Doctors and surgeons say no to blood transfusions

by Mr Negative 65 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  OrphanCrow

  The Watchtower always made it clear that the prohibition of blood was NOT based on any practical health benefit (although they always brought it up) but was based strictly on God's law of the sanctity of blood

  Well, the WTS didn't do that in the Russian court documents and they don't do that in many of thier bloodless promotions. They clearly take quotes out of context and clearly use mis-quoted 'expert opinions' to give the appearance that their blood doctrine is supported by the medical community.

  No, the WTS is not clear - they deliberately obscure the facts.
• 

  Vidiot

  OrphanCrow - "No, the WTS is not clear - they deliberately obscure the facts."

  That's telling, in and of itself.

  If you have to cheat to defend your beliefs...
• 

  prologos

  was Dr. Boyd an osteopath? or did he not work in a field, in a renown teaching hospital, in a discipline that involves a lot of Fluid loss?
• 

  sunny23

  Wow amazing work orphancrow. BTW is your name referencin GoT?

  My favorite WT quote on blood has always been this one..

  "The blood in any person is in reality the person himself. ... poisons due to personal living, eating and drinking habits ... The poisons that produce the impulse to commit suicide, murder, or steal are in the blood. Moral insanity, sexual perversions, repression, inferiority complexes, petty crimes - these often follow in the wake of blood transfusion." Watchtower 1961 Sep 1 p.564
• 

  Giordano

  How about referencing two medical men French Physician Jean-Baptiste Denys and anatomist Thomas Bartholin and left out the fact that both lived in the 16th century! That's pretty low in my opinion.
• 

  Finkelstein

  If you have to cheat to defend your beliefs...

  The WTS just finds (any) information that supports themselves on many issues, they even promote lying as a means of spiritual warfare in upholding the organization.

  So not only they're inevitably ignorant, they are indulgently crooked, devious and in their intent of getting their way.

  .

  It has been known for a long time inside the medical profession that Blood transfusions have possible detrimental side effects in their usage.

  The reason BT are not used as much as before as in the past is because of new medical surgical procedures have made it a less of a need,

  as well new advanced drugs.

  The one thing the WTS. will not be honest about is the No blood law handed down by the ancient Hebrews was one which was a dietary law not a medical law

  pertaining to their perception of blood being a sacred element of all living things.
• 

  OrphanCrow

  Sunny23 - Sorry...