Are Blood Transfusions Really Life Saving?

[Jenny Collins]

You are not being persecuted when we present you with the facts.

The Jews whose text it is, says you are wrong in interpretation. Most Christian religions say you are wrong in your interpretation.

You are welcome to believe anything you want. Just don't claim it is in the Bible, - from YHVH.

*

"Most Christians say you are wrong" So majority MUST be right? You keep thinking that other people believing differently than I do, means that I think they are right? You don't even believe in Christianity, so why are you favoring the view of the other "Christians"? And why would other "Christians" know more about the Bible than JWs, when the pew report says we are the most Biblically well read group within Christianity? You are saying that those who know less, know more!

 

[Jenny Collins]

You are so kind, and it hard to say no to you, but thank you.

Well you are always welcome to visit and at least get to know us! We are very caring people

 

[Jenny Collins]

And thank you! I know those walls can be broken down, having been one, by people like yourself, who patiently stick to the evidence itself- even though you may never hear any concession- it can and does make a difference

everyone here apparently does have the time and curiosity to talk about these things, which is half the battle!

Thank you, I may seem kind of tenacious, but I don't mean anything bad! I just have a lot of fight in me for what is true

 

[Jenny Collins]

Because I prefer to go to the source - rather than later interpretations that have no context to the original texts.

I provided that particular Christian site because it did some actual research and came up with a more logical conclusion.

*

I always like to point out, that when people have these stories about the blood transfusions that saved their life, etc, this is the internet and we don't know how much is fact and how much is fiction! Of course, you don't know who I am either! I am who I claim, but caution is always in order! I have no reason to doubt you, but there are a lot of stories about people who have been saved by transfusions online, and I don't think all of it is true! There are ex members who make stuff up about us so I always have healthy caution! Don't take that the wrong way, I am not accusing!

 

[Deeje]

My point was that it is virtually impossible to avoid all blood if one eats meat, and there is a logical alternative to having any blood, and that would be to go vegetarian.

Since that is not what God required under the law, why would we go beyond what is written? Isn't that where the Pharisees went wrong?

Secondly, since you are willing to put up with having some blood, then also why not allow transfusions of blood in extreme cases whereas more than just plasma is needed to save a life? If you are going to be flexible and allow yourself to have some blood in your meat, then why not allow blood in cases whereas a person's life is at risk? IMO, the latter is far more important than the former.

I think you missed the point metis....we do not 'allow ourselves to have some blood in our meat' at all. If God did not restrict the eating of meat, but only insisted that the animals be properly bled, then that is what is required of Christians too. I am not a big red meat eater anyway. And as I said, there is a big difference between consuming a few drops in a piece of meat and sculling it by the pint, either orally or intravenously in our interpretation of the Bible's directives.

Why would we consent to something that is restated right throughout the Bible as something to avoid.....abstaining from blood was first stated to Noah, then as part of Israel's law and then restated to Christians. I think that makes it very important to God, don't you?

And finally, do you keep kosher? Do you observe all the Commandments-- all 613 of them?

No metis, because I am not Jewish.

You know you don't, therefore why do you only keep a select number, whereas you're not following "God's Law" on the others?

Because it was restated in Acts 15:28-29 for Christians. It was one of the "necessary things" that was incumbent on Gentiles who had become disciples of Jesus. Eating the flesh of unbled animals and consuming blood was common among Gentiles, but Jewish believers already refrained from such things. These things were put on a par with sexual immorality.....punishable by death in Israel. God doesn't change his standards. The moral principles of the law still apply.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

One thing I really think you should consider: If you have to get surgery soon, and when you go there you are told that the doctor is going to give you blood, will you be so intent on being right, that you go along with it, even though we have shown you the risks, and that they are usually more harmful than good? Will pride make you risk your health? And if you do have a reaction to the blood, will you still feel this strongly? I know your step dad mistreated women, and said that his brother had brain damage, which you don't even know is exactly how it happened, but will that make you put your own health at risk because of feelings left over from how he treated you and your mom?

I think it's pretty reprehensible that you're willing to use such manipulative, emotional rhetoric to try and influence people. The facts are that you have over-stated the risks of transfusions, you don't clearly understand modern medicine, and your beliefs are irrelevant to the simple fact that transfusions, by and large, save lives.

Denial of reality is one thing, but to deny the benefits of a procedure that has saved countless lives is shameful.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I always like to point out, that when people have these stories about the blood transfusions that saved their life, etc, this is the internet and we don't know how much is fact and how much is fiction!

