Flypast And Concert For Ve Day 80Th...
News4 mins ago
For all the athiests.
127 Answers
How will you feel when you find out that there really is a God and that you have spent your life mocking him?
I know of many athiests who have spent most of their life disbelieving, and then finding out they were wrong.
What will you do?
I know of many athiests who have spent most of their life disbelieving, and then finding out they were wrong.
What will you do?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Truthabounds. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Risk of infection with malaria by transfusion.
The risk of acquiring transfusion malaria is very low (1 case per 4 million) in nonendemic countries such as the United States, whereas in the endemic countries, it is much higher (>50 cases per million donor units).
http://www.malariasit...aria/Transmission.htm
The risk of acquiring transfusion malaria is very low (1 case per 4 million) in nonendemic countries such as the United States, whereas in the endemic countries, it is much higher (>50 cases per million donor units).
http://www.malariasit...aria/Transmission.htm
I saw my mother die in agony,From that moment I knew there was no god. That was the end of all the fiction of the bible for me, I have seen children suffering which added fuel to my non belief. Also the so caled Acts of god.ie flooding famine etc.....if I am wrong and there is a god and these are his acts , then what an evkl god you believers worship.
@Truthabounds - Nothing in your posts gives any confidence in your assertion that you were in the "medical field". I dont believe you. Based upon your posts here, with the dismissal of modern science and medicine, the only medical job that you are fit for that would cause concern for the health and welfare of the patient in your care would be cleaning the commode.
I took a quick look at the articles - none say anything new. The hazards of blood transfusion are well known, as anyone in "the medical field" should know.
You should also know, if in fact you had any clinical involvement in "the medical field", just what enormous benefits blood transfusions offer to modern medicine, both to recipients and to the practitioners the various disciplines of modern medicine, such as vascular surgery, orthopoedic surgery, trauma care, oncology, chemotherapy. You should be aware of their value when it comes to supporting patients suffering from haemoglobinopathies. You should know of the immense value they have for sufferers of anaemia. You should be aware of the tremendous benefits of various components of blood, such as platelets, or coagulation factors.
Above all else, no one with any form of medical training could be as lacking in the understanding of the scientific method,and as dismissive of the value of science and the progress of modern medicine in combating and eradicating disease, extending life spans, and repairing/replacing joints, limbs and organs s you appear to be.Your religiius conviction blinds you.
And yes you are twisting words. The implication of your first post was clear for all to see - you inferred personal knowledge of many atheists who had converted - when challenged, you present a pitiful list of 3(!) that you may have heard of.
Your world view and your commentary is twisted and distorted by the prism of your own religious zealotry. Sad really.
I took a quick look at the articles - none say anything new. The hazards of blood transfusion are well known, as anyone in "the medical field" should know.
You should also know, if in fact you had any clinical involvement in "the medical field", just what enormous benefits blood transfusions offer to modern medicine, both to recipients and to the practitioners the various disciplines of modern medicine, such as vascular surgery, orthopoedic surgery, trauma care, oncology, chemotherapy. You should be aware of their value when it comes to supporting patients suffering from haemoglobinopathies. You should know of the immense value they have for sufferers of anaemia. You should be aware of the tremendous benefits of various components of blood, such as platelets, or coagulation factors.
Above all else, no one with any form of medical training could be as lacking in the understanding of the scientific method,and as dismissive of the value of science and the progress of modern medicine in combating and eradicating disease, extending life spans, and repairing/replacing joints, limbs and organs s you appear to be.Your religiius conviction blinds you.
And yes you are twisting words. The implication of your first post was clear for all to see - you inferred personal knowledge of many atheists who had converted - when challenged, you present a pitiful list of 3(!) that you may have heard of.
Your world view and your commentary is twisted and distorted by the prism of your own religious zealotry. Sad really.
The transient value of the internet allows anyone to post anything. Just because its on the internet doesn't make it valid or true. In fact any desenting voice can be obliterated from your site if they object to what you have stated.
This of course leads to paranoia for all types of things. You have an agenda I think you are a Jehovahs witness. I cannot consider your view even as a Theist either valid or i'm afraid intelligent. You of course will continue but as I said to Keyplus, whom you resemble so much, If you are right you will have to stand in front of your god 1st question "Does it not say judge and ye shall be judged" wouldn't want to be in your shoes.
This of course leads to paranoia for all types of things. You have an agenda I think you are a Jehovahs witness. I cannot consider your view even as a Theist either valid or i'm afraid intelligent. You of course will continue but as I said to Keyplus, whom you resemble so much, If you are right you will have to stand in front of your god 1st question "Does it not say judge and ye shall be judged" wouldn't want to be in your shoes.
