Another reason not to blood dope

"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

From "The Week"

British health officials informed 6,000 people this week that they may have
once received blood infected with the human form of mad-cow disease. At
least nine blood donors developed Creuzfeld-Jakob disease after giving blood
in the 1990s; their blood was mingled with that of hundreds of other donors.
Doctors say the dilution of the infected blood makes disease transmission
through transfusion very unlikely. But after two people died recently of the
brain-wasting disease, officials decided to inform all patients who might be
at risk. Since 1999, Britain has imported much of its blood products from
the U.S. and claims that its blood supply is now safe.

Yea, that's why if you are going to do a homologous transfusion, you
use a trusted person you have known for a long time who you have had
tested for the pathogens that could be transferred. Extremely low
risk. The statements "I wouldn't risk my wife's life (and his own)"
by Tyler are a joke...right? I hope people can see those statements
as nothing more than PR spin.

Gees, Tyler could pretty easily have this safe "donor" on call!

L. Seer said:

Gees, Tyler could pretty easily have this safe "donor" on call!

Who is the mule?

L. Seer said:

"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

From "The Week"

British health officials informed 6,000 people this week that they
may have
once received blood infected with the human form of mad-cow disease.
At
least nine blood donors developed Creuzfeld-Jakob disease after
giving blood
in the 1990s; their blood was mingled with that of hundreds of other
donors.
Doctors say the dilution of the infected blood makes disease
transmission
through transfusion very unlikely. But after two people died
recently of the
brain-wasting disease, officials decided to inform all patients who
might be
at risk. Since 1999, Britain has imported much of its blood products
from
the U.S. and claims that its blood supply is now safe.

Yea, that's why if you are going to do a homologous transfusion, you
use a trusted person you have known for a long time who you have had
tested for the pathogens that could be transferred. Extremely low
risk.

The only reliable test for human mad cow disease is a post mortem.

"Kyle Legate" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

L. Seer said:

"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

From "The Week"

British health officials informed 6,000 people this week that they
may have
once received blood infected with the human form of mad-cow disease.
At
least nine blood donors developed Creuzfeld-Jakob disease after
giving blood
in the 1990s; their blood was mingled with that of hundreds of other
donors.
Doctors say the dilution of the infected blood makes disease
transmission
through transfusion very unlikely. But after two people died
recently of the
brain-wasting disease, officials decided to inform all patients who
might be
at risk. Since 1999, Britain has imported much of its blood products
from
the U.S. and claims that its blood supply is now safe.

Yea, that's why if you are going to do a homologous transfusion, you
use a trusted person you have known for a long time who you have had
tested for the pathogens that could be transferred. Extremely low
risk.

The only reliable test for human mad cow disease is a post mortem.

Great. What is your point? Has there been an American case of human
"mad cow"? If so, how many have been a result of transfusions? If
Tyler and his "mule", as suggested above, eat from the same food
sources and haven't received blood transfusions from the British
supply, the risk does not exist. Heck, even if Tyler's mule ate cow
brain in England AND got a transfusion, the risk would still be near
zero.

"L. Seer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Yea, that's why if you are going to do a homologous transfusion, you
use a trusted person you have known for a long time who you have had
tested for the pathogens that could be transferred.

Now here's someone that seems to have missed the point completely. Psst -
some blood diseases don't appear for decades. How would your "trusted"
source have any idea that he'd some slow but communicable disease such as
Crit Pro Disease?

L. Seer said:

"Kyle Legate" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

L. Seer said:

"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
> From "The Week"
>
> British health officials informed 6,000 people this week that they
> may have
> once received blood infected with the human form of mad-cow
> disease.
> At
> least nine blood donors developed Creuzfeld-Jakob disease after
> giving blood
> in the 1990s; their blood was mingled with that of hundreds of
> other
> donors.
> Doctors say the dilution of the infected blood makes disease
> transmission
> through transfusion very unlikely. But after two people died
> recently of the
> brain-wasting disease, officials decided to inform all patients who
> might be
> at risk. Since 1999, Britain has imported much of its blood
> products
> from
> the U.S. and claims that its blood supply is now safe.

Yea, that's why if you are going to do a homologous transfusion, you
use a trusted person you have known for a long time who you have had
tested for the pathogens that could be transferred. Extremely low
risk.

The only reliable test for human mad cow disease is a post mortem.

Great. What is your point?

I replied to your post in reply to the risk of contracting CJD from a
tainted blood supply. I didn't think it was possible to miss my point.

Quoted message said:

Has there been an American case of human
"mad cow"?

Considering the long incubation period, I have to say "not yet". On the
other hand, many Americans show signs of madness and many resemble cows, so
draw your own conclusions.

Quoted message said:

If so, how many have been a result of transfusions?

It is not possible to pinpoint with certainty the source of a disease that
can take 20 years to manifest. What is your point?

Quoted message said:

If
Tyler and his "mule", as suggested above, eat from the same food
sources and haven't received blood transfusions from the British
supply, the risk does not exist.

The risk always exists, but there are things you can do to minimise your
risk--like, avoiding superfluous blood transfusions.

