Scientists Race To Create Synthetic Blood in the Wake of Mass Tragedies (vice.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Race To Create Synthetic Blood in the Wake of Mass Tragedies (vice.com)

Posted by msmash on Thursday October 5, 2017 @10:00AM from the to-the-future dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report: Scientists have been working on creating synthetic blood for years now. The hope is that this substance will have a longer shelf life than human blood -- which can only be refrigerated for 42 days -- and eventually can be packaged and stored for use in emergencies. If this works, thousands of lives could be saved every year. "People can't show up fast enough and then the system can't draw their blood fast enough to meet the need," said Allan Doctor, a physician and researcher at the Washington University in St. Louis. Doctor's lab has been working to create a blood substitute called ErythroMer, comprised of human hemoglobin, sourced from the red blood cells in expired blood at blood banks, and a synthetic polymer. This synthetic blood is actually a dehydrated powder, which would allow it to be stored for years, rather than weeks, and easily transported. Doctor envisions that it could eventually be packaged along with purified water so that doctors or EMTs could mix it when they needed to use it on a patient. ErythroMer is still in the planning stages. It has only been tested on animals, and Doctor predicts that the team is about three to five years from the first human trials. Following that, it will need FDA approval, and then healthcare workers will need to be trained to use it properly to avoid infections. "It's important for us to have a bulletproof delivery system," Doctor told me. He predicts that it will be available in six to 10 years if the trials are successful, and if they can make a cost-effective formula. There are different approaches to creating synthetic blood, which is technically just a way of transporting oxygen in the body. In 2013, a team in Romania announced that they were making it with albumin, a liver protein, and hemerythrin, a protein extracted from worms. In the UK, scientists with the National Health Service have been testing lab-grown red blood cells.

99 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Slow down, scientists by PopeRatzo · 2017-10-05 10:04 · Score: 3, Funny

I'm not sure I see how racing is going to help them create synthetic blood. Shouldn't they be doing research instead?

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
1. Re:Slow down, scientists by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 10:36 · Score: 0
  
  They are, but journalists are paid by the click these days.
2. Re:Slow down, scientists by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2017-10-05 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  Holy cow! What a great idea -- synthetic and alternatives to human blood! If only someone had thought to start research on it centuries ago!
  Why did no one think of this??? It's obvious we can use it...in hindsight.
  Talk about Captain Obvious. Duh to all of us, all humanity!
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
....have a bulletproof delivery system... by turkeydance · 2017-10-05 10:04 · Score: 2

what he said
1. Re:....have a bulletproof delivery system... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 10:13 · Score: 0
  
  Use of that metaphor, at this time, was in VERY bad taste.
2. Re:....have a bulletproof delivery system... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 12:25 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously though, they should dispense these in K-Cups
3. Re:....have a bulletproof delivery system... by ChrisMaple · 2017-10-06 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  I prefer breasts in K cups.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
OR we could just stop... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 10:05 · Score: 0

... importing savages that causes these blood baths. No? Oh, well. Back to finding insane workarounds instead of dealing with the actual problem, I guess...
1. Re:OR we could just stop... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 10:12 · Score: 0
  
  Where was Stephen Paddock from again? oh, yeah, Iowa.. we need to build a wall around Iowa!
2. Re:OR we could just stop... by AmiMoJo · 2017-10-05 10:19 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I'm guessing the OP it's a native American demanding that Europeans go back to Europe.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
3. Re:OR we could just stop... by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-10-05 10:27 · Score: 0
  
  ISIS claims they radicalized him. If we glassed the whole of the mideast this would never have happened.
4. Re:OR we could just stop... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 11:18 · Score: 0
  
  Sounds legit.
5. Re:OR we could just stop... by Pseudonym · 2017-10-05 13:05 · Score: 2
  
  ISIS claims they radicalized him.
  I think everyone knows by now that ISIS is full of shit.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
6. Re:OR we could just stop... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  It's a fair point. Native Americans have historically been disproportionately on the receiving end of mass shootings by white guys.
7. Re:OR we could just stop... by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-10-05 14:41 · Score: 0
  
  I think everyone knows by now that ISIS is full of shit.
  Most people who follow the situation over time know that ISIS are CIA puppets (they were actually formed when Obama sent McCain over to do an arms deal, which set them up with all their firepower - just after Obama was elected the media spun it for weeks straight as a massive bipartisan act of cooperation.)
  Though using the term "puppet" might suggest too much control, if it was ISIS then more like it was a CIA op for a gun grab and pinning it on ISIS doesn't fit the desired narrative, even if they did facilitate it. So you would end up with people investigating claiming it was unrelated and ISIS claiming it was them because they genuinely believe it was, even though they were just unwittingly following the orders of their handlers who found them the best way to get it done.
8. Re:OR we could just stop... by Pseudonym · 2017-10-05 17:06 · Score: 1
  
  [...] more like it was a CIA op for a gun grab and pinning it on ISIS doesn't fit the desired narrative, even if they did facilitate it.
  My favourite conspiracy theory is that it was a false flag operation by gun manufacturers to make their stock prices and sales go up (as they reliably do after massacres).
  It's just as plausible.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
9. Re: OR we could just stop... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 20:51 · Score: 0
  
  Blackmailed into it by the NRA for being a pedo? More likely than the Magic Bullet by far.
10. Re:OR we could just stop... by cyberchondriac · 2017-10-06 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  I smell a false flag post.
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Or you could just... by coffecup · 2017-10-05 10:05 · Score: 1, Insightful

... ban semi/automatic weapons in the first place...
1. Re:Or you could just... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 10:17 · Score: 0
  
  a) automatics have been banned for a long time (not that that is a solution to anything)
  b) many countries with outright weapon bans (even for police) still see mass attacks
  Going to ban trucks like the ones used in UK? How about we talk about the events and ideas leading to people doing this sort of evil.
  The connection between artificial blood and mass attacks is a bit silly. The amount of blood needed daily dwarfs any needed during in attack, but sure.
2. Re:Or you could just... by PopeRatzo · 2017-10-05 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  and semi's, trucks, airplanes, pressure cookers.. there's plenty of ways to kill people.
  
