Condescension.....a favourite of the atheist. How is the altitude up there?
So, I take it you've not read many of your own posts? Like the ones wherein you declare there to be no evidence for evolution, despite unwittingly admitting that you cannot even understand the evidence...
So, one link was to the use of transfusions during knee transplants. The other was to a cautionary video about the over-use of transfusions.
I believe that the video highlighted that there was no other medical procedure that resulted in "morbidity" and "mortality" more than blood transfusions do. What do those words mean?
I don't know - perhaps you can explain them , and then dumb-down the video that you accept at face value for me so I can understand it and then dismiss it anyway.
Just kidding - my graduate program was in a school of medicine and I have taught related topics for many years. What is your medical background?
The video may have done this, but all I saw were assertions. No way to check the veracity of the claims.
And would you like a doctor to use those words in connection with a treatment he was offering you?
I would like doctors - and religious groups - to be more honest in their claims:
Or:
Huh.... Like any medical procedure, there are risks, and like any medical procedure, transfusions should only be used when medically necessary, just as I have alluded to earlier.
So golly, I am not sure where your claims came from or how they can be justified. Citations?
I also remember a figure of about 12% that were deemed to be "necessary" even though the doctors in the video did not say that blood was ever really necessary, not even in trauma cases.
That is not a citation, is it?
Other doctors disagree. I have to wonder about the underlying allegiances of the doctors in that video - are they pushing an agenda?
There are doctors that lie about vaccines, too, but they are, to a person, agenda-driven, not fact-driven, so without any independent citations, I am not up to merely accepting what is in a JW video on blood transfusion.
Perhaps you need to watch the video with your selective hearing switched off.
Or perhaps I did watch it and do not consider figures mentioned in passing on an advocacy video to be 100% reliable.
A blood transfusion is, after all, a tissue transplant (What is the JW position on tissue/organ transplants?) - you understand that blood is a tissue, yes?
Yes we are aware of everything related to the issue of blood in Medicine.
"We"?
Perhaps you are unaware that we have a Hospital Liason Committee that fields medical enquiries from doctors all over the world who can access information when treating Witness patients. The members of this committee are experts in the field of bloodless medical techniques. Their advice has helped in the treatment and recovery of many non-Witness patients as well.
Yes, I am sure they are experts. Just like you are an expert on the evidence for evolution. Oh, wait...
And as such, it is the introduction of foreign tissue. Of course there are potential complications, and like any medical procedure or medicine or treatment, there is a tendency to overuse.
It wasn't just the overuse that was highlighted though, was it.....? It was the "morbidity" and the" mortality" (adverse outcomes and death) that were the important things.....avoiding blood meant shorter recovery times....less complications....saving hospital resources etc...all good things from the medical perspective.
All in that little video? A quick series of 'facts and figures' with no references to double check. No reason to question any of that.
People are free to choose their own form of medical treatment or to refuse it. But when making decisions, they should be informed ones....right? Do you want the truth or someone to tickle your ears?
Of course they should be informed - by medical research, not cherry-picked tidbits chosen solely because they prop up a peculiar religious interpretation.
And no, your video does not indicate this. The only thing cited indicated that transfusions were "inappropriate" in more than half of cases. That is not the same as 'killing more than saving.' Nor did your link about knee transplants.
The dangers of blood transfusions are becoming better understood. This is a good thing because lives are not being put at risk for bad outcomes and death by relying on an outdated procedure. There are faster recovery times with less complications by avoiding a liquid tissue transplant....something that activates an extreme immune response. The body's resources are directed to fighting the invader, not towards making the patient well.
All that from that little video...
Oddly, in the cytoscan, the comparison was with volume expanders v. packed red cells (i.e., red cells with most of the plasma removed) post hemorrhage. Golly, what a surprise that replacing lost volume with packed red cells did not allow for dilation of peripheral blood vessels!
The oxygen delivery to the tissues was impeded by whole blood transfusion, but was facilitated by the use of saline.
Does saline carry oxygen?
The cytoscan was proof that foreign blood doesn't work in the body of a recipient the way that doctors once imagined. Now they can actually see what goes on in the bloodstream. I'm sure it was a shock to them.
So they claimed. I just posted a study from 2012 to your pal nPeace in which more modern techniques were used showing the opposite. But hey - your advocacy video is the ultimate arbiter of medical truth.
Yes, it told the inconvenient truth that make doctors who don't keep up with advances in medicine, look like quacks.....and who keep on burying their mistakes.....after "doing all they could".
LOL!
Yes, that it why it was odd...
Not that they were cherry picking or anything like that.
