by nicolaou 739 Replies latest watchtower medical
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.....Simon
..
.........It`s Time to save AAWA!..
.........................Again..
.............................................................. 
...OUTLAW
-
“Yes, JWs can have a higher mortality rate when they are in a situation where refusing blood affects their mortality rate.”
No.
It’s not that JWs can have a higher mortality rate when suffering severe anemia.
It’s that JWs do have a higher mortality rate when suffering severe anemia.
That higher mortality rate results in—guess what—more deaths. Higher mortality means higher numbers.
I have no reason to think JWs present at hospitals with conditions resulting in severe anemia any more or less than does the general population. During the years of 1998 to 2007 there were 103 such JWs among an average JW population of 12,700. Of these, statistically 19 died that could have been saved by comparison with the general population who were given blood transfusion therapy refused by JWs.
This increased mortality rate can be calculated against the total population of JWs because I have no reason to think JWs present at hospitals in New Zealand with conditions resulting in severe anemia any more or less than does JWs in the rest of the world.
“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 ...”
You have an obsession Simon.
I entered this discussion because my work was invoked. Take a look! The rest is your obsessive imagination.
“I am more than happy to let the audience decide which numbers and methodology make most sense and which figures seem more reasonable.”
Alas! Something we agree on!
More important, I’m happy to have trained statisticians examine the veracity of conclusions I’ve published.
Marvin Shilmer
There is no real concrete evidence to make an accurate amount but to suggest 250,000 JWS have died from not taking a BTs.. ??????
You can spin stats until your blue in the face lets be honest.
The deaths from this particular doctrine might actualy be a continuing sum being that were less JWS back in the 60's and 70's
but they were subjective to not being able to take blood factions unlike today.
There are certainly more JWS today but they can take factions
and medical procedures have advanced to the extent that BTs are not used as much.
It’s that JWs do have a higher mortality rate when suffering severe anemia.
That higher mortality rate results in—guess what—more deaths. Higher mortality means higher numbers.
Ooh, you're almost there!
So yes ... they have a higher mortality rate. But just those people. Because some zealot decides to refuse blood and die doesn't affect the mortality rate for someone suffering from ingrowing toe-nails. You can't take the mortality rate for people with a serious issue and apply it to the entire population without the previso that it only applies if they end up in the same condition.
The thing you're missing is that the number of people where the mortality rate is raised is very, very low. In your study it was 19 people out of 103 which itself is a tiny fraction of the 'population' of JWs and I'm sorry, but medical perople never put 100% "would have lived" vs "would have died" outcomes on treatments and deaths so even then you are dealing with probabilities and possibilities where the outcome of one or two patients makes a big difference to your math.
And you're trying to get to 250,000.
-
“How many of the 12,700 are part of the group of 103? (hint, the answer is exactly 103)”
I agree the number of JWs in the study who suffered severe anemia is 103, and that of these 103 all suffered severe anemia.
“The increased mortality rate applies TO THEM ONLY and can't be applied to the whole 12,700.”
The increased mortality rate applied to the 103 but the hard number of 19 preventable deaths was 19 of the annual average of 12,700 JWs. My article uses these hard numbers (19 and 12,700). My article does not make use of the statistical increase of mortality as a percentage of the 103.
My statistical conclusion uses the annual hard number (avg) of 12,700 JWs per year as the sample and 19 as a population of that sample.
You apparently don’t know the difference. You’re comparing things I don’t use, and don’t understand the numbers I have used.
Marvin Shilmer
The deaths from this particular doctrine might actualy be a continuing sum being that were less JWS back in the 60's and 70's but they were subjective to not being able to take blood factions unlike today.
Yes, when it was more of a medical issue there were not that many JWs. Now there are more JWs it's less of a medical issue. Both mean the numbers concerned are much lower than the overblown, sensationalised figures being claimed.
-
“And you're trying to get to 250,000.”
No.
I’m not trying to get to any particular number. Rather, I’ve shared what hard numbers tells us conservatively.
Additionally, in this discussion I’ve explained that merely assuming the total number of preventable deaths due to refusing blood by JWs suffering severe anemia was equal in all New Zealand trauma centers as found in the 4 Beliaev et al’s data set came from it would increase the number of deaths to over 200,000 over the period of 1961 to 2011.
Marvin Shilmer
-
“Yes, when it was more of a medical issue there were not that many JWs. Now there are more JWs it's less of a medical issue. Both mean the numbers concerned are much lower than the overblown, sensationalised figures being claimed.”
In my review of deaths due to Watchtower’s blood doctrine the hard number used for preventable deaths among JWs suffering severe anemia refusing blood were mostly since year 2000 when Watchtower doctrine began allowing more blood product.
Hence prior to 2000 we should expect a higher incident of deaths due to Watchtower’s blood doctrine.
My numbers of deaths suffered by JWs are all based mostly on the post-2000 values. Were we to create an algorithm to account for a previously higher value my numbers would only go up.
Marvin Shilmer
Marvin, you have confused yourself. Go back and trace your steps and assumptions.
19 people out of 12,700 didn't randomly die.
19 out of 103 died (and 2 of those had palliative care cancer so I don't believe they were going to live anyway - hardly a great study IMO!).
You simply can't take the 19 and apply it to the 12,700 let alone to 7,400,000 !!
-
“Marvin, you have confused yourself.”
Simon you’re talking in circles. I know what my own work says.
“19 people out of 12,700 didn't randomly die.”
I agree.
19 died over and beyond what should have died because they suffered severe anemia and refused blood transfusion. That is not randomly dying. It’s dying because of an identifiable cause.
If 103 JWs in New Zealand over a 10-year period suffer severe anemia out of 12,700 then 103 JWs anywhere in the world over a 10-year period are likely to suffer severe anemia out of 12,700. Guess what? 103 JWs in New Zealand over a 10-year period did suffer severe anemia out of 12,700.
Understand that?
Because New Zealand is a comparatively affluent society it’s likely that by comparison more than 103 JWs anywhere else in the world over a 10-year period suffer severe anemia out of 12,700.
Understand that?
If over a 10-year period 19 JWs in New Zealand out of an annual average of 12,700 died over and beyond what should have died because they suffered severe anemia and refused blood transfusion then over a 10-year period likely 19 JWs anywhere in the world out of an annual average of 12,700 died over and beyond what should have died because they suffered severe anemia and refused blood transfusion. Guess what? Over a 10-year period 19 JWs in New Zealand out of an annual average of 12,700 did die over and beyond what should have died because they suffered severe anemia and refused blood transfusion.
You do the math and tell everyone what that means against the annual numbers of JWs from 1961 to 2011.
Do you know how to do that?
Because New Zealand is a comparatively affluent society it’s likely that by comparison over a 10-year period more than 19 JWs anywhere else in the world out of an annual average of 12,700 died over and beyond what should have died because they suffered severe anemia and refused blood transfusion
Understand that?
"You simply can't take the 19 and apply it to the 12,700 let alone to 7,400,000 !!"
Why? Because you say so?
Marvin Shilmer
