Scan barcode
sidewriter's review against another edition
3.0
This is less a cohesive book about blood and more an anthology of long-form docu-essays loosely connected by a theme, but it was generally interesting. It takes a more historic and socio-political approach to its subject matter than a scientific one. It’s pretty straightforward, with chapters that dig a few feet past the superficial level on topics like the history of transfusion and blood donation, the business model for blood banks, how leeches factor into our medical knowledge, the history and cultural factors involved with battling HIV in Africa, the ways old views about menstruating women serve to oppress women in developing nations (and what people and movements are slowly changing that in places like India.) The audio version is very quietly recorded -- even at full volume, I often wanted to be able to turn it up.
laurapk's review against another edition
4.0
It's a bloody funny, well written book, with a couple of errors in it (that I could identify) and only loosely bound together by the theme of blood. I loved the author's humor and was in stitches particularly while reading the second chapter (on leeches). The chapter about trauma care was less funny but very gripping and delivered some raw emotion. I have little to reproach the author, I liked her writing but I also think the nine chapters were a bit disjointed (with the exception of the two chapters on menstruation, which I believe were separated in an attempt to have nine chapters in a book called Nine Pints).
I would warn against taking all her comments at face value, since I could clearly identify a couple of errors. It's good that the author had an active BS alarm in chapter 9 when interviewing a proponent of using young blood for transfusion, but in reality I don't believe that information should have even been put in there, since the science the interviewee reported is smack in the middle of BS land. Not because it would be impossible to get benefits from young blood transfusions, but because the way he conducts his experiments...they're actually not experiments. He's a crook, or deluded. There were also a couple of scientific errors that I could identify. In the last chapter for example she talks about Sickle Cell Anemia and after correctly stating that the disease is caused by a mutation in the hemoglobin gene, she goes on to say that this diseased hemoglobin will clump together in the patient's vessels. It's the red blood cells that clump, not the hemoglobin, as the hemoglobin is not running free in the blood. The mutated hemoglobin is very rigid and changes the shapes of the red blood cells, which makes them more prone to clump together in small blood vessels. Another issue I had was with her description of vampires, where like all good Brits, she didn't do her homework. Firstly, Vlad the Impaler (Tepes) only set foot in Transylvania as a prisoner, he ruled in the south of Romania (at the time of his rule Transylvania was actually part of Hungary). He may have been a tyrant for the Turks, but he is considered a national hero for having fought said Turks and for being tough on crime. Also, Romanians don't have blood sucking vampire stories. We have evil dead revivals which we call Strigoi, which won't suck your blood but will kill you or terrorize you if you let them in your home. As a result we have a lot of burial traditions meant to appease the dead person and also confuse them so that they can't find their way back home from the cemetery (because that's how you keep communities safe and reduce the consumption of garlic necessary to keep said evil spirits away :) ).
I would warn against taking all her comments at face value, since I could clearly identify a couple of errors. It's good that the author had an active BS alarm in chapter 9 when interviewing a proponent of using young blood for transfusion, but in reality I don't believe that information should have even been put in there, since the science the interviewee reported is smack in the middle of BS land. Not because it would be impossible to get benefits from young blood transfusions, but because the way he conducts his experiments...they're actually not experiments. He's a crook, or deluded. There were also a couple of scientific errors that I could identify. In the last chapter for example she talks about Sickle Cell Anemia and after correctly stating that the disease is caused by a mutation in the hemoglobin gene, she goes on to say that this diseased hemoglobin will clump together in the patient's vessels. It's the red blood cells that clump, not the hemoglobin, as the hemoglobin is not running free in the blood. The mutated hemoglobin is very rigid and changes the shapes of the red blood cells, which makes them more prone to clump together in small blood vessels. Another issue I had was with her description of vampires, where like all good Brits, she didn't do her homework. Firstly, Vlad the Impaler (Tepes) only set foot in Transylvania as a prisoner, he ruled in the south of Romania (at the time of his rule Transylvania was actually part of Hungary). He may have been a tyrant for the Turks, but he is considered a national hero for having fought said Turks and for being tough on crime. Also, Romanians don't have blood sucking vampire stories. We have evil dead revivals which we call Strigoi, which won't suck your blood but will kill you or terrorize you if you let them in your home. As a result we have a lot of burial traditions meant to appease the dead person and also confuse them so that they can't find their way back home from the cemetery (because that's how you keep communities safe and reduce the consumption of garlic necessary to keep said evil spirits away :) ).
superlegitjoy's review against another edition
5.0
Good insomnia read. Nice balance of interesting facts, humor/narrator insertion without stealing the show, and sometimes delicate, sometimes strange subject matter. It’s no Oranges, but I don’t have anything bad to say. Very good pacing.
alanyoung's review against another edition
4.0
A very interesting read made more so by personal experience with leeches (in Nepal) and having had a career as a doctor. Also in the hills Nepal we used relatives as blood donors in the absence of a blood bank.
The disquieting theme throughout was the distorting and dangerous effect of a non-voluntary service where the profit motive (whether personal or corporate) was a threat to quality and safety.
The disquieting theme throughout was the distorting and dangerous effect of a non-voluntary service where the profit motive (whether personal or corporate) was a threat to quality and safety.
cgkinsley's review against another edition
3.0
While some chapters were definitely less interesting than others, overall this was a nice, relatively easy trip through all things blood—interesting and informative!
rsaguilar's review against another edition
4.0
Not what I was expecting and not a bad thing. Part history of old health practices/beliefs, part menstruation experiences around the world, and part blood borne pathogens.
sfletcher26's review against another edition
1.0
A complete disappointment of a book. Sloppy research and a
monstrously journalistic style make this not really worth reading.
monstrously journalistic style make this not really worth reading.