Good underlining. You get an 'i'.
Next week, work on gestures.
250,000 Jehovah's Witnesses have died refusing blood
by nicolaou 739 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
Good underlining. You get an 'i'.
Next week, work on gestures.
Simon,
Is that intended as insult?
If you don’t want us participants to use the underlining feature then my recommendation is to get rid of it. I assume you want us to use it as each determines it appropriate. Right?
When I respond to participants who in my estimation need help to distinguish between what’s said versus what’s meant by something said, I’m compelled to use the tools you provide to help these individuals read what’s actually said rather reading their own meaning into the thing said.
Any questions?
Marvin Shilmer
-
Simon
No it was humor ... don't you remember the TMS marking system?
You use many words to say very little. I'm not impressed by it.
-
adamah
Marvin said-
On another note, and about my estimate of 50,000 deaths due to JWs refusing blood between 1961 and 2011, a colleague having dialogue recently with Dr. Beliaev shared that Dr. Beliaev had read this estimate and its bases and opined that the figure 50,000 was “a pretty conservative estimate”.
And that would serve as a good example of why Dr Beliaev is held to the same standards of every other medical researcher, and would need to prove his assertions with an actual study designed to test that hypothesis, and not just rely "on a hunch" (i.e. he opined, AKA offered a hypothesis). Science doesn't get anywhere by relying on that kind of 'scientific method'.
So it's simply the unsupported opinion of one doctor who practices in NZ, who MAY or MAY NOT be correct (here's where someone cues the JWs to march out their MDs to claim Beliaev's opinion is all wet, based on THEIR opinions. Pointless.....).
At the end of the day, Beliaev and anyone else who should understand how the scientific method operates knows the ONLY WAY to solve such battling unsupported hypotheses is to design a study that reliably provides an answer; until then, it's only one person's opinion vs another's.
Adam
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“And that would serve as a good example of why Dr Beliaev is held to the same standards of every other medical researcher, and would need to prove his assertions with an actual study that tests that hypothesis, and not just rely "on a hunch" (i.e. opined, AKA a hypothesis). Science doesn't get anywhere by relying on that kind of 'scientific method'.
“It's simply the unsupported opinion of one doctor in NZ, who MAY or MAY NOT be correct (here's where someone cues the JWs to march out their MDs to claim Beliaev's opinion is all wet, based on THEIR opinions. Pointless.....).
“At the end of the day, Beliaev and anyone who understands the scientific method knows the ONLY WAY to solve such battling unsupported hypotheses is to design a study that reliably provides an answer, and until then, it's only one person's opinion vs another's.”
Adamah,
What I’ve shared is opinion based on a particular set of data and assumptions. No one has suggested otherwise. It’s there for every person to make of what they will. But at least it’s there to agree or disagree with, which means it gives people something to think about in the context of preventable deaths.
So what’s your point, if you have one?
If your point is that my extrapolation is opinion as said above then you have said nothing that is not self-evident.
Marvin Shilmer
-
144001
Referring to the original post: Sensationalist claims, such as the unsupported and outrageous claim attributed to Julia Barrick that 250,000 mortalities are attributable to the JW refusal of blood transfusions, are harmful to the reputation of ex-JWs as a whole. Watchtower apologists latch on to foolish claims such as this one to label all apostates as irrational and so biased against the organization that their words cannot be trusted.
Marvin, your "extrapolation" is no better than the tweet attributed to Ms. Barrick. It is scientifically invalid and, like Ms. Barrick's alleged tweet, another example of meritless sensationalism that casts a poor reflection on the entire ex-JW community.
Folks, there are plenty of legitimate issues we can bash the WTBTS on. Let's leave the lies and nonsense to the Watchtower and avoid engaging in our own version of "theocratic warfare."
-
besty
Comparing Apples with Oranges
A. M. Beliaev, R. J. Marshall, et al. (2011). ‘Clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of allogeneic red-blood-cell transfusion in severe symptomatic anaemia.’ Vox Sang.
J. P. Isbister
Sydney Medical School, Royal North Shore Hospital of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Dear Editor,
The article by Beliaev et al. has flaws in the interpretation of their data and should not go unchallenged. On the basis of the data presented, it is not possible to conclude that red cell transfusions were causally related to better clinical and economic outcomes in anaemic patients.
