Blood Transfusions

Aajonus returned again and again to the evolutionary logic behind the spleen's blood storage function. He explained that ancestral humans swinging through trees could lacerate a jugular vein, lose two or three cups of blood, and still survive without becoming prey, because the spleen would immediately compensate once the clot formed. He described this as the body being "designed brilliantly," and contrasted it with the medical profession's framing of blood loss as a crisis requiring external intervention.

He gave specific quantities across multiple workshops. The spleen holds approximately a pint and a half to two pints in most people, up to a quart in larger individuals, and in some cases up to three pints. A loss of one cup of blood in a person with a functioning spleen would be replenished within about one hour of clotting. A loss of two or three cups would similarly be compensated, leaving the person able to run, climb, and defend themselves, though the bone marrow would then require forty to sixty days to rebuild those reserves. He stated that without this spleen function, "you'd be dead from one bleed," even losing just one cup of blood.

He also described the spleen's role in temperature regulation as related to this mechanism. When the body gets cold, the spleen dumps red blood cells into the bloodstream to thicken it and produce warmth. When the body is too hot, the spleen withdraws red blood cells to thin the blood and allow cooling. He noted that the kidney works in conjunction with this, filtering out excess H2O when the body needs to thicken the blood and retaining water when cooling is needed.

The implication Aajonus drew from all of this was direct. For childbirth, where a woman might lose two or three cups of blood, the spleen's reserve of up to four cups covers the loss without any transfusion being required. For menstruation involving significant blood loss, the same reserve replenishes the bloodstream immediately. For surgical blood loss, he argued that the spleen's reserve made transfusion unnecessary in most cases.

Aajonus described a period in his own life when he was receiving one to two blood transfusions a week. This occurred after radiation therapy had deteriorated the bones surrounding his teeth to the point where they dangled in his gums. He stated that biting on his own teeth would cause bleeding, and that he was losing up to half a cup of blood a day from his teeth. Because this was an ongoing daily loss rather than a single acute bleed, the spleen's one-time reserve could not compensate, and he was receiving transfusions to replace the continual loss.

This case illustrates the condition under which he acknowledged transfusions as practically unavoidable: not acute single-event blood loss, which the spleen handles, but chronic ongoing hemorrhage that outpaces the spleen's reserves and the bone marrow's capacity to regenerate. He did not present his own transfusion history as an endorsement of the practice but rather as a description of the extremity of his condition during that period.

Aajonus's most pointed concern about blood transfusions was not about the blood itself but about what transfusions bypass. He taught that for any pathogen, toxin, or foreign substance to cause disease through normal exposure routes, it must pass through multiple barriers: mucus linings, salivary glands, hydrochloric acid in the stomach, and several other phases of defense. He described this as "five phases" and estimated the odds of a pathogen successfully establishing itself through normal routes at five million to one.

A transfusion eliminates all of those barriers. The substance, whatever it is, goes directly into the bloodstream without passing through any membrane or defensive layer. He used this reasoning to explain conditions attributed to sexually transmitted infection. His position was that AIDS, for example, cannot be transmitted through skin contact, through open sores (because bleeding is outward, not inward), or through anal sex with bleeding, because blood moves outward from the body, not inward. He stated, "You can transmit it in blood, but you can't transmit it sexually. You can't transmit it any other way because it has to be injected into your body."

He connected this specifically to the history of AIDS in Africa, where he argued that the disease appeared in populations who received the smallpox vaccine, not in those who did not. He stated that people only contracted AIDS from others "who got smallpox vaccine unless they were getting transfusions from somebody who had the smallpox vaccine." The transfusion in this framework functions as an injection mechanism, equivalent in its bypassing effect to a vaccine, delivering substances into circulation that the body has no natural defense against because they never had to pass through the normal routes.