Does this skepticism extend to claims that JWs make about blood transfusions?

 

[dianaiad]

The law for one.

Ah...I have a problem with deciding that 'because it's the law,' it is therefore moral and decided. Laws have been passed that are absolutely wrong, and have later been altered or removed because people who knew that held their ground. Laws are not physical laws of nature, after all, so anybody who counters an argument with 'because it's the law,' is begging the question...is that law appropriate and just? Should it BE a law?

Remember Rosa Parks?

My problem with this is that I am really torn over this issue.

I THINK, however, that the situations need to be decided individually, and according to slightly different criteria than whether we think the beliefs behind the actions are silly.

For instance, in the case of a JW family who wants to withold blood products from a child...if the choice is 'blood transfusion or die," rather than 'there are alternatives to blood available and they might work but we think blood is better," then blood transfusion it should be. That is, if the child isn't old enough to understand the problem or know what's going on. However, as has been pointed out, that doesn't happen much any more because of available alternatives. It does happen, and when it does, I hope that the parents and their religion...and their version of the God they believe in...doesn't blame the CHILD for it.

I've also written about this problem with people who don't vaccinate their children. Perhaps I'm a wee bit selfish about that one, though.

I do think that laws that target religious beliefs are a problem, though, if those religious beliefs do not cause actual harm to those who don't volunteer freely, with mature consent, and lives are not lost.

 

[Jenny Collins]

Y

I think it's pretty reprehensible that you're willing to use such manipulative, emotional rhetoric to try and influence people. The facts are that you have over-stated the risks of transfusions, you don't clearly understand modern medicine, and your beliefs are irrelevant to the simple fact that transfusions, by and large, save lives.

Denial of reality is one thing, but to deny the benefits of a procedure that has saved countless lives is shameful.

You say: "You are overstated the risks of transfusions" This from a person who accused me of "blatantly lying" when I said that kids are influenced by the way they were raised, but also are influenced by other factors, and may change their beliefs! How one part of that statement contradicts the other is beyond me! Bringing up variables that mold thinking does not make me a "blatant liar" So since you are someone who "overstates things" perhaps your critiques should be more inward, rather than making claims about me! I have overstated nothing, only directed people to links of valid non-JW sources, and all that I have said here, is what I have learned in my research! I have lived a long life of 50 years and have researched the subject since my twenties, not only in JW material! I have read secular books, and aside from all of that, I have taken medical courses and independently read medical literature! This might sound not all that impressive, but I took a medical transcription class and learned anatomy and medical terminology through it! And got straight A's, and after that I studied medical books for years! I may not equal a doctor or even some nurses, but I have acquainted myself with medical knowledge to some degree! I also work in a hospital, not using my knowledge, but am around medical staff!

 

[Jenny Collins]

Does this skepticism extend to claims that JWs make about blood transfusions?

You should have quoted me fully! I said that caution should be applied to everyone, including me! No one knows me here! I know that all I say is true, but you don't! Why would you even have to ask me this, since I already clarified it in what I said? That said, all that we have spoken here can be backed up, at least as far as medical studies! If I were to say that a JW I know got a disease from a transfusion, then you would not know that I was being truthful! I don't lie here, but only I know that! But it seems weird that I would lie for God and religion! God condemns lying, so I wouldn't try to impress him by doing it

 

[Jenny Collins]

I think it's pretty reprehensible that you're willing to use such manipulative, emotional rhetoric to try and influence people. The facts are that you have over-stated the risks of transfusions, you don't clearly understand modern medicine, and your beliefs are irrelevant to the simple fact that transfusions, by and large, save lives.

Denial of reality is one thing, but to deny the benefits of a procedure that has saved countless lives is shameful.

Just so you know, I haven't forgotten that you called me a blatant liar yesterday, for no reason, so I am not going to engage with you today! There were some reasonable ones who came here and are considering what I am saying, and acknowledge things, so if I give my time to anyone, it will be with them! Jesus turned down discussion with unreasonable people like the pharisees, so I don't want to entrap myself by arguing with you! Bye! Peace

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You say: "You are overstated the risks of transfusions" This from a person who accused me of "blatantly lying" when I said that kids are influenced by the way they were raised, but also are influenced by other factors, and may change their beliefs! How one part of that statement contradicts the other is beyond me! Bringing up variables that mold thinking does not make me a "blatant liar" So since you are someone who "overstates things" perhaps your critiques should be more inward, rather than making claims about me!

