Here is what doctor I.N.U. MD, FWACS, FICS said in a post over at NoBlood.org regarding the study claiming “Moderate Exposure to Allogeneic Blood Products Is Not Associated with Reduced Long-term Survival after Surgery for Coronary Artery Disease”

How was the conclusion arrived at?

Table 1 in the article in question clearly shows a relationship between blood transfusion and mortality as follows:

No transfusion 11% [mortality]

1-2 units 14% [mortality]

3-6 units 19% [mortality]

>6 units 23% [mortality]

The authors’ conclusion that “Moderate Exposure to Allogeneic Blood Products Is Not Associated with Reduced Long-term Survival after Surgery for Coronary Artery Disease” (in the article title) is obviously at variance with their own statistics.

This is also a study in scientific anachronism at the best, double speak at the least. Moderate exposure is associated with reduced long term survival.

Nathaniel Usoro MD, FWACS, FICS

This is probably a simple doctor error. It is at variance with countless studies that say otherwise. All high level studies say that from any to the more blood you get, the higher the risk of morbidity (getting sick) and mortality (getting dead).

Being on a team that treated over 600 patients with out blood (during my time at a Pennsylvania hospital), not one died. This even though the lowest count was Hgb 2.9.

Now we are finding that boosting intercellular glutathione (GSH) works even better that EPO or Epogen for not only boosting blood counts but improving the immune response.

Boosting GSH has been proven in a few studies to be an economical treatment for H1N1 Swine Flu as well as Bird Flu.

It pays to be an educated consumer.

As one pioneer of medical treatments and surgery with out blood transfusions once said and this study shows, the blood transfusions you refuse may save your life.