Why would someone bath in animal blood?

1. Summary of the results

The original question — “Why would someone bath in animal blood?” — is not directly supported by the documents supplied. None of the three primary documents explicitly describes people bathing in animal blood as a practice or therapeutic intervention. Instead, the materials fall into three distinct topical areas: biomedical uses of edible animal blood products and their potential in disease treatment ^[1], experimental therapies involving CO2 water-bath treatment and its effects on blood flow in animal models ^[2], and regulatory and food-safety discussions concerning use of blood in food and feed including pathogen and prion concerns ^[3]. In short, the sources address blood as a biomedical, nutritional, or experimental material, not as a bathing medium for people, and none document or explain a cultural or clinical practice of bathing in animal blood ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

The documents also differ in scope and intent: the edible-blood review frames blood as a potential biomedical ingredient with research value ^[1], the CO2 water-bath studies concern localized physiological responses in rodents or models, not immersion in raw animal blood ^[2], and the food/feed safety review highlights health risks such as pathogens, prions, and allergens tied to blood use in the food chain ^[3]. None of these sources provide direct evidence that bathing in animal blood is practiced for health benefits, cultural rituals, or other reasons, and publication dates are not provided in the supplied metadata, limiting temporal context ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

A major missing piece across the supplied materials is ethnographic or historical research on ritual practices that involve blood, or journalism documenting modern instances where people bathe in animal blood for religious, cultural, or performative reasons. The supplied pieces instead treat blood through technical lenses: biomedical product potential, experimental CO2 baths, and food-safety risks ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Without culturally oriented sources, the possibility that bathing in animal blood appears in ritual contexts (e.g., sacrifices, symbolic cleansing) cannot be evaluated from the supplied documents, and the safety or symbolic rationale for such acts remains unaddressed by these scientific and regulatory reviews ^[3].

Another omission is clinical evidence on dermal exposure risks specific to raw animal blood as a bathing medium. The food/feed safety review flags general concerns — pathogens, prion diseases, allergens such as bovine serum albumin — when blood is used in food or feed ^[3]. But there is no supplied clinical or toxicological study assessing systemic infection risk, skin irritation, or long-term outcomes from full-body immersion in animal blood, nor is there ethnographic detail explaining motivations behind such acts. The CO2 water-bath research shows how bath-like interventions can influence blood flow in experimental animals, but it is a different modality and does not justify equating CO2 hydrotherapy with bathing in raw blood ^[2].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

Framing the question as “Why would someone bath in animal blood?” implicitly suggests such behavior is practiced and invites sensational explanation. That framing can benefit actors seeking shock value or cultural stereotypes because none of the supplied scientific and regulatory sources substantiate the premise; the assembled materials instead discuss biomedical uses, experimental therapies, and food-safety issues unrelated to ritual bathing ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The three-source set may unintentionally conflate disparate meanings of “blood” (ingredient, experimental medium, or symbolic substance) — a conflation that can mislead readers into accepting an unproven behavioral claim.

Finally, the absence of dates and broader source diversity in the provided materials constrains evaluation. Without ethnographic or journalistic sources, or clinical toxicology/dermatology studies specific to immersion in raw blood, it is impossible from these documents to validate the premise or explain motivations. The supplied safety-focused review warns of biological hazards when blood is consumed or used in food chains ^[3], which could be invoked to argue against bodily immersion on health grounds, but doing so would be an inferential leap unsupported by direct evidence in these sources ^[3].