Anonymous ID: 92606a Aug. 20, 2020, 9:06 a.m. No.10358465   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>8480 >>8511 >>8600

>>10358285

>>10358331

>>10358358

>>10358373

>>10358396

 

ok fuckersโ€ฆ

 

Sept. 10, 2004 โ€“ Score one for the medical experts of the distant past. The old practice of bloodletting may have worked, and new research may show us why.

 

Before antibiotics were developed, bloodletting was used to treat serious illnesses.

 

Those bygone doctors probably didn't know why bloodletting sometimes worked, but new research presents a possible reason.

 

Scientists, including Eric Skaar of the University of Chicago, recently studied a type of bacteria called Staphylococcus aureus or simply "staph." This bacteria, which can be carried on the skin or nostrils of healthy people is also responsible for skin infections such as boils or pimples. The bacteria can also cause serious infections of the blood, bones, and lungs (pneumonia). Recently these bacteria, like many others, have become more and more resistant to antibiotic therapy.

 

Staph thrives on iron compounds, scavenging it from the animals it infects. It obtains most of the iron it needs to grow during infection.

 

Specifically, it prefers a kind of iron found in heme, the molecule in red blood cells that helps carry oxygen. It's as if the bacterium scans its host's menu of iron compounds, hoping to find heme.

 

"Heme iron is the preferred iron source during the initiation of infection," write Skaar and colleagues in the Sept. 10 issue of Science.

 

If no heme is available, the bacterium's chances of thriving may fail.

 

https://www.webmd.com/men/news/20040910/bloodlettings-benefits#1

 

moar:

 

https://www.livescience.com/36420-blood-donation-metabolic-syndrome-obesity.html

 

https://www.brmsonline.com/blog/wellness/healthcare/2018/benefits-of-blood-donation

Anonymous ID: 92606a Aug. 20, 2020, 9:17 a.m. No.10358591   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>10358511

<this is turning into a slide but mother fuck, do some research. my last post was about 30 seconds worth of search

 

here's your fucking peer reviewed paper. one of many.

 

Background:

 

Chronic urticaria is a common disease affecting patientsโ€™ quality of life, and leading to substantial burden to both patients and society. Many trials have shown that bloodletting therapy is effective in treating chronic urticaria. There are currently no systematic reviews of bloodletting therapy for chronic urticaria. This protocol aims to present the methods used to assess the effectiveness and safety of bloodletting therapy for patients with chronic urticaria.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6408096/

 

here's a writeup from University of Minnesota Medical School

 

The practice of medicine is changing at a fast pace. Research is finding new therapies for diseases once thought incurable. We are developing more effective interventions with less harmful side effects to further alleviate the burden on those with chronic illness. Recent breakthroughs have spawned clinical applications that we could not have dreamed of even half a century ago.

 

That being said, one of the therapies from old has withstood the test of time. Of course, I am referring to the ancient practice of bloodletting.

 

https://in-training.org/modern-bloodletting-8443

 

>now will you kindly stfu?