250,000 Jehovah's Witnesses have died refusing blood

by nicolaou 739 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  steve2

  Assumptions such as 1) JWs around the world tend to accept/reject blood similar to JWs in New Zealand, 2) the frequency of JWs worldwide suffering severe anemia is similar to JWs in New Zealand (adjusted for Maori ethnicity), 3) New Zealand’s healthcare is not less than the rest of the world on average, and a few others spoken of throughout this discussion.

  These assumptions are naive in the extreme. You keep repeating them without an evident awareness of variations in accessibility of health care from country to coutnry.

  There are huge variations in the accessibility of health care not just from country to country but within countries.

  The clinical literature on health care utilization treats these issues as fundamentals - you gloss over them.

  Accepting/rejecting blood "around the world" depends crucially on how accessible health care in various other countries. The asumption about the frequency (or to use a better term. "the incidence") of JWs wordlwide suffering from severe anemia to JWs in New Zealand is laughably naive. How do you know? For goodness sake, Marvin, right here in New Zealand the incidence of anemia differs widely across socio-economic groups (i.e., those from lower socioeconomic regions are more likely to suffer from blood disorders - but that is quite a different aspect than whether and to what extent they access health treatment for it in a timely manner).

  It is unsafe to make the kinds of extrapolations you have.

  Yes, New Zealand has 80 hospitals but only 6 or 7 District Health Boardswhich individually govern several hospitals accroding to region and who disseminate information on "sentinel events".

  A confidence level of 0.05 means nothing if the extrapolations are in question - as they definitely are in this case.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “These assumptions are naive in the extreme. You keep repeating them without an evident awareness of variations in accessibility of health care from country to coutnry.

  “There are huge variations in the accessibility of health care not just from country to country but within countries.

  “The clinical literature on health care utilization treats these issues as fundamentals - you gloss over them.”

  Steve2,

  I think you need to take another look at my assumption you complain of.

  It is: New Zealand’s healthcare is not less than the rest of the world on average.

  Do you seriously think that assumption is questionable as stated?

  “The asumption about the frequency (or to use a better term. "the incidence") of JWs wordlwide suffering from severe anemia to JWs in New Zealand is laughably naive. How do you know? For goodness sake, Marvin, right here iwthin New Zealand the incidence of anemia differs widely across socio-economic groups.”

  Assumptions are stated for individuals to understand what the estimate represents. When I compare socio-economics prevalent in New Zealand with the rest of the world I find it conservative to think JWs in New Zealand are no more likely to suffer severe anemia than JWs in the rest of the world on average. Particularly when it comes to JWs and severe anemia I see a commonality of refusing blood that should tend to drive a similarity since refusing red cell transfusion when needed increases risk of anemia.

  “It is unsafe to make the kinds of extrapolations you have.”

  That’s silly. Presenting extrapolations based on a data set combined with stated assumptions is standard issue. it's how extrapolations are presented.

  “Yes, New Zealand has 80 hospitals but only 6 or 7 District Health Boardswhich individually govern several hospitals accroding to region and who disseminate information on "sentinel events".”

  Point?

  “A confidence level of 0.05 means nothing if the extrapolations are in question - as they definitely are in this case.”

  P < 0.05 was of Beliaev’s results; not mine. So, point?

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  slimboyfat

  So Marvin, as besty mentioned, what is the confidence interval and/or margin of error associated with your estimates?
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “So Marvin, as besty mentioned, what is the confidence interval and/or margin of error associated with your estimates?”

  slimboyfat,

  I have not calculated this and don’t intend to spend time doing it. If it’s important to you, you can spend your time doing it yourself based on what’s made available in my blog article, if you know how.

  My work is not to predict how many have died but, rather, to offer a minimum value by using conservative assumptions at every turn.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  slimboyfat

  If a figure for the margin of error could be attached to your estimate it would be so large as to make clear that the whole exercise is practically futile. So I can well understand that you are not eager to calculate the margin of error or confidence interval.
• 

  LisaRose

  I requested a copy of a reply to this study and got it this morning. It is called "Apple and Oranges" by J.P Isbister. I cannot copy it in its entirety, as it would violate my agreement but it is not long. Basically it questions the study, for much the same reasons people here have.