L. Seer said:

Great. What is your point? Has there been an American case of human
"mad cow"? If so, how many have been a result of transfusions? If
Tyler and his "mule", as suggested above, eat from the same food
sources and haven't received blood transfusions from the British
supply, the risk does not exist. Heck, even if Tyler's mule ate cow
brain in England AND got a transfusion, the risk would still be near
zero.

It doesn't have to come from a cow, either. There's "variant CJD",
which is what happens when a human gets it from a cow, and there's "CJD"
which is the genetic disease in humans. I don't know what it's called
when a person aquires CJD from a person that has CJD, (or what is would
be called if a person got CJD from a person that aquired vCJD), but it
does happen, it happened in the past from retinal transplants from
cadavers that had died of some mysterious brain wasting disease.
Something like that. They're still working on it. Even though there
are a few Nobel prizes floating around for work on the diseases, the
whole story still holds a lot of mystery. We won't know all the answers
until they make a made for TV movie.

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"L. Seer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Yea, that's why if you are going to do a homologous transfusion, you
use a trusted person you have known for a long time who you have had
tested for the pathogens that could be transferred.

Now here's someone that seems to have missed the point completely. Psst -
some blood diseases don't appear for decades. How would your "trusted"
source have any idea that he'd some slow but communicable disease such as
Crit Pro Disease?

Are you confused by my statement "extremely low risk"? Every person
who does not use a condom in sexual activity, whether as
married/monongomous couples or not, takes that same risk, even if they
know the person very well and they have been tested. How did I miss
the point?

L. Seer said:

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Now here's someone that seems to have missed the point completely.
Psst -
some blood diseases don't appear for decades. How would your
"trusted"
source have any idea that he'd some slow but communicable disease
such as
Crit Pro Disease?

Are you confused by my statement "extremely low risk"? Every person
who does not use a condom in sexual activity, whether as
married/monongomous couples or not, takes that same risk, even if they
know the person very well and they have been tested. How did I miss
the point?

Unprotected sex carries the same risk as a blood transfusion? Goddamn, you
really miss the point.

"Kyle Legate" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

L. Seer said:

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Now here's someone that seems to have missed the point completely.
Psst -
some blood diseases don't appear for decades. How would your
"trusted"
source have any idea that he'd some slow but communicable disease
such as
Crit Pro Disease?

Are you confused by my statement "extremely low risk"? Every person
who does not use a condom in sexual activity, whether as
married/monongomous couples or not, takes that same risk, even if they
know the person very well and they have been tested. How did I miss
the point?

Unprotected sex carries the same risk as a blood transfusion? Goddamn, you
really miss the point.

Please explain how a blood transfusion from your...say...spouse, is
any more risky that uprotected sex with this person?

Since this thread is about reasons not to have a transfusion in the
context of blood-doping, how is discussing how it can actually be
extremely low risk missing the point? What is the point I miss if I
indeed have prions on the brain?

"Kyle Legate" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

L. Seer said:

"Kyle Legate" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

L. Seer wrote:
> "Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:<[email hidden]>...
>> From "The Week"
>>
>> British health officials informed 6,000 people this week that they
>> may have
>> once received blood infected with the human form of mad-cow
>> disease.
>> At
>> least nine blood donors developed Creuzfeld-Jakob disease after
>> giving blood
>> in the 1990s; their blood was mingled with that of hundreds of
>> other
>> donors.
>> Doctors say the dilution of the infected blood makes disease
>> transmission
>> through transfusion very unlikely. But after two people died
>> recently of the
>> brain-wasting disease, officials decided to inform all patients who
>> might be
>> at risk. Since 1999, Britain has imported much of its blood
>> products
>> from
>> the U.S. and claims that its blood supply is now safe.
>
> Yea, that's why if you are going to do a homologous transfusion, you
> use a trusted person you have known for a long time who you have had
> tested for the pathogens that could be transferred. Extremely low
> risk.
>
The only reliable test for human mad cow disease is a post mortem.

Great. What is your point?

I replied to your post in reply to the risk of contracting CJD from a
tainted blood supply. I didn't think it was possible to miss my point.

I appologize. I may have read into your statement that you were
somehow disputing that blood-transfusions can indeed be extremely low
risk.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Has there been an American case of human
"mad cow"?

Considering the long incubation period, I have to say "not yet". On the
other hand, many Americans show signs of madness and many resemble cows, so
draw your own conclusions.

Quoted message said:

If so, how many have been a result of transfusions?

It is not possible to pinpoint with certainty the source of a disease that
can take 20 years to manifest. What is your point?

That blood transfusions can be extremely low-risk.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If
Tyler and his "mule", as suggested above, eat from the same food
sources and haven't received blood transfusions from the British
supply, the risk does not exist.

The risk always exists, but there are things you can do to minimise your
risk--like, avoiding superfluous blood transfusions.

YES indeed. You could also abstain from going outside for fear of
being struck by lightning on a clear day...which does
happen...seemingly less frequently than people actually developing
symptoms of mad-cow from blood-tranfusions from strangers who eat cow
brain.