Easily Led

[JJ50]

Why is it that some people are easily led by people who force feed them a doctrine, however crazy? Like sheep they will follow them even if it puts their lives, and that of their loved ones, in danger. We have had some startling examples of that over the years, the dreadful Jonestown Massacre, for instance.

Islamic extremists somehow talk their adherents into following their unpleasant dogma to the death. The JWs have persuaded their conscripts that having blood transfusions is not approved of in the Bible, so even if death results because they have refused one for themselves or their families, so be it!

Many TV evangelists persuade their sycophants to fund their lavish live styles. The Benny Hinn and other 'healers' manage to convince the gullible that they have performed miracles.

The Catholic Church has managed to get away with many crimes against humanity over the centuries, The Inquisition being one of the most heinous. Other evil blots on their tainted copy book was turning a blind eye where paedophile priests are concerned, and consigning unmarried pregnant girls to homes like the Magdalene Laundries. Those girls were cruelly treated, their babies stolen when they were born, and often sold to the highest bidder! The protestant lot have nothing to be smug about either, the rabid pastors who scare folk with their hell-fire garbage if they don't get 'saved' garbage do Christianity no good at all.

If only people would realise those who preach to others, and claim to know the mind of god/s, have no more idea than the rest of us if any god exists. Matters of faith should never be accepted without thorough questioning.

[onewithhim]

Those girls were cruelly treated, their babies stolen when they were born, and often sold to the highest bidder!

You make some valid points, but what are you talking about here?

The RCC providing alternatives to abortions? If these women don't want their children, isn't it better to give those children up for adoption rather than killing them in the womb?

How is that "stealing and selling" them?

Maybe you are referring to something I have not heard about.

Please provide support and citation for this charge.

No woman should be forced to go through pregnancy if she doesn't want a child.

The RCC in Ireland had unmarried girls placed in those ghastly Magdalene laundries where they were treated no better than slaves. When the babies were delivered they were removed and put up for adoption whether the women wished it or not! That flipping church has got a lost of evil deeds to answer for!

"Whether they wished it or not" IS a description of stealing. But please provide documentation that this is actually happening if you want to make such a serious charge. I doubt stealing babies is legal anywhere, including in Ireland.

And if the RCC was actually practicing this enslavement of girls and confiscation of babies, surely the government of Ireland would have put a stop to it..

Oh no, the gov't of Ireland would NOT have put a stop to it. That gov't was in the pocket of the Catholic Church, and has just recently awakened to its precarious association with it. These things have been known to people for decades upon decades, if not for centuries. The same things happened in Italy, and documentaries have been shown. Also in Canada....taking babies and even worse.


.

I’m going to have to ask you to provide evidence for this claim. The claim seems exceedingly outrageous. EJ seems to have the facts on his side, and you will need to provide documentation for such a serious charge for them to be taken seriously.

These things have been common knowledge for some time. How could I possibly even remember exactly where this information has come from down through the years? I'll see what I can come up with on YouTube.

.

[onewithhim]

It is NEVER a positive thing that a child dies. Blood substitutes are available, and they have been for years; they are also superior to taking blood itself. I have provided links to hospital sites, hospitals that provide bloodless medicine, but apparently no one bothers to check them out. Why?

Because it's not all that relevant to the moral dilemma, which you haven't answered by the way: Is it better to let a child die than to do a blood transfusion? Telling me the former isn't a positive thing doesn't tell me if it is preferable to the latter.

Again, why, when the blood substitutes are far better than someone else's blood?

Cheaper and more easily available. Google also tells me while there are lots of proven volume expanders substitutes, the same isn't true to oxygen-carrying blood substitutes.

less cost (blood is very expensive and serves big business interests).

I dispute that. Blood transfusion is still cheaper. Granted, that might change as the tech improve.

You haven't taken the time to educate yourself, which is the fact with most people it seems. There is SO MUCH information on bloodless medicine, and it's all good!

I wouldn't LET a child die. Blood transfusions are ancient medical procedures, just like leeching blood OUT of people was. I have shown you why blood subs titutes are far better than blood, but you keep asking the same question as if I hadn't said anything! A child is NOT GOING TO DIE if he is not given a blood transfusion! Can't you listen to doctors in various hospitals that say that the safest transfusion is NO transfusion?

You say that there are no substitutes that carry oxygen to the cells. Catch up with the current medicine.

OXYCYTE Synthetic Blood has been developed to do just that. Doctors say, "Oxycyte is just as good at carrying oxygen as the real thing." And they call it, "A whole new way to supply oxygen to tissues." (Dr. Bruce Spiess of the Virginia Commonwealth University Hospital)




There are many doctors, hospitals and medical centers that speak about bloodless medicine and its benefits; I have posted a few of them:






BLOOD TRANSFUSION IS NOT CHEAPER. How you came to that conclusion I can't fathom. Every medical site I have gone to has said that blood substitutes are much cheaper. One doctor I just listened to said, "Why not go with substitutes that allow the patient to recover more quickly without side-effects and complications, with better survival rates, and is cheaper too?"


http://www.articlesbase.com/business-op ... -business-

.