  See, the difference is that those things you mention have uses beyond killing people or the threat of killing people.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
3. Re:Or you could just... by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-10-05 10:34 · Score: 0
  
  It would take over 1,000 of these Vegas events EVERY DAY to even approach the threat of repealing high power weaponry.
  In the course of Human history the biggest threat to a population has always been its own government, and the first thing they do before a genocide is to revoke weapons in the hands of citizens, this dates back to when weapons were swords through the modern day.
  What's worse? 50,000 people slaughtered a day or a new holocaust? Because the numbers for the holocaust alone show that we would have to have 52,812 deaths PER DAY to even match the damage of a disarmed population of our size (and the holocaust was actually one of the milder genocides in Human history, though makes for a good example being both recent and well-known, there are some ongoing ones in the world today but people tend not to pay attention to them so I went the Godwin's law route.)
4. Re:Or you could just... by cfalcon · 2017-10-05 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  > See, the difference is that those things you mention have uses beyond killing people or the threat of killing people.
  Sometimes to save lives and liberty you have to kill people or meaningfully be able to threaten such. That's why Americans have a right to bear arms.
5. Re:Or you could just... by PopeRatzo · 2017-10-05 10:55 · Score: 2
  
  Sometimes to save lives and liberty
  Are you saying that occasionally the tree of liberty has to be watered with the blood of hundreds of civilians at a country music concert?
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
6. Re:Or you could just... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2017-10-05 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  There's a new meme floating around that the number of gun deaths in the US is just now passing the number of war deaths. This Is Bad. Or Something.
  Nevermind that most of these are suicides, not murder. (Still an issue, but not the Big Scary they intend rhetorically.)
  Nevermind that the US has had very few war deaths compared to its population size compared to basically every other country.
  Nevermind that most countries lost those lives because of dictatorship, whose first order of business is outlawing guns and free speech, going hand in hand arresting political opponents and publishers on trumped up charges. Men appearing in the middle of the night to disappear you? Wish real hard.
  By the terms of the Second Amendment, any death comparison involving guns must include deaths due to loss of freedom.
  The logical conclusion, as Spock would say? Get lost, mass murderous Europe, Asia, and Africa. You have literally negative proof gun control saves net lives the past 200+ years of the US' existence.
  Before the inevitable downmod by the censorious who have had their noses snapped, read my .sig.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
7. Re:Or you could just... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 11:20 · Score: 0
  
  what about knives, forks, pens, baseball bats, rocks?
8. Re:Or you could just... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 11:29 · Score: 0
  
  and semi's, trucks, airplanes, pressure cookers.. there's plenty of ways to kill people.
  See, the difference is that those things you mention have uses beyond killing people or the threat of killing people.
  So what? Why does that matter when the death toll of a truck in Nice was higher. Fertilizer and a rental truck killed nearly three times as many people in Oklahoma City.
  Is this about saving lives or fear of an inanimate object?
9. Re: Or you could just... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 12:20 · Score: 0
  
  Full auto isnt banned, just need tax stamp and pre 1986 weapon. And others can even get modern. We had a fully real HK g36c on set a few weeks ago.
10. Re:Or you could just... by currently_awake · 2017-10-05 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  An average person can convert a semi-auto rifle into a full auto rifle in about an hour using common tools. You can buy most of the parts of an automatic rifle without a license, you just need a way to get the lower receiver to complete it. They make lower receiver kits, that you can buy without a license. More Americans are killed by cars than by guns.
11. Re:Or you could just... by currently_awake · 2017-10-05 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  No, Americans have the right to bear arms so the rich people running the country can have body guards and a private army to keep their third world enterprises running smoothly. There is no scientific correlation between gun ownership and being safe.
12. Re: Or you could just... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  More Americans are killed by cars than by guns.
  A rhetorical statement with no particular value. Not only is automobile safety a particularly important concern, the exposure rates are quite different. How would you even control for the fact that the average American is around a functioning automobile at a rate far exceeding that of being around even a holstered firearm?
  I swear, it is like people just sputter useless facts without thinking.
13. Re:Or you could just... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 13:41 · Score: 0
  
  It would take over 1,000 of these Vegas events EVERY DAY to even approach the threat of repealing high power weaponry.
  It's funny you came up with a nice round number like that.
  
  In the course of Human history the biggest threat to a population has always been its own government
  Really? That explains why so many populations have been wiped out by disease, famine, conquest, and disaster. Less so by their own government.
  
  and the first thing they do before a genocide is to revoke weapons in the hands of citizens, this dates back to when weapons were swords through the modern day.
  You don't genocide your own. You genocide the other. That's the first thing you do.
  
  What's worse? 50,000 people slaughtered a day or a new holocaust?
  Aren't they both kinda bad?
  
  Because the numbers for the holocaust alone show that we would have to have 52,812 deaths PER DAY to even match the damage of a disarmed population of our size (and the holocaust was actually one of the milder genocides in Human history, though makes for a good example being both recent and well-known, there are some ongoing ones in the world today but people tend not to pay attention to them so I went the Godwin's law route.
  Except, of course, for much of the slaughter in World War II being of an armed populace, by another, better armed group, so maybe you should ask yourself, why you are allowing either of them to have such high power weaponry? Seriously, you picked World War II, and you expect us to think it was all the Holocaust? Not so. In fact, there were lots of deaths far from the Concentration Camps, and the guns in people's hands didn't prevent those fatalities.
  There was a reason why the German state was supposed to be kept from fighting an offensive war. Maybe if they'd stuck to that, you'd realize how many millions of lives could have been saved.
  But this would require you to give up your love of the power of the gun.
14. Re:Or you could just... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 13:44 · Score: 0
  
  so the rich people running the country can have body guards and a private army
  
  False. The rich hire former military and police whom are typically exempt from nearly all "gun control" laws. This special class of citizen can buy pretty much any type of military arms they like short of nuclear.
15. Re:Or you could just... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 14:00 · Score: 0
  
