Conversation

Notices

  1. Blood transfusions began to be explored in the 17th century, even though the idea was completely radical at the time. Most people still believed in bloodletting and the balance of humors, a belief that continued to be prevalent well into the 1800s.

    Thursday, 30-Oct-14 22:37:54 UTC from web
    1. @theanneh That's pretty interesting. I've had a blood transfusion before, which is considerably more boring.

      Thursday, 30-Oct-14 22:39:08 UTC from web
      1. @monstertdi I've only ever given blood. I'm glad I've never had to have one.

        Thursday, 30-Oct-14 22:40:28 UTC from web
        1. @theanneh I wish I could give blood, but mine's not healthy enough :/

          Thursday, 30-Oct-14 22:41:07 UTC from web
          1. @monstertdi By "giving blood" I meant having blood work done. xD I phrased that wrong. That does suck, though.

            Thursday, 30-Oct-14 22:42:07 UTC from web
            1. @theanneh Ohh, I get you, haha. And yeah I wish I could do it, but ah well

              Thursday, 30-Oct-14 22:42:52 UTC from web
    2. @theanneh Oh wow, that's really cool. It's interesting to think that very early transfusions used whole blood which meant it was unprocessed, but now they can separate components like RBCs, WBCs, plasma, etc.

      Thursday, 30-Oct-14 22:41:48 UTC from web
      1. @nethernarwhal Indeed! I'm reading up on it because I'm procrastinating, but it seems to involve a lot of deaths in the early research. Go figure. XD Science has come a long way, thank goodness gracious.

        Thursday, 30-Oct-14 22:44:13 UTC from web
        1. @theanneh I guess that's in the nature of experimentation, right? Trying new things to figure out what works and what doesn't. I once read "The main difference between science and messing around is in science you write things down".

          Thursday, 30-Oct-14 22:46:48 UTC from web
          1. @nethernarwhal We have a lot of regulations in place now to keep terrible things from happening... Which makes for good studies, but not for good stories. I like that quote, though. c:

            Thursday, 30-Oct-14 22:51:41 UTC from web
            1. @theanneh Yeah, ethics and all that jazz. But I think a field as fragile as medical treatment and hospitalization needs to handled with rigid care, so said regulations aren't unjustified.

              Thursday, 30-Oct-14 22:54:01 UTC from web
              1. @nethernarwhal Oh, I totally agree! It's just so interesting to read about the gruesome side of old science.

                Thursday, 30-Oct-14 22:57:59 UTC from web
                1. @theanneh If we're talking gruesome, one little fun fact worth mentioning is that up until 1987 doctors didn't use anesthetics when operating on babies under the belief that young infants didn't feel pain.

                  Thursday, 30-Oct-14 23:04:28 UTC from web
                  1. @nethernarwhal Holy Hera, I would have figured they would have used anesthetics just to be safe. xD

                    Thursday, 30-Oct-14 23:05:39 UTC from web
                    1. @theanneh Apparently the common belief was that their brain cells were unmyelinated, which basically meant nerve impulses weren't as effective. So they inferred that babies wouldn't have the nervous tissue necessary to feel pain from stuff like open surgery, which of course turned out to be rubbish upon further research and investigation.

                      Thursday, 30-Oct-14 23:10:46 UTC from web
                      1. @nethernarwhal Ohhh I bet those surgeons felt like total dicks after they found out the truth.

                        Thursday, 30-Oct-14 23:12:05 UTC from web
                        1. @theanneh "Uhh, yeah... sorry I cut open your kid and he both felt and was awake for all of it. My bad."

                          Thursday, 30-Oct-14 23:15:50 UTC from web