Lazygun: Of course you are entitled to believe what you want. But I assure you I was trained & qualified. Unless you are which I doubt by some of your assertions. It is accepted that those who do not have transfusions recover and leave the hospital much sooner than those who have transfusions. True there are many components in the blood even Jehovah's Witnesses will accept some - only whole blood is refused.
I have even seen elderly patients treated for anaemia receive transfusions, leave hospital and return a month later only to die.
I have also treated patients who were given blood only to find out that the patient did not need it because they were bleeding internally. Don't presume to know things you have no knowledge of.
I have treated patients having identical operations. One had and one didn't.
The one who didn't left the hospital 3 or 4 days earlier than the one that had.
I have even seen elderly patients treated for anaemia receive transfusions, leave hospital and return a month later only to die.
I have also treated patients who were given blood only to find out that the patient did not need it because they were bleeding internally. Don't presume to know things you have no knowledge of.
I have treated patients having identical operations. One had and one didn't.
The one who didn't left the hospital 3 or 4 days earlier than the one that had.
@Truthabounds. You are right that I am entitled to believe whatever I want. The only evidence any of us has about another individual on here is based upon their posts, and yours do not offer any confidence in any sort of medical and clinical training. I do not believe your assertions.
Given that a 90 year old is pretty close to the end of their life, why on earth should we be surprised that an elderly person suffering from anaemia, itself an indication of morbidity, should die 1 month following a transfusion? Are you seriously trying to imply cause and effect from a transfusion and a death one month later? And you wonder why I doubt your credentials.Patients needing a blood transfusion are by definition are a cohort of patients with a high mortality risk. You wilfully confuse correlation with causation, a trait common amongst those with a fundamentalist mindset.
You go on to compound the error and reinforce your ignorance - "It is accepted that those who do not have transfusions recover and leave the hospital much sooner than those who have transfusions". That might be the case for a small cohort of patients suffering essentially chronic conditions - but once again you fail to make that clear.
To repeat - the hazards of blood transfusion are very well known. This is why transfusions are carefully regulated and controlled, because the intention is to minimise unnecessary risk to the patient wherever possible. Whilst there are still some unneccessary transfusions, the vast majority are clinically indicated and of substantial benefit to the patient - benefits far outweighing any perceived risk.
Your clinical presentation skills are more than a little rusty too.
"I have also treated patients who were given blood only to find out that the patient did not need it because they were bleeding internally. Don't presume to know things you have no knowledge of."
1. How many patients?
2. How did you treat them?
3. What was the diagnosis at presentation?
4. Were they in shock?
5. Hypo or normovolaemic?
Internal bleeding warrants a blood transfusion if the haemorrhage is sufficiently severe that the patient is hypovolaemic and at risk of cardiac arrest or worse. If you were clinically trained, you would know this.
And this is even worse, on a clinical and scientific level.
" have treated patients having identical operations. One had and one didn't.
The one who didn't left the hospital 3 or 4 days earlier than the one that had"
I mean, come on? Are you still trying to maintain the fiction that you have any sort of scientific training?
1. What operation?
2. Please state the minimum number of that type of procedure that needs to be carried out that will show a meaningful, statistically relevant result.
Every sentence you type, every statement you make betrays your fundamentalism, and your lack of scientific or clinical knowledge. I do not believe you.
Given that a 90 year old is pretty close to the end of their life, why on earth should we be surprised that an elderly person suffering from anaemia, itself an indication of morbidity, should die 1 month following a transfusion? Are you seriously trying to imply cause and effect from a transfusion and a death one month later? And you wonder why I doubt your credentials.Patients needing a blood transfusion are by definition are a cohort of patients with a high mortality risk. You wilfully confuse correlation with causation, a trait common amongst those with a fundamentalist mindset.
You go on to compound the error and reinforce your ignorance - "It is accepted that those who do not have transfusions recover and leave the hospital much sooner than those who have transfusions". That might be the case for a small cohort of patients suffering essentially chronic conditions - but once again you fail to make that clear.
To repeat - the hazards of blood transfusion are very well known. This is why transfusions are carefully regulated and controlled, because the intention is to minimise unnecessary risk to the patient wherever possible. Whilst there are still some unneccessary transfusions, the vast majority are clinically indicated and of substantial benefit to the patient - benefits far outweighing any perceived risk.
Your clinical presentation skills are more than a little rusty too.
"I have also treated patients who were given blood only to find out that the patient did not need it because they were bleeding internally. Don't presume to know things you have no knowledge of."