  and semi's, trucks, airplanes, pressure cookers.. there's plenty of ways to kill people.
  See, the difference is that those things you mention have uses beyond killing people or the threat of killing people.
  It is sad that we are even having this argument. There are countries that have a lot of guns that have little gun crime and there are those which have few guns with low gun crimes. You have to look at the larger picture. Controls are required to keep some level of sanity. Also arguments like Chicago has gun laws but a gun problem are so beyond stupid, anyone who makes it should just repent and join a monastery, since they are clearly too stupid to be allowed to make any important decisions. (A gun law is useless, if you can take a car/bus/walk a little bit and get around it.)
  When your spending profile is strange your credit card company is apt to freeze your card and give you a call. Why, again, do we do less with guns and ammunition?
  Besides people act as if having guns protects us from tyranny. They don't. See Donald J. Trump and his contribution to the war on democracy and decency.
  If people really want to do something useful support independent fact checking, local and national news that has real investigative reporting, your local NPR, the ACLU, candidates that are actually honest (they exist), ranked voting or runoffs, public television, an end to gerrymandering, an end to the electoral college, the man or woman in the other party who you can't stand on one issue but is basically an honest and good person compared to his or her opponent, strong encryption, the football players on their knees, the requirement for due diligence when selling advertisements, including basic fact checking, etc, etc.
  In short any number of things are more effective in protecting our democracy than guns. The military has all of those we need. Now it can be argued that we don't need a total ban, just some common sense regulations. That is fair enough.
  What is not fair enough is saying, "Well there is nothing we can do." Such a statement is an insult to the grace that gave you intelligence. There are many examples of countries not screwing this topic up. Pick one. It is the same with health care. Sadly I don't recall an example where a country consistent rejects mistakes like Mr. Trump, but then I suppose at some point it comes down to constant vigilance.
  When I was in high school and learning history I thought, this can't be so important. Surely we have learned to not repeat the mistakes of the past. It is quite clear now that we have not. I just hope the arc of history really does bend towards justice, because right now it looks pretty shaky.
16. Re:Or you could just... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 14:57 · Score: 0
  
  Here are the stats for gun incidents through Oct. 5, 2017, for the USA; apparently this table is not complete. See the reference: http://www.gunviolencearchive....
  
  Total Number of Incidents 47,212.
  Number of Deaths (1) 11,716.
  Number of Injuries (1) 23,984.
  Number of Children (age 0-11) Killed or Injured (1) 552.
  Number of Teens (age 12-17) Killed or Injured (1) 2,466.
  Mass Shooting (2) 275.
  Officer Involved Incident. Officer Shot or Killed (2) 237.
  Officer Involved in Incident: Subject Shot or Killed (2) 1,570.
  Home Invasion (2) 1,889.
  Defensive Use (2) 1,535.
  Unintentional Shooting (2) 1,530.
  
  Footnotes: (1) Actual number of deaths and injuries; (2) Number of incidents reported and verified
  
  If these rates continue for the rest of the 2017, there will be ~63,000 incidents for the year.
17. Re: Or you could just... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 21:09 · Score: 0
  
  What's worse? 50,000 people slaughtered a day or a new holocaust?
  Are you an idiot? I only ask because you are plainly an idiot. What kind of paranoid idiot believes the government is desperate to kill us, but is held back because of guns in the hands of citizens. Democracy, or government by citizens, is what prevents that. The biggest threat to America is the cultural seperation of military families from common citizens. Bring back the draft, even in peacetime and with no deferments, and one of the twin children of the Enlightenment will live forever.
18. Re:Or you could just... by blindseer · 2017-10-05 21:24 · Score: 1
  
  There is no scientific correlation between gun ownership and being safe.
  You are correct. There's three possible correlations:
  - More guns = more crime
  - More guns = less crime
  - More guns = simply more guns
  I did a study on this for a graduate level statistics class. While I did not compare gun ownership rates I did compare the gun laws of various states. I suspect greater restrictions on ownership correlates to ownership. The best I found was some very weak correlations to gun laws and crime. Increased restrictions correlated to increased rates of rape and decreased robberies.
  I guess if we look at the data one has a choice, robberies or rapes. Total crime is effectively unchanged but when one goes the other takes it's place. I generally dislike the government telling me how and where I may defend myself. I also dislike the idea of leaving women vulnerable to rape. This will come at a cost of robberies, which is still considered a violent crime. There's likely to be some bruised faces and battered pride but if all that is lost is some money and a cell phone then life goes on.
  I'm not the only one that did this analysis, there are others that took similar data and came to similar conclusions. Here's the important part, look for the effect on total crime. There's lots of studies on "gun violence" which give a lot of nonsense. It doesn't include the deterrent factor that gun ownership has on people getting injured and killed with knives and fists. It also counts legal shootings by police and innocent citizens stopping criminals as "gun violence". Also included in "gun violence" is suicides.
  Again, I looked at ALL CRIME, not gun crime, or this fiction that is "gun violence". Filter out the noise and you are correct, gun ownership does not keep you safe. It does mean that women should go armed because they are less likely to get raped when armed. They might have to hand over some cash to make a thug go away but that will save them from a more severe outcome.
  
