Click Here. Headline: Study says FDA allowed risky tests of blood substitutes "Experimental blood substitutes raised the risk of heart attack and death, yet U.S. regulators allowed human testing to continue despite warning signs..." Why must blood substitutes be risky?
They are because they are the synthetic creations of arrogant men who believe that they are superior to the Creator. Oh, I know that they will not come right out and say it, but what else would you call synthetic blood and the "Dr. Frankenstein's" who synthesize it, if not an abomination?
"A safe replacement for blood would be a breakthrough for medicine and a big money-maker for companies that produce it."
The breakthrough is not for you and me, but for the pharmaceutical patent-holder. I would not begrudge someone a patent, except when that patent will be used in a government-mandated monopoly show of force. Just try to offer a safe alternative to Red Cross blood. Besides another abomination, I would call synthetic blood unnecessary, considering that nature provides many substances that can act as a temporary bridge until those in desperate need can restore their sanguineous supply to normal again. Naturally.
"In 2006, after a lawsuit by Public Citizen protesting a closed-door hearing, the FDA halted a test by the Navy, which planned to use a blood substitute on civilian trauma victims."
It's bad enough that our government is in bed with synthetic manufacturers -- but its willingness to experiment upon an uninformed populace is unconscionable. It brings to mind a question I often ponder: Why do Democrats trust government so much? You can be sure that the Navy would target Democratic voters for experimental I.V. administration at least as quickly as it would Republicans. Government has no guilt or remorse, only force.
What about Elizabeth Dole's favorite organization? Is the Red Cross running out of your blood? Or are people finally unwilling to donate for cookies and cream that which is then sold to patients (including the donors themselves) for big profits? Of course, synthetic blood, after patenting and receiving FDA approval, would be a virtual platinum mine. Imagine if you invented "Fake Blood" and it was granted monopoly status by the federal government. How much money could you make for you and your shareholders?
"Researchers found a 30 percent higher risk of death overall for patients who received transfusions using the blood substitutes..."
I suppose that the FDA could always argue that the upside is that "at least the risk did not go up by 100%". I am humble enough to admit that man can never duplicate the majesty and complexity, much less the simultaneous simplicity of biological reality. Our folly is that we attempt to better nature through mental constructs lacking the inspiration that the mind cannot fully comprehend. How are we doing on that pretend blood thing?
"The risk of heart attack was nearly tripled in the groups receiving blood substitutes."
Sounds promising. In addition to being an unnecessary abomination, the granting of monopoly status is UN-constitutional (even if it were for natural blood substitutes). But that never seems to stop the Medical Industrial Complex and its desire to take over what's left of the free world. Maybe the FDA could turn this over to Pinky and the Brain. Do you really think that a monopoly on blood would lead to innovation? Quite the opposite, it stifles innovation.
On the other hand, what would freedom and free markets bring us? For one, knowledge of the fact that an isotonic solution of unpolluted seawater is a safe and effective substitute for blood transfusions. Does anyone even remember the work of Quinton? How about the fact that during WWII, soldiers lives in the South Pacific were saved by infusions of pure coconut water? Does anybody consider the fact that chlorophyll may convert to hemoglobin in the human body? Have you tried a food grown supplement for building the blood lately?
Granted, awareness of these natural methods for saving lives would eat into the profits of The Red Cross and perhaps even challenge its reason for being. Although they could adapt to embrace these natural solutions for the genuine benefit of everyone. What is their mission statement?
"The American Red Cross, a humanitarian organization led by volunteers and guided by its Congressional Charter and the Fundamental Principles of the International Red Cross Movement, will provide relief to victims of disasters and help people prevent, prepare for, and respond to emergencies."
Is there anything in the above declaration that says "...except in cases where doing so would diminish the profits from the blood trade monopoly"? So why is there not a massive investigation into safe, natural options being used worldwide that would eliminate the need for banking potentially contaminated blood, much less the elevated risk of death that accompanies the synthetic variety?
Once again, we come back to the question of LIBERTY. Do you believe that you have a right to know and act upon information even if it goes against the desires of the FDA and the industry which it protects (to your death)? In America, a doctor can lose his license and be imprisoned simply for utilizing what Creation has given us for healing, especially if it involves eliminating the need for blood transfusions. We don't need no stinking blood transfusion -- we need a freedom infusion.
Far be it from me to remind you that that which we really need will not come from electing establishment candidates like Barack, Hillary or John-boy. Those three should come with a special collective disclaimer:
"Voting for these candidates will in no way restore constitutionally limited government to this nation. Enter voting booth at your own risk, because FEMA is not going to save you."
Where is the Truth in Labeling Law when you need it? The lifeblood of this nation depends upon its people knowing where sustenance lies. It's a lie that government can sustain you. What gets in the way if you are dangerously low on blood and do not want foreign blood or pharmaceutical blood pumped into you?
I wonder if Hillary, Barack or John-boy know the answer to that question? They're not going to like it. The answer is government. Score another point for the one candidate who respects the right of medical freedom, even if the FDA never will.
In blood, the universal donor is "O." In freedom, the universal donor is Ron Paul. Care for an all natural infusion of individual liberty?
Stumble It!