250,000 Jehovah's Witnesses have died refusing blood

by nicolaou 739 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  adamah

  The BIG PICTURE is that the claim that 250,000 JWs deaths have occurred Worldwide since the "no blood" policy was announced implies 14 deaths PER DAY.

  My gut tells me that sounds awfully high, but it's possible that some deaths from refusing blood are latent (hidden), and hopefully it includes comorbidity or complicating factors, eg death from cardiovascular disease, where a 70 y.o. male JW patient had open-heart surgery, but the added tying the surgeons hands by not allowing the use of blood meant the patient experienced intraoperative or post-surgical anoxia to the heart, and succumbed a day or two after surgery (although the patient held on during surgery).

  How do you account for THAT kind of effect? I'm sure there's an answer, but not being a biostatistician, I'm well outside my area of expertise (as I presume others are, too). HOWEVER, the gap in everyone's knowledge of a certain topic is no excuse to start pulling answers out of one's back-side orifice. I'm guessing that in absense of any real data (as requested by Nic), Ms Barrick did exactly that, and likely made a mental calculation in her head that if Marvin was going with 50k deaths due to anemia alone, she felt justified using a 5x multiplier to come up with that figure for total deaths.

  LT said-

  What about the opinion that the Watchtower bloodban has caused the wrongful death of 250,000 people from 1961-2013? You don't seem to allow that one.

  Please do us (and yourself) a favor and learn the basic difference between the words, 'facts' and 'opinions'. YES, there IS a difference, and NO, they're not synonyms so they cannot be used interchangably.

  Cedars said-

  I have quite enough motivation for checking my facts without being held to ransom by JWN, thanks all the same.

  You seem unable to grasp that the rational approach is that the person who makes a claim bears the burden of responsibility for providing supportive evidence upon request; otherwise, the claim is rightly questioned and/or rejected. As I said earlier, the rule is that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and requesting evidence isn't being pissy or a nitnoid: it's being rational, a skeptic, someone who only accepts claims AFTER they're proven to be worthy of cluttering one's mind.

  Shame on you for poo-poohing those who demand evidence before accepting AAWA's claims, since you're seemingly engaging in "special pleading", demanding people to jump out of the flying pan of JWs and into the fire by going based on faith, alone (or worse, being misled by lies).

  REALLY! How dare you?

  (The outrage is faux, I assure you, done simply for dramatic effect.... Are you sensing that I'm emotionally-involved here? It's not real: it's an act, LOL!)

  Demanding to see and examine evidence doesn't go only for the question of God's existence (the old atheist/theist claims), but ALL CLAIMS made by adults who expect to be taken seriously on anything, really. It's how the World operates. It's how reputable journalism and biostatistics operate.

  In this situation, it seems to me that as a layman, Marvin's done a reasonably good job of defending why he extrapolated well beyond the original study's findings to make a claim that an elevated risk of death exists for JW anemia patients Worldwide during the past 50 years; even though it's a single study (!) he's relying on, Marvin took the dubious step as a non-biostatician of extrapolating the data well beyond where the authors of the study seemingly dared to take it (I'm reminded of the old saying, fools rush in where angels fear to tread). OK, that's arguably justified, in light of the fact that the WT is not exactly rushing in to fund a study on the topic of deaths Worldwide due to their blood policy!

  Just curious, Marvin: have you asked the authors of the study about their opinion of the validity of trying to apply the results of their study Worldwide, as you have? I'd be curious of their response (and no, I haven't read their results: maybe they explained that in their conclusion.)

  But to base further extrapolation on that study of anemia in NZ to ALL OTHER causes of death in JWs from refusing blood? That crosses over the boundary, deep into "misadventures in biostatistics" territory, AKA trying to mislead with statistics. It's classic propagation of error, and heading deep into the land of reading tea leaves and interpreting chicken bones. As Cedars has admitted, why resort to drama and deception, when there's MOUNTAINS of condemning evidence that supports TTATT?

  Adam
• 

  zed is dead

  I hate to say I told you so, but I did tell you so.

  I knew that eventually AAWA would muck up on Twitter as bad as as it mucked up the FB rollout!

  Hey Cedars, Anthony Weiner deleted his tweet too! Interesting that you know where all of your emails from that time period are, except for the ones you want to hide from.

  Carry on boys!

  zed
• 

  Justitia Themis

  Looks like I have one more post…

  “What this thread does show is that, contrary to Mr. Shilmer's contention, Ms. Barrick's tweet was horribly irresponsible because her contention is so easily attacked.”

