Scan barcode
marieintheraw's review against another edition
3.0
some sections are vastly more interesting than others.
rdlevitt's review against another edition
5.0
What an interesting book! Reminds me a lot of Mary Roach, whose writing I love. The book ends kind of abruptly, but maybe that's because there's really no good way to tie everything together that she didn't already say in the beginning of the book. The subject matter was fascinating and I liked her style and sense of humor.
savannahsshelf's review against another edition
funny
hopeful
informative
reflective
sad
medium-paced
4.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Sexism, Medical trauma, Misogyny, and Medical content
Moderate: Sexual assault and Rape
Minor: War and Gore
kpierce94010's review against another edition
3.0
I saw this book recommended as one of Bill Gates' five summer reads and it sounded intriguing. However, this book is too scattered. I think it would be better if it had focused on either the transfusion/ blood product aspect or the menstruation aspect. For example, there was a lot about blood transfusions and the diseases transmitted by blood transfusions, but there is no mention of the potential transmission of prion diseases, for example.
In addition, I think the author over states her case. For example, there is a whole discussion of the use of leaches for wound healing but the reality is that the use of leaches is extremely rare, including for veterinary medicine, and I think the author overstates the use..
In addition, I think the author over states her case. For example, there is a whole discussion of the use of leaches for wound healing but the reality is that the use of leaches is extremely rare, including for veterinary medicine, and I think the author overstates the use..
kwheeles's review against another edition
3.0
Interesting book with chapters organized as free-standing essays on different aspects of blood (transfusions, leeches, menses, blood loss, etc.). Author is British with the curiosity of a good writer and a chummy writing style. Enjoyed it thoroughly.
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.