The Jehovah’s Witness (JW) ‘control’ and ‘intervention’ groups differ in age, ethnicity, diabetes, bronchiectasis ⁄tuberculosis and renal disease. The JW patients may alsohave received an otherwise suboptimal standard of carebecause they would not receive blood transfusions. Toconclude from this study that red cell transfusion in anaemicpatients reduces mortality, gastrointestinal bleeding,infection rates, cardiac arrhythmias, angina, ischaemicmyocardial injury, renal failure, neurological complications, delirium, depression and syncopal episodes challenges credibility, experience and currently availableevidence. The efficacy of transfusion may well be the case in critically bleeding, shocked and vascular diseased patients.
Indigenous populations have worse clinical outcomes than the general population, and the younger age of the JWs possibly reflects this fact. It is difficult accepting that the JW group can be regarded as ‘controls’ for anaemia, and the authors’ definition of severe anaemia is also problematic. Although there is evidence from the literature confirming that increasing anaemia correlates with poorer clinical outcomes, red cell transfusion does not necessarily correct the problem, unless the anaemia is critical and ⁄ or the patient is actively bleeding. The haemoglobin nadir of the transfusion group was 80 ± 13 g ⁄ l and received 3 Æ 3 ± 3 units of allogeneic red cell concentrates.
This would suggest that many of the patients in the intervention group were transfused when their haemoglobin levels were above the triggers for the study and over transfused. The current extensive reassessment of the indications for red cell transfusion, especially in anaemic haemodynamically stable patients, is challenging the long held dogma that transfusion can only be good for patients [1]. RCTs confirm the safety of restrictive transfusion policies [2], and the recent International Consensus Conference on Transfusion Outcomes concluded that there are limited indications for transfusion in haemodynamically stable anaemic patients and there is a high degree of uncertainty as to which patients may benefit from red cell transfusions [3]. There is also evidence relating to perioperative JW patients having similar or better clinical outcomes without blood transfusion [4]. Additionally, the large RCT in elderly high-risk patients undergoing hip arthroplasty found no benefit from transfusion in asymptomatic patients with Hb > 80 g ⁄ l [5].
Cost-effectiveness conclusions are invalid if efficacy of an intervention has not been established and there is no overall real activity–based costing. Realistically, the authors can only conclude that a heterogeneous population of anaemic patients who happen to be JWs are more costly to manage than a heterogeneous population of anaemic patients accepting transfusion, who happen not to be JWs.
References
1 Shander A, Javidroozi M, Ozawa S, et al. : What is really dangerous:
anaemia or transfusion? Br J Anaesth 2011; 107(Suppl 1):
i41–i59
2 Hebert PC, Wells G, Blajchman MA, et al. : A multicenter, randomized,
controlled clinical trial of transfusion requirements in
critical care. Transfusion Requirements in Critical Care Investigators,
Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. N Engl J Med 1999;
340(6):409–417
3 Shander A, Fink A, Javidroozi M, et al. : Appropriateness of
allogeneic red blood cell transfusion: the international consensus
conference on transfusion outcomes. Transfus Med
Rev 2011; 25(3):232–246
4 Reyes G, Nuche JM, Sarraj A, et al. : Bloodless Cardiac Surgery in
Jehovah’s Witnesses: Outcomes Compared With a Control Group.
Rev Esp Cardiol 2007; 60(7):727–731 e53
5 Carson JL, Terrin ML, Noveck H, et al. : Liberal or restrictive
transfusion in high-risk patients after hip surgery. N Engl J
Med 2011; 365(26):2453–2462
Received: 27 January 2012,
accepted 28 February 2012
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
besty,
Respectfully, if you’re going to completely disregard copyright infringement then you might as well give equal time to the original authors’ response to Isbister’s objections. It’s revealing.
Marvin Shilmer
-
besty
hi marvin - I assume you are unaware of the false balance fallacy.
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“hi marvin - I assume you are unaware of the false balance fallacy.”
Besty,
Then you assume wrong.
As Beliaev’s information presentation is worthy of critical analysis so it is of Isbister’s informational presentation.
Isbister makes claims in his criticism of Beliaev’s work that are demonstrably false. This is unapparent to novices, but the falseness of Isbister’s primary criticism is found within the tables of Beliaev’s work. For those who do not know how, or who don’t take time to notice what the tables express in values, they can look at the footnote that points out the very things criticized by Isbister have in fact been accounted for.
Should I assume you are either unable to understand the tables in Beliaev’s information presentation, or that you didn’t take time to study the tables?
Should I assume you believe Isbister’s claim purely because Isbister asserts it?
Have you read the author’s response to Isbister’s claims to determine yourself what claims have merit and which one’s don’t?
If not, then what is your point?
Marvin Shilmer