  --
  I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
19. Re:Or you could just... by bill_mcgonigle · 2017-10-05 23:40 · Score: 1
  
  ... ban semi/automatic weapons in the first place...
  Because this sophisticated approach has worked so well for preventing the use of recreational drugs...
  Anyway, kudos to the scientists who are hacking around the ban on selling blood, but speaking of bans, we need to get rid of the ban on selling blood. Coincidentally, my team and I were working through a protocol two weeks ago to use a blockchain-based bloodbank protocol to allow this to be done safely and to improve public health and reduce Medicaid spending all at once. Legality is the major impediment.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
20. Re:Or you could just... by Talderas · 2017-10-06 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  Earlier this week I tried looking to see if there had ever been a challenge to the National Firearms Act that reached the Supreme Court. I was expecting to find something but I didn't, which is surprising. Maybe there has been a challenge, I'd like to know what it was and the outcome of it. I would be quite interested in knowing it because we do know that since the founding of the country, private individuals had owned artillery pieces without problem.
  Events in Las Vegas are useful for bringing light to an issue of guns that is a small portion of gun related death. In the grand scheme of things, banning semi automatic weapons will have minimal impact with regard to preventing gun deaths. There's well over 10,000 concerts annually in the US. If we include sports games, clubs, conventions, and other large events we're probably easily in a figure that exceeds 50,000 events each year. We're dealing with a problem that is at most in the hundredths of a percent.
  Let's look at what you're talking about. Banning semi-automatic weapons. Banning semi-automatics doesn't reduce the lethality of a gun. It will have virtually no impact on the largest group of individuals that die each year from firearms which are successful suicides. What about the second largest group? That's victims of gang and criminal related activity. The majority of these victims are members of rival gangs or crime organizations. A small number of bystanders who are shot and killed. Would banning semi-automatics help here? Not by much. Semi-automatic vs non-semi-automatic doesn't magically improve a shooter's accuracy. Shots will still be fired and miss. What about the third largest group? That's domestic abuse cases. Banning semi-automatics will have no benefit here for the same reason that banning them won't help suicide cases.
  What broad gun legislation would help in all those cases? An outright ban on guns but there's no topic or discussion of even proposing a Constitutional amendment to repeal or modify the 2nd amendment. That's why all this talk is pointless. All it does is lets politicians use shootings to try to score political points. They use the defenselessness of the rare situation to grip and turn your heart to make you emotional so you can't even think of it in a rational manner. I get that it sounds scary that you could go to a concert and someone could just fire bullets down on you and kill you. Your life is over for doing nothing wrong but wanting to enjoy some music. If people are afraid of something like this happening to them then their risk assessment is screwed up because there's plenty of things they do on a daily basis that has a much higher probability of getting them killed and they don't even bat an eye at it.
  You want to reduce gun death in the US? Then lets identify and target legislation to help and protect the individuals in the groups that are most at risk from gun death. Let's craft legislation that helps people with depression and not something punitive like taking away their guns because that's only going to encourage them to not seek help. We need to accept that people are depressed and that it's a normal thing for it. We can't look down on people like that. We need to help them so that they don't want to end their life.
  Let's address gang and other crimes that lead to gun death. Let's find out why these kids join gangs. Let's target that. Keep them from joining gangs in the first place so they aren't likely to end up on the receiving end of gunfire from that.
  Let's address spousal abuse more seriously but not in a way that assumes women are always the victim of it.
  Will we do these things? Nope. We won't do those things because they're hard and they don't look good and it doesn't let politicians act like they're "doing something".
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
21. Re:Or you could just... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 00:38 · Score: 0
  
  There's a new meme floating around that the number of gun deaths in the US is just now passing the number of war deaths. This Is Bad. Or Something.
  If you're bothered by MEME images, I suggest that you stop reading them. They've been toxic for over a century.
  
  Nevermind that most of these are suicides, not murder. (Still an issue, but not the Big Scary they intend rhetorically.)
  So...what, the other thousands of deaths aren't scary? Not to mention the multitudes of injuries that exceed the deaths.
  I don't know about you, but I'm quite bothered that we can't be arsed to do anything to stop people from letting toddlers get access to firearms.
  
  Nevermind that the US has had very few war deaths compared to its population size compared to basically every other country.
  The real question you should be asking is why so many war deaths are due to disease, famine, and other effects, not looking for something about the US that is relatively meaningless.
  
  Nevermind that most countries lost those lives because of dictatorship, whose first order of business is outlawing guns and free speech, going hand in hand arresting political opponents and publishers on trumped up charges. Men appearing in the middle of the night to disappear you? Wish real hard.
  Interesting how your first thing to blame is dictatorship. You think that was what was really the problem? Not hardly. It's rarer than you think. Especially internally. It's often external measures, and as I said, the other horsemen in the band.
  The Secret Police are far less of a threat than the Plague Rats.
  
  By the terms of the Second Amendment, any death comparison involving guns must include deaths due to loss of freedom.
  The logical conclusion, as Spock would say? Get lost, mass murderous Europe, Asia, and Africa. You have literally negative proof gun control saves net lives the past 200+ years of the US' existence.
  Spock would give you the Vulcan Death Grip* for invoking him in your attempt at fallacious logic. In reality, gun control has saved lives in countries across the world that don't have such a dangerously over-armed populace, even including the police departments. Sure, you could point to the Balkans, but that wasn't due to gun control. Nor the Rwanda Genocide. Even World War II's massive numbers of deaths cannot honestly be blamed on gun control, no matter how much you want to post memes about Hitler taking away Jewish guns.
  *Yes, I'm aware there's no such thing, but I don't know what it is about people like you who want swear up and down that they're being logical, when the quality of your argumentation shows a copious lack of reasoning, let alone fact-based methodology.
  
  Before the inevitable downmod by the censorious who have had their noses snapped, read my .sig.
  Before you worry about worthless internet points...have some consideration if what you said is bogus.
22. Re:Or you could just... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 01:13 · Score: 0
  
  There's three possible correlations:
  Somebody likes oversimplifications, don't they?
  
  I did a study on this for a graduate level statistics class. While I did not compare gun ownership rates I did compare the gun laws of various states. I suspect greater restrictions on ownership correlates to ownership.
  You just invalidated your own purported study. It took you only two more sentences.
  
  I guess if we look at the data one has a choice, robberies or rapes. Total crime is effectively unchanged but when one goes the other takes it's place.
  
  Nope. You shouldn't guess, especially when it's easy to recognize the flaw in your premise.
  You're just acting like "rapist" and "robbers" are interchangeable, but that really isn't very believable.
  
  I'm not the only one that did this analysis, there are others that took similar data and came to similar conclusions.
  And you didn't name them. Here's a something though.
  They don't come to your conclusion. Or anything similar, unless you want the opposite to be similar.
  
  There's lots of studies on "gun violence" which give a lot of nonsense.
  
