The Exploitation of Blood

Blood letting. Blood letting, the act of draining one's blood in hopes to level out "humors" as "surgeons" called it then in order to treat an array of maladies. This barbaric medical practice was in vogue for almost 2,000 years starting in antiquity Source. Can you even imagine that? In our current state of technology, can you imagine ANY medical treatment hanging on for 2,000 years? Hard to do, I know... absolutely ridiculous.

Not only did this insane treatment for -just about anything- go on for that long, but Barbers were practitioners of that as well as minor surgery. If you consider MINOR drilling into someone's skull. Hence, as most of you know, the red and white stripes on the barber sign. For blood and bandages.

Blood saves millions of lives every single year. The history of blood from lettings to transfusions to donations is a disgusting horror story that I don't have time to write. Blood is a natural resource. Blood cannot be made, only collected.

As a natural resource, surely in this day and age (and many past) it is one of the most important since the evolution of transfusions and the ability to separate whole blood into it's many different components.

Another resource that can be broken down into several components or derivatives is crude oil. As of the research I am sourcing in 2002 the price for a barrel of crude oil would sell for about $14. The price of a barrel of crude oil broken down into derivatives would go for $42.

The price for a barrel of the same quantity of human processed blood would go for more thann $67,000. But let's just stick to that number. Source

No wars have been fought over blood, which kind of makes me laugh, wars are just fought for oil. Wars require a massive amount of -donated- blood to be on hand for the soldiers, and thank god 38% of the American population is qualified to donate.

What? Just 38?

That's where it starts.

Blood does not have the best history, either, there were some screw ups and some transfusions happened that nobody wants to talk about that lead to some horrible outbreaks of some horrible diseases *cough HIV cough Hepatitis cough AIDS cough* but we are smarter than that now, aren't we? No longer the civilizations that held on to blood letting for 2,000 years, right?

You tell me.

Oil is wonderful!
- Doesn't transmit disease
- Quality mistakes only cost money
- Oil costs a ton for drilling and processing....

Blood...

-Can transmit disease
- Lack of quality could kill someone
- It's free, donated, wait..wtf...how did that happen....
- It keeps our soldiers alive to fight for oil.... hold on.. that doesn't sound right.....
- Those same soldiers who actually live can't donate for varying amounts of time..... oh crap
- People AT HOME need the many aspects of blood from Platelets to RH to Red and White cells to survive....

Am I missing something here?


Starting on 3/19/03 until today the amount of casualties in Iraq has added up to 4,488 (American) soldiers. This is not even including the wounded, or severely wounded, which I couldn't figure out a way to calculate, math is not my strong point.


Source
Doesn't sound so bad eh!? Canada! You are second behind American troops in casualties and injuries.

There are 5.6 Liters of blood average in one human body. If we take this and multiple it by the number of lives lost in combat since 2003 we come up with 6,639 gallons of blood which divided by 42 (the amount of gallons in the barrel we are speaking of) is equivalent to 158 barrels. Therefore the amount of blood spilled from 2003 until now is the equivalent (just in monetary terms, not lives) of $10,590,786. Dollars. Dollars.

If you were to take the same amount of crude oil from the time of the sourced reference and just whimsically tossed all of that oil on to the ground the cost to the US Government would be $6,386... wait there must be something wrong with that number... nope, that's the truth.

So here we are we send (and other Countries as well I see you over there I just based these statistics on America and thought I would throw Canada a little shoutout in the process) our troops over... lose one of our most valuable natural resources... for .... a less valuable natural resource. In droves. In blood shed. In blood letting. The draining of blood to even out the "humors" as a metaphor? Maybe this whole blood letting thing never ended hmm?

There are also other factors to keep in mind in which I do not have the mental capacity to calculate. The amount of soldiers at war who are not capable of donating. The amount of soldiers who are not allowed to donate due to their service. Yeah! That happens too. Here's a chart for ya.



Source

So okay, Americans, we give blood for free it's considered a good samaritan service. But what if oil were given for free? Oh GOD... what if.

The Bible mentions blood more than 400 times. "The Life of the flesh is in the blood" from Leviticus. In the Old Testament, vampiric consumption is verboten. Yet (and I find this ironic) some "drink of the blood of Christ" at communion in Church. Monks bled each other anually for health purposes. Egyptians bathed in it for Christ sake (no pun intended). It has been held as holy as far back as the written history goes but somehow it is worth spilling for oil. How?

Once upon a time people were paid for blood donations. This is not the case anymore. The only paying gig for giving up your once sacred life blood is plasma donation. I've known a few people who have done that to get by. Trust me you don't want their plasma.

During the Blitz the British were the only ones prepared with a supply of blood. They were draining people dry setting up donor stations wherever they could. Doctors had access to unlimited blood, at first they were reluctant to give this new idea of a "transfusion" to just anyone, but eventually it became common place and thus the value of blood was recognized by those in the control of the war pigs. There is no statistical record of the amount of blood consumed during The Blitz, but it was the first military use of blood and transfusions that changed the game from then on.

