by nicolaou 739 Replies latest watchtower medical
13,000 sounds more plausible, although maybe still a bit high. It's probably safe to say thousands have died rather than hundreds, and less likely that tens or hundreds of thousands have died.
I just don't think there is enough data in this source from which to produce a reliable figure for JW deaths in the whole world across 50 years. It's pushing the evidence beyond what it can reasonably bear.
Ok, so lets say that sliboyfat is right; more than 10 000 died...that still makes this cult the most deadly cult in modern history! Could we agree on that?
Only if we exclude the various state cults, sending young men as soldiers to kill and be killed. I don't see why it shouldn't be counted as a death cult.
And how many have died of Aids in Africa as a result of the a Catholic church's no condom policy?
TTATT said-
Ok, so lets say that sliboyfat is right; more than 10 000 died...that still makes this cult the most deadly cult in modern history! Could we agree on that?
Mebbe, but first you've got to show the evidence you plan to use to support that conclusion (and DON'T YOU DARE start in with, "Well, there's this doctor down in New Zealand by the name of Beliaev", LOL!).
Adam
that still makes this cult the most deadly cult in modern history! Could we agree on that?
Hey, it's not a competition! "our cult is cultier that yours nah nah" LOL
And how many have died of Aids in Africa as a result of the a Catholic church's no condom policy?
That's what I immediately thought of too. Catholic perfected mass killing is way beyond what the WTS could ever hope to achieve unless they start giving cyanide capsules away with every WT edition.
It's probably safe to say thousands have died rather than hundreds, and less likely that tens or hundreds of thousands have died.
I think this tallies with the circumstantial evidence such as how many cases are reported, the time periods between them where there are no reports and when, if you want to point to a case, you have the same few ones to chose from.
I personally think high-hundreds to several / mid thousands is probably the realistic amount.
How the hell can you responsibly report your extrapolated results based on this single New Zealand study without making it very, very clear that it rests on an uncertain foundation?
If it were a single study that had found blood refusals saved lives of Witnesses in a specific country and the organization's writers extrapolated from the single study to estimating the number of JWs saved worldwide, we'd rightly jump on those writers' facile conclusions like a ton of bricks.
I agree. At the very least it should be given with a very wide margin of error, certainly not claimed as a 'conservative estimate' in my opinion.
-
“Sorry, I thought it was 19 deaths over a 10 year period or 1.9 people per year. Where did 33 come from? If the numbers don't work you can't just double them!”
Simon,
The data set used in Beliaev’s study was of 19 documented deaths over and beyond the norm in only 4 hospitals with trauma services out of 14 such hospitals in 2 of 4 regions of New Zealand.
- 2 of these 4 hospitals (Auckland and Waikato) are advanced trauma service. New Zealand has 5 hospitals with advanced trauma services. Data was collected from only 2 of these 5 hospitals for the Beliaev study.
- 1 of these 4 hospitals (Middlemore) is a district trauma services. New Zealand has 16 hospitals with district trauma services. Data was collected from only 1 of these 16 hospitals for the Beliaev study.
- 1 of these 4 hospitals (Northshore) is a basic trauma service. New Zealand has 8 hospitals with basic trauma services. Data was collected from only 1 of these 4 hospitals for the Beliaev study.
Hence Beliaev’s study never examined documents from any of the other trauma hospitals in New Zealand, including others with advanced trauma services. Most notably this did not include Wellington Hospital in the Central Region though this hospital is an advanced trauma service in a region that is one of 2 most likely to treat major trauma patients. The other region is Northern and 3 of its hospitals were included in Beliaev’s study.
What does this mean?
It means in order to match a New Zealand sample of JWs to the additional deaths (19) in Beliaev’s study an adjustment must be made to correlate population with source (of the data set).
There are at least 2 ways to accomplish this. 1 way is to multiple the total New Zealand population of JWs by the percentage of total New Zealand population living in the 2 regions. A 2nd way is to adjust the hard number (19) by prorating it to match New Zealand’s total population based on population of the 2 regions with hospitals in the study. I used the latter though mathematically either will give the same result. This is explained in my blog article on the subject. (Here: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2012/02/more-than-50000-dead.html
Making this adjustment we end up with a statistical number of 33 deaths beyond the norm over the period of 1998 to 2007. This adjustment is based on a hard number of documented deaths over and beyond the expected, and not on a mortality rate.
