3 ms·

Paying for blood is not new. It has been shown to increase the infectious disease risk in the blood supply.

SilasX 8y ago
Yes, for the general population. Hence why I was careful to say "professional, healthy". Can you address that version of the proposal? Say, limiting it to people who are well-screened and known to be healthy and not have risky lifestyles. I assume this isn't a case of "oh we tried something like this ages ago and failed so we can't do anything like it again".
- Balgair 8y ago
  I mean, you are shoving needles into otherwise healthy people's arms. I've not googled the claims of the MD here, but as a first pass, you should expect that infections should increase every time you open up the brachial artery. Sterilization isn't every perfect, people can be Typhoid Marys, mistakes happen when putting in and taking out needles, etc. Just trying to play vampire all willy-nilly is not a good plan for longevity.
  - SilasX 8y ago
    Seriously? I've never heard of blood extraction as presenting a risk to the extractee.
    - Balgair 8y ago
      Any medical procedure has risks. I mean, you are breaking skin and jabbing a sharp metal rod into someone's arm. Like, you should expect there to be at least some risk. https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/blood-donation/about/pac-20385144 https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/blood-donation/a... https://www.healthline.com/health/disadvantages-blood-donation#the-pros https://www.healthline.com/health/disadvantages-blood-donati...
      - SilasX 8y ago
        Yes. But I don't see any obvious reason why it should be so large that, even doing it every day, that adds up to notable risk. That depends very heavily on the numbers, and I've never heard any public health professional even suggest that the risk rises to the level of "you need a good reason to justify doing it at all". Whenever I hear of a downside to having blood drawn, it's always in the context of "oh you might get results with false positives" or unnecessary physical cost. Never "zomg you could get infected if you keep it up". If anything, I've heard that it's healthy to have blood drawn regularly. Heck, even the (healthline) link you gave -- which specifically exists to enumerate downsides, says nothing about infection, just very acute stuff and the physical costs I mentioned above. Everything has risk; that doesn't mean everything has risk that is significant; that question depends crucially on the numbers involved, and all heuristics show this isn't a significant one. (Seems roughly on the level of "staying safe by taking 4 rather than 20 flights a year.") In any case, it still seems irrelevant to the use-case in question, with regards to "evil Peter Thiel is compromising the blood supply". - Thiel finds and screens a healthy person who likely wasn't already donating blood. - Thiel pays out the nose for proper extraction protocols. - Thiel's candidate's blood doesn't enter the blood supply. How does that translate into someone not getting a blood transfusion because of lacking supplies? How does that translate into more infections?
        Balgair 8y ago
        >If anything, I've heard that it's healthy to have blood drawn regularly. Look, unless you have Thrombophlebitis or other such diseases, I would advise you to find new places to hear things. Having regular blood draws as a normal healthy person is obviously crazy. > But I don't see any obvious reason why it should be so large that, even doing it every day, that adds up to notable risk. > ... I've never heard any public health professional even suggest that the risk rises to the level of "you need a good reason to justify doing it at all". Literally, this whole comment chain is about how the FDA is specifically saying that the risks outweigh the benefits. If Peter has a 'thing' for blood and wants to play vampire to naively stave off death for a few more weeks and someone else wants to try to take advantage of his insanely large ego, that's fine with me. Y'all do your own kinda crazy. All I'm saying is that blood draws and infusions have obvious health risks and I agree with the FDA in that the risks outweigh the benefits.

Yes, for the general population. Hence why I was careful to say "professional, healthy". Can you address that version of the proposal? Say, limiting it to people who are well-screened and known to be healthy and not have risky lifestyles. I assume this isn't a case of "oh we tried something like this ages ago and failed so we can't do anything like it again".

Balgair 8y ago
I mean, you are shoving needles into otherwise healthy people's arms. I've not googled the claims of the MD here, but as a first pass, you should expect that infections should increase every time you open up the brachial artery. Sterilization isn't every perfect, people can be Typhoid Marys, mistakes happen when putting in and taking out needles, etc. Just trying to play vampire all willy-nilly is not a good plan for longevity.
- SilasX 8y ago
  Seriously? I've never heard of blood extraction as presenting a risk to the extractee.
  - Balgair 8y ago
    Any medical procedure has risks. I mean, you are breaking skin and jabbing a sharp metal rod into someone's arm. Like, you should expect there to be at least some risk. https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/blood-donation/about/pac-20385144 https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/blood-donation/a... https://www.healthline.com/health/disadvantages-blood-donation#the-pros https://www.healthline.com/health/disadvantages-blood-donati...
    - SilasX 8y ago
      Yes. But I don't see any obvious reason why it should be so large that, even doing it every day, that adds up to notable risk. That depends very heavily on the numbers, and I've never heard any public health professional even suggest that the risk rises to the level of "you need a good reason to justify doing it at all". Whenever I hear of a downside to having blood drawn, it's always in the context of "oh you might get results with false positives" or unnecessary physical cost. Never "zomg you could get infected if you keep it up". If anything, I've heard that it's healthy to have blood drawn regularly. Heck, even the (healthline) link you gave -- which specifically exists to enumerate downsides, says nothing about infection, just very acute stuff and the physical costs I mentioned above. Everything has risk; that doesn't mean everything has risk that is significant; that question depends crucially on the numbers involved, and all heuristics show this isn't a significant one. (Seems roughly on the level of "staying safe by taking 4 rather than 20 flights a year.") In any case, it still seems irrelevant to the use-case in question, with regards to "evil Peter Thiel is compromising the blood supply". - Thiel finds and screens a healthy person who likely wasn't already donating blood. - Thiel pays out the nose for proper extraction protocols. - Thiel's candidate's blood doesn't enter the blood supply. How does that translate into someone not getting a blood transfusion because of lacking supplies? How does that translate into more infections?
      - Balgair 8y ago
        >If anything, I've heard that it's healthy to have blood drawn regularly. Look, unless you have Thrombophlebitis or other such diseases, I would advise you to find new places to hear things. Having regular blood draws as a normal healthy person is obviously crazy. > But I don't see any obvious reason why it should be so large that, even doing it every day, that adds up to notable risk. > ... I've never heard any public health professional even suggest that the risk rises to the level of "you need a good reason to justify doing it at all". Literally, this whole comment chain is about how the FDA is specifically saying that the risks outweigh the benefits. If Peter has a 'thing' for blood and wants to play vampire to naively stave off death for a few more weeks and someone else wants to try to take advantage of his insanely large ego, that's fine with me. Y'all do your own kinda crazy. All I'm saying is that blood draws and infusions have obvious health risks and I agree with the FDA in that the risks outweigh the benefits.