Jump to content
JWTalk - Jehovah's Witnesses Online Community

World health organization promotes blood transfusions safety.


We lock topics that are over 365 days old, and the last reply made in this topic was 3883 days ago. If you want to discuss this subject, we prefer that you start a new topic.

Recommended Posts

WHO is going to be embroiled in legal battles later on for this. Considering the fact that there are HIV-I (blood bourne) and HIV-2 (bodily fluids), and 3 subgroups to HIV-1, with more yet to come I think (there are several different combinations of blood type, when adding in the Rh factor and if you took permutations and combinations in any math course, these variants can lead to a whole swack of possibilities all of them not good).

AND this is for HIV only! Never mind the Hep viruses and whatever else might be undergoing research and those NOT YET discovered.

With this knowledge, no one in their right mind, Jehovah's Witness or not would see a blood transfusion as a good thing. Prior to becoming associated with Jehovah's people, I would have never accepted blood for this reason. All doctors I've talked to said the try to avoid it, and most patients request some alternative anyhow.

WHO are they trying to kid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I reflect on my post above, I'm struck once again by the loving kindness expressed for us by Jehovah. Like a loving parent who keeps their child away from a hot stove, or any other item that has the potential to harm us greatly - he has put up a safeguard around it, and educated us as to its dangers.

Yet another reason for us to sincerely love him and praise his wisdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

World health organization promotes blood transfusions safety.

http://www.who.int/bloodsafety/en/

The World's No.1 Science & Technology News Service -Bad blood' causes hundreds of unnecessary

deaths - 19:00 25 September 2002

Yet in the use TRALI ranks as one of the top three causes of death from blood transfusions

in the US and Britain with between one and five deaths reported each year on average. But those

figures are a gross underestimate of the threat, experts say. Patricia Kopko of BloodSource, a blood

bank in northern California, says researchers now agree that TRALI occurs in about one in 5000

transfusions, which means there are at least 5300 TRALI reactions per year in the US alone,

and something like 500 deaths.

From: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992840

We can only image how many deaths TRALI cause worldwide. It seem they hide the facts of the

number who die from transfusion, maybe they do this because no one might use blood anymore and

so much money will be lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is also no standardization of how the blood is typed. One organization will type it one way, and another will type it using some entirely different process. Which leads to confusion when obtaining blood for transfusion.

In my own case, I was typed by Canadian Blood Services upon my birth as AB+. You might imagine my surprise when I typed my own blood in university and discovered that I was B+

Thinking because I'm a cheese eating university student, that I was the one who was wrong. I went to my doctor and had it typed by the lab at the clinic. Turns out I was right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is also no standardization of how the blood is typed. One organization will type it one way, and another will type it using some entirely different process. Which leads to confusion when obtaining blood for transfusion.

In my own case, I was typed by Canadian Blood Services upon my birth as AB+. You might imagine my surprise when I typed my own blood in university and discovered that I was B+

Thinking because I'm a cheese eating university student, that I was the one who was wrong. I went to my doctor and had it typed by the lab at the clinic. Turns out I was right.

Wow,this was interesting about your blood type being wrong.

My blood is RH negative,so is my sisters when they had babies they were given a pint

of blood,to prevent RH negative disease.I couldn't do that of course,so they offered me Rhogam.

They explained it is made by putting all of my blood type in a vat from many donners,spinning out

the part I need.My doctor was a brother at the time,and gave me the apple pie illustration about the

different parts,and seperated they are not the pie.You know what I mean.Then they gave me the huge disclaimer

about all you can get taking the shot,which I had to have it twice once while still pregnant,this included auto

immune diseases,HIV,the normal blood bourne diseases.Then my doctor said"You must think where will the greatest

abuse of blood be,in this small shot or in having your baby have all his blood removed after birth and new blood

tranfused.I chose the shot and my doctor,a fellow brother gave them to me.I don't know if it's the reason but I now am

allergic to everything.I was even allergic to the placenta while still pregnant and thought I was going to die from scratching

my self to pieces.That ended when I gave birth.But now I eat basically three things,beans,a simple grain like rice or

couscous and apples.If I want to feel good.Anything else and I pay for it.

I guess my point is it is more than transfusions that can give the blood bourne diseases and I asked if they could produce

the shot from a relatives blood and they laughed at me.They said it takes many pints of donners blood to produce it.

So there is not an alternative.Also of course taking it is a conscience matter to.It's made from a blood fraction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My friend Sarah is RH negative and her husband is RH positive. She was offered Rogham at 28 weeks, but her conscience made her wary. Anyway, she discussed it with the HLC who gave her some interesting information. She had an Australian midwife who had dealt with JW patients before. The midwife explained how it was rarely a problem with the first baby, so long as she had never had previous miscarriages and was careful to avoid trauma in pregnancy and they would be careful with her at birth. She declined the Rogham and had a good safe delivery.

5 years later she fell pregnant again and had blood tests and was told no anti-bodies were building up, so she and baby may be OK, as if it were a first pregnancy again. She had never had any miscarriages since the last birth that would make a difference to her decision, so her second baby was carefully born and everything OK and she didn't have to resort to Rogham then either. In some countries they automatically give a Rogham shot at 28 weeks for all RH neg. mothers, which is silly if the father is RH neg too, so the Baby will be the same anyway and no problem. Each case has to be judged individually, with the best advice .http://www.vegfamily.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-1219.html

As for the WHO report to quote:"Since 1975, WHO has been at the forefront of the movement to improve global blood safety as mandated by successive World Health Assembly resolutions to ensure provision of universal access to safe, quality and efficacious blood and blood products for transfusion, their safe and appropriate use, and also ensuring blood donor and patient safety.."

