by nicolaou 739 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
“Did the NZ study separate for ethnicity particularly as the study was regional. Maori babies may have higher rates of anaemia according to a 2004 study which I could not link in for some reason.”
Ruby456,
Yes. The study made a regression adjustment for Maori ethnicity.
Marvin Shilmer
-
“I must be missing something when I conclude that you believe 0.26/1000 is the JW anemia mortality rate. Can marvin or anybody else help me out with what I am missing?”
besty,
I don’t know what I was thinking earlier. Yes, the extrapolated annual rate of preventable death for JWs suffering severe anemia who refuse blood product is .26 per 1000. Put another way, this means each year there is about 1 preventable death per 4,000 Witnesses. In more JW colloquial terms, and using published figures, these numbers mean:
- In 1961 this would amount to 1 death for refusing blood per 96 congregations. (For a total of 230 preventable deaths)
- In 1971 this would amount to 1 death for refusing blood per 72 congregations. (For a total of 392 preventable deaths)
- In 1981 this would amount to 1 death for refusing blood per 77 congregations. (For a total of 584 preventable deaths)
- In 1991 this would amount to 1 death for refusing blood per 66 congregations. (For a total of 1058 preventable deaths)
- In 2001 this would amount to 1 death for refusing blood per 62 congregations. (For a total of 1528 preventable deaths)
- In 2011 this would amount to 1 death for refusing blood per 57 congregations. (For a total of 1878 preventable deaths)
Marvin Shilmer
So that is 5 down and only one survivor in a very small geographic area during just a few years. Some of those persons may have died anyway, but the point of the above discussion has been that "not that many cases could have occured over the past 50 years." 250,000? Maybe not, but I know that there were a lot of stories going around during the years I was a JW or associated that the blood transfusion issue was fairly common.
I don't know anything about the JW population in LA but the population density is more important than the geographic area. Do you know how many JWs were in the area at that time?
This perhaps illustrates that when dealing with a small number if cases, the variance between different areas can be quite big and if you base your study on a small cluster area then the final results will be skewed dramatically because of this.
It's human nature to think of random distribution as 'even' but the reality is that things are in clumps, often for reasons we don't yet know.
-
“Surely the Marvin extrapolation should be 0.26/10,000?”
besty,
The average number of JWs in New Zealand for 1998-2007 is 12,700 in round numbers.
Statistically, over the same 10-year period there were 33 preventable deaths among these JWs.
I appreciate you persisting in the particular you do above. It’s made me revisit and revisit and revisit the calculator used in my assessment of this information, which is a good thing. Just now I noticed an algorithm that’s not as labeled. I’m going to look into why this is the case to see if I mislabeled or miscalculated, or perhaps something else. I’ll get back as soon as this reassessment is performed.
Thanks again for pushing on substance.
Marvin Shilmer
Marvin,
Lets just deal with one case. This is possible and it is probable.
You have a JW with bowel cancer, diagnosed at 84yrs, had cancer for say about 4yrs. The doctors cannot be sure how long. The patient has the tumuor removed, as JW still had a blood transfusion, non-JW family force the issue, the patient lives for a further 12 months. The patient got Df'd.
Why did the JW die?
Marvin, give it a rest now, there are too many variables, you cannot do the stats on blood issues, in my veiw none of it is credible I am afraid.
In my view you need to give up now, posters on this thread don't grasp what your saying.
I'll admit I struggle with statistical analysis but I'm consuming everything posted by Simon, Marvin, Fatboy, Besty, EdenOne and everyone else with relish! Sure, like many others who are only reading this thread I find it tricky to 'grasp' but I appreciate the efforts of those who are at least TRYING to throw an informative light on the subject . . .
Carry on please . .
JV said-
I can't remember the names or exact years, but here are my personal connections to blood transfusion deaths and one near death:
When I was about 15 (1958) a young newly married couple had just been married and were returning home in a private airplane. It crashed and both were badly injured. The husband died at the scene and the young woman was rushed to the hospital with severe injuries. According to my parents (my father was a servant at the time) the woman had lost a lot of blood but could have survived her injuries - but refused to have a blood transfusion and died within hours. That too was mentioned at their funeral.
