On May 15, 5:39=A0am, r...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On May 14, 8:31 pm, d....@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> > Sorry, my previous post was unclear.
>
> > The personal benefits of phlebotomy, relative to life extension are
> > well known
>
> > Suppose there was a jurisdiction that was so incompetently run that a
> > particular large subgroup was prohibited from blood donation due to a
> > "bad" immunilogical profile. .... (snip)
>
> If you are referring to the practice of not using blood with overly
> high hemoglobin levels, as occurs in such diseases as hemachromatosis
> and polycythemia, this is justified on two grounds: first, the blood
> is too thick and can not be directly transfused, =A0Two, high hematocrit
> can be indicative of a diseased state, thus the risks of using it for
> transfusion can't be justified. Low hemoglobin levels are similarly
> undesirable, and drawing blood could put the donor at risk.
>
> Or are you talking about something else?
No, I was specifically refering to immunilogical profile not high
hemocrit. I was being extremely vague in order not to identify myself
and in order to appeal to the self interest of the widest audience. In
the case of too high hemocrit like in hemochromatosis or polychemia,
immediate phlebotomy is required to avoid prompt death. For them,
phlebotomy contributes to life extension on the short term. Iron is a
powerful catalyst of one electron oxidation and so reduction of iron
load will lead to life extension in all other subgroups. This should
be self evident to all doctors.
|
