Slashdot Mirror


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

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.

50 of 99 comments (clear)

  1. Slow down, scientists by PopeRatzo · · 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 Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · 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.
  2. ....have a bulletproof delivery system... by turkeydance · · Score: 2

    what he said

    1. Re:....have a bulletproof delivery system... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      I prefer breasts in K cups.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  3. Or you could just... by coffecup · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ... ban semi/automatic weapons in the first place...

    1. Re:Or you could just... by PopeRatzo · · 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.
    2. Re:Or you could just... by cfalcon · · 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.

    3. Re:Or you could just... by PopeRatzo · · 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.
    4. Re:Or you could just... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · 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.
    5. Re:Or you could just... by currently_awake · · 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.

    6. Re:Or you could just... by currently_awake · · 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.

    7. Re: Or you could just... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    8. Re:Or you could just... by blindseer · · 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.
    9. Re:Or you could just... by bill_mcgonigle · · 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)
    10. Re:Or you could just... by Talderas · · 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
    11. Re:Or you could just... by pnutjam · · 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.

    12. Re:Or you could just... by cyberchondriac · · 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.
    13. Re:Or you could just... by cyberchondriac · · 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.
    14. Re: Or you could just... by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      So only the rich have access, which is essentially what it would be if ALL guns were banned.

    15. Re:Or you could just... by blindseer · · 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.
    16. Re: Or you could just... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Machinists also have access.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    17. Re:Or you could just... by ChrisMaple · · 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
    18. Re:Or you could just... by ChrisMaple · · 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
    19. Re: Or you could just... by ChrisMaple · · 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
    20. Re:Or you could just... by ChrisMaple · · 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
    21. Re:Or you could just... by PopeRatzo · · 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.
    22. Re:Or you could just... by PopeRatzo · · 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.
  4. What about the process... by Stormy+Dragon · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 blindseer · · 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.
    7. Re:What about the process... by ChrisMaple · · 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
    8. Re:What about the process... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Why is there not a mod for "-1 Not Funny"

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  5. Really? by olsmeister · · Score: 2

    His name is Allan Doctor? I guess his career was a foregone conclusion.

    1. Re:Really? by fahrbot-bot · · 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. . . .
  6. Weird But True... by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 2

    A decade ago, the president of the California Medical Association was Dr. Richard S. Frankenstein:

    http://www.cmanet.org/news/pre...

  7. Re:OR we could just stop... by AmiMoJo · · 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
  8. France already has freeze dried blood by apraetor · · Score: 1
  9. Re:OR we could just stop... by Pseudonym · · 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});
  10. Re:OR we could just stop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's a fair point. Native Americans have historically been disproportionately on the receiving end of mass shootings by white guys.

  11. Guns, Blood, and Stocks by dohzer · · Score: 1

    Gun manufacturers, blood manufacturers, and stock manufacturers. Any other shares I should invest in?

  12. Re:OR we could just stop... by Pseudonym · · 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});
  13. Re:OR we could just stop... by cyberchondriac · · 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.
  14. They will call it by vlad30 · · Score: 1

    Tru Blood

    --
    Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
  15. Re:Don't use aritifcal blood, farm it by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    I saws this movie. It makes the Vampires explode. Plus, the blood farming procedure tended to slowly kill the humans.

  16. Re:I remember synthetic blood maybe 50 years ago by ChrisMaple · · 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
  17. Re:"technically just a way of transporting oxygen" by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

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

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate