Exploring the medical and scientific background of blood drinking
Investigation and Research Into Sanguinarians
Investigation and Research Into Sanguinarians
Much of my page focuses on medicine, science and looking for a medical cause to the sanguin condition. But is this a practical approach? Are we wasting our time looking in that direction?
Many argue that there can be no medical cause for sanguins... it is either all metaphysical or it is all psychological. I approached the psychological aspect of things in the article Psychosomatic? I Think Not!. Metaphysical is more difficult because of its very nature and is not going to be examined on these pages. Here, let us look at the practicality of a medical reason for sanguinarians.
The Limitations of Medicine
Many times, the first argument people use for having no medical cause is that science and medicine have not diagnosed it yet. This is a huge leap of logic that assumes science has found everything and there is nothing new. We know this is not the case due to the number of new species and even new diseases discovered. Medicine is constantly changing, evolving and discovering. Generally something isn't found until the money is there to research it and we are not a hot topic of medical research, unfortunately, thus not funded. We are dismissed as a case for the psychiatrists.
This dismissal is probably our greatest hindrance coupled with our own suspicion. Once a person does have the money and will to do research... sanguins shy away. Due to what we have experienced and how we have to live, we tend to shy away from anything that would put us even on the edge of a spotlight. We investigate the investigators as much as they investigate us, it seems. It does us a disservice, however, by keeping true research at a snails pace. Researchers seem to only be trusted if they come from within the community first.
Does Anybody Know What We Are Looking For?
In order to make any sort of reliable conclusion, there has to be a focus. To start research with the focus of "Is this medical?" is asking for way too many variables. Medical how? Genetic? Nutritional? Hormonal? Viral? An argument could be made for almost any branch of medicine or the basic sciences:
Cytology: Are there changes at the cellular level?
Genetics: Is it familial? Is there a mutation?
Biochemistry: What are the chemical and hormonal changes in us versus a regular person?
Embryology: Is there a change at the developmental level even prior to birth? Is it a result of something at a critical moment?
Immunology: Why are we seemingly more resistant to disease?
Microbiology: Is it infectious?
Nutrition/Dietetics: What is in blood we rely on? What is lacking in our regular diet? What are we not absorbing properly?
Pathology: What is the progression through life? How does it change? What are the initial symptoms?
Pharmacology: Is there a drug cure or treatment? Are we more sensitive to medications?
Physiology: What is different about the way our body functions? Why is it so?
Neurology: Why does the lack of feeding induce the behavioral changes?
Dermatology: Why the sun problem? What is wrong with our skin?
Ophthalmology: Why are our eyes so sensitive?
Toxicology: Is it something in our environment that affects us differently then others?
Endocrinology: A subset of biochemistry... what hormonal changes do we experience?
Gastroenterology: Why does blood work? Is there something different about or GI tract that prevents absorption of some other nutrient?
Hematology: Are there any changes in our blood? Why can one sanguin not feed another?
Obviously, there are way too many unanswered questions. Too many routes of exploration to just walk into a hospital and say "What is wrong with me?"
Many of the above subsets will be investigated under Hypothesis.
Does Anybody Know What We Are Looking At?
The second problem that arises is what IS a sanguin? What allows us to say person A is a sanguin, person B is not with any surety. The big problem is we cannot do that right now. We do not even have a place that defines us past the rather inclusive and vague "A person who needs blood". Anemics need blood, porphyrians need blood components, people with clotting disorders need blood... but they are not sanguins. How do we narrow down this definition?
The second half of this dilemma is the psychological one. Many sanguins want to be nice and inclusive "If you say you are, then you are..." Even if you just drink blood on Tuesdays in February because you only need it then but only a drop or two. We need a definition, and we need to realize it won't fit everyone. Too bad, so sad, sorry. We aren't a club or a secret society we need to stop feeling guilty that we are turning people away. It is like a diabetic support group feeling guilty for turning away a non-diabetic. We aren't what they need! If we aren't what they need, then letting them stay in that delusion is NOT support.
We do not know enough to summarily dismiss medical causes. We cannot walk away from the possibility just yet. As time goes on, perhaps more thorough research will turn away from it, but for now we need to keep all possibilities open.
Copyright © 2005
by Sarah Mediv
· All Rights reserved
· E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Medical Theory... is a medical cause a possibility?