  I suspect yours fits under this same auspice.
  
  Again, I looked at ALL CRIME, not gun crime, or this fiction that is "gun violence". Filter out the noise and you are correct, gun ownership does not keep you safe.
  But if you add the noise of tax fraud and pilferage, then you can make whatever claims you want about how your gun keeps you safe.
  
  It does mean that women should go armed because they are less likely to get raped when armed. They might have to hand over some cash to make a thug go away but that will save them from a more severe outcome.
  You know, you might want to look up the statistical studies on rape. Or robbery.
  The two groups are not as correlated as you seem to think.
  But seriously, you're the epitome of a fanatic, so blind and zealous that your perception of reality is warped entirely to fit your bias.
  No wonder you pretend so frenetically to have "science" on your side.
23. Re:Or you could just... by pnutjam · 2017-10-06 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  We could address almost all of these issues with a stronger social safety net. Parents who don't have to work 2 or 3 jobs would have more opportunity to build family bonds instead of letting their kids look for family on the street. The number one cause of marital stress is financial in nature.
  I also think we should ban handguns or limit them severely.
  
  --
  Cheap storage VM.
24. Re:Or you could just... by cyberchondriac · 2017-10-06 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  Haha.
  That's not a strawman you built there, that's a whole Wickerman.
  He meant be able to kill (or hurt, doesn't have to kill) people who threaten and attack you, i.e. muggers, murderers, rapists, etc.. not innocent people.
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
25. Re:Or you could just... by cyberchondriac · 2017-10-06 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the studies would not agree with your assessment.
  US may have the highest gun homocide rate, but remove guns from legal and law abiding owners and it would likely actually increase.
  https://www.democraticundergro...
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
26. Re: Or you could just... by kaatochacha · 2017-10-06 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  So only the rich have access, which is essentially what it would be if ALL guns were banned.
27. Re:Or you could just... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 08:28 · Score: 0
  
  I keep seeing this. And yet, millions of people with guns have never killed or threatened to kill people.
28. Re:Or you could just... by blindseer · 2017-10-06 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  There's three possible correlations:
  Somebody likes oversimplifications, don't they?
  Over simplify? What other correlations are there besides increasing, decreasing, or no change? You can complicate this with giving rates of increase or decrease but how does that help?
  
  You just invalidated your own purported study. It took you only two more sentences.
  
  I guess if we look at the data one has a choice, robberies or rapes. Total crime is effectively unchanged but when one goes the other takes it's place.
  Nope. You shouldn't guess, especially when it's easy to recognize the flaw in your premise.
  You're just acting like "rapist" and "robbers" are interchangeable, but that really isn't very believable.
  Whether you find it believable or not that's what I found in my study. I used the FBI UCR for my data set on crimes committed and the Brady Campaign score on the gun laws of every state.
  
  And you didn't name them. Here's a something [vox.com] though.
  They committed the same crime I warned about, incomplete data. They compare nations on "gun violence" but leave out any crimes committed without a firearm and also left out a vast number of nations from their study. Just look at Wikipedia for the rates of deaths by firearms.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  Then the rates of intentional murders.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  I noticed something odd about the two lists. The "gun death" rate in the USA was double the homicide rate. I looked closer at the first list.
  
  The following list includes suicides, accidental fatalities, and justifiable homicides.
  Oh, so we include suicides in "gun deaths"? That's not what I think of as "gun deaths", and not even what I think of if someone brings up a case of "gun violence". So what is the suicide rate in the USA?
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  USA is right up there with Sweden. Sweden must be a terrible place to have a suicide rate like the USA. Other places with a higher suicide rate are Finland, Japan, and Belgium. It's no surprise that North Korea has such a high suicide rate but do you think their gun ownership rate is a problem? I think it's a problem, it's far too low.
  
  You know, you might want to look up the statistical studies on rape. Or robbery.
  The two groups are not as correlated as you seem to think.
  Didn't I just say I did that study? I believe I did. There is an odd correlation between the two that someone might want to study more. If we lump together violent crimes and correlate that to restrictions on gun ownership then we find no correlation. If we separate out murders, rapes, and robberies then we see for every robbery "prevented" by gun laws we see a rape in it's place.
  This study I did was for a graduate level statistics course but it was a very basic study. A study that I've said has been done before. Here's one example.
  https://www.washingtonpost.com...
  
  The correlation between the homicide rate and Brady score in all 51 jurisdictions is +.032 (on a scale of -1 to +1), which means that states with more gun restrictions on average have very slightly higher homicide rates, though the tendency is so small as to be essentially zero. (If you omit the fatal gun accident rates, then the correlation would be +.065, which would make the more gun-restricting states look slightly worse; but again, the correlation would
  
  --
  I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
29. Re: Or you could just... by ChrisMaple · 2017-10-06 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  Machinists also have access.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
30. Re:Or you could just... by ChrisMaple · 2017-10-06 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Guns are also used for target shooting and hunting, but the most honorable use is killing tyrants.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
31. Re:Or you could just... by ChrisMaple · 2017-10-06 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  World War II was due to an armed populace, not to the governments that initiated the war?
  Do you honestly think German citizenry would have gathered up its weapons and invaded Poland, and then France, without a government led by Hitler or someone like him?
  If so, you're completely detached from reality.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
32. Re: Or you could just... by ChrisMaple · 2017-10-06 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  Those in government do not generally have as their primary goal murder. Their goal is to gain ever more power over people, and the use of various threats including the threat to kill is how that power is achieved. The threat to kill doesn't amount to much unless it's demonstrated occasionally: Waco.
  Most of the people in the volunteer U.S. military are honorable in a way and to a degree incomprehensible to most people outside the military. People drafted are frequently resentful, and an unnecessary draft in a mostly free country generates a large number of people who hate their native country, such as occurred when the New Left rose in the 1960s and 1970s.
  Democracy is mob rule.
  Representative government, where the representatives serve fixed terms, often means the representatives run hog wild once they're in office.
  The fact that legislators frequently call for reductions in the effectiveness of weapons available to the general public is proof that the ownership of effective weapons by the general populace restricts the power of government.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
33. Re:Or you could just... by ChrisMaple · 2017-10-06 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  An outright ban on guns but there's no topic or discussion of even proposing a Constitutional amendment to repeal or modify the 2nd amendment.
  You haven't been paying attention. That's precisely what Hillary has been yowling for in the aftermath of Las Vegas.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
34. Re:Or you could just... by PopeRatzo · 2017-10-06 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  Guns are also used for target shooting and hunting, but the most honorable use is killing tyrants.
  When was the last time guns were used in the US for "killing tyrants"?
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
35. Re:Or you could just... by PopeRatzo · 2017-10-06 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  I keep seeing this. And yet, millions of people with guns have never killed or threatened to kill people.
  And what percentage of mass murderers in the US were gun owners?
  https://www.washingtonpost.com...
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
What about the process... by Stormy+Dragon · 2017-10-05 10:07 · Score: 2

