4 ms·
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. B
by CodeWriter23 4y ago
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".
- tantalor 4y agoNo, the phrase "there's no evidence" implies an attempt to find out that resulted in no support for the notion.
- thewakalix 4y agoThere are two kinds of “no evidence”! https://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/08/doctor-there-ar.html https://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/08/doctor-there-ar.html
- CodeWriter23 4y agoIf 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∀
- satellite2 4y agoOn 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.