So taking this particular statistical chart and using it as a model to use for the Global JWS issue is wrought with frivolous stupidity.
250,000 Jehovah's Witnesses have died refusing blood
by nicolaou 739 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
steve2
Finkelstein again sums it up so well. That a researcher can navigate the mountainous barriers to sound research findings and make it all seem so plausible and be so untroubeld by it speaks to the caliber of the researcher.
There comes a time when critics need to call it quits and hope and trust readers can make up their own minds about whether the research and its conclusions are sound. It is an example of, not so much the type of scholastic dishonesty we find in Watchtower publications but more likely stubborn scholastic naivete in which the researcher has failed to grasp the fundamentals of sound research design, methodology and conclusions.
-
adamah
BTW, I wanted to point out LisaRose's helpful comments contributed to the thread from a few pages back, esp for looking into the 'apples vs oranges' article: thanks Lisa!
Marvin said-
I don’t ignore anything you speak of above. It’s just that none of it makes a difference to my extrapolation because my extrapolation assumes no deaths other than those reported in the Beliaev study.
In essence the Beliaev study provides a crude body count of deaths due to refusing blood. By “crude”, I mean it does not include anyone who did, may have or likely died due to any circumstance or scenario other than the incidents of the Beliaev study. This body count only includes the known mortalities discovered in Beliaev’s study.
You still are missing the point that Beliaev's study was conducted in NZ, a Nation where the age of consent is 16, NOT 18. They allow 16 yrs old NZ'ers to refuse blood, whereas they don't allow 16 y.o. to do so in AU (the Court steps in and prohibits a needless death).
So to extrapolate from ANY study that is conducted in NZ is not "conservative" if you're not accounting for the inflating effect of the relatively lower age of consent New Zealanders "enjoy" (I put the word in brackets, as to have the right to die for Jehovah at the age 17 is NOT much of a right to "enjoy") vs the rest of the World.
NZ's lowered age of consent demonstrates only ONE problem with relying on a single isolated study vs looking at the same question using eg meta-analysis from around the World (i.e. weighing the results from multiple studies that examined the same clinical question, as has been done with, say, cigarettes causing lung cancer). So if Beliaev's study didn't report the number of deaths resulting from refusing blood for those JWs between the ages of 16-18, you cannot adjust for it to extrapolate for the varying legal climates that exist throughout the World, and that would be a potential source of error that's built into the study.
However, it's not an insurmountable problem: does the raw data generated by Beliaev's study break out this group (or even report) the ages of the JWs who died in the study, so you could do it yourself? If they did, you can (and should) account for it. Even if those in this 16-18 y.o. sub-population DIDN'T die, it would be a factor, since their refusal would play a role in the cost comparison (which is not your concern, I know).
If they didn't report the ages, then you have a potential source of error.
Furthermore, you need to subtract from the 7.4 mil Worldwide JW figure those who are actually minors (and hence would be protected by the varying laws that exist in their different countries); otherwise you don't KNOW how many minors are included in that total figure, and that's ALSO a source of inflated numbers; not accounting for those who'd be saved by Court Order.
Did you consider and/or do that? If not, then your figure is not as "conservative" as you might tell yourself.
Adam
(EDITED TO ADD:)
Steve said-
That a researcher can navigate the mountainous barriers to sound research findings and make it all seem so plausible and be so untroubeld by it speaks to the caliber of the researcher.
I don't think Marvin has ever (or at least, if he HAD, he SHOULDN'T have) claimed to be a researcher, much less to be 'conducting medical research', as he has neither the education, training, or professional experience to make such a claim. He's simply a guy with a blog on the internet with a passion and interest for his subject matter, but hopefully Marvin realizes that limitation.
Adam
-
Finkelstein
I would just like to say that presenting a large number even though seemingly over bloated does create the possibility to attract attention toward the publics awareness,
what worries me as well as some others is if that number gets spread around in places like the inter-net and it gets scrutinized by people inside the WTS.,
they could easily pick it part based from its weak evidence or source.