I did not “just double” numbers to make something work and do not understand your insinuation otherwise. To the contrary, I let the numbers speak for themselves.
My recommendation is that you learn the math of this thing and stop with the insults. If you have questions feel free to ask.
Marvin Shilmer
-
“Such a project is doomed because we do not know whether the numbers of JWs with blood disorders even in similar countries (e.g., Australia) are the same, let alone in very different countries (e.g., Ghana). Given the huge variability in health indicators even across similar countries there is absolutely no justification for extrapolating from a single study in one specific country to make worldwide estimates. It just smacks of research "gaming" that would be laughed out of peer-reviewed research "findings. It's a frank embarrassment akin to the knock-up research by Jerry Bergman - a worthy topic is treated with shocking superficiality.
“How the hell can you responsibly report your extrapolated results based on this single New Zealand study without making it very, very clear that it rests on an uncertain foundation?”
How? You can responsibly share this information by explaining how the extrapolation is made. Then let educated readers make of it what they will. That’s how.
The issue you cite of not knowing whether the numbers of JWs with blood disorders even in similar countries (e.g., Australia) are the same, let alone in very different countries (e.g., Ghana) is a factor to consider, and I did consider this in my assessment. My finding was that there is no reason to think mortality due to severe anemia patients (for all causes) refusing blood was more prevalent in New Zealand than any other nation. Hence to use these New Zealand values is not to overstate what we should expect overall (the world). For this reason my extrapolation is conservative.
On the other hand there is lots of data telling us that severe anemia can be and is successfully treated with blood transfusion therapy, and refusal of this therapy was the sole difference in the otherwise matched comparison study by Beliaev.
Besides the above, when we consider the 19 deaths at issue in the Beliaev study come from only 2 of 5 advanced trauma service hospitals, only 1 of 16 district trauma service hospitals and 1 of 8 hospitals with basic trauma services it should be apparent that these 19 deaths are not at all of the preventable deaths in the category of severe anemia patients refusing blood in New Zealand. Prorating this number to 33 based strictly on regional population is, again, conservative. If we assumed each of hospital with equal facilities had similar outcomes we’d end up with a much, much higher number.
In the end, the issue you cite is no flaw because my number of 50,000 is not predicting how many needless deaths have occurred due to Watchtower’s blood doctrine over the 50-years of 1961 to 2011 but, rather, to say the numbers suggest this is a conservative estimate of how many have needlessly died due to Watchtower's blood doctrine, and that based on well documented information (the Beliaev study).
Marvin Shilmer
-
“eg - average number of JW's 12,700 - did you account for unbaptized publishers under the age of 15 being in the official JW figures, but which the Beliaev study would exclude, for example.”
No. Because it would not matter to the mathematical conclusion. The only thing you’d accomplish by adding to the number of JWs in New Zealand (over and beyond the published number) is to increase the sample size - to - deaths ratio. But this would not change the mathematical conclusion because the increased ratio would be applied to a much larger number (the world population of JWs adjusted upward on the same basis you’d adjust upward the number of JWs in New Zealand).
“I'm not saying your maths is wrong, or that your assumptions are not possible. Just that when I take a different approach I get a different answer, and there is a 13x difference in outcomes between our approaches.”
The approach you take is untenable because it attempts to use relevantly dissimilar information as inputs. I explained this already and you ignored it.
Keep pushing! That’s how we all learn.
Marvin Shilmer
I just love how Marvin always skips the questions he can't answer however many times they're asked.
Just keep picking up on minor things, waffling on and maybe we'll all be impressed and forget about them eh Marvin?
-
“I just love how Marvin always skips the questions he can't answer however many times they're asked.”
Simon,
Why are you hurling insult at me?
I’ve not skipped anything I can’t answer for. I’ve answered issues raised that have to me some semblance of relevance to the issue I’m answering for, which is my presentation of deaths due to Watchtower’s blood doctrine.
If there is some question you think I’ve skipped because I can’t answer it then please spell one out here and now and I'll respond.
Otherwise please be civil and stop with the needless insult. And, you might try responding to the substance of what I’ve presented. Or, should I think you’re ignoring what you can’t answer for?
Marvin Shilmer