  Mr. Shilmer, I should clarify. I'm not commenting on whether Ms. Barrick's contention is validly attacked, only the ease with which it can be attacked. That is why she exihibited poor decision-making by using a character-restricted tweet to distribute such an evocative and emotive claim. A better strategy would have been to issue a teaser tweet that directed people back to the website and to an article stating her sources and defending her numbers...the substantive discussion to which you alluded in your post.

  As an aside, for those who are interested in learning more about the proper use of statistic, I highly recommend this Princeton statistics class that is offered for free on the Coursera website. https://www.coursera.org/course/stats1
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “It would mean that around 2.5% of all JWs deaths over the past 50 years were caused by refusing blood. That's not a credible figure.”

  Assuming a 1% mortality rate, the data collection of Dr. Beliaev et al tells us that 2.5% of the regional JW population of New Zealand who suffered death during the period of 1998-2007 met this fate due to refusing blood product. That’s what the hard data tells us.

  Maybe you should explain to Dr. Beliaev and colleagues that their figures are incredible.

  “Hold on a minute, the 19 deaths was only for a region of New Zealand, not for New Zealand as a whole?

  “In that case my calculations were completely wrong. But it also suggests the figure is incredibly high.”

  Yes. I have been telling you this for some time. Glad you finally figured it out.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “That does not mean that 250 000 is the correct number, but it means that other people have claimed that too.”

  I’ve read lots of big claims of deaths due to Watchtower’s blood doctrine. Here’s two that come to mind that led to very liberal numbers:

  “11 million Jehovah’s Witnesses attended their annual communion in 1993. According to the American Red Cross, one of the nation’s leading suppliers of blood products, 200 people per thousand or 20% of the populace will need blood in some form every year. Therefore, over 6,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses per day put their lives in jeopardy.”—(Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses, Bill and Joan Cetnar, originally published in 1983)

  “…one arrives at an estimate of the loss of lives from refusing a transfusion to be as many as 5,000 deaths a year.”—(Blood Transfusions A History and Evaluation of the Religious Objections and a Consideration of the Biblical and Medical Arguments, Bergman, 1994)

  Both claims above are an overstatements in terms of mortality, though probably not in terms of morbidity. But both claims led to very liberal estimates of deaths due to Watchtower’s blood doctrine.

  In this case I suspect an individual read dialogue between others discussing the issue and recalled someone suggesting the number of deaths due to Watchtower’s blood doctrine could be as high as 250,000. I don’t think she made up the number from thin air.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Tylinbrando

  14 deaths per day from no blood transfusion in a community of 8 to 12 million? That does not seem exaggerated in my opinion.
• 

  EdenOne

  I don't follow tweeter, but when someone goes in public, in representation of an organization like AAWA, and claims: "250,000+ Jehovah's Witnesses have died refusing blood", it's NOT someone stating an OPINION. It's someone making a claim that better be backed by solid data. I see none.

  This ain't no peanuts. This amounts to an accusation of mass genocide or a crime against humanity - made in public, in representation of an organization. How credible, then, is that accusation? Where are the facts, the hard data, the studies? Isn't this simply a groundless fabrication, cheap slanderous sensacionalism, that cannot be taken seriously even by a 7 year old child? Is this how this silly organization intends to oppose the Watchtower?? Really? Give me a break. You guys must me kidding me. You at AAWA DESERVED to be taken down by a exemplary lawsuit that would strip you all from your life-long assets. Grow some credibility, for goodness sake. You're making the GB roll on the floor laughing at you. Is that your brilliant plan to help the Witnesses to wake up for TTATT ?

  Eden
• 

  Tylinbrando

  If it is 250,000 or 2,500 it is mass genocide. That is what needs to be dwelled upon.
• 

  EdenOne

  Since we're at it, why not say: "4 million Witnesses have died refusing blood" ?

  If we perhaps assume that 4 million human beings died while they were Jehovah's Witnesses, and their refusal of blood was part of their beliefs, one can also claim that they have died refusing blood. In this precise wording, it would also be a true statement; but, clearly, it woud be made with the intent to suggest a direct connection between the death of 4 million people and the refusal of receiving blood, while at the same time cleverly hiding behind semantics to cover their asses from legal responsability.

  Ask yourselves: Wouldn't that claim be utterly intellectually dishonest?

  Eden
• 

  Tylinbrando

  The number of actual deaths due to refusal of life saving blood transfusion will never be proven and can only be subject of speculation. But logic tells us that the number in the past 50 years must be in the thousands. That causes Jonestown to pale in comparison and deserves to be examined and exposed. Why argue over actual numbers? The deaths are there and they are many. Just because it is hidden in obscurity like pedophilia does not warrant ignoring it. WBTS is a mass murdering cult. Whistles need to be blown.