1. How many patients?
2. How did you treat them?
3. What was the diagnosis at presentation?
4. Were they in shock?
5. Hypo or normovolaemic?
Internal bleeding warrants a blood transfusion if the haemorrhage is sufficiently severe that the patient is hypovolaemic and at risk of cardiac arrest or worse. If you were clinically trained, you would know this.
And this is even worse, on a clinical and scientific level.
" have treated patients having identical operations. One had and one didn't.
The one who didn't left the hospital 3 or 4 days earlier than the one that had"
I mean, come on? Are you still trying to maintain the fiction that you have any sort of scientific training?
1. What operation?
2. Please state the minimum number of that type of procedure that needs to be carried out that will show a meaningful, statistically relevant result.
Every sentence you type, every statement you make betrays your fundamentalism, and your lack of scientific or clinical knowledge. I do not believe you.
Truthabounds, //Naomi: I pity you.// Oh dear! So, that's what your argument is reduced to? That's par for the course when one who thinks he knows all about religion debates with atheists who happen to know more. And if you think about it, Truthabounds, that's the very reason I'm an atheist. Perhaps you need to find true enlightenment by doing a little more research.
And by the way, you are twisting words. You said you 'know of many athiests who have spent most of their life disbelieving, and then finding out they were wrong.' Once and for all neither you nor they can know they were wrong, just as you cannot know you are right.
Lazygun, maybe he's trained and qualified to push a hospital trolley - or at most, to drive an ambulance. He's no doctor, that's for sure!
And by the way, you are twisting words. You said you 'know of many athiests who have spent most of their life disbelieving, and then finding out they were wrong.' Once and for all neither you nor they can know they were wrong, just as you cannot know you are right.
Lazygun, maybe he's trained and qualified to push a hospital trolley - or at most, to drive an ambulance. He's no doctor, that's for sure!
"I have even seen elderly patients treated for anaemia receive transfusions, leave hospital and return a month later only to die. ....I have also treated patients who were given blood only to find out that the patient did not need it because they were bleeding internally. Don't presume to know things you have no knowledge of. ....I have treated patients having identical operations. One had and one didn't. The one who didn't left the hospital 3 or 4 days earlier than the one that had."
so have i, probably. what doess all this prove then ? that your god is vindictive, indecisive and out of control - so whats changed.
so have i, probably. what doess all this prove then ? that your god is vindictive, indecisive and out of control - so whats changed.
In medecine all sort of strange things happen truthabounds.
Just because you have experience of one or two things does not make them universally true.
That's why we have statistically controlled double blind trials.
Can you imagine if pharamacutical companies were allowed to sell drugs based on "personal experience"?
I have no doubt that you've seen eldely people die after a transfusion or someone leave without one.
I also have no doubt that there are many many motor accident victims who are only walking about today due to the genorosity of blood donors.
Just because you have experience of one or two things does not make them universally true.
That's why we have statistically controlled double blind trials.
Can you imagine if pharamacutical companies were allowed to sell drugs based on "personal experience"?
I have no doubt that you've seen eldely people die after a transfusion or someone leave without one.
I also have no doubt that there are many many motor accident victims who are only walking about today due to the genorosity of blood donors.
"I also have no doubt that there are many many motor accident victims who are only walking about today due to the genorosity of blood donors"
my mum had a transfusion when she was 70. that was 3 years ago and she's still tootling about. i really don't see what any this is proving. but if you are going to give up truthabounds then you are most welcome.
my mum had a transfusion when she was 70. that was 3 years ago and she's still tootling about. i really don't see what any this is proving. but if you are going to give up truthabounds then you are most welcome.
Blood transfusions can be given to those known to be dying... to improve the quality of their last days... letting them feel less tired and breathless if a low haemoglobin is stopping them carrying enough oxygen... so of course they can die soon after...
I have worked at the bedside of patients in intensive care knowing something as simple as a blood transfusion could save their lives yet because of their religious convictions the treatment is denied them... I see it as a sad waste... if it wasn't in gods plan for blood to be transfused we should not have been allowed the gift of working out it could be done... so I will vote on the side of the non believers til your god gets his act together and writes a better manifesto...
I have worked at the bedside of patients in intensive care knowing something as simple as a blood transfusion could save their lives yet because of their religious convictions the treatment is denied them... I see it as a sad waste... if it wasn't in gods plan for blood to be transfused we should not have been allowed the gift of working out it could be done... so I will vote on the side of the non believers til your god gets his act together and writes a better manifesto...
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles32 mins ago
News65 mins ago