Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Regular blood donations can reduce “forever chemicals” in the bloodstream: study

theswaddle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 213 posts

Re: Regular blood donations can reduce “forever chemicals” in the bloodstream: study

#131

Post by sdenton4 »

roywiggins wrote: post #98
adamredwoods wrote: post #58

We should be able to test our blood for PFAS on a regular basis and our doctors should be able to let us know if we need to filter our blood. But PFAS testing is not the norm? Per a Tedx talk on this subject: https://www.nrdc.org/experts/anna-reade/pfas-blood-tests-nee... >> Unfortunately, a PFAS blood test is not a routine lab test that can be processed by your local lab and covered by your health insurance. In fact…

Nobody knows the threshold above which intervening is a good idea or worth the effort, so universal testing seems like jumping the gun a little.

People said similar things about lead...

Re: Regular blood donations can reduce “forever chemicals” in the bloodstream: study

#132

Post by valarauko »

droopyEyelids wrote: post #108
daenz wrote: post #104

I used to donate blood regularly. I would donate more regularly if I got a full blood panel with each donation. I've been quoted $600-2500. Surely you can comp that for me if I give you a pint.

According to the Red Cross website, donated blood is tested, too. https://www.redcrossblood.org/donate-blood/blood-donation-pr... So presumably they could just pass back the results of that test

I think its only tested for infectious diseases and the like, not the sort of things covered in a blood panel like the parent is referring to. I suppose at least the results of the infectious tests could be passed on.

Re: Regular blood donations can reduce “forever chemicals” in the bloodstream: study

#133

Post by krapht »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #74

“Forever chemicals” is kind of a scary marketing term that helps sell ad views. PFAS materials (teflon, high temperature o-rings, refrigeration fluids, fire-fighting foams, anti-cancer drugs and other medicines, etc.) encompass such a broad range of chemistries (anything with the fluorine atom attached to carbon) that have many many orders of magnitude differences in half-life. It’s analogous to labeling anything rad…

Are you telling me the government is fluoridating my precious bodily fluids?

Re: Regular blood donations can reduce “forever chemicals” in the bloodstream: study

#134

Post by pessimizer »

s0rce wrote: post #46
hereme888 wrote: post #34

Sheesh, I can't believe the percent of negative comments! Someone finally figured a way to reduce PFAS. It's a hugely positive finding, especially in light of people being able to keep their red blood cells. Hopefully it can be ruled as a safe long-term solution for now. Looking forward to reading updates on this research. And btw, donating plasma doesn't mean other people will get your PFAS; many things can be done…

Even if someone else would get your PFAS its most likely they have them as well and its certainly better than dying of blood loss or not treating other serious issues that rely on various blood products.

Anyway it's a problem you can fix yourself by donating more blood than you receive.

Re: Regular blood donations can reduce “forever chemicals” in the bloodstream: study

#135

Post by closedloop129 »

plonk wrote: post #114
sodality2 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For most tests, the risks associated with a false positive outweigh the benefits of marginally earlier detection. If these tests aren't run, then I am not sure if it would be "marginally earlier", it might be much later or even never that the problem is discovered.

If they are run, the results could be uninformative ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy ). Too many false positives could lead to risky treatment and be dangerous. Testing each positive again would still create false positives. I don't know the numbers in this case, but I wouldn't be surprised if accurate mass testing were impractically expensive.

This should only be a problem if you don't adjust the models. If you run a huge number of tests, you can create far more detailed models and thus reduce the false positive rate.

Ideally, all chemical processes in the body could be known and we could have an almost "mechanical" model of the body. How else but with more testing can be reach that knowledge?

Re: Regular blood donations can reduce “forever chemicals” in the bloodstream: study

#136

Post by plonk »

closedloop129 wrote: post #135
plonk wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they are run, the results could be uninformative ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy ). Too many false positives could lead to risky treatment and be dangerous. Testing each positive again would still create false positives. I don't know the numbers in this case, but I wouldn't be surprised if accurate mass testing were impractically expensive.

This should only be a problem if you don't adjust the models. If you run a huge number of tests, you can create far more detailed models and thus reduce the false positive rate. Ideally, all chemical processes in the body could be known and we could have an almost "mechanical" model of the body. How else but with more testing can be reach that knowledge?

> This should only be a problem if you don't adjust the models. If you run a huge number of tests, you can create far more detailed models and thus reduce the false positive rate.

Can you? The problem is the test's sensitivity and specificity, there's not much statistical work to do after the test on a single case. It's not an advanced model deciding whether you're sick or not.

> Ideally, all chemical processes in the body could be known and we could have an almost "mechanical" model of the body. How else but with more testing can be reach that knowledge?

Yeah, ideally we would. Not a doctor, but as far as I can tell, we're a thousand years away from that.

Re: Regular blood donations can reduce “forever chemicals” in the bloodstream: study

#137

Post by roywiggins »

sdenton4 wrote: post #131
roywiggins wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody knows the threshold above which intervening is a good idea or worth the effort, so universal testing seems like jumping the gun a little.

People said similar things about lead...

We don't preemptively test everyone for lead either!

Re: Regular blood donations can reduce “forever chemicals” in the bloodstream: study

#138

Post by KMag »

daenz wrote: post #104

I used to donate blood regularly. I would donate more regularly if I got a full blood panel with each donation. I've been quoted $600-2500. Surely you can comp that for me if I give you a pint.

... or run each donated pint through one randomly chosen extra screening. Donate often enough, and you get a full screening.

Re: Regular blood donations can reduce “forever chemicals” in the bloodstream: study

#139

Post by CodeWriter23 »

tantalor wrote: post #77
CodeWriter23 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

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

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∀

Re: Regular blood donations can reduce “forever chemicals” in the bloodstream: study

#140

Post by jfengel »

dvdgsng wrote: post #122
jfengel wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't realize that. I was briefly thought to have hemochromatosis, and had been "self-treating" via the Red Cross for years. It turns out I didn't have hemochromatosis. It was merely a bit high, but knowing that I donated so often (both whole blood and platelets, which you can do more often), there was concern that the "self-treatment" was covering up a real problem. I had not heard at the time that they wouldn't…

I have hemochromatosis and here in Germany it's impossible for me to donate blood. It's not actually forbidden, afaik, but no company want's to give 'contaminated' blood to patients, even though it would be perfectly fine.

Do you do phlebotomy some other way? Do you just draw the blood yourself and discard it?

It amused me very much at the time to think that "bloodletting" might, in fact, be medically prescribed.

Post reply on HN