But the article states that it is more than the cost of the blood, its the extra time in the hospital and the additional complications a that can come from blood use. Point still remains that if I have an option I'll choose the one that makes the most sense. Docs have been using blood for decades. It only makes sense the medicine advances to a point were it is not needed. There have been all kinds of medical things in the past that we thought were good only to learn later that they were not.
I agree, the simple fact remains "There's no downside to it that we can see, and there's certainly no downside that's been documented - from MSNBC". So why shouldn't people be excited (yeah it sucks that the US has been way behind the EU. Cellphones and Surgery.)? Why would anyone want to bleed and lose needless blood? The real question is why are blood transfusions so popular if there are better options? The Red Cross makes enormous amounts of money for managing the nation's supply. Figure it out. Everyone donates blood, mostly for free, and then the blood gets sold in hospitals for huge costs. In 2004 Brookshospital.org was paying $249 for each pint. "The cost to the nation for these transfusions is approximately $4 billion annually [2001]" from America's Blood Centers. Why take a medical option that has even a small chance of complications when there is something cheaper and safer? Doctor says I can have bloodless op that costs less and I can go home early? aaaah I'll take that option.
I agree, the simple fact remains "There's no downside to it that we can see, and there's certainly no downside that's been documented - from MSNBC". So why shouldn't people be excited. Why would anyone want to bleed and lose needless blood?
The real question is why are blood transfusions so popular if there are better options? The Red Cross makes enormous amounts of money for managing the nation's supply. Figure it out. Everyone donates blood, mostly for free, and then the blood gets sold in hospitals for huge costs. In 2004 one hospital was paying $249 for each pint. "The cost to the nation for these transfusions is approximately $4 billion annually [2001]" from America's Blood Centers. Why take a medical option that has even a small chance of complications when there is something cheaper and safer? Doctor says I can have bloodless op that costs less and I can go home one day early? aaaah I'll take that option.
I do like the multi-calendar approach of Google so far, but I am surprised that there are no "Labels" like in gmail. This was a GREAT idea that avoids duplicate entries and is basically just a form of 'tagging'. You can have numerous Calendars, all viewable from one interface, but there is no way to put one event into multiple Calendars. This limitation will make the shared Calendar feature, one that I had high hopes for, drastically more difficult.
And have you tried to Google for the new Calendar? Its like Google hasn't even indexed its own service. Check out my post for a list of all the Google Service SEOs.
Slashdot Mirror
But the article states that it is more than the cost of the blood, its the extra time in the hospital and the additional complications a that can come from blood use. Point still remains that if I have an option I'll choose the one that makes the most sense. Docs have been using blood for decades. It only makes sense the medicine advances to a point were it is not needed. There have been all kinds of medical things in the past that we thought were good only to learn later that they were not.
I agree, the simple fact remains "There's no downside to it that we can see, and there's certainly no downside that's been documented - from MSNBC". So why shouldn't people be excited (yeah it sucks that the US has been way behind the EU. Cellphones and Surgery.)? Why would anyone want to bleed and lose needless blood? The real question is why are blood transfusions so popular if there are better options? The Red Cross makes enormous amounts of money for managing the nation's supply. Figure it out. Everyone donates blood, mostly for free, and then the blood gets sold in hospitals for huge costs. In 2004 Brookshospital.org was paying $249 for each pint. "The cost to the nation for these transfusions is approximately $4 billion annually [2001]" from America's Blood Centers. Why take a medical option that has even a small chance of complications when there is something cheaper and safer? Doctor says I can have bloodless op that costs less and I can go home early? aaaah I'll take that option.
I agree, the simple fact remains "There's no downside to it that we can see, and there's certainly no downside that's been documented - from MSNBC". So why shouldn't people be excited. Why would anyone want to bleed and lose needless blood? The real question is why are blood transfusions so popular if there are better options? The Red Cross makes enormous amounts of money for managing the nation's supply. Figure it out. Everyone donates blood, mostly for free, and then the blood gets sold in hospitals for huge costs. In 2004 one hospital was paying $249 for each pint. "The cost to the nation for these transfusions is approximately $4 billion annually [2001]" from America's Blood Centers. Why take a medical option that has even a small chance of complications when there is something cheaper and safer? Doctor says I can have bloodless op that costs less and I can go home one day early? aaaah I'll take that option.
I do like the multi-calendar approach of Google so far, but I am surprised that there are no "Labels" like in gmail. This was a GREAT idea that avoids duplicate entries and is basically just a form of 'tagging'. You can have numerous Calendars, all viewable from one interface, but there is no way to put one event into multiple Calendars. This limitation will make the shared Calendar feature, one that I had high hopes for, drastically more difficult. And have you tried to Google for the new Calendar? Its like Google hasn't even indexed its own service. Check out my post for a list of all the Google Service SEOs.