...specifically requires mass tragedy to create the synthetic blood? Is it some Fullmetal Alchemist "Law of Equivalent Exchange" type thing?
1. Re:What about the process... by sit1963nz · 2017-10-05 10:36 · Score: 2
  
  Because stored whole blood has a finite life expectancy.
  
  A Mass tragedy of the type in Vegas requires large amounts of all blood types in a very short period of time, which wipes out the normal amount that is stored on site.
  This means getting in Donors or blood from other areas.
  
  A Synthetic blood is hope to have a long shelf life (years not months) and be universal, suitable for all patients. Which means larger volumes can be stored locally without the worry of date expiration.
  
  A better option that works in other countries is to limit what guns people can own. There is no gun ban, people can own firearms for hunting, target shooting, (no right to kill anyone else though), and hand guns are very restricted. But guess what, no school shootings, no mass shooting (4 or more people) daily, no dictatorial governments (in fact we often have MORE freedom than the USA).
  
  And while you try and become a civilized country, try the metric system, even in the USA I think most of you can count to 10, which is the whole basis of it (Though in some states I hear having more fingers and toes is common, making 12 inches to the foot more logical). :-)
2. Re:What about the process... by blindseer · 2017-10-05 20:50 · Score: 1
  
  And while you try and become a civilized country, try the metric system, even in the USA I think most of you can count to 10
  I can count to ten, I'm way ahead on the conversion to metric. I have my 9mm Luger, 10mm Auto, and 7.62 NATO. I'm keeping my .45 ACP though, there's some family history behind that.
  Anyone that thinks gun bans will work to reduce gun ownership or violent crime is insane. There's enough people with scrap metal, CNC mills, and time to make working firearms on their own. Oh, and ammunition too. What is the government going to do about it? Things changed since this "assault weapon" nonsense started 30 or so years ago.
  In that time there's been a lot of young men and women that volunteered for military service. When in basic military training they'd be given a M-16. Depending on their role after training they'd get further training on a 9mm pistol, a 12 gauge shotgun, M-4 rifle, maybe even some bolt action sniper rifles and machine guns. These weapons become their daily companion while on tour. Some served a single 6 month tour. Some served one or two year long tours. Assuming an enlisted person served a 5, 6, or 8 year enlistment to the end, they'll leave with a mindset that these weapons are what keeps them alive.
  They'll go home, with some coin in their pocket, and buy civilian versions of what they carried for so long. It won't have burst fire. Maybe they won't spend the money on a scope like they had. The barrel might be a few inches longer. But for the most part this weapon is much like they had and is now they see this as their means to survive and no one will take it from them.
  It might sit in a forgotten corner of a closet. Maybe it is again a constant companion as they work on ranches, as security guards, law enforcement, or just in the back of their truck along with PVC pipes, scrap lumber, and cordless drills. They'll hunt with them. They'll shoot target with friends with them. Or, still sit in a corner nearly forgotten.
  There's 20 million veterans in the USA. All trained in the use of firearms. Many of them own weapons much like those that they carried to war. These are peaceful people. Quiet and yet vigilant. Like a dog lying half asleep on a porch watching the world go by.
  Don't kick that dog. So long as the dog is there we have civilization. You provoke those dogs and teeth will come out to protect their home.
  People fear "gun violence". I don't. If someone brings violence on any of these 20 million veterans then expect violence in return. It takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. Removing the gun changes nothing. Violence will still happen, only more good guys will have to die to restore the peace.
  
  --
  I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
3. Re:What about the process... by dunkelfalke · 2017-10-05 22:12 · Score: 1
  
  you forgot to add that all of them are building nuclear reactors in their backyards.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
4. Re:What about the process... by Headw1nd · 2017-10-06 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  In general, there are two groups that need this technology, hospitals in poor countries, and hospitals in wealthy countries that experience disasters. Poor countries (generally) can't pay for this kind of research, so wealthy countries need to have disasters to prod advancement. I will note that Romania is home to one of the research efforts and they aren't exactly wealthy, but they are an order of magnitude more wealthy than say, Chad.
5. Re:What about the process... by Headw1nd · 2017-10-06 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  I hope this is copypasta and you didn't waste your time typing this all out.
6. Re:What about the process... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 01:35 · Score: 0
  
  They have already created synthetic blood. Last time I was involved in a bad motorcycle accident, about 10 years ago and lost blood on the asphalt, less than 30 minutes, the time it took for the ambulance to arrive, not only my pants leg was brown, but so was the blood on the motorcycle and ground.
  If you hadn't noticed everyone at the mass shooting was bleeding synthetic blood because after an hour of being declared dead, all the blood around them was still bright red. That is proof enough to me that everyone there already had this synthetic blood in them. The same with the Boston bombing because days after the bombing, the pictures of the clean up of the blood on the ground, the blood was still bright red. Those people that were killed with shrapnel had synthetic blood in them too.
  Only the upper 1% of people have access to this synthetic blood and common people like me and you will never have access to it to live longer. Well, except it seems like if you get the transfusion of this synthetic blood, you are 1000 times more likely to be killed in a terrorist attack, or by gun violence with silencers where the shooter always ends up dead.
7. Re:What about the process... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 01:40 · Score: 0
  