A young couple who were very close to my family had just had a baby. The baby was in her mother's lap when their car was involved in a front to rear collision. The baby was crushed up against the dashboard (this was before seat belts and child seats). All three of the passengers were rushed to the hospital. The father and mother had minor injuries and the baby, while seriously injured, could have survived. The parents refused a transfusion for the baby and it died within hours of the accident.
It SHOULD go without saying that the HUGE fly in the ointment with relying on such anecdotal personal accounts is who's definition of "could have survived" is used? The doctor who treated the patient, the coroner (who often guesstimates cause of death), OR, the JW grapevine that's fed by window-washer elders, the same ones who support the belief that demons can demonize trinkets bought at a garage sale?
JWs are well-known to play the role of emergency room MDs by miraculously transforming the death of a loved one into a Christian martyr who refused a blood transfusion, even though there must be SOME % would've died anyway (or were already dead when they arrived at a trauma center, etc). Paradoxically, as this very account shows, ex-JWs ALSO have a bias towards over-estimating these deaths, as well, as if to support the claim of lives needlessly lost due to preventable deaths.
Which is rather ironic, when you think about it:
shouldn't WTBTS and JWs themselves be meticulous recording and reporting all of these brave Christian martyrs who "stayed faithful until the end", if they really BELIEVE these people are martyrs? Doesn't the Catholic Church investigate their martyrs, and even posthumously declare some to be saints?
The fact they don't count AND tout their "martyrs" should tell anyone with a brain larger than a pea spades about them; instead, we have the likes of 'Stand for Pure Worship' who give their lives (and I'm not convinced it's actually not doctor-assisted suicide, masked by freedom of religion).
Adam
guys - the research is kosher imo. I've managed to get hold of it (the NZ Beliaev research anyway) but won't share it in its entirety as it is protected by copywright and I guess patient confidentiality although patients are not named. There was a control group and 3 comparison groups. The study was trying to establish the absolute and relative risk factors assocated with treating anaemic jehovahs witnesses.
Maoris comprised just under 20% of the JW patients who had anaemia in the study. I am so glad that research like this is being done. This issue needs reasearch and publicising. I think that if Julia Barrack can be a little more cautious in her language and extrapolations then I think she ought to go ahead and draw attention to this issue. Putting it side by side with the wacko deaths is controversial but okay imo. Dissenting groups don't have to be in agreement all the time to succeed. But it would be nice to achieve some sort of consensus I guess.
ruby456 said-
guys - the research is kosher imo. I've managed to get hold of it but won't share it in its entirety as it is protected by copywright and I guess patient confidentiality although patients are not named. There was a control group and 3 comparison groups.
Don't take this the wrong way, but your assessment on the validity of the study means about as much as a JW elder who washes windows, since it's clear from your statement that you have NO ability to make that determination (your "tell" is that you'd know that the authors of the study aren't going to mention NAMES, so patient confidentiality is a non-issue in a published study).
MARVIN, you didn't respond to my earlier question where I asked you point-blank if you contacted the author who conducted the study (AM Belaev, was it?) and ASKED him whether it's statistically valid to take the findings from a geographically-limited study in NZ to extrapolate Worldwide?
I'm guessing that if you DID, they would concur that it's a misapplication of their finding, for oh-so-many reasons (where 20% Maori representation is only ONE issue).
Mind you: I could be wrong on this point of what they'd say, but I'm extremely doubtful that I am (and I'm thinking back to principles taught in coursework on medical epidemiology from a few decades ago, where the classwork was taught by someone with a secondary advanced degree in public health).
Adam
adamah
patient confidentiality is an issue because the article gives the mean age and what conditions the patients suffered from. The study has used hospital records in which patients have identified themselves as Jehovahs witnesses. I don't feel at liberty to share as I am not (as you mention) qualified to do so and am not as you say qualified to interpret. Nevertheless this does not stop me sharing my opinion on the piece. Posters here have been deriding and ridiculing Beliaev's work and I am simply suggesting that they are barking up the wrong tree.
I'm not 100% behind Marvin either but he does have the right to publicise and extrapolate from his own jw experiences and research. Anyway are scholars themselves ever in absolute agreement? NO
