250,000 Jehovah's Witnesses have died refusing blood

by nicolaou 739 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  I just took a look back at my calculator used in the estimation of 50,000 deaths (over the 50 year period of 1961 t0 2011) and tinkered with just one of several factors, each of which would push the mortality rate higher.

  The one factor I adjusted for was the number of trauma centers. The population of 19 deaths were documented at a small number of trauma centers. Purely for sake of discussion I assumed that each of the nation's trauma centers experienced similar rates of mortality due to JWs refusing blood. But I did not assume that any of the many other hospitals in the country suffered even a single death due to the same cause.

  This one adjustment alone statistically raises the total number of deaths due to Watchtower’s blood doctrine over the 50-year period of 1961 to 2011 from 50,000 to 213,000.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “…I think you'd really have a hard time claiming that 1% of all JW deaths were related to blood.”

  Simon,

  I don’t understand your statistical analysis on page 2.

  In year 2011 alone a mortality rate of 1% yields about 74,000 deaths among JWs.

  A rate increase of 1/10th of 1% would yield over 200,000 additional deaths over the period of 1961 to 2011.

  A rate increase of 1/10th of 1% would be hard to notice unless hard numbers were known so a person could make the mathematical calculation.

  Have you taken a look at increased mortality rates for refusing blood transfusion? It’s staggering.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Simon

  What's going on Simon?

  I'm vocal when I see something that isn't right or doesn't add up. I'd rather things were judged on the facts than who said what.

  In year 2011 alone a mortality rate of 1% yields about 74,000 deaths among JWs.

  Hey, guess what ... by the same measure a 100% mortality rate yieds 7,400,000 deaths among JWs!

  Did you have a point or are you trying to teach us percentages?

  Show us some basis for a 1% mortality rate. Why would JWs have a higher mortality rate than the general population? (again, facts please).

  Your figure suggests more JWs die from refusing blood than for all other causes of death combined even though those other causes are what go on death certificates.

  Have you taken a look at increased mortality rates for refusing blood transfusion? It’s staggering.

  I have no doubt that mortiality rates for refusing mediccl treatment are higher than for not refusing. But even if it's 100% higher, if only 1 person is involved then the count is 1.

  The issue then becomes how many JWs each year are involved in life-or-death decisions over blood? I'd wager it's far far fewer than you, JBD and the rest of the AAWA brains-trust are trying to make out.

  I think the general concensus based on common sense and available mortiality figures is that it's NOT 250,000. Probably not 100,000 which would be the sort of figure needed to give you your 50,000 deaths (assuming a very high 50% mortality rate). It's a lot less - this is why it's BIG NEWS when it happens.

  Personally, I think making outlandish claims diminishes from the people who have lost loved ones because of this ill conceived policy based on some nobody's personal bible interpretations. It doesn't need to be 250,000 or 50,000 or even 5,000.

  Why the obsession over a headline number just for attention when it's easily discredited?
• 

  Simon

  If all you want is tabloid publicity, why not just claim "Naked Miley Cyrus on a wrecking ball caused 50,000 JW deaths!". Voila, some media attention, a few more page views and nothing less accomplished than any other equallty crazy claim.
• 

  Simon

  My article does not extrapolate from a group of 19 people over a 10-year period. My articled extrapolated from a group average of 12,700 annually. Statistically, 19 is the population, not the group.

  No, it doesn't. You are making that leap but statistically it's bogus. All the study has is 103 witness patients over a 10 year period who were already suffering severe anemia.

  That's like taking mortality rates from a severe burns unit and coming up with a figure for how many people will burn to death out of the general population.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “Show us some basis for a 1% mortality rate. Why would JWs have a higher mortality rate than the general population?”

  According to the United Nations data set it’s safe to use 1% as an overall world mortality rate over the 50-year period of 1961 to 2011. (Use the selection filters available at: http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=PopDiv&f=variableID%3A65

  JWs have a higher mortality rate because conditions non-JWs can and do survive by accepting transfusion of blood product are conditions JWs die from by refusing transfusion of blood product. (See: Beliaev et al, Clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of allogeneic red-blood-cell transfusion in severe symptomatic anaemia, Vox Sanguinis (2012) 103, 18–24)

  “Your figure suggests more JWs die from refusing blood than for all other causes of death combined even though those other causes are what go on death certificates.”

  No. My numbers do not suggest anything remotely close to what you suggest. That you think otherwise is telling.

  “Why the obsession over a headline number just for attention when it's easily discredited?”

  I was going to ask you that question. You have an obsession.

  The numbers I’ve shared in this discussion are all explained and there for anyone who wants to examine. Your attempt at examination is pathetic for reasons already given in earlier posts by me. You hardly know how to add!

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  OUTLAW

  why not just claim "Naked Miley Cyrus on a wrecking ball caused 50,000 JW deaths!".....Simon

  . .

  .................Miley claims it Would have Been More..