Once again, you're deliberately misrepresenting me. The lie you told was that you didn't change your position, despite earlier answering "yes" to my question "Do you believe upbringing has no influence on a child by the time they are 12?".

I gave you plenty of chances to deny that you intentionally lied and instead admit that your answer was in error. Instead, you just continued to assert that no difference in opinion was made, and continued to completely ignore or even correct your previous answer. I don't think it's unfair to at least expect you to say "I mistyped" or "I misunderstood the question" or "I just made a mistake - obviously my answer should have been 'no'". But you didn't, and I simply don't understand why you're being so stubborn about it. It's an easy mistake to make and an even easier mistake to correct.

I have overstated nothing, only directed people to links of valid non-JW sources, and all that I have said here, is what I have learned in my research! I have lived a long life of 50 years and have researched the subject since my twenties, not only in JW material! I have read secular books, and aside from all of that, I have taken medical courses and independently read medical literature!

Earlier, you stated:

"I always like to point out, that when people have these stories about the blood transfusions that saved their life, etc, this is the internet and we don't know how much is fact and how much is fiction!"

So, given that you're willing to cast doubt on the honesty of other posters here and their personal accounts, what possible reason could I have to accept yours? Are you the only person here who we should assume is completely honest?

This might sound not all that impressive, but I took a medical transcription class and learned anatomy and medical terminology through it! And got straight A's, and after that I studied medical books for years! I may not equal a doctor or even some nurses, but I have acquainted myself with medical knowledge to some degree! I also work in a hospital, not using my knowledge, but am around medical staff!

And yet you honestly believe transfusions are not an often necessary medical procedure? I'm sorry, but I have not one single reason to take your medical expertise seriously, especially considering your obviously very emotionally manipulative earlier post. There were no facts in that post, just rhetoric and awful, emotional manipulation designed to make people feel insecure about a perfectly safe medical procedure and emotionally blackmail them into cow-towing to your religious beliefs.

I find it just as reprehensible a vaccine denial. It is deplorable.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You should have quoted me fully! I said that caution should be applied to everyone, including me! No one knows me here! I know that all I say is true, but you don't! Why would you even have to ask me this, since I already clarified it in what I said? That said, all that we have spoken here can be backed up, at least as far as medical studies! If I were to say that a JW I know got a disease from a transfusion, then you would not know that I was being truthful! I don't lie here, but only I know that! But it seems weird that I would lie for God and religion! God condemns lying, so I wouldn't try to impress him by doing it

It as a simple yes or no question. I didn't make any assumption by it, it was a merely a request as to whether or not you apply the same level of doubt and skepticism to claims made by people who already conform to your beliefs.

So, do you? For example, did you do any research into the video Deeje posted in the OP?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Just so you know, I haven't forgotten that you called me a blatant liar yesterday, for no reason,

But there was a reason. You said one thing in a post and then said a completely contradictory thing in another post, then claimed your position hadn't changed. That makes you either a liar or someone who made an error. You didn't admit to any error, so what option is left?

so I am not going to engage with you today! There were some reasonable ones who came here and are considering what I am saying, and acknowledge things, so if I give my time to anyone, it will be with them! Jesus turned down discussion with unreasonable people like the pharisees, so I don't want to entrap myself by arguing with you! Bye! Peace

I'm not unreasonable. You're the one misrepresenting me, changing your views and blatantly lying about it.

 

[Jenny Collins]

I

Once again, you're deliberately misrepresenting me. The lie you told was that you didn't change your position, despite earlier answering "yes" to my question "Do you believe upbringing has no influence on a child by the time they are 12?".

I gave you plenty of chances to deny that you intentionally lied and instead admit that your answer was in error. Instead, you just continued to assert that no difference in opinion was made, and continued to completely ignore or even correct your previous answer. I don't think it's unfair to at least expect you to say "I mistyped" or "I misunderstood the question" or "I just made a mistake - obviously my answer should have been 'no'". But you didn't, and I simply don't understand why you're being so stubborn about it. It's an easy mistake to make and an even easier mistake to correct.


Earlier, you stated:

"I always like to point out, that when people have these stories about the blood transfusions that saved their life, etc, this is the internet and we don't know how much is fact and how much is fiction!"

So, given that you're willing to cast doubt on the honesty of other posters here and their personal accounts, what possible reason could I have to accept yours? Are you the only person here who we should assume is completely honest?