Which inevitably could make WTS opposers seem deceiving and corrupt themselves.
Therefore I think it would be best to say tens of thousands of JWS have died from this one individual doctrine established by the WTS., which makes
more of number of probability attached to it, devastating numbers all the same.
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“So to extrapolate from ANY study that is conducted in NZ is not "conservative" if you're not accounting for the inflating effect of the relatively lower age of consent New Zealanders "enjoy" (I put the word in brackets, as to have the right to die for Jehovah at the age 17 is NOT much of a right to "enjoy") vs the rest of the World.”
Adamah,
I fail to see your point. In each case a JW patient with “severe anemia” objected to red cell transfusion and either lived or died.
Age does not change that.
If age does not change that then the body count at work in my extrapolation remains solid.
“Furthermore, you need to subtract from the 7.4 mil Worldwide JW figure those who are actually minors (and hence would be protected by the varying laws that exist in their different countries); otherwise you don't KNOW how many minors are included in that total figure, and that's ALSO a source of inflated numbers; not accounting for those who'd be saved by Court Order.
“Did you consider and/or do that? If not, then your figure is not as "conservative" as you might tell yourself.”
I don’t think you understand the math at work in my extrapolation.
Were I to do as you say it would only increase the mortality rate suffered by JWs for refusing blood. The fact that my extrapolation does not do as you suggest makes my extrapolation a firm understatement.
Marvin Shilmer
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“That a researcher can navigate the mountainous barriers to sound research findings and make it all seem so plausible and be so untroubeld by it speaks to the caliber of the researcher.”
Steve2
Barriers to my extrapolation occur in one fashion: factors that require either 1) hard data or 2) assumption.
Where I had hard data I used hard data.
Where I did not have hard data I assumed as conservatively as possible.
If that should trouble me then I’ll eat your hat.
“There comes a time when critics need to call it quits and hope and trust readers can make up their own minds about whether the research and its conclusions are sound. It is an example of, not so much the type of scholastic dishonesty we find in Watchtower publications but more likely stubborn scholastic naivete in which the researcher has failed to grasp the fundamentals of sound research design, methodology and conclusions.”
Stubborn?
I’ve asked and asked you and other whiners to point out where I’ve made an assumption that fails to favor a conservative extrapolation. You complain and complain. But when it gets right down to it that’s all you’re doing.
There comes a time when researchers need to call it quits and hope and trust that readers can and will decide for themselves whether a piece of research and its conclusions are sound. When critics fail to answer relevant questions then those critics have become whiners.
Readers will decided as they will, which is as it should be.
Marvin Shilmer
-
steve2
I’ve asked and asked you and other whiners to point out where I’ve made an assumption that fails to favor a conservative extrapolation.
Marvin, please accept that I simply do not agree that any extrapolation should ever have been done whether conservative or not for reasons that have been well-aired throughout this thread.
I have considered your answers to my objections and I am struck by the naivete of the continued arguments that you have used to justify the extrapolation in the first place which led to my use of the adjective "stubborn".
-
adamah
Marvin said-
I fail to see your point....
Yes, but the real question is if the failure to see is intentional or not?
Marvin said-
If age does not change that then the body count at work in my extrapolation remains solid.
Like HELL it doesn't!
Age very MUCH DOES effect whether patient(s) who participated in Believ's study had the legal right to make the decision to die. A participant who was over 16 yrs old could choose to die as a martyr, whereas a 16 y.o. couldn't do so virtually anywhere else in the World. THAT'S a problem which you don't address when extrapolating the findings Worldwide.
Adam said-
“Furthermore, you need to subtract from the 7.4 mil Worldwide JW figure those who are actually minors (and hence would be protected by the varying laws that exist in their different countries); otherwise you don't KNOW how many minors are included in that total figure, and that's ALSO a source of inflated numbers; not accounting for those who'd be saved by Court Order.