  .......................If she wasn`t Wearing Boots!..
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “No, it doesn't. You are making that leap but statistically it's bogus. All the study has is 103 witness patients over a 10 year period who were already suffering severe anemia.

  “That's like taking mortality rates from a severe burns unit and coming up with a figure for how many people will burn to death out of the general population.”

  Simon,

  Only you know what that is supposed to mean.

  The 19 deaths among 103 JW patients was of a total sample size averaging 12,700. You don’t understand the difference between a statistical sample set versus a population of that sample set.

  The finding of increased mortality due to refusing blood transfusion is not mine. Increased mortality is increased mortality.

  In the case of the New Zealand data study it happens to be the case that we have a well-defined statistical sample because the country is an island, and it happens to have a world-class healthcare system. These two facts allow an extrapolation of deaths due to Watchtower’s blood doctrine for patients suffering severe anemia.

  The data set of New Zealand increased mortality is found in hard numbers.

  The data set of the New Zealand JWs is found in hard numbers.

  Apparently you don’t know what to do with hard numbers.

  Beliaev et al didn’t have your problem. Beliaev et al understood these hard numbers to mean JWs suffering severe anemia have a much higher mortality rate.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Simon

  According to the United Nations data set it’s safe to use 1% as an overall world mortality rate over the 50-year period of 1961 to 2011. (Use the selection filters available at: http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=PopDiv&f=variableID%3A65

  That's nice.

  However, we are not dealing with a worldwide org as much as they like to make out and in 1961 they were copmparatively miniscule and even more American than they are now:

  

  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/JWStats1931-2010.png/800px-JWStats1931-2010.png

  They only *just* go to 7m ... over the last 40 years they have average way less so the 250,000 & 50,000 numbers you twits have been throwing out are more outlandish than the conservative figures I've suggested are more reasonable - even those are way, way too high!

  JWs have a higher mortality rate because conditions non-JWs can and do survive by accepting transfusion of blood product are conditions JWs die from by refusing transfusion of blood product. (See: Beliaev et al, Clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of allogeneic red-blood-cell transfusion in severe symptomatic anaemia, Vox Sanguinis (2012) 103, 18–24)

  You obviously don't understand what I'm saying to you are are being 'intentially dumb' to avoid admitting your mistakes so I'll break it down into bite-sized Marvin pieces for you:

  Yes, JWs can have a higher mortality rate when they are in a situation where refusing blood affects their mortality rate.

  But, the times that this is actually a life-or-death issue is so low as to be practically insignificant.

  Certainly, any slight increase in mortality rate in very specific circumstances should NOT be applied to the entire JW population.

  Do you understand this? If not, which part of this do you believe is wrong and why?

  No. My numbers do not suggest anything remotely close to what you suggest. That you think otherwise is telling.

  Telling in what way? If you have a claim to make then say it. Of what relevance is a 1% mortality rate being 74,000? No more relevant than 10% equalling 740,000 ... why quote a number that has no significance to your point other than a lame attempt to confuse people?

  I was going to ask you that question. You have an obsession.

  I do? You seem to be the one leaping in here on the topic ... but I guess the AAWA were criticised and the Marvin-light shone into the sky so you strapped your utility belt on and swung into action ... again. You do love those AAWA jokers so ...

  The numbers I’ve shared in this discussion are all explained and there for anyone who wants to examine. Your attempt at examination is pathetic for reasons already given in earlier posts by me. You hardly know how to add!

  I am more than happy to let the audience decide which numbers and methodology make most sense and which figures seem more reasonable.

  I don't think many people are going to pick yours Marvin.

  Your fundamental problem is you are trying to make a claim based on facts and figures when you do not have the appropriate facts and figures available so you're making them up.
• 

  Simon

  The 19 deaths among 103 JW patients was of a total sample size averaging 12,700. You don’t understand the difference between a statistical sample set versus a population of that sample set.

  The finding of increased mortality due to refusing blood transfusion is not mine. Increased mortality is increased mortality.

  In the case of the New Zealand data study it happens to be the case that we have a well-defined statistical sample because the country is an island, and it happens to have a world-class healthcare system. These two facts allow an extrapolation of deaths due to Watchtower’s blood doctrine for patients suffering severe anemia.

  The data set of New Zealand increased mortality is found in hard numbers.

  The data set of the New Zealand JWs is found in hard numbers.

  Apparently you don’t know what to do with hard numbers.

  How many of the 12,700 are part of the group of 103? (hint, the answer is exactly 103)

  The increased mortality rate applies TO THEM ONLY and can't be applied to the whole 12,700.

  News just in: motorcyclists who don't wear helmets have an increased risk of brain injury in case of an accident. So be careful: in the Marvin universe* that now means than even those of us who don't even own motorcycles are going to die from bang-brain-ow.

  * It's like the Marvel universe but a lot less marvelous and you have JBD instead of Scarlett Johansson.