Non-blood treatment is way superior in every situation and many doctors in hospitals worldwide are calling it the gold standard," Ruge said from his office in Georgetown, Ont.
This statement is pretty bold. Although, I have heard individual witnesses claim this, the WTBS, I think has always tried to say this without ever saying this.
Non-blood treatment or fractionalized blood treatments serve a medical purpose but statistically it is not better medicine in all situation at this point. I would guess in court cases the WTBS denies stating that it is better medicine. This would probably be a useful statement for victims that are sueing the WTBS over dead loved ones.
I know my inlaws think that it is better medicine and my brother-in-law was quite shocked to learn that when his mother was sick there wasn't some magic solution to her blood loss. The problem is that if relatives later sue for damages, it is tough to show from there articles that they state that it is better medicine. This statement comes right out and shows that is what they teach. Seems pretty foolish to me. I would think if a corporation lied to someone and that lie led to their death, they could get their pants sued off. With statements like these seems even a Worldly person who read those statements and believed them could sue if a problem arose.