250,000 Jehovah's Witnesses have died refusing blood

by nicolaou 739 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Simon

  Thanks Marvin:

  Actually, given the lack of available hard facts the 50,000 is probably not unreasonable because you can at least point to a methodology and basis for it so I agree that it's completely different to the 250,000 number.

  What I was trying to get at is how inaccurate any number is going to be because of the variables and how small variances are amplified. I personally find 50,000 a little on the high / unbelievable side and calling it 'conservative' doesn't really work. What is really needed is a likely margin of error and this is likely going to be quite high and detract from the main point of the message which is "too many JWs die unnecessarily"

  This should be the main focus rather than getting hung up over exact numbers which will likely never be known (so we could argue about it forever)
• 

  Finkelstein

  So far I think Simon has shown some restraint in locking off this thread for all the he said she said claptrap nonsense.

  Does anyone support Marvin's calculation theory ?

  If so why ?

  Does anyone support my own evaluation on his theory ?
• 

  cedars

  Yes Simon, but in re-telling this event you miss out a crucial part in the story, conveniently so in my opinion.

  Lee emailed Barbara and myself on April 6th (I have the email) suggesting the thread be locked due to the bickering over AAWA's name. In making this offer, Lee assumed it would be OK with you when it clearly wasn't - but like I said, I don't blame her for second-guessing you because it's all too easily done. The board of AAWA accepted this offer and I decided to make a brief statement before Lee closed the thread.

  When you re-opened the thread and challenged Lee she told you she closed it because I had told her to. I don't blame her for saying this because you put her on the spot (a confession under duress) - but it wasn't the full story as my email evidence proves.

  I have no animosity towards Lee and think she is a remarkable woman. But I am sure she would disapprove of the way you continue to mischaracterize the chain of events, even though you were made aware of all of this.

  Cedars
• 

  Simon

  Maybe the best we can do is use a number of different techniques to arrive at the estimate and then have a weighted average of those so they all factor in.

  Hopefully if several different approaches all lean towards a similar enough final figure then it has more voracity to it.
• 

  Simon

  Cedars: when you came back you promised you were not going to re-hash AAWA and yet here we are again, having the same useless discussion.

  STOP trying to derail this topic and make everything about YOU YOU YOU.

  But thanks for confirming that AAWA wanted the topic locked and thought they could make announcements on this site and then stop discussion about it.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “Actually, given the lack of available hard facts the 50,000 is probably not unreasonable because you can at least point to a methodology and basis for it so I agree that it's completely different to the 250,000 number.

  “What I was trying to get at is how inaccurate any number is going to be because of the variables and how small variances are amplified. I personally find 50,000 a little on the high / unbelievable side and calling it 'conservative' doesn't really work. What is really needed is a likely margin of error and this is likely going to be quite high and detract from the main point of the message which is "too many JWs die unnecessarily"

  I think whatever numbers are asserted should have supporting information for sake of measuring veracity.

  In the case of extrapolating 50,000 the only variable introduced was proration of the number of JWs to align with the region from which numbers were collected. If someone wants to dispute based on this variable then they’ll have to offer reasons why we should not assume additional deaths at other trauma centers in the same region. All other variables would only add to the 50,000 and not decrease it.

  I strongly recommend reading the data collection by Beliaev et al. For JWs subject to Watchtower blood doctrine it’s a watershed piece of work.

  “This should be the main focus rather than getting hung up over exact numbers which will likely never be known (so we could argue about it forever)”

  I don’t know anyone who’s trying to extract or assert an exact number of deaths due to Watchtower’s blood doctrine. Rather, I see people opining that there are far too many and it needs to stop. One person happened to offer a pretty high number, but did so without offering a means of analysis. From a purely statistical perspective I can see how that higher number is possible. But, again, whatever presentation is made should be accompanied with means and methods for sake of examining veracity.

  By putting numbers to the problem we help people see this and act accordingly. But we should take care to give reasons for our numbers and not just spew them for sake of spewing.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  slimboyfat

  I have to say, if this thread indicates the future punishment for publishing wrong information or tweeting something incorrect, the likes of me who blog, tweet or run websites had better be on guard.

  Yeah but Cedars that's a good thing. If it inhibits people from posting stupid nonsense that discredits the whole ex-JW community, then how can that be anything other than a good thing? And how is correcting something that's false "punishment" anyway? You are the living embodiment of a persecution complex.

  From 1961-2013 how many people were, at any time, adhering to the Watchtower anti-blood edict?The number is impossible to determine, but we can safely say that it's a lot more than the official numbers that the Watchtower publishes.

  I dont think that's a safe assumption at all. Many JWs under pressure accept blood. That's well established in the scientific literure actually. Much better than the death rate figure from New Zealand. So the number of people adhering to the no blood doctrine is likely fewer than the official membership.
• 

  Finkelstein

  When debating over statistics where those particular stats. were derived from nothing but guessing speculation, the end result is

  always going to be marginally unreliable.

  Julia obviously made up a number out emotive theory rather than cognitive theory.

  You cant stand on a position wholly upon you simply liking it, you have show viable and supportive evidence

  or you gong to fail the augment for simply appealing to emotion.
• 

  nicolaou

  Calmly . . . .
  
  You are not being held to ransom. You, Julia, Simon, myself and everyone else who posts is being held ACCOUNTABLE for what they write. That is a very good thing.

  Let's hope you and I don't commit the mortal sin of posting something inaccurate on Twitter, hey?

  Well yes, exactly!
• 

  slimboyfat

  I’ve seen complaints of the 50,000 figure. I’ve seen no arguments challenging the figure.

  You've not seen my post or besty's then?