  There's 20 million veterans in the USA. All trained in the use of firearms. Many of them own weapons much like those that they carried to war. These are peaceful people. Quiet and yet vigilant. Like a dog lying half asleep on a porch watching the world go by.
  Don't kick that dog. So long as the dog is there we have civilization. You provoke those dogs and teeth will come out to protect their home.
  People fear "gun violence". I don't. If someone brings violence on any of these 20 million veterans then expect violence in return. It takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. Removing the gun changes nothing. Violence will still happen, only more good guys will have to die to restore the peace.
  Of course people fear gun violence. You just issued a threat of gun violence. Not fearing gun violence would imply they aren't taking you seriously.
8. Re:What about the process... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 02:43 · Score: 0
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_attacks (just one example)
  Besides vehicles some weapons used were
  M80 Zolja anti tank weapon
  Vz 58 assault rifle
  korpion vz. 61 submachine gun
  AK-47
  AKM assault rifles
  Hand Grenades
  I guess you can buy those in France?
  Metric? you mean that system popular in countries that haven't walked on the moon?
9. Re:What about the process... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  Anyone that thinks gun bans will work to reduce gun ownership or violent crime is insane. There's enough people with scrap metal, CNC mills, and time to make working firearms on their own. Oh, and ammunition too. What is the government going to do about it?
  
  Enjoy the fact that so many people are wasting time making craft guns that they're too busy to commit crimes. It's like craft beer, except without all of the methanol induced blindness.
  Win-win.
  Besides? Insane? Isn't it you who is in denial of reality? Countries across the world have reduced gun ownership, reduced violent crime, and you can't attribute it all to legal access to cyclomates.
  
  Things changed since this "assault weapon" nonsense started 30 or so years ago.
  Yep, they're less used in violent crime. Win-win.
  
  There's 20 million veterans in the USA.
  And they're suffering a disproportionate amount of health issues, but mental and physical.
  I suggest we remedy that. Here's an idea, we can tax every bullet to pay for their healthcare.
  Win-win.
  
  It takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. Removing the gun changes nothing. Violence will still happen, only more good guys will have to die to restore the peace.
  You will find that very few "bad guys with guns" are stopped by these "good guys with guns" even factoring in the police, which are a separate issue. It's possible that removing the guns from the police might help reduce the violence they cause.
  Win-win.
10. Re:What about the process... by blindseer · 2017-10-06 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  I gave no such threat. I spelled out a very basic cause and effect. If you cause harm to one of the many veterans in the USA then you can expect them to react to prevent further harm.
  This is how I expect any other person to act, if you break into their home in the middle of the night then expect to get shot. The difference is that there are 20 million veterans that have been trained in the use of firearms by the best trained military in the world and therefore have the ability to respond more effectively than most.
  I threatened you just as much as a sign reading "High Voltage: Do Not Enter". That's pretty simple, isn't it? If you enter then expect to die. The response should not be fear. The goal should not be to ban high voltages. People should react by respecting people's personal property.
  
  --
  I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
11. Re:What about the process... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 08:40 · Score: 0
  
  Why would anyone take your comments seriously? Essentially you said
  "Here's my point. Oh, BTW I'm superior to you, you're an inbred moron".
  If you have a point you really want people to follow, don't insult them. It's basic civility and common sense.
12. Re:What about the process... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 09:33 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, its though you actually believe the USA is the only country with war veterans.
  Around the world, war veterans come home and never have a gun again in their lives ever again.
  The USA is not the most "free" country, nor the one with the most free speech. Its adult imprisonment rate is an embarrassment as is its murder rate, and gun crime rate.
  I would say that mass paranoia is one the the USA traits, you are terrified that some one is always out to get you, that the only way anyone is the USA can be a decent person is at the end of a gun barrel.
  For hundreds of years the USA murder rate has been WAY WAY higher than other 1st world countries. Gun have NOT made America safe, never has and never will. Americans have shot more Americans than anyone else, we are talking MILLIONS of dead Americans killed, not killed in wars, but shot at home, at work, at school, at concerts, in bars. EVERY DAY there is a mass shooting (4 or more victims).
  American vets are also killing people, they are also drunks, drug addicts , they are homeless , they have mental illnesses, they commit suicide.They are not just sitting watching the world go by waiting to spring into action and save the USA.
  If guns were the great protector, why did the NRA push so hard to make any form of research into gun violence almost impossible, why can the CDC not fund a study on gun violence ? If the FACTS stack up as you say, the NRA would be falling over themselves to have research done, to prove what they are saying, that here we are, here is independent proof. But no, the are like the tobacco firms who tried to block research into smoking related illnesses and death, why, because they KNEW what they were saying was bullshit and that Americans were dying because of their product.
  Look at every gun owner, they have already made the decision that they are entitled to kill another human being. Sure they will say its only in self defence, but the issues is that have made that step and have justified their right to kill. Then it only takes one bad day when they feel angry, aggrieved, frightened or what ever and its a very small step to pull out that gun and use it on innocent people, and this happens in the USA everyday. These are are law abiding citizens until they snap, they are your neighbours, your work mates, the people who watch the game at a bar with you.
  And as for Vegas, if every concert goer was armed, how much difference would any of them made, it would have made it MUCH worse, those people were panicked, they had no idea where the shooter was, anyone who pulled a gun would have been seen as the shooter. So stop this myth about the good guy with a gun, you may as well be saying there is no need to have a job because you can become a multi millionaire by winning the lottery, that happens too, and probably just as often if not more often than this mythical "good guy" civilian . And by the time the "good guy" (ie police) kill the perpetrator the damage has already been done, there are dead innocent people.
13. Re:What about the process... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 09:38 · Score: 0
  
  Best trained military....LOL...bullshit.
  Go start counting the number of collisions the USA Navy has had with civilian ships for a start.
14. Re:What about the process... by ChrisMaple · 2017-10-06 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  Things changed since this "assault weapon" nonsense started 30 or so years ago.
  
