News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Regular blood donations can reduce “forever chemicals” in the bloodstream: study. Parent comment

Re:Regular blood donations can reduce “forever chemicals” in... by CodeWriter23 on Friday April 22, 2022 @02:22PM (#31125872)
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".
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Regular blood donations can reduce “forever chemicals” in... by satellite2 on Friday April 22, 2022 @04:36PM (#31127736)
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Regular blood donations can reduce “forever chemicals” in... by tantalor on Friday April 22, 2022 @02:34PM (#31126070)
No, the phrase "there's no evidence" implies an attempt to find out that resulted in no support for the notion.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Regular blood donations can reduce “forever chemicals” in... by thewakalix on Friday April 22, 2022 @02:44PM (#31126230)
There are two kinds of “no evidence”!

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

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Regular blood donations can reduce “forever chemicals” in... by CodeWriter23 on Friday April 22, 2022 @04:12PM (#31127430)
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∀

[ Parent | on HN ]