by nicolaou 739 Replies latest watchtower medical
I'd be interested in the distribution of patients. I know we have 1.9 per year as an average but was it consistent or was there a bad couple of years?
Something like this could also be a factor in attempts to extrapolate things and a reason results could vary wildly between different studies (again, back to the sample being too small for consistent results).
Finkelstein's summary nicely encapsulates my own conclusions on this vital thread.
For me, it continues to be about responsible caution when it comes to publically declaring estimated "totals" who have died as a result of blood refusals.
However, when it comes to establishing the best reasonable estimate, as with a lot of compelling "research" topics, the key variables are too wide-ranging to render estimates as anything other than educated guesses.
To dress these estimates up as anything else is naive at best and mischievous at worst.
We know the Watchtower has periodically gone off half-cocked with a lot of its own "vested interest" ideas over the decades with the best of intentions, claiming that its peculiar take on doctrine is supported by any esoteric study it can find. We deplore it - but are not surprised by it.
However, it is a damn shame that, in the interests of publicizing the stupidity and dangerousness of the Watchtower's blood ban, some have dressed their conclusions up in the language of science and health-treatment utilization research. I would have more patience - and even respect - for their well--intentioned conclusions if they bravely dropped the "research" language and posited their figures as little more than educated guesses. Or just stopped playing the numbers game altogether. As a poster said earlier, regardless of the undoubted thousands of individuals who have lost their lives or come perilously close to losing their lives since the time when the blood ban was first introduced into the Watchtower canon, even one life lost is one too many.
I told Marvin I would not argue with him anymore, and I won't. I feel his numbers are overstated, but repeated attempts to get clarification or a response to critiques have failed. He either can't or won't accept that his numbers could be flawed, and their is really no where to go with that. But for the rest of you, here is my take on it.
I, as well as most others who have commented here, feel that one small study in one very small country, cannot simply be extrapolated to apply to Jehovah's Witnesses everywhere. The study itself has been questioned by others, who feel that the death statistics reported cannot be true. Of curse, every study will have someone who disagrees, but I do agree with Isbister myself. The study was too small, compared apples to oranges, in race, age, and other health conditions. Quite often, additional studies in a particular area will have different results, and it is only when the results have been replicated more than once that you can have complete confidence it it. We know that smoking causes cancer and other health problems, and, due to multiple studies you can predict the percentage of people who will die of smoking related deaths. With anemia deaths, not so much.
I questions his numbers on total anemia deaths, as the US total reported deaths are a fraction of the total reported deaths due to anemia in the study. It is 1.6 deaths per thousand. He responded that it is calculated differently in New Zealand. That may be, but the US reports anemia deaths per World Health Organization standards, so I do not know why New Zealand reports it differently. If you assume that the same percentage of people die by anemia worldwide as in the US, total deaths in 2010, for Jehovah's Witnesses world wide would be expected to be 116 if blood were not an lssue. Per the NZ study, JWs have a 10X greater risk of dying. If you accept that, You would expect 1,155 deaths. Per Marvin' s calculation of .000265, there would be 1,914 deaths. Of course, I don't accept that. As Isbister pointed out, the trend in the medical community is away from automatic transfusions, often they are not needed, even in cases of very low hemoglobin. And of course, Witnesses can now take fractions, which would lower deaths even more.
I suspect the truth is somewhere between 116 and 1,914 for 2010. Without the NZ study, it's a guess, and I just have a hard time believing the study. It very much depends on how the deaths were reported, and how they were picked for the study. There are just too many unknowns, and too many possible differences in how different countries count cause of death. You could have died of Anemia, for example, but the root cause was cancer that would have killed you anyway. How was that reported in NZ, or in the study? I was wondering why Marvin was so focused on Anemia deaths, when it seemed to me more people would have died of refusing transfusions in case of accidents until I found a study that showed the risk of death in severe trauma was not significantly greater among Jehovah's Witness.
Of course, as someone pointed out, one death is too many, and there is no question that Jehovah's Witnesses have died due to the Watchtower blood doctrine. The Watchtower even bragged about it in an Awake cover showing children who died due to the bood doctrine. Of course, it is more common now for the courts to intervene and force the issue in these cases, so it is unknown how many children are during each year now. At the end of the day, I cannot believe Marvin's numbers and I think he is wrong to put them out like he has, but it's his blog, obviously he could due what he likes.
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
Again too narrow of base model .
For example what about people who've suffered extreme blood loss due to traumatic accident or blood infection complications, where a total blood transfusion was required.
( Like my mother who refused the procedure and died ) ?????
Variables are all over the place in this regard and have to included into the total sum of blood refusal incidents.
WTFree, please call your ferocious-looking King Charles Terrier off immediately, before it licks someone to death!
Marvin said-
For multiple reasons I have not asked Beliaev what he thinks of my extrapolations or whether he agrees, disagrees or thinks it at all possible to extrapolate as I have. Primarily I’ve refrained from these questions to avoid putting him into a potential quagmire that could occur in doctor-patient relationships he has or might have with current or future JW patients.
What potential medico-ethical or clinico-legal "potential quagmire" were you worried about, exactly? Would you care to expound on that?
Marvin said-
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).
Which reminds me of something that's probably been addressed, but I'm not reviewing 28 pages of hissy-fits to find it, LOL!
Surely you accounted for the differing legal policies that exist Worldwide for the protections of minors, who are protected in some lands by court order at different ages? If not, why was the age of '15' used in the study, when '18 yrs old' would've been a more conservative choice more applicable to Worldwide?
And hopefully you remembered to account for those baptized JW's who are under 15 y.o., but are nevertheless included in the total Worldwide JW headcount (the figure you used was 7.4 million in 2011) which you used to calculate your guesstimate?
Adam
Wow I can feel the love here as much as I felt the love in the JW's.... Seriously its as if some people here never left the borg.
That particular New Zealand statistical formula is both inappropriate and impractical for many reasons.
If JWs were to die solely upon this one individual medical condition alone then it would hold some weight to its accuracy.
Hasn't this been stated to a ponit of ad nauseam so far on this thread ?
-
“I, as well as most others who have commented here, feel that one small study in one very small country, cannot simply be extrapolated to apply to Jehovah's Witnesses everywhere.”
When a question has loomed for decades and data comes along that is useful toward an answer then using that information for sake of extrapolating an answer is fine so long as assumptions used in the extrapolation are shared.
Honestly, I don’t understand what the beef is, other than this discussion began in relation to someone and something readers here, in general, loathe.
Steve2 accuses me of dressing something up. Well guess what? That’s his characterization. No more. No less. What I’ve done is to share facts of the matter and spelled out my assumptions. Then I shared the math. That’s not dressing up. It’s called sharing information for readers to do with as they please.
LisaRose accuses me of failing to clarify or respond to critiques. I do not intend to respond to any and all critiques because some critiques need no response. But I don’t know of any relevant question asked me in this discussion which I’ve failed to answer, though I have been wrongly accused of doing just that.
So what is really going on here?
I haven’t seen anyone refute the raw data Beliaev brings to the table.
I haven’t seen anyone refute the math of my extrapolation.
I haven’t seen anyone demonstrate any assumption on my part that has not always been a part of my extrapolation.
Very importantly, though I’ve seen people complain of assumptions I’ve made I haven’t seen anyone demonstrate that my assumptions are anything other than conservative at every turn, and this is in my view where lay the power of my extrapolation. I’ve presented and presented these conservative assumptions and why, in my view, they are conservative. No one responds on this point to show the choice I opted for in the form of an assumption is not conservative.
So what is really going on here?
Remember folks. When it comes to Watchtower’s blood doctrine we’re talking about the killing off of people. Thousands of people. If sharing the best answer we can give based on the best data set we have is wrong then call me unethical because I’m going to do it every day of the week to help people wrap their brains around what’s happening to JWs the result of Watchtower’s blood taboo. To the rest of you. I say shame on you! Maybe in your sanitary world what you prefer works for you. But in the world I live in people are dying all around me and I’m tired of it. Someone has to do the hard work of looking at whatever data is available toward helping people understand the scope of killing. Who here volunteers to do this job? Please stand up and be counted, and then put your time and money where your mouth is at.
Marvin Shilmer
-
“Surely you accounted for the differing legal policies that exist Worldwide for the protections of minors, who are protected in some lands by court order at different ages? If not, why was the age of '15' used in the study, when '18 yrs old' would've been a more conservative choice more applicable to Worldwide?
“And hopefully you remembered to account for those baptized JW's who are under 15 y.o., but are nevertheless included in the total Worldwide JW headcount (the figure you used was 7.4 million in 2011) which you used to calculate your guesstimate?”
My extrapolation assumes none of the JWs you mentioned died the result of refusing blood. This is another conservative aspect of my presentation.
Marvin Shilmer
-
“I'd be interested in the distribution of patients. I know we have 1.9 per year as an average but was it consistent or was there a bad couple of years?”
Simon,
A 10-year period is a healthy chunk of time to mitigate extremes upward or downward.
In response to your question, unless I missed something, the study does not spell out deaths per year. But Beliaev has written other articles using the same data set. I’ll consult those when I have time to see if what you inquire of is spelled out in them.
Marvin Shilmer