The Red Cross managed to sell this somehow beginning in 1941 as an act of human kindness to donate. In order to promote the donations of blood The Red Cross was encouraged to use war propaganda to sway the people towards donating.

Often the Red Cross would recruit veteran GI's to report about the "miracle" of plasma infusion. One, a pharmacist's mate named Harry L. Goldman, addressing a donor drive in New York, talked about the morale-building effects of plasma at the front:

When [soldiers[ know it's there, they know their chances of living, even if they are hit, are multiplied. They actually love the plasma... They think it's magic... Sometimes they shout, "Doc, hurry up! Bring some plasma," when they see a comrade badly hit. The lads know what it does for them... Understand, they give plasma right on the firing line; put a bayonet on a rifle and stick it in the ground, hang the bottle on the trigger guard and let it flow. Our pharmacist's mates are trained to handle their equipment in the dark, to rig it up and put it together just the way a machine gunner is trained to take his gun apart and put it together in the dark. Then all that is necessary is to throw a blanket over your head to conceal the light. You put on a small flashlight to find a vein and inject the needle. Also used in the propaganda is the quote "Your blood as a gift, is unlike money, unlike time or work- it is a gift most literally from your heart, straight to the heart of another- to an American soldier dier or sailor, who may live to help save all you count precious in the world, because you took one simple, generous step to help save the world"

Source

Let's not go into the debacle about "colored" blood vs. "white" blood for the sake of everyone's sanity. In any other current event situation I might have gone there, now, no.

The Soviet Union was also a party in the propaganda of blood donations, they called donors the "Heroes of the Soviet Union". Sounds great huh? Except they employed the method of bribery, offering jobs for the donors to factories, or university. The number of donors in Leningrad doubled. The citizens survived, and supplied the Soviet armed forces with more than one hundred metric tons of blood and plasma.

So let's step out of the past now and bring all this information with us into the present.





Given that information, I want you to consider something.

I have not included hemophiliacs in any of my calculations. I have not included people such as my Grandmother a platelet patient or cancer fighters/survivors who need different elements of whole blood in the casualties of war. Those numbers are impossible for me to figure out on my own. My Grandmother has almost no platelets. She has to get shots two or three times a week to keep her from bleeding out if she knocks her elbow on the kitchen counter or accidentally cuts herself chopping vegetables.

She is to call the EMT's instantly if she suffers so much as a bruise. She was recently hospitalized for a week because well... the Hospital ran out of platelets... and she had none.

I would not have gotten on this kick if I had not watched the woman who raised me sit in a hospital praying for them to find her platelets in another Hospital in this state. This thread has been mulling around in my mind for at least six months, but that was the straw that broke my camels back.

I have read through this information time and time again, trying to find some point to it all. Trying to tell you what I'm trying to tell you, and tell you again. The magic recipe for a good research paper. I can't find my point. All I can find are an endless list of more and more questions. I want to give these numbers again.


There are 5.6 Liters of blood average in one human body. If we take this and multiple it by the number of lives lost in combat since 2003 we come up with 6,639 gallons of blood which divided by 42 (the amount of gallons in the barrel we are speaking of) is equivalent to 158 barrels. Therefore the amount of blood spilled from 2003 until now is the equivalent (just in monetary terms, not lives) of $10,590,786. Dollars. Dollars.

If you were to take the same amount of crude oil from the time of the sourced reference and just whimsically tossed all of that oil on to the ground the cost to the US Government would be $6, 386... wait there must be something wrong with that number... nope, that's the truth. (quote)

What IS the price of war?
What ARE the casualties at home that have gone unaccounted for due to lack of available blood/platelets/red and white blood cells/ RH shots for the women with child?
What are the REAL numbers of death for war when you consider all of this?
What have we gotten in return for the barbaric spilling of a much needed resource that CANNOT be synthesized?
What are we sacrificing here?
Who do you know that depends on blood and it's derivatives and how do you feel about the lack of available blood for the price of oil?
How much more in debt to the American citizens is the Government, considering all of these facts?

And most importantly...

How is bleeding this Country (and others) dry of their most precious resource any different from the disgusting practices of blood letting thousands of years ago. Have we not come further than that?

Bleeding us dry. Literally and figuratively.

Blood letting is alive and well. Welcome back to antiquity.

Long overdue thread and all my love,
Val

delete this

delete this

delete this

I give blood and have left my organs after I die, The fact is 99% of you will take blood If needed and would take an organ for your child If needed but most of you will not give blood or leave an organ...think about that for a minute...think how selfish it is to take when needed but not to give to others.
See my sig for more details.
Also If you want to help your troops give blood.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
I give blood and have left my organs after I die, The fact is 99% of you will take blood If needed and would take an organ for your child If needed but most of you will not give blood or leave an organ...think about that for a minute...think how selfish it is to take when needed but not to give to others.
See my sig for more details.
Also If you want to help your troops give blood.

I take no stance on war or blood, just an epiphany that I would like to explore with all of you, of course the troops need the blood. My husband will be one soon. I just wanted to point out something that is out of the box to provoke new thoughts on the forums.