“Did you consider and/or do that? If not, then your figure is not as "conservative" as you might tell yourself.”
Marvin said-
I don’t think you understand the math at work in my extrapolation.
Really? And how much math and stats have YOU completed at a recognized four-year degree-granting institution? I've got four years of math and stats under MY belt, including two years of calculus, up to differential equations (all earned with "A"s). You?
Marvin said-
Were I to do as you say it would only increase the mortality rate suffered by JWs for refusing blood. The fact that my extrapolation does not do as you suggest makes my extrapolation a firm understatement.
Fine, that confirms you don't understand the effects of the assumptions used in your own extrapolation, then. It would only possibly DECREASE the mortality rate suffered by JWs who refused blood, since they would be EXCLUDED from the study HAD they lived in say, AU.
But don't take MY word for it, LOL!
NOW, I suspect you WILLFULLY WON'T admit to seeing ANY problems, so if sticking your head in the sand is your idea of "WINNING!" and 'defending your work' means in academia, then fine, you win: you've demonstrated an obstinate refusal to see what anyone else who is remotely concerned with fairness and their intellectual integrity could plainly see is a flaw with your methods. Is that your goal, all along? FINE. You've confused "defending your ideas with logic" and think it actually means, "defending with dogmatic obstinance and intestinal fortitude"! KUDOS! You WON!
Just consider that by dogmatically over-estimating and demonstrating your stubborn and likely-willful ignorance to the World (a process which paradoxically DOES extrapolate easily, via the Web), YOU (Marvin) bear any moral bloodguilt for any JWs who may read this thread and your article, but dismiss it's credibility after deciding that the GB IS correct when they warn, "apostates are evil hate-filled ex-members who HATE Jehovah, and are willing to lie and stretch the truth to discredit Jehovah's fine organization".
So if proving THAT claim of the GB is your actual goal, then GREAT! You WIN!
I'm done trying to keep you (Marvin) from sacrificing your own credibility here, so I'm out of the thread (and hopefully this thread will die a quicker death than a JW who refuses BT, so JWs don't see the incriminating and embarrassing evidence of Marvin's willingness to stretch and distort reality). I'm throwing in the towel, and at this point it's clear that you're simply trolling for attention.
Adam
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“Marvin, please accept that I simply do not agree that any extrapolation should ever have been done whether conservative or not for reasons that have been well-aired throughout this thread.”
Steve2,
I accept that you disagree with my conclusions.
I don’t see any viable objections from you or anyone else in this discussion that are unaccounted for or that undermine the conclusion I’ve offered. Specifically, you fail to offer any evidence that I’ve assumed things that would in any way whatsoever inflate a value that we all know exists.
What I have witnessed in this discussion is a lot of whining by folks who have yet to address the core feature of my extrapolation.
“I have considered your answers to my objections and I am struck by the naivete of the continued arguments that you have used to justify the extrapolation in the first place which led to my use of the adjective "stubborn".”
I’ve considered what you’ve had to say, too. And, not that it matters, but I’ve bothered myself to respond exhaustively to your complaints. At this point I’m left wondering if you’re attempt is no more than trying to waste my time. You’ve ignored substance at every turn. So be it. Readers will make of this discussion what they will, which is as it should be.
Marvin Shilmer
-
zed is dead
Marvin,
It is obvious that you do not have a clue about how statistical analysis works. You may not even understand the terms being asked of you by those who have knowledge of statistics, and are using nomenclature you are unfamiliar with. My God, you call a spreadsheet a "calculator!"
I am sure your spreadsheet is a very simple formula. Because of sample size, coming from one area of a small country, dealing with one disease only, not factoring in the variances mentioned ad nauseum in this thread; the confidence level for your results is somewhere between slim and none.
Face it, you should have a degree in statistics before venturing into a debate with those who know more than you. Of course, that has never stopped you before.
Keep banging your drum, you cute little bunny!
zed