Blood Transfusion Increases Mortality in Heart Attacks

by Earnest 33 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Earnest

  I understand that the objection to blood transfusions by Jehovah's Witnesses is purely a scriptural one. Whether or not there are medical benefits to avoiding blood transfusions is, or should be, irrelevant. However, for those who are not convinced by JW understanding of the scriptures in this regard, and those who don't believe either in the Bible and/or in God, the fact that blood transfusion is associated with increased mortality in heart attacks may be of interest.

  A systematic search of studies published between January 1, 1966, and March 31, 2012, was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. English-language studies comparing blood transfusion with no blood transfusion or a liberal vs restricted blood transfusion strategy were identified.

  Analyses of blood transfusion in myocardial infarction revealed increased all-cause mortality associated with a strategy of blood transfusion vs no blood transfusion during myocardial infarction (18.2% vs 10.2%)...Blood transfusion was also significantly associated with a higher risk for subsequent myocardial infarction.

  - JAMA Internal Medicine, Vol.173, No.2 (Jan 28, 2013)
• 

  cofty

  So what?
• 

  LostGeneration

  Lol, if your dead, you can't have a heart attack dipshit!

  
• 

  hamsterbait

  Why would ANY doctor prescribe a blood transfusion for a heart attack? The increase in blood volume would put a further strain on the heart!!!

  HB
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  If a patient does not need transfusion of a blood product to prevent mortality or morbidity then the transfusion places a patient at increased risk of both. This is the underlying fact of the studies you cite.

  If, on the other hand, a patient does need transfusion of a blood product to prevent mortality or morbidity then the transfusion places a patient at decreased risk of both. This is another underlying fact that explains why certain cardio patients show a lower incident of mortality and morbidity compared with the same patient population who does not get the transfusion.

  See: Anemia — 10 times more Witnesses die available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2012/02/anemia-10-times-more-witnesses-die.html

  For more, see: Watchtower's Blood Doctrine available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2010/09/wtsblooddoctrine.html

  Marvin Shilmer

  http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
• 

  OUTLAW

  You can Suffocate to Death from Lack of Blood..

  Or..

  Have a Blood Transfusion and..

  Live with an Increased Chance of a Heart Attack..

  This JW would take a..

  Blood Transfusion..

  

  ......................... ... OUTLAW
• 

  sir82

  Conclusions Blood transfusion or a liberal blood transfusion strategy compared with no blood transfusion or a restricted blood transfusion strategy is associated with higher all-cause mortality rates. A practice of routine or liberal blood transfusion in myocardial infarction should not be encouraged but requires investigation in a large trial with low risk for bias.

  Hard to argue with that.

  On the other hand, if the choice is "die within the next 5 minutes due to loss of blood" or "transfuse and have an elevated risk of mortality", I think I'd go with option A.
• 

  heathen

  The WTBTS ban on blood is stupid , when john said do not eat blood he was talking about litterally eating it as a food not using it to save people from death from lack of blood . As we know the pagans that were converted still had the custom of eating improperly bled meat and using blood in all sorts of puddings , john recognized it as a health risk since eating blood is not healthy. It had nothing to do with the mosaic law of which jesus abolished on the torture platform ,,
• 

  prologos

  cofti: so? only he weakest patients get blood transfusions (and I am not talking about "weak" jws), so it is no surprise more of the weak ones die. But:

  A blood transfusion is a (liquid) organ transplant, for that reason always ascociated with risk

  I worked for the head nurse of a major research hospital, which had other personel that was helpful in avoiding blood, and named in the wt video/disk, and she said:

  I would never take a blood transfusion.

  Of course, like, a new heart, new kidney transplant there serious situations were no other remedy works. but one should not take blood just for cosmetic reasons, or to prove a point, or to win the TOUR de FRANCE or Olympic gold.

  Of the many things that is wrong with bible intrepretations, limiting the "letting" of blood or non-emergency use might not be one of them.
• 

  Finkelstein

  Blood Transfusion Increases Mortality in Heart Attacks

  Why doesn't the WTS. ever say that Blood Transfusions since its inception as a medical procedure has saved millions of people's lives

  from its very start in the medical field ?

  They always come up with some stupid biased bit of information to support their doctrine, intensionally avoided the actual Truth of the

  matter all together.

  I suppose this should be expected when they (WTS.) encourage their devoted followers to lie half truths in supporting the WT organization

  and any of its particular doctrines. .

  To try and save a human life is a Christian thing to do, as instructed by Jesus Christ himself. ... " His Greatest Commandment "

  Yet the WTS. disregards this commandment altogether, to subjectively obey a dietary Hebraic law concerning the eating of blood ????