250,000 Jehovah's Witnesses have died refusing blood

by nicolaou 739 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  AndersonsInfo

  Thanks Adam for commenting. I received the link I posted with the quote some years ago and never thought to look up the complete article. I just thought to post it in this thread and see what developed.

  FYI, when I was in the Writing Department I did look up quotes to see for myself if it was taken out of context, etc., something many of the staff didn't do which I've proven in some of the articles I've written that were on the Freeminds website.

  This thread has been fascinating and it goes to show that it's very important to never take anything for granted when quoting anything off of the Internet.

  The 250,000 figure that Julia used in her Tweet has been around for quite some time and for many it has come to be viewed as fact. Actually, I think that this thread, no matter how exhausting it has been to follow, has been of benefit. (I'm presently suffering from brain-maze from trying to understand the arguments, but, all the same, it's been a learning experience.)

  Adam, it appears that it's not possible to come to any sort of conclusion about how many have died since the blood ban began. Obviously, there are just too many unknowns. Your comment please. (And also Simon, Marvin, Besty...)

  Barbara
• 

  Simon

  Obviously, there are just too many unknowns.

  This really sums it up for me!

  The sheer number of unknowns and differences in patient outcomes means the smaller the study, the more chance there is that the extrapolated values are wildy off. Simply a few patient outcomes changing either way ends up making a huge difference to the final number - that alone should set alarm bells ringing.

  Either a bigger study is needed and needs to be repeated several times such as happens in clinical trials and probably isn't going to happen OR you reverse things and start with the larger numbers and work backwards to remove the chance of the variances being a factor. This is what I was trying to do to at least come up with some 'sanity-check' number ranges at different points:

  • how many JWs die
  • how many JWs die during surgical procedures
  • how many JWs die during surgical procedures where blood was a factor
  • how many JWs die during surgical procedures where blood was a factor and they refused it
  • how many JWs die during surgical procedures where blood was a factor and they refused it and they died as a result

  The first two should be fairly straightforward and then the later ones need to match people's experiences and evidence from other sources which will be circumstantial but is still valuable.

  At least this way though, even larger changes in the numbers early on don't lead to dramatic changes in the final result.
• 

  adamah

  Hi Barbara,

  Thanks Adam for commenting. I received the link I posted with the quote some years ago and never thought to look up the complete article. I just thought to post it in this thread and see what developed. FYI, when I was in the Writing Department I did look up quotes to see for myself if it was taken out of context, etc., something many of the staff didn't do which I've proven in some of the articles I've written that were on the Freeminds website.

  And thanks for entering the fray!

  Hopefully you didn't think I was accusing you of quote-mining (I know you're aware of the practice, as you've mentioned above that you've written articles on it in order to hold the WT's feet to the fire).

  Adam, it appears that it's not possible to come to any sort of conclusion about how many have died since the blood ban began. Obviously, there are just too many unknowns. Your comment please. (And also Simon, Marvin, Besty...)

  Only Jehovah knows for sure; so in other words, NO.

  Trying to estimate is a bloody mess, since it's a HUGE question that simply has no scientifically-valid answer at this time.

  HOWEVER, the Beliaev NZ study is a GOLD-MINE, where no "writer's embellishment" is needed simply by stating what it found. The author of the Press Review article in the journal Blood Transfus ( 2012 April; 10 (2) : 241–244) offered a great summary, with all the heavy-lifting already done, and handed to us on a silver platter:

  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3320791/

  (If someone doesn't want to write it up, I'll do so; heck, the more the merrier, since the study makes scientifically-valid points which can be written up in an honest manner.)

  BTW, I'm finding interesting tid-bits that point to the many problems of trying to extrapolate data from the NZ study to Worldwide, eg the NZ study used inclusion criteria of symptomatic anaemia with haemoglobin concentration ≤8 g/dL, whereas the standard "transfusion trigger" used in the United States for treatment of anemia is lower (i.e. delayed transfusion, if I'm reading the indications correctly). That would possibly alter outcomes.

  I also ran across this statement in the following article:

  http://www.the-hospitalist.org/details/article/185977/When_should_a_hospitalized_patient_be_transfused.html

  Observational studies have raised concerns by linking morbidity and mortality to red blood cell use. Among 1,958 surgical patients who refused blood transfusion on religious grounds, there was an increase in mortality when hemoglobin levels were <6.0 g/dL. Hemoglobin levels higher than 7.0 g/dL showed no increased mortality. 11

  11. Carson JL, Duff A, Poses RM, et al. Effect of anemia and cardiovascular disease on surgical mortality and morbidity. Lancet. 1996;348(9034):1055-1060.

  Point being, the treatment protocols in the U.S. differ from those used in the study in NZ, and even setting a different hemoglobin level for inclusion in the study would likely significantly alter the results (the article above also points out the risks of blood transfusion, which also needs to be considered in a fair comparison of this type).

  Adam
• 

  steve2

  It's such a shame that the figure 250,000 has been bandied around as a more or less reliable estimate of blood-transfusion refusals when the arguments and supposed evidence in support of that figure and are shoddy and would never pass the editor's desk who had concerns about reliability and validity of report conclusions.
• 

  besty

  Hi Barb - nice to see you on this thread :-) the voice of reason maybe

  My thoughts are on page 4 and 5 of this thread - since then I am persuaded that we can't know the answer - perhaps if a high level JW defector surfaces we might get a better idea. Or if a qualified researcher takes it on.