[onewithhim]

That last link doesn't go anywhere because I didn't get the full address.


To see one article on the big business of blood, here is a link:


https://www.sott.net/article/281631-Sel ... ness-in-US


Notice how the earnings of over $86 million/year get passed down to the institute's top executives who make 6-figure salaries.

[onewithhim]

U.S. MILITARY TO TRAIN IN BLOODLESS MEDICINE


Check out the medical community's opinions who are associated with Englewood Hospital and Medical Center, which the military is consulting with.


www.digitaljournal.com/article/287219


www.noblood.org


How can people not see this plain and clear advancement in medicine that BENEFITS our children and loved ones? EDUCATE YOURSELVES, people.


.

[onewithhim]

Is anyone willing to READ my posts and possibly look at the information given by the medical community, and make themselves truly informed about the blood issue?

If not, can someone state why they would rather ignore what the medical community itself is saying about it? And why would the U.S. military be training its medics with blood substitutes if it was bogus?


.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 44 by onewithhim]

Is anyone willing to READ my posts and possibly look at the information given by the medical community, and make themselves truly informed about the blood issue?

It doesn't inspire me to read all of your posts when you don't seem to reply to all of mine. I DO write to you... and you don't always respond.

I don't know why you don't.
But that happens all the time in here.

Don't get upset just because some people aren't clamoring to read every precious word you deem fit to write upon us.

I know it's tough.
But I know you can do this.

[shnarkle]

U.S. MILITARY TO TRAIN IN BLOODLESS MEDICINE


Check out the medical community's opinions who are associated with Englewood Hospital and Medical Center, which the military is consulting with.


www.digitaljournal.com/article/287219


www.noblood.org


How can people not see this plain and clear advancement in medicine that BENEFITS our children and loved ones? EDUCATE YOURSELVES, people.


.

I thought the first link was interesting. The second link required more decisions that I wasn't prepared to make, but I could see that there is an organization that deals with this new bloodless technology. I'd like to see something about what this bloodless stuff is actually made of though.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 46 by shnarkle]

I thought the first link was interesting

Bloodless blood.
If it's better than real blood, why not?
I'll go me for some o' dat.


Is that what Jesus was talkin' about?
Wait until 2017 for that bloodless blood transfusion?

Too bad for all the others BEFORE bloodless blood, though.



Pretty soon we will have brainless brains maybe toeless toes.
Transhumanism, baby !!

[JehovahsWitness]

I'd like to see something about what this bloodless stuff is actually made of though.

Saline I think is is simply a water based salt salution, don't quote me on that ... the following video goes into non-blood solutions.

This video briefly examines transfusion-alternative strategies that are simple, safe, and effective. Learn what a growing number of physicians say on this previously controversial subject.

You might find what you're looking for in terms of detail*
https://www.jw.org/en/medical-library/v ... trategies/


* I confess I am unable to watch the video through as it is made for heathcare professionals (and contains footage of surgeries) and I am much too squeamish to watch it...

[shnarkle]

I'd like to see something about what this bloodless stuff is actually made of though.

Saline I think is is simply a water based salt salution, don't quote me on that ... the following video goes into non-blood solutions.

This video briefly examines transfusion-alternative strategies that are simple, safe, and effective. Learn what a growing number of physicians say on this previously controversial subject.

You might find what you're looking for in terms of detail*
https://www.jw.org/en/medical-library/v ... trategies/


* I confess I am unable to watch the video through as it is made for heathcare professionals (and contains footage of surgeries) and I am much too squeamish to watch it...

The surgeries were ghastly. One looked like they had disemboweled a patient, while another few of them were chiseling away at knee caps. I didn't see anything about a substitute being used instead of blood. What it looked like to me was a good dozen or so different strategies to use instead of blood transfusion.

What I found particularly interesting was that these strategies were developed partly to deal with Jehovah's Witnesses. The fact that these strategies work better than blood transfusions, at a lower cost and quicker recovery seems like a godsend.

Before these strategies were implemented, did Jehovah's Witnesses ever donate their own blood for upcoming operations? The reason I ask is that the video pointed out that reclaiming blood from the operation, and recycling it back into them was acceptable to Jehovah's Witnesses. So if it is acceptable to have a blood transfusion of your own blood during an operation, it seems logical that the problem isn't really blood transfusions per se, but just not getting someone else's blood. Does that sound accurate, or am I missing something here?