From: Joseki on
http://www.jonbarron.org/heart-health-program/05-12-2008.php



That shocking headline appears over a recent issue of HSI Panelist Jon
baron's Baseline of Health e-letter. And the details are sobering.
This past October, Jon reported on a Duke University study that
revealed how blood transfusions sharply increase the risk of heart
attack and death. Here's why: In the U.S., the law allows blood banks
to store red blood cells for a maximum of 42 days. The problem is that
stored blood begins to deteriorate very quickly. In fact, in the first
day of storage there's a
70 percent drop in levels of the molecule that carries nitric oxide in
the blood, severely compromising the blood's ability to deliver
oxygen.
Then comes the second half of this double whammy: When blood is
deficient in nitric oxide, it pulls nitric oxide out of surrounding
tissue, causing it to constrict and become deoxygenated. Fatalities
occur when that tissue happens to be heart tissue.
Two recent studies confirm the Duke results (clearly showing that
blood stored more than 14 days can be quite dangerous), and add
another danger: Transfusions increase stroke risk.
Jon writes: 'Blood transfusions have been used as a standard medical
procedure for over 100 years. And now it turns out they may be
responsible for many millions of unnecessary deaths worldwide during
that time. How could this be? Unlike alternative health, modern
medicine is based on science - not anecdotal evidence. So why didn't
all those scientific studies on blood transfusions figure out those
blood transfusions are, at best, an iffy proposition that should be
reserved only for the most dire of emergencies?'
You can read Jon's full article on his web site at
From: curtjester1 on
On Nov 17, 10:20 pm, Joseki <jabriol2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.jonbarron.org/heart-health-program/05-12-2008.php
>
> That shocking headline appears over a recent issue of HSI Panelist Jon
> baron's Baseline of Health e-letter. And the details are sobering.
> This past October, Jon reported on a Duke University study that
> revealed how blood transfusions sharply increase the risk of heart
> attack and death. Here's why: In the U.S., the law allows blood banks
> to store red blood cells for a maximum of 42 days. The problem is that
> stored blood begins to deteriorate very quickly. In fact, in the first
> day of storage there's a
> 70 percent drop in levels of the molecule that carries nitric oxide in
> the blood, severely compromising the blood's ability to deliver
> oxygen.
> Then comes the second half of this double whammy: When blood is
> deficient in nitric oxide, it pulls nitric oxide out of surrounding
> tissue, causing it to constrict and become deoxygenated. Fatalities
> occur when that tissue happens to be heart tissue.
> Two recent studies confirm the Duke results (clearly showing that
> blood stored more than 14 days can be quite dangerous), and add
> another danger: Transfusions increase stroke risk.Jon writes: 'Blood transfusions have been used as a standard medical
>
> procedure for over 100 years. And now it turns out they may be
> responsible for many millions of unnecessary deaths worldwide during
> that time. How could this be? Unlike alternative health, modern
> medicine is based on science - not anecdotal evidence. So why didn't
> all those scientific studies on blood transfusions figure out those
> blood transfusions are, at best, an iffy proposition that should be
> reserved only for the most dire of emergencies?'
> You can read Jon's full article on his web site at

Doesn't just have to be blood transfusions, it can be vaccines as
well. Many soft tissue cancers were thought to come from Polio
vaccines, and AIDS has been speculated to have been started from the
laboratory.

Also blood transfusion alternatives have proved to be effective.

CJ