And yet you honestly believe transfusions are not an often necessary medical procedure? I'm sorry, but I have not one single reason to take your medical expertise seriously, especially considering your obviously very emotionally manipulative earlier post. There were no facts in that post, just rhetoric and awful, emotional manipulation designed to make people feel insecure about a perfectly safe medical procedure and emotionally blackmail them into cow-towing to your religious beliefs.

I find it just as reprehensible a vaccine denial. It is deplorable.

I don't care if YOU believe I have medical background! You can urge caution about claims, but you can not ridicule claims of others! Unless of course I were to say that I won spelling bees in school, and then mispell werds lotsa tymes, thin yew would half a gud case!

You can reserve judgment of claims on here, but without evidence you cannot MAKE judgments! The fact that you are so quick to make judgments without evidence, makes me think you apply the same standards to the issue of blood transfusions!

I actually was very upfront about what I know about medicine! If I wanted to lie, I would tell people that I was a nurse, doctor, etc!

Here is what I said: I took a medical transcription course: I did not use it to get a job though! I admitted this!

I independently studied some medical books for ten or so years! I also said that my job at the hospital had nothing to do with anything clinical! So if I was just trying to make a case for myself, I wouldn't have included that fact!

What I didn't say was that I am a housekeeper! Thought you would make an ad hominen attack, which you likely now will! Why would I share that if I am overexaggerating myself!

Being a housekeeper of course, doesn't discredit me! Two housekeepers in my department and they both used to be school teachers! Would that discredit them from having opinions on history, science, etc

I studied Medical Transcription through a mail correspondence course, when I was 30, and am now 50! I got straight A's and it was an accredited course! I quit midway through because I didn't have a computer at the time, didn't even know anything about computers! But on my own, I continued to study medical terminology and some anatomy! Also read about diseases! Took a secretarial course through the mail also, that I did complete with straight A's, didn't do anything with that and still clean for a living! Cleaning in a hospital of course, is different than cleaning in a hotel! We take classes every year and have some knowledge to avoid contamination of our surroundings! I have gotten free medical books that doctors have thrown out here and read them! I am able to ask doctor and nurse friends questions some times!

And have read books about blood, the Red Cross, articles, and so on! Whether you discredit me and what I have said I did is inconsequential to me! You can not go any further than simply "wondering" if I am being truthful! To make a snap judgment would to show that is how you think in a general sense! That would leave me wondering if you also make snap judgments about the issue of transfusion

 

[Jenny Collins]

Once again, you're deliberately misrepresenting me. The lie you told was that you didn't change your position, despite earlier answering "yes" to my question "Do you believe upbringing has no influence on a child by the time they are 12?".

I gave you plenty of chances to deny that you intentionally lied and instead admit that your answer was in error. Instead, you just continued to assert that no difference in opinion was made, and continued to completely ignore or even correct your previous answer. I don't think it's unfair to at least expect you to say "I mistyped" or "I misunderstood the question" or "I just made a mistake - obviously my answer should have been 'no'". But you didn't, and I simply don't understand why you're being so stubborn about it. It's an easy mistake to make and an even easier mistake to correct.


Earlier, you stated:

"I always like to point out, that when people have these stories about the blood transfusions that saved their life, etc, this is the internet and we don't know how much is fact and how much is fiction!"

So, given that you're willing to cast doubt on the honesty of other posters here and their personal accounts, what possible reason could I have to accept yours? Are you the only person here who we should assume is completely honest?


And yet you honestly believe transfusions are not an often necessary medical procedure? I'm sorry, but I have not one single reason to take your medical expertise seriously, especially considering your obviously very emotionally manipulative earlier post. There were no facts in that post, just rhetoric and awful, emotional manipulation designed to make people feel insecure about a perfectly safe medical procedure and emotionally blackmail them into cow-towing to your religious beliefs.

I find it just as reprehensible a vaccine denial. It is deplorable.

Again with the "blatant lie" accusation! I said that people are influenced by the way that they are raised! I said other things influence them also! I said that at the age of 11 I began believing as a JW and haven't change since then other than believing in Jehovah MORE than I did at 11, because my beliefs have been confirmed as I age! I have no idea what you think I lied about! Wow are you unfair!

 

[Jenny Collins]

Again with the "blatant lie" accusation! I said that people are influenced by the way that they are raised! I said other things influence them also! I said that at the age of 11 I began believing as a JW and haven't change since then other than believing in Jehovah MORE than I did at 11, because my beliefs have been confirmed as I age! I have no idea what you think I lied about! Wow are you unfair!

