusions, not simply read as written. Which of these interpretations is the most likely to be correct?

-cliff

[LeoSalinas22]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Well what do you expect it to say, keep a barrel of your family body wastes in your kitchen? Even a cat burries its waste. Wash your hands after dealing with a corpse......refers to cleaning it of expelled waste at death no doubt....duh!! Someone gona leave **** of the dead on their hands? I dont think so.
Tired of hearing this line from you Mee. Its so weak. Its like a broken record. Tired of your endless links to swill. Congratulate your programers for me....tell them they did a fine job.

you really don't see it do you, tao? you don't think it is strange at all that all these Laws were written and applied centuries before man came up with medical science? these seem common sense today because we have better means of cleaning up like shower, toothpaste, toilet paper, etc. but no one really had these things back then. i mean no toilet paper?! what the heck would people use then. rocks. leaves. we were alot more filthy back then. man, thank God for wipies!