You had me at $10,590,786. Dollars. Dollars = $6, 386.
I'm not a mathematician but my calculator says that makes 1658 gallons of oil for every one gallon of blood spilled, if you equate strictly to dollars. Blood is 1658 times more valuable than oil.

To the government blood is worth nothing. Its value is zero or less than zero in most cases.
Have a 911 , and you've got valuable blood because that day made careers and retirements and
campaigns and wars and treaties and new laws. It was very valuable blood.

Originally posted by schmae
You had me at $10,590,786. Dollars. Dollars = $6, 386.
I'm not a mathematician but my calculator says that makes 1658 gallons of oil for every one gallon of blood spilled, if you equate strictly to dollars. Blood is 1658 times more valuable than oil.

To the government blood is worth nothing. Its value is zero or less than zero in most cases.
Have a 911 , and you've got valuable blood because that day made careers and retirements and
campaigns and wars and treaties and new laws. It was very valuable blood.

Exactly! Not only to the troops, but for our families friends and donors too. Children, mothers, wives, husbands, grandparents... on and on...

Just had a random thought, Could we not harvest blood from coma patients with consent from family?

Hell or instead of donating a brain dead person for organs, maybe do it for blood for a bit and than get the organs?

Just a random thought about how to help with blood shortages, but I am sure people would have moral issue with the above.

Also to say we are going to war over oil is a gross over simplification, a better view is we go to war for wars sake. War and the waging of it have always been profitable to the ones who provide the weapons, and guess who is the number one supplier of such in the world?

No one cares about blood , not really.
We, the citizens, the private individuals care about blood. We care because the blood is spilled by our siblings, parents and children. It is our family blood that is at risk of seeping into the dirt so we care. The big guys plan on us caring. They need us to care or the whole game would stop. We think, act and most importantly VOTE with our emotions and one of the most instinctual of them all is caring if our loved ones spill blood. That's animal.
If we didn't collectively respond to 911 EMOTIONALLY and the horror of it, then on 9-12 , we would have felt exactly the same as on 9-10 and what good would that have done ?

reply to post by benrl


This is exactly the kind of conversation I was aiming for. I am with you sweetheart, could we not?

Originally posted by ValentineWiggin
reply to post by benrl

 

This is exactly the kind of conversation I was aiming for. I am with you sweetheart, could we not?

I had this thought when my mother was dying, she was in a coma at the time, she is -O and used to donate regularly to the Red cross (believe she went once a month).

I believe she would of been fine being in that coma and happy to know they where harvesting her blood to save more lives.

Originally posted by benrl
Just had a random thought, Could we not harvest blood from coma patients with consent from family?

Hell or instead of donating a brain dead person for organs, maybe do it for blood for a bit and than get the organs?

Just a random thought about how to help with blood shortages, but I am sure people would have moral issue with the above.

Also to say we are going to war over oil is a gross over simplification, a better view is we go to war for wars sake. War and the waging of it have always been profitable to the ones who provide the weapons, and guess who is the number one supplier of such in the world?

edit on 25-7-2013 by benrl because: (no reason given)

As far as moral issues with that go, if the family is donating the body and organs anyway then why not donate the blood? Very valid point you have there. I mean to donate a family members eyes and skin... now if that can be overcome so can the donation of blood. IMO

Originally posted by benrl

Originally posted by ValentineWiggin
reply to post by benrl

 

This is exactly the kind of conversation I was aiming for. I am with you sweetheart, could we not?

I had this thought when my mother was dying, she was in a coma at the time, she is -O and used to donate regularly to the Red cross (believe she went once a month).

I believe she would of been fine being in that coma and happy to know they where harvesting her blood to save more lives.

Maybe that should be addressed along with organ donations, blood is a connective tissue anyway, I'm sure many people would donate given the chance.

reply to post by benrl


It wouldn't be enough, also Iam not so sure taking blood from people who are comatose is safe for the patient.
When someone is in a coma you have to keep there blood pressure normal and taking blood from them changes it slightly. It could cause them more damage to the brain.
The only way to keep the blood banks topped up is to give blood.

I think a coma patient's blood would be ok provided it was a brain injury and not an illness that put them in that coma.
Also as far as organ donations, I've never once heard it said " and blood' so I wonder if many families are not aware that they can give the blood as well. This is news to me.

reply to post by boymonkey74


Also valid. Like I said, it's meant to provoke thought. No right or wrong. All opinions are respected here. Just asking people -think- about it, have you ever?

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by benrl

 

It wouldn't be enough, also Iam not so sure taking blood from people who are comatose is safe for the patient.
The only way to keep the blood banks topped up is to give blood.

Okay in the case of a brain dead patient, why couldn't they be kept on life support while pumping blood out over a period of months.

It would not be economical in some cases, but incases of -O it could.

Does it blow anyone elses mind that in this day and age of technology synthetic blood analogues are so behind the real thing?

Even coconut water is better than some of the experimental synthetics.

reply to post by ValentineWiggin


No it is great to get people thinking of the subject I applaud you making this thread