My guess is that the person who needs blood cares more about getting the blood or plasma than the small amount of PFAS in it, which they likely have already.

If this causes more people to donate, it's probably a good thing overall, even if the people doing it are doing so in the hopes of cleansing their own system of these chemicals.

While I generally agree the idea that it's not harmful enough to stop a transfer, I disagree with the basis of the argument.

We could also say that given a choice between death and HIV, the blood recipient would still want the blood.

With respect to HIV, there is an alternative to get non-contaminated blood.

With respect to PFAS, which is a general societal/environmental issue it's likely that all donated blood has roughly the same PFAS levels, so recipient either gets blood with PFAS or no blood at all; and the "new" blood might have slightly more or less PFAS than the recipients current blood, but the recipient already has a comparable level of PFAS anyway.

I would argue additionally that once the person in need of blood has recovered they can simply donate blood and in so doing enjoy the benefits of reduced PFAS levels and hopefully save someone else's life with that blood!

Yes, and that is a better argument than someone simply being desperate enough to accept contaminated blood rather than die.

> given a choice between death and HIV, the blood recipient would still want the blood

…yes?

if there is no other choice. Yes, reluctantly, I would accept hiv. (i.e. I accept days to years duration of life vs minutes to hours)

The thing is, donated blood is always in short supply. you dont have much choice, when you have a serious blood-loss.

edit: I would be very angry if sombody would have chosen to use hiv blood on me while I was uncounciuos. Similar to how I would be angry if my arm would be amputated, while my conciousness was away.

By putting "toxic chemicals" in the title along with that sentence in the body, it sure seems like they're trying to have their cake and eat it too with this article. It also lists a bunch of negative things that are associated with PFAS levels. They're toxic, and associated with a bunch of bad things, but don't worry.

> apart from being identified as potentially carcinogenic, PFAS are associated with “low fetal weight, impaired immune response, thyroid function abnormalities, obesity, increased lipid levels, liver function alterations, and, potentially, an increased risk of some malignant neoplasms.”

I suppose that most blood recipients are probably better off with increased PFAS than going without the infusion, but the article sure presents the situation clumsily.

If donator's blood has same concentration of pfas as recipients, the recipient's concentration does not change! Also, the recipient has probably just lost blood, so total amount of pfas won't change either, and taking into account that people that donate blood do so often with some regularity, the donators blood actually is likely to have less pfas than the recipients original blood.

They're basically saying: "Sure, you're passing the buck, but there's no evidence that your reduction in PFAS results in an increase of PFAS to the recipient. Because we haven't looked." and then calling that "Science".

On the first donation you're expected to have an average level, and thus not to increase the pfas level of the recipient. On all subsequent donations you're expected to be below average and thus reduce the level of the recipient. So I think them being careful is clearly not hypocrisy here.

No, the phrase "there's no evidence" implies an attempt to find out that resulted in no support for the notion.

There are two kinds of “no evidence”!

https://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/08/doctor-there-ar.html

If that were the case, they surely would have cited the studies.

But let do some simple math. Let's say I (and a dozen other donors) have 10ng/mL of PFAS in my system and a recipient has 5ng/mL. Assuming 20 pints of blood in a human for the rest of this word problem. Recipient requires a transfusion of 10 pints which happen to be sourced by those 12 donors, What is their PFAS load after the transfusion?

˥ɯ/ƃuϛ˙ㄥ :ɹǝʍsu∀

Presumably it's even odds as to who has more PFAS: the donor or the recipient. And if you need a blood transfusion (often in an emergency), the PFAS is probably a small negative on a hugely positive treatment. It's like pesticides on plants: it's probably slightly unhealthy to eat the small level of pesticides on most plant food, but it's worse to miss out on all the nutrition in plants.

It should be possible for some recipients to donate plasma after they recover. So if pfas levels are a real concern, there’s an easy solution for at least some of the recipients.

It'd be interesting if the PFAS could be filtered out before being transferred to the next person.