He also made this point in general terms when discussing viruses and other agents: "If you get a transfusion, it's spiked into you. And it doesn't have to pass through membranes." He contrasted this with agents that must survive hydrochloric acid, mucus, and other barriers, calling the likelihood of those causing disease "almost impossible."

In his advance medical directive documents, which he included in his newsletters and question-and-answer materials, Aajonus specified conditions under which transfusions could be used in his own care if he were incapacitated. The directive states that blood transfusions "must be kept to minimum" and that "at least one or more of the following donors' blood only is to be used" unless those donors were unreachable in a reasonable time, followed by blank spaces for the names and phone numbers of specific designated donors.

This language is significant. It does not prohibit transfusions outright even in his own case. It restricts them to a minimum volume and to blood from known, personally selected donors. The implication is that transfused blood from unknown donors carries risks, presumably contamination risks of the kind he described when discussing AIDS transmission through transfusion, while blood from a known person whose health and diet are known presents a more controlled situation.

Aajonus described in detail a woman who had been receiving up to three transfusions a week and had traveled from Europe to the United States after no European doctors could help her. She was hemorrhaging through her intestinal or rectal tissue and had been subjected to cauterization, skin grafting, and surgical mesh, none of which stopped the bleeding. UCLA and USC had also failed to resolve her condition.

She eventually found someone at a health food store who referred her to Aajonus. He described the conversation: she said she was probably going to die because she could not keep taking transfusions while continuing to lose blood. Aajonus told her that if she wanted to get well she would have to eat raw meat, which she initially refused. He then offered an interim solution: if she only wanted to stop the bleeding without committing to raw meat, she should drink cabbage juice. He described the cabbage juice as sufficient to affect the blood's ability to coagulate properly, allowing the tissue to clot and heal. He stated that the continual bleeding stopped with this single dietary intervention, and that "hemophiliacs, 95% of them, would be completely" helped in a similar way, though the transcript is cut off before that sentence finishes.

This case is presented as an illustration of how the medical establishment's reliance on transfusions to manage ongoing blood loss treats only the symptom of bleeding rather than the underlying failure of coagulation, and that dietary intervention addressing coagulation can resolve the condition that made the transfusions necessary in the first place.

Aajonus was asked directly about donating blood and gave a qualified answer. He stated that he had donated blood "a few times," but only to people he knew personally who needed it. He explained that giving a pint of blood takes anywhere from ninety to one hundred twenty days to replace, and he framed the decision as a matter of whether a person felt strong and healthy enough to sustain that loss. He explicitly advised against donating out of general goodwill or Samaritanism unless one was confident in one's own health and the recipient was someone close with the same blood type. The implied reasoning is that ninety to one hundred twenty days of reduced blood volume, during which time the bone marrow is working to reconstitute what was lost, is a real cost to the donor's own health and energy.

Aajonus noted that if the spleen is heavily contaminated with metals, those metals leach into the red blood cells being stored there. When that contaminated blood is then dumped back into the bloodstream following a bleed, the red blood cells, even if present in adequate numbers, cannot transport oxygen properly. He described this as "a secondary anemia even if you have the right red blood cell count," because the cells themselves are weakened by the metal contamination they absorbed while sitting in the spleen.

This same principle would apply to transfused blood from donors with contaminated red blood cells, which would arrive in the recipient's bloodstream already compromised in their capacity to carry oxygen, while also introducing whatever the donor's blood contained.

While not about transfusions directly, Aajonus addressed the practice of drawing large volumes of blood for laboratory testing as a related issue. He observed from his own time in a laboratory that about half a teaspoon (or in other accounts, an eighth of a teaspoon) is all that is actually needed to run a standard blood test. He described the practice of taking three vials of three cubic centimeters each as "absurd" and stated that the excess blood is simply thrown away after testing, with the surplus retained only in case a test needs to be redone. He argued that doctors taking large volumes of blood from patients serves no diagnostic purpose and weakens the patient unnecessarily, advising people to insist on minimal blood draws if they choose to have lab work done.

---