To: neverdem
While blood substitute may be more dangerous than real blood, I wonder if its more dangerous than , er,, ,say, NO blood???
2 posted on
04/30/2008 8:07:18 PM PDT by
MCCRon58
(Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who do neither, criticize.)
To: MCCRon58
An elderly friend had both hips replaced without any use of blood and he did quite well. No worry about immune reactions, cross matching, costs of blood.
3 posted on
04/30/2008 8:17:21 PM PDT by
count-your-change
(you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
To: MCCRon58
” There were 10 deaths in patients who got substitute blood and six in those given real blood, a difference that was not statistically significant, says Jahr.”
I’m sure for the families there is a difference beyond measure...
4 posted on
04/30/2008 8:18:56 PM PDT by
Crim
(Dont frak with the Zeitgeist....)
To: MCCRon58
While blood substitute may be more dangerous than real blood, I wonder if its more dangerous than , er,, ,say, NO blood???
"NO blood" has put more than just a few Jehovah's Witnesses in cemeteries.
----
Send treats to the troops...
Great because you did it!
www.AnySoldier.com
6 posted on
04/30/2008 9:21:34 PM PDT by
JCG
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson