250,000 Jehovah's Witnesses have died refusing blood

by nicolaou 739 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  cedars

  No, you think you have evidence but as I've said already, you just have evidence that makes Lady Lee look bad. But you don't mind doing that do you. Like you just forwarded her emails to me as though I care or don't believe she said what she said?

  Lee doesn't look bad in the emails at all. A little naive perhaps, but that's no crime. We've talked about it and she is fine with what I have forwarded you. If anyone comes off looking like a thug and a bully from the whole thing, particularly the way it has been brazenly misrepresented, it is you.

  You obviously won't be happy until you've had your moment of glory so feel free to post your "damning evidence". I'll be sat cowering under the table weeping and gnashing my teeth crying "oh no, Cedars has declared his wrath upon me and wreaks his vengence".

  This for me perfectly sums up how needlessly confrontational you are about everything. Why can't you just apologise and admit you got the wrong end of the stick? Why does it need to be Simon versus Cedars? For some reason, you cannot stand to be around strong personalities on here and you insist on being the alpha male. That's the only way I can explain it.

  Of course, if you could bring yourself to climb down and admit you got the wrong end of the stick over the whole AAWA thing (which you did), your conciliatory attempts would be reciprocated. Otherwise, by all means go ahead and ban me if voicing an opinion contrary to yours is now against JWN's posting guidelines.

  Cedars
• 

  Simon

  Wow, this build up is dramatic.

  The world is waiting Cedars, show them what an evil bully I am and how I've maliciously lied about the infamous topic-locking !!

  Now's your moment: for John from wherever ... opportunity knocks ! (for the older-UK'ers)
• 

  The Quiet One

  Couldn't this Simon and Cedars discussion be moved, to a new topic perhaps? *ducks for cover* (then please delete this, there's enough clutter here as it is)
• 

  Simon

  Wait, I just had a thought: Isn't Lady Lee now president of the AAWA? Isn't that what you used to be and very proud of adding as a signature? Is this really your revenge on her?

  Couldn't this Simon and Cedars discussion be moved, to a new topic perhaps? *ducks for cover*

  Yes, I'll do that so the interesting topic can be kept as is was.
• 

  cedars

  Simon, shall I start up a new thread and show the emails to free up this thread as Marvin suggested? Or will it be a waste of time because you will simply "sanitize" it straight away?

  An expression of good faith on your part would not go amiss. Or even better, an apology from you to save us having to rehash the whole thing.

  And I don't think the world is waiting.

  Cedars
• 

  cedars

  Simon

  Isn't Lady Lee now president of the AAWA? Isn't that what you used to be and very proud of adding as a signature? Is this really your revenge on her?

  Now you're sliding into silliness again. This isn't a revenge thing. Lee and I remain good friends. I've already told you - she is fine with people seeing the emails.

  Of course, an apology from you would be much easier for all concerned.

  Cedars
• 

  Simon

  What, you suddenly want us to come to an understanding, I presume so it doesn't have to be posted after all?

  No way, you have made this accusation repeatedly, you have to come up with the evidence you alledge proves me wrong.

  Start a new topic.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  Earlier it was pointed out that Drs. Isbister and Shander independently wrote criticism of Beliaev et al’s work.

  I was surprised to see Isbister’s objection resting primarily on certain variable differentials when Beliaev’s work adjusted by logistic regression for each variable cited by Isbister. This is all the more surprising given this is expressly stated within Beliaev’s work. It’s as though Isbister didn’t thoroughly read the article.

  Dr. Shander’s primary complaint focuses on the study failing to make a comparison between clinical benefit of transfusion versus another well-defined intervention, preferably one that meets what Shander presents as optimal management of JW patients. I will, though, point out that alternate treatment options applied to the JW patients is very well documented in Beliaev’s presentation. But these alternative treatments were not isolated to form a model for comparison.

  I agree that moving forward the approach Shander suggests would have been more useful for the stated dual purpose of outcome and cost analysis. But for purposes of having a retrospective view of what has been occurring with JW patients the result of refusing blood, I see nothing from Shander that would argue the point.

  As things are published, what Beliaev and colleagues did was present the facts as they found them, including establishing a criterion based comparison group where significant differentials were adjusted for by logistical regression.

  Importantly, and for reason that should be obvious, Shander at no time suggests that the deaths that occurred among JWs did not occur, and it is these actual numbers of deaths that are important to my extrapolations. When it came to the numbers of deaths what Shander complained of was whether a higher number of deaths with lower Hb values skewed the picture of mortality among patients with higher Hb values (but still within the overall range used to define “severe anemia” within the article). But, again, it was the overall number of deaths used in my presentation which would not changed based on Hb values (again within the range).

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Finkelstein

  Interesting points so far in this discussion .....

  1. most people agree that 250,000 is an over the top number

  2. most people agree that stating an over blown number weakens the intellectual basis to oppose this dangerous religious doctrine

  3. most people would agree that Marvin's extrapolated statistical study in New Zealand is too far focused on one individual health problem

  where its known that there are many diverse medical situations where a person might need a BT including devote JWS.

  4. It should honestly accepted that it would extremely difficult to derive at an accurate number of JWS due this sect refusing BTs

  because of the many variables as spoken about in this thread. JWs do not refuse BT's on situations of anemia alone.

  5. One could assume though that the number of deaths occurring as a result of refusing a BTs by JWs could very well reach into the thousands,

  based on the the growing number of JWS world wide and when this doctrine was first introduced in the 1940's.

  If you cant fight devious lies and corruption with uncompromising truth and honesty then you really haven't accomplished

  anything in the end, essentially you've become the lies and corruption yourself.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “…most people would agree that Marvin's extrapolated statistical study in New Zealand is too far focused on one individual health problem…”

  Therein I think is a disconnect for some readers.

  I get an impression that readers here hold too narrow a view of what is defined in Beliaev’s study as “severe anemia”.

  As spoken of in Beliaev’s study “severe anemia” is a condition that could occur across a very wide range of patient presentations. The criterion is patients at or over age 15 with hemoglobin at or lower then 8 grams dL. No underlying condition is applied. If a patient was at least 15 years old and had hemoglobin at or lower then 8 grams dL and refused blood then he or she was included (except for a few identified palliative care patients whose inclusion would have skewed results).

  This definition for “severe anemia” used by Beliaev is one of the things making this study so revealing when it comes to mortality suffered by the JW population for refusing blood.

  Marvin Shilmer