  Yep, they're less used in violent crime. Win-win.
  An assault weapon is defined in a kind of silly manner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon In many cases, an assault weapon can be turned into a non-assault weapon by simple actions such as removing a lug meant for attaching a bayonet, or grinding off threads that would be used for attaching a suppressor or muzzle brake. In both cases, the non-assault weapon would be more effective for violent crime. Generally, assault weapons are far less effective than a revolver for violent crime. In short, banning assault weapons makes violent crime more practical.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
15. Re:What about the process... by ChrisMaple · 2017-10-06 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  Why is there not a mod for "-1 Not Funny"
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Really? by olsmeister · 2017-10-05 10:10 · Score: 2

His name is Allan Doctor? I guess his career was a foregone conclusion.
1. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 10:16 · Score: 0
  
  Doctor Doctor, give me the cure... I wonder if he's heard that once or twice.
2. Re:Really? by fahrbot-bot · 2017-10-05 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  His name is Allan Doctor? I guess his career was a foregone conclusion.
  Ya, but... T. J. Hooker was a cop.
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Weird But True... by Stormy+Dragon · 2017-10-05 10:14 · Score: 2

A decade ago, the president of the California Medical Association was Dr. Richard S. Frankenstein:
http://www.cmanet.org/news/pre...
1. Re:Weird But True... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 10:22 · Score: 0
  
  I met someone with the last name Frankenstein. He said the worst part was that it was impossible to get pizza delivered.
Product will sell well in confederate states by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 10:19 · Score: 0

No risk of getting infected with blood from inferior races.
1. Re: Product will sell well in confederate states by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 10:42 · Score: 0
  
  "Protein extracted from worms"...
2. Re: Product will sell well in confederate states by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 11:25 · Score: 0
  
  What's wrong with that?
  Worms have their shit together. They've been around long enough to call oxygen a fad. Turtles get credit for being crazy ancient but they've got nothing on worms.
3. Re: Product will sell well in confederate states by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 13:11 · Score: 0
  
  Waiting to follow the worm proteins
Huh by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 11:16 · Score: 0

How about just making people bulletproof. Better yet, deadproof would be even better.
1. Re: Huh by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 12:10 · Score: 0
  
  Do you really want Elon Musk to be deadproof?
GMO or Organic? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 11:34 · Score: 0

Is the blood GMO or certified organic?
Does it contain preservatives or added sugar? :)
Supported by the NRA by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 12:16 · Score: 0

Guns don't kill people, blood loss kills people.
1. Re:Supported by the NRA by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 23:49 · Score: 0
  
  Blood loss doesn't kill people, the lack of oxygen carrying blood cells to the brain kills people.
France already has freeze dried blood by apraetor · 2017-10-05 12:53 · Score: 1

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
More Blood by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 13:40 · Score: 0

If I could give blood I would. I have hemochromatosis - a genetic disorder which overloads the body with iron. To relieve the iron from those afflicted with it they take our blood a pint at a time. That blood goes right in the trash because they feel it is "irregular." Many many people could use a little extra iron. I said trash but I correct myself they place it in the bio-waist container and I can't even take it home for Halloween or my own personal use. They will not even use it to produce plasma because of the silly rule about it being irregular. So many could be helped if they changed the rules. Many have tried to lobby for change. Some have even been elected for change. Nothing has changed.
I remember synthetic blood maybe 50 years ago by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 14:09 · Score: 0

Yes, I'm old enough to remember the Vietnam War and I thought synthetic blood was developed then for use by the military for wounded soldiers. What happened to that stuff?
1. Re:I remember synthetic blood maybe 50 years ago by ChrisMaple · 2017-10-06 12:31 · Score: 1
  
  The wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_substitute does not mention that time period, but I do remember that the claims for artificial blood have been around for a long time. I'm guessing that the perfluorocarbon based stuff is expensive, difficult to use, and a bit toxic, but in truth I have no idea.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Guns, Blood, and Stocks by dohzer · 2017-10-05 14:26 · Score: 1

Gun manufacturers, blood manufacturers, and stock manufacturers. Any other shares I should invest in?
1. Re:Guns, Blood, and Stocks by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 14:33 · Score: 0
  
  Smart investors buy congresscritters. Talk to a lobbyist today.
a win for vampires! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 17:14 · Score: 0

Bill and Sookie will be pleased.
Don't use aritifcal blood, farm it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 21:36 · Score: 0

From what I've heard artificial blood attempts have nasty side effects. Perhaps focus could be on some sort of blood-farming process instead to generate a steady stream of blood instead needing to donate them? It might require marrow but that could be a good investment. I'll admit to not knowing any of the gorey details (no pun intended) but it might be a good idea if possible.
1. Re:Don't use aritifcal blood, farm it by kaatochacha · 2017-10-06 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  I saws this movie. It makes the Vampires explode. Plus, the blood farming procedure tended to slowly kill the humans.
Dr Doctor by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 01:28 · Score: 0

Gimme the news...
"technically just a way of transporting oxygen"? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 03:02 · Score: 0

Seriously? Blood does a lot more than that, starting with being the medium in which the immune system has its front-line deployed. Which immediately points to the risks of transfusion rejection and the importance of getting blood-factor typing correct, and deciding how we do that for synthetic components. This, in turn, requires us to have criteria for determining blood-factor typing of synthetic components be both correct and complete. Except we are still deciding on the components, so we already know it is not.
Problems like this are hard, because the details are many, the timing is complex, and both the details and timing considerations that we know about are possibly masking other details and timing considerations that we do not. If it were easy, everyone would already be doing it.
They will call it by vlad30 · 2017-10-06 03:20 · Score: 1

Tru Blood

--
Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
Re:"technically just a way of transporting oxygen" by ChrisMaple · 2017-10-06 12:35 · Score: 1

Typing should be irrelevant, artificial blood should be equivalent to 0 negative.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:"technically just a way of transporting oxygen" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 06:36 · Score: 0

It's quite a bit more complicated than that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_blood_group_systems#Blood_group_systems