Well they didn't do a good job in India:

http://www.adrp.org/news-events-media/news/action-on-sale-of-blood-bags-at-public-hospitals

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-06-18/jaipur/28184979_1_blood-bank-blood-donation-blood-units

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/12/501364/main20104767.shtml

Doesn't seem to be happening too well in the Phillipines either:

http://www.manilatimes.net/index.php/news/nation/5880-stricter-monitoring-of-blood-donations-sought

There was also a shocking TV documentary report a few years ago of corruption in the Italian blood banks that led to contaminated and old blood being sent to hospitals across Europe, but I can't find any link to it on the Internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My friend Sarah is RH negative and her husband is RH positive. She was offered Rogham at 28 weeks, but her conscience made her wary. Anyway, she discussed it with the HLC who gave her some interesting information. She had an Australian midwife who had dealt with JW patients before. The midwife explained how it was rarely a problem with the first baby, so long as she had never had previous miscarriages and was careful to avoid trauma in pregnancy and they would be careful with her at birth. She declined the Rogham and had a good safe delivery.

5 years later she fell pregnant again and had blood tests and was told no anti-bodies were building up, so she and baby may be OK, as if it were a first pregnancy again. She had never had any miscarriages since the last birth that would make a difference to her decision, so her second baby was carefully born and everything OK and she didn't have to resort to Rogham then either. In some countries they automatically give a Rogham shot at 28 weeks for all RH neg. mothers, which is silly if the father is RH neg too, so the Baby will be the same anyway and no problem. Each case has to be judged individually, with the best advice .http://www.vegfamily.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-1219.html

As for the WHO report to quote:"Since 1975, WHO has been at the forefront of the movement to improve global blood safety as mandated by successive World Health Assembly resolutions to ensure provision of universal access to safe, quality and efficacious blood and blood products for transfusion, their safe and appropriate use, and also ensuring blood donor and patient safety.."

Well they didn't do a good job in India:

http://www.adrp.org/news-events-media/news/action-on-sale-of-blood-bags-at-public-hospitals

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-06-18/jaipur/28184979_1_blood-bank-blood-donation-blood-units

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/12/501364/main20104767.shtml

Doesn't seem to be happening too well in the Phillipines either:

http://www.manilatimes.net/index.php/news/nation/5880-stricter-monitoring-of-blood-donations-sought

There was also a shocking TV documentary report a few years ago of corruption in the Italian blood banks that led to contaminated and old blood being sent to hospitals across Europe, but I can't find any link to it on the Internet.

Yes,my husband is possitive and my son also.I had already had a miscarriage also.They went over all these tests

with me.They told me I'd never get pregnant again at two clinics I went to so this was all a surprize to us.

I didn't want to have the shots either.Really.A brother from NY,Br Spry was his name, talked to me about it when he was visiting our

congregation to because I really didn't like the idea of having done it.He was very good to talk to, very knowledgeable about blood issues.

He had a special meeting about blood and servants and wives got to go so I got to be there for it.My doctor was very knowledgable also,being a fellow witness and he cared for high risk pregnancies.But you always wish it could have been otherwise.I do.If it hadn't been necessary I wish they had said it wasn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm struck once again by the loving kindness expressed for us by Jehovah. Like a loving parent who keeps their child away from a hot stove, or any other item that has the potential to harm us greatly - he has put up a safeguard around it, and educated us as to its dangers.

(<img src=)'>

Acts 15:29 "keep abstaining from... blood...If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to you!"

It's unfathomable to me why people would question such a blatant statement from God - about WHY to avoid blood. Everything Jehovah put into the scriptures as regulations for us to abide by were done for our health, safety, or some other positive aspect contributing to the best way of life. But this one - abstaining from blood - couldn't be more plainly stated!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a side note - I have personally known 2 people (both very close to me) - interestingly enough they were born the same year - 1968 - who received total blood exchanges (one was due to the RH negative blood in her mother) - 1 actually received the blood from the doctor that delivered her. The only reason I point this out is to show that the blood used was likely as unpolluted as far as diseases go, as could be. Even so, these 2 women that received these blood transfusions - total exchanges - at birth are the most NON-FUNCTIONING people I've ever met. They appear to be INCAPABLE of keeping their lives together. One has been a Witness most of her life. The other - studying. I have truly never seen anything like it. As a result, I have come to believe that when you put someone else's blood into another human being, the conflict is so great and the act is so unnatural, that the end resulting life is not worth manufacturing. I know that sounds harsh but I don't mean it to be pointed at the individuals. They were victims, in my opinion. And the lives they have been forced to lead are so stacked against them due to this ungodly act they have been plagued with. I feel sad for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About JWTalk.net - Jehovah's Witnesses Online Community

Since 2006, JWTalk has proved to be a well-moderated online community for real Jehovah's Witnesses on the web. However, our community is not an official website of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not endorsed, sponsored, or maintained by any legal entity used by Jehovah's Witnesses. We are a pro-JW community maintained by brothers and sisters around the world. We expect all community members to be active publishers in their congregations, therefore, please do not apply for membership if you are not currently one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

JWTalk 22.5.22 (changelog)