I actually can help with the answer to this. It has become WELL ESTABLISHED science in the last several years that blood transfusions are incredibly dangerous. There are several landmark studies that clearly demonstrate patients who require blood transfusions have a much higher incidence of cancers and death at one and five years when compared to similar patients who do not receive transitions (Kaplan must regression curve). We used to transfuse anyone with a hemoglobin below 10. As an intensivist now I hardly ever transfuse unless there is life threatening hemorrhage or I can demonstrate that a patient needs oxygen carrying capacity (the purpose of blood transfusion) by way of some sophisticated lab technique I won’t bore you with. The bottom line. Restrictive blood transfusion techniques clearly are better for the patient in terms of long term survival and this is the standard of care. Blood transfusion for the purposes in this article are just snake oil salesmanship and clearly no reputable science would have someone pay them to assist in research.
Thank you. Your comment brings up several points I had in the back of my mind, and as it appears that you may be an anaethesiologist, may I ask a question or two of you?
Is there now an alternate standard method for oxygen saturation of the blood? I had read some years ago regarding such with animal research, but do not remember the gas used - fluor?
Has it become any sort of common practice for patients to bank their own blood previous to surgery?
I had begun to see an article or two regarding the dangers of transfused blood, but not platelets. Would it be possible to expand on this?
Thank you, Norski
I can only imagine what the introduction of strange blood does to the immune system.