  Throwing large numbers around - no matter the pseudo-stats involved in their preparation - is not helpful. As several posters have suggested, the variables and unknowns make large extrapolations subject to such wide error boundaries as to make them meaningless. (And in Marvin's case he didn't suggest error margins or any other confidence metric)

  The Beliaev study has itself been the subject of peer criticism - if I can find more details I will share them. If anybody has access to the full text of the study I would be happy to have some data scientists in my company take a look.

  It appears that transfusion is negatively linked with anemia outcomes in any case...

  I think the point of this thread was to debate the use of sensational claims - not neccessarily to 'prove' what the right answer is.
• 

  nicolaou

  wheres Nicolau - this is his bloody thread after all

  Munching my peanuts up in the Gallery!

  Mark Twain said; "If you have nothing to say, say nothing", and that was me for about 95% of this debate (for those who'd demand to know how I arrived at that percentage value, it's a complicated formula which I've no doubt you're just too dumb to understand . . so trust me).

  I didn't start this topic to discover the number of Jehovah's Witnesses who have died for refusing blood, I did it because I wanted to share the outrage I felt over an incredibly stupid and irresponsible public statement from Julia Barrick who represents a body with whom we ought to have a great deal in common. I am NOT anti-AAWA but, like many others, I'm tired of their cack-handed and amateur approach.

  AAWA may not realise it - or care - but they are at risk of tarring all ex-JW's and apostates with the same brush and I for one just don't care for that. It's a shame because they do actually have the opportunity to do a lot of good. Ten or fifteen years from now we might look back and see that they've matured into a more professional, compassionate and sensitive pressure group but for now I think we actually are doing AAWA a service by calling them out on their 'mistakes' (see how polite I can be?)

  On the actual issue of how many JW's have died over Watchtower blood policy, well like many others I'll be digesting this topic for a while and would just like to say a sincere 'Thank You' to all who've made a meaningful contribution to the debate - that includes Marvin. I may not be convinced by his argument but at least he had the balls to put it out there and, for the most part, defend it against the pack.

  Language matters and facts matter. If, in the name of your group or movement, you're going to write a press release, blog post or even a 140 character tweet check everything, then check it again. Read it as your opponent might, read it as your peers might, even read it as your Mother might. Edit it, pare it, spell-check it then read it again . . .
  
  Nic'
• 

  TTATT

  As far as I can see the AAWA have its own Twitter account. This tweet mentioned here was not sent from that account. nicolaou I will give you credit for one thing, you made a thread that showed that there is hardly no way we can now any number of people who died from refusing blood for sure.
  
  But then again I will say that you put a womans name up and you are not even showing your own. To me you look like a real clown. You where just trying to name and shame Julia AND AAWA, but you did not check your facts. She just used her twitter account to say something that is really important, that the Watchtower cult is more deadly than Jim Jones and his Jonestown. You said that it was AAWA that sent that tweet, but you where wrong. If you cant see the difference between a person who is an AAWA volunteer and AAWA its self, your statements are just hot air. YOU are the one giving untrue statements. You better stay up at the gallery munching your peanuts!
• 

  Ruby456

  well put nicolaou - mind you even with the most methodical eye for detail mistakes can happen. For example the Vox Sang article that adamah links to tells us that Maoris comprised 22% of the Jehovahs witnesses studied in the Beliaev research but in actual fact they numbered 19 - for me 19 out of 103 is just under 20% - or is there something wrong with the way I am working out my percentage?
• 

  Ruby456

  here is a quote from George Elliot that i had to dig out

  the most effective writer is not he who announces a particular discovery, who convinces men of a particular conclusion, who demonstrates that this measure is right and that measure wrong; but he who rouses in others the activities that must issue in discovery, who awakes men from their indifference to the right and the wrong, who nerves their energies to seek for the truth and live up to it at whatever cost...

  such a writer was Thomas Carlyle
• 

  Simon

  As far as I can see the AAWA have its own Twitter account. This tweet mentioned here was not sent from that account. nicolaou I will give you credit for one thing, you made a thread that showed that there is hardly no way we can now any number of people who died from refusing blood for sure.
  
  But then again I will say that you put a womans name up and you are not even showing your own. To me you look like a real clown. You where just trying to name and shame Julia AND AAWA, but you did not check your facts. She just used her twitter account to say something that is really important, that the Watchtower cult is more deadly than Jim Jones and his Jonestown. You said that it was AAWA that sent that tweet, but you where wrong. If you cant see the difference between a person who is an AAWA volunteer and AAWA its self, your statements are just hot air. YOU are the one giving untrue statements. You better stay up at the gallery munching your peanuts!

  I think most people would assume that a public AAWA member tweeting and including AAWA hashtags is voicing AAWA opinion.

  Also, I think YOU are the one sneaking around and looking like a clown "Bo Juel Jensen" because you have been posting pro AAWA comments and criticising people without being open about who you are and what you represent.