Replies

Some quotes from the article, which is extremely informative to read, from the health aspect, as well as the financial and moral:

“It’s as interesting as it is creepy. Who wouldn’t donate some of their blood to help out a beloved relative who was fading away from Alzheimer’s?
What could possibly go wrong?

This is a question I ask entirely too much when writing articles about new technology lately. It seems that our “progress” may be outstripping our ethics in many cases. Some of the things I see going wrong?

Young people could basically turn into walking blood bags for rich old people who want to live forever.
We don’t know if there are any long-term issues with frequent transfusions.
New diseases that aren’t yet tested for could be present in the blood of donors.
You can have allergic reactions to blood transfusions, even if they are the right type. These reactions can be as minor as some hives or as serious as death from anaphylactic shock.
You can have an acute immune hemolytic reaction, which means your body attacks the red blood cells as the enemy. This can result in chest pain, nausea, chills, fever, and lower back pain.
Infections can occur at the site of the transfusion.
Transfusion-related acute lung injury is a rare, but potentially fatal response to a transfusion. It starts out with a fever and low blood pressure and can permanently damage your lungs.
HIV, Hepatitis B and C, West Nile Virus, and Zika can all be passed through a blood transfusion. Although the blood is screened, there is still a slim possibility of something being missed.

The idea of living forever has been around – well – forever. And so far, it has been but a dream. But it seems like lately interest is sparking up again.

The advances of science are incredible in many ways. The ethics of this seem to be a line that moves wherever the scientists want it to go. And if you think overpopulation and shortages of resources are issues now, imagine if we disturbed the natural order of things by extending life for decades longer.” . . .

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.