  The Jehovah's Witness control group differed from the intervention group in age, ethnicity, tuberculosis, and renal status. He also thinks JW patients may have received suboptimal care due to their refusal to accept transfusions.

  It goes on to state "to conclude from this study that red blood cell transfusion reduces mortality......challenges credibility, experience and currently available evidence" . While increasing anaemia is correlated with poorer clinical outcomes, giving transfusions doesn't necessarily correct the problem.

  He says that current research is showing that there is no reason to tranfuse patients who have anaemia but who are not actively losing blood, and that current reassessment is challenging the notion that transfusion can only be good for patients.

  He does state that transfusions are needed for critically bleeding, shocked and vascular diseased patients.
• 

  slimboyfat

  It is reminiscent of the Spencer article on JWs and mental health that was heavily biased against JWs and provoked the normally neutral sociologist James Beckford to write a rebuttal.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/medical/225707/1/Psychology-Articles-Mental-health-of-Jehovahs-Witnesses#.UmRVVjK9KSM
• 

  Suraj Khan

  Marvin, with all due respect, you have thrown in the towel on this one. It's a welcome effort to take the Organization to task for their false teachings on blood, but if that's your mission, you have to follow through with scholarly method. You don't get a free pass because you don't want to do the detail work. In fairness to you, this problem is swimming in variables that even a doctoral dissertation might not unravel and I wouldn't be too keen either in taking this on.

  But I don't know that we need to. One needless death stemming from the blood doctrine is certainly reason enough to condemn the GB and lay serious question to their claim of providing inspired teaching to the JW community. The GB are serial murderers and a few case studies alone would prove that point. Inflated numbers only shift the focus away from the horror and allow the Organization to debate the validity of clinical data.

  For that reason, I would caution anyone against using the 250,000 figure or even Marvin's 50,000 figure. Bring the attention to individual case studies and let the disaster of this dogma be revealed in emotional, not mathematical terms. That is where we win - with hearts, not charts.
• 

  steve2

  So, Marvin, tell me, what are the variations in access to health care treatment (including blood transfusions) in New Zealand across different socio-economic groups and how do these utilization variations within New Zealand compare with non-Western countries where there are JWs such as India, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Kenya and so on? Don't fall back on assumptions - give the rates of access.

  Clearly, if accessibility to health care treatment differs within a specified country, you cannot compare that country one way or another with other countries until you know what the health-care utilization rates are (and yes, this also encompasses even treatment for serious disorders.

  You have done your "research" in an extremely assumption-bound manner with the assumptions of both within-country comparability and between-countries comparability of rates of utilization. Besides, not only does the incidence of blood disorders differ widely across population groups within countries but also between countries - and in specific ways that you appear ill-prepared to "adjust" for.

  You have done what no other researcher has ever done - and in that regard your methodology is unique:

  Extrapolated from one country - New Zealand - to worldwide estimates, ignoring the variability of health treatment utilization both within countries and between them.

  That is what renders your "research" unsupportable.

  Your research could not be printed in any reputable research publication - except perhaps as an appalling example of serious research that is based on an embarrassing series of naive assumptions.

  The "danger" is your conclusions have the superficial appearance of being well thought through until the reader looks squarely at the assumptions regarding accessibility of health care treatment.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “I requested a copy of a reply to this study and got it this morning. It is called "Apple and Oranges" by J.P Isbister.”

  LisaRose,

  I was wondering when someone would finally do at least a small bit of research.

  Yes, Isbister wrote a letter to the editor criticizing Beliaev et al’s work and he gave his reasons.

  Another well respected researcher named Aryeh Shander wrote his own letter, again criticizing Beliaev’s work.

  What I found odd about these two responses was that these two men did not see the same supposed mistakes.

  I recommend readers interested in this rather unique work authored by Beliaev and colleagues take time to review the original presentation in whole, and also their response to criticisms leveled by Shander and Isbister. Readers can find this response in the same journal of Vox Sanguinis as the criticisms were offered, the November 2012 journal issue.

  Marvin Shilmer