"The lie that you told was that you didn't change your position" How is that a lie? From age 11 to now, I have NOT changed my position! How Is That A Lie??!

 

[Jenny Collins]

Yes, maybe some day the law making abortion illegal will be removed! Yes, laws can be wrong! However when you have the Law of Jehovah who says: "Abstain from blood" and you have the Law of man, one supercedes the other! "Render Caesars things to Caesar and God's things to God" "I must obey God as ruler rather than man"

 

[Jenny Collins]

But there was a reason. You said one thing in a post and then said a completely contradictory thing in another post, then claimed your position hadn't changed. That makes you either a liar or someone who made an error. You didn't admit to any error, so what option is left?


I'm not unreasonable. You're the one misrepresenting me, changing your views and blatantly lying about it.

I do admit to an error! I admit YOU made an error! You saw something that I said and THINK it contradicts when it doesn't! Do you use this thinking about the Bible too, and claim it contradicts itself, when it doesn't? If I were to say: "I went to Julie's party on Friday" and also said: "I went to Sarah's party on Friday" use your mind and think of ways that that doesn't contradict! Extend your mind and think about it, instead of deciding that I may be a "blatant liar" Maybe I went to BOTH! Maybe I went to one on Friday the 13th and the other the NEXT Friday! Your failure to figure something out, does not make everyone else the liar, it makes you not very deep thinking! I might not want to take advice on transfusions from somebody who doesn't think deeply

 

[Jenny Collins]

Once again, you're deliberately misrepresenting me. The lie you told was that you didn't change your position, despite earlier answering "yes" to my question "Do you believe upbringing has no influence on a child by the time they are 12?".

I gave you plenty of chances to deny that you intentionally lied and instead admit that your answer was in error. Instead, you just continued to assert that no difference in opinion was made, and continued to completely ignore or even correct your previous answer. I don't think it's unfair to at least expect you to say "I mistyped" or "I misunderstood the question" or "I just made a mistake - obviously my answer should have been 'no'". But you didn't, and I simply don't understand why you're being so stubborn about it. It's an easy mistake to make and an even easier mistake to correct.


Earlier, you stated:

"I always like to point out, that when people have these stories about the blood transfusions that saved their life, etc, this is the internet and we don't know how much is fact and how much is fiction!"

So, given that you're willing to cast doubt on the honesty of other posters here and their personal accounts, what possible reason could I have to accept yours? Are you the only person here who we should assume is completely honest?


And yet you honestly believe transfusions are not an often necessary medical procedure? I'm sorry, but I have not one single reason to take your medical expertise seriously, especially considering your obviously very emotionally manipulative earlier post. There were no facts in that post, just rhetoric and awful, emotional manipulation designed to make people feel insecure about a perfectly safe medical procedure and emotionally blackmail them into cow-towing to your religious beliefs.

I find it just as reprehensible a vaccine denial. It is deplorable.

You say a few things: You claim that I am trying to cast doubts on the honesty of posters on here" Now who is lying? I said caution is necessary, but we cannot know that people are lying! I never once "cast doubt" I said "reserve judgment"

You accuse me of "emotional manipulation" and "emotional blackmail" I asked someone if she was had a doctor tell her she needed a transfusion in the future, if she would keep the same strong attitude she is showing here, or actually think it out! Since the facts have borne out that MOST transfusions are more harmful than good and overused, how is that emotional manipulation? Links posted here to articles show what I say is true! It is you who is "manipulating" my words!

"perfectly safe medical procedure" You said that! I invite anyone reading this now, to google transfusions online and mixed opinions will come up, some saying they are relatively safe, others that they aren't! But not one article will say that they are a "perfectly safe medical procedure" Now who is lying and manipulating? Sixty six percent of transfusions are administered wrongly, according to data! 40 to 60 % do MORE harm than good! It is an institutional habit, not well regulated! If it were a medicine it would not get past the FDA! Blood is unique and even if it the types match, chromosomal differences, gender differences, etc, make it unsafe! A Nobel prize winning doctor said he would never get a transfusion because blood is so unique it can be compared to a fingerprint! All of what I am saying is just words that at the moment could be said are my own claims! I am not supplying sources, although links people have already supplied here support much of it! However if there is any fair minded person reading this, by all minds research it on your own and it will be backed up! I will even help you locate the articles and sources, but I am not going to do that for my accuser here, because that one keeps ignoring all I am saying! If someone else wants me to provide sources and I discern that they are actually honest enough to consider it, I will be happy to