Ruby 456. You wrote:
"the problem is that the poster and you Lee elder are not
addressing why this study was done and why it appears in later
journals. the study was done in order to know and manage risks
amongst JW patients who become anaemic to improve outcomes and this
is one of the things which you are not allowing for in your so called
conservative estimates and it is this that makes your estimates
sensationalist".
This is patently false. You have either not read
the original research by Beliaev in July 2012 VoxSanginis, or you are being intentionally dishonest. The research was undertaken
to assess the clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of ARBC
transfusion in severe anemia. In order to do this the researchers
did the only thing they could do, compare costs and outcomes with
patients who accept ARBC transfusion with costs and outcomes with a
matched set of patients who refuse ARBC transfusion.
Beliaev
et als research demonstrated that ARBC transfusion in anaemic
patients is clinically beneficial and cost-effective. On this point
the outcome of JW patients suffering severe anemia who refused ARBC
transfusion, compared to patients who were treated with ARBC
transfusion resoundingly demonstrated that ARBC transfusion to treat
patients with severe anemia is extremely effective, not to mention its cost effectiveness.
I have attached a scan of the front page of the article. It is not available for free online, only the abstract.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22150804
Please move your mind to another subject. I am too busy with important work to continually have to correct your mistakes.
.