250,000 Jehovah's Witnesses have died refusing blood

by nicolaou 739 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “That's what this whole discussion has been about. How truly represantative of the ENTIRE JW POPULATION is this SMALL SAMPLE and can you be justified applying it to all JWs.”

  Simon,

  The sample used to extrapolate mortality among the entire JW population is an annual value of 12,700 over the period of 1998-2007. This is not a small sample.

  The population of that sample is whatever it is for statistical purposes. In this case we have a hard number of 19 preventable deaths identified in a minority of trauma centers in New Zealand.

  “It's a pre-selected sample of JWs who refuse blood. Not all JWs do. That's one reason why your figures are off. The other is extrapolating from a tiny number of questionable provenance.”

  The hard number of preventable deaths is not changed by what you mention above, and the hard number is the basis for my extrapolation. You don’t understand this.

  “You have 'hard numbers' for something like 0.000000006% of JWs and think you can work out what they all had for breakfast from it.”

  No. I have hard numbers of a sample that’s 0.21% of the larger matching value for JWs worldwide. You don’t understand this, either. You’re percentage claims betrays this.

  “Finally, you ignore the maori element which I seem to remember someone saying made up 20% of the people and have a predisposition to anemia - but you want to make out this small group had a lower than average rate so that you can slap a "conservative" label of confidence on it.”

  I responded to this much, much earlier in this discussion. The Beliaev study made a regression adjustment for the “Maori element”. I guess you missed this. If you read Beliaev’s article you’d know it. But you haven’t done that either, by the looks of it.

  “Your numbers and methodology are not convincing. I'd use the word laughable but you'd do your prima-dona routine and start claiming you'd been insulted again.”

  I still don’t understand your insults. That said, my extrapolation is presented and explained and I’m happy for readers to make of it what they will. When it comes to objections to my presentation, I’m more interested in those trained to make such an analysis and who have read the data set it uses. Though I’m happy to respond to other complaints as time and circumstance allows I’m not bothered by these.

  In your case, I’ve presented several issues you fail to account for in your complaints, and what I get in return is insult rather than substantive response. I don’t understand that. I’m not here to make friends or enemies. I’m here to share what I’ve learned and learn from others for myself.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  LisaRose

  Good points Adamah, I pointed out some of these issues early on and Marvin simply repeated his earlier assertions and said my points were not valid, without answering my points. This didn't surprise me, as I have seen him argue a point into the ground by refusing to even consider much less refute any one else's opinion. He simply repeats his earlier argument, argues over trivialities, and plays the victim.

  You simply cannot take one tiny study, grab a percentage, and apply that to the rest of the world and come up with anything close to reality. It's not about the mathematics. I didn't even look at that because I feel the basic premise of the thing is flawed. Yet Marvin keeps insisting he is right because his math is good. He was telling me I couldn't be right because I hadn't read the original study. I don't think it matters, because I wasn't questioning the study. I was questioning the logical fallacy of using that tiny study to estimate world wide deaths.

  He then says his numbers are good because he used conservative estimates, which is ridiculous. With such a small number you could use "conservative estimates" and be off by a huge amount. The number of patients who died because of not taking transfusion was, I believe, 19. What if there were some factor, not known from patient history, that affected one or two of those patients, and contributed to their death (or to them not dying)? For the purpose of the study, it doesn't matter, the evidence is still pretty clear cut. But for estimating a worldwide total you would be off by huge amount, even with conservative estimates on other things

  That's why studies are usually repeated, and also why different studies often show conflicting results. There are a number of factors that can impact the result, those things are not always accounted for. Sometimes it is due to unknown factors, sometimes due to mistakes or deliberate fraud. If further studies come up with the same results then you can have more confidence.

  Then you still have the logical folly of assuming severe anemia rates are the same the world over, medical care is the same the world over, and Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood in the same ratios as those in that part of New Zealand.
• 

  Ruby456

  The other intellectually-honest option is to simply weaken the claim, by couching it in 'weasel words' (as suggested most-recently by Ruby456). This is a skill, in itself, as anyone who's taken a course in writing for medical literature knows. Language matters, and yes, standards exist for writing for journals, just as standards exist for handling of data.

  adamah - weasel words - very very funny - but the point you are making can't be made enough - maintaining intellectual honesty by cautious use of language when the facts themselves are hard to come by - as it is helpful to organisations like the one Julia Barrack writes for because they are not trying to write scientific material but want to alert the public and other organisations to watchtower abuses.
• 

  Simon

  The sample used to extrapolate mortality among the entire JW population is an annual value of 12,700 over the period of 1998-2007. This is not a small sample.

  No, the sample is 19 out of 103 patients over a decade. That is a small sample.

  The population of that sample is whatever it is for statistical purposes. In this case we have a hard number of 19 preventable deaths identified in a minority of trauma centers in New Zealand.

  Again, there can be many many factors surrounding patient outcomes. Having so few cases compared can result in huge variances through pure chance. You are taking a figure that has a very low confidence and then turning it into a 100% concrete value in your head. Another study could have JWs surviving more. Just plain chance.

  That's why you need enough cases to reach statistical significance.

  Your are assuming that there is no other variance than the patient being a JW. It would be incredible if the same hospitals had two sets of 1000 patients and had the exact same outcomes for both - same number of deaths, same reasons etc...

  Can you see it yet?

  Your issue is that you are taking numbers that have a chance of being correct as being absolutely correct. If your method was in the least bit scientific you would be able to tell us what the confidence and margin of errors were. I don't think you can.

  This is a good read. It explains how a test that is 99% accurate can be 99.99% wrong (that's why it's called a paradox) when you are dealing with small numbers in large populations and the traps that can befall amateur statisticians dealing with bioinformatics.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive_paradox
• 

  Simon

  Good points Adamah, I pointed out some of these issues early on and Marvin simply repeated his earlier assertions and said my points were not valid, without answering my points. This didn't surprise me, as I have seen him argue a point into the ground by refusing to even consider much less refute any one else's opinion. He simply repeats his earlier argument, argues over trivialities, and plays the victim.

  Yes, it's Marvin's MO:

  • Make a claim.
  • When challenged, copy and paste the same information already posted.
  • Ignore questions that you don't like.
  • Claim you didn't see any other questions.
  • When shown the questions ask "what questions?", claim they are not valid questions and refuse to answer them.
  • Claim you are being insulted if anyone disagrees with your claims or asks why you ignore questions.
  • Insult others.
  • Claim your are superior and others are inferior, everyone should simply believe in your accademic greatness.
  • Claim to be insulted again.
  • Keep ignoring questions and pasting the same claims (that boil down to "I'm just right")
  • Repeat process until people get tired and give up.
  • Declare victory while claiming ignorance of behavior.

  No doubt Marvin will now be so insulted he'll be unable to answer any questions.
• 

  Simon

  Marvin, this should be a fairly straightforward question which you've danced around:

  How many JWs have died? (using known populations and normal mortality rates)

  What proportion of those deaths are you claiming are due to refusing blood?
• 

  adamah

  Wait a minute: are we talking about JW dogmatism or Marvin's? They've so similar sometimes, such that (to use Marvin's phrase) "I cannot see a difference"....

  That stated, Marvin has a right to go with whatever claims he chooses to fantasize, although he's certainty undermined his own credibility in the process (which is actually kinda ironic, since the topic is JWs who die needlessly from dogmatically refusing blood, even ignoring medical data; Marv killed his credibility in the same manner by sticking to his dogmatic conclusions, ignoring all evidence to the contrary which didn't support his fantasy). At least there's some public record of attempts to save him from himself.

  Adam
• 

  OUTLAW

  I’ve failed to address several questions and comment in this discussion because they didn’t have any merit worth answering for. I said this already.....Marvin Shilmer

  Then..

  When someone raises something worth responding to, I think I’m done here.

  Any specific questions?.....Marvin Shilmer

  Seriously?!..

  You request questions..Admit to refusing to answer questions asked..

  Then ask for more questions???!!!

  I still don’t understand your insults.....Marvin Shimer

  Then claim you`ve been insulted..

  After already admiting to refusing to answer questions you asked for..

  I’m happy for readers to make of this whatever they will.....Marvin Shilmer

  ................RRead the posts..

  ..........Readers Think Your Loopy..

  

  .........................................................................OUTLAW
• 

  Finkelstein

  Correct Outlaw all throughout this thread with now 8000 views hardly anyone has agreed to Marvin's theoretical computations.

  He's obviously stuck blind in his own idealogical theories.

  Fact is there is no obtainable and accurate way to determine the total deaths occurred by people who were JWS on not taking Blood transfusions.

  That is the final and only truthful indisputable answer.

  I hope Marvin hasn't began to think as himself as some self assumed god head now since his starting up his anti-JWS website ???

  He wouldn't be the first person to lose his marbles upon leaving the JW cult.
• 

  slimboyfat

  There is no such thing as a final answer, thank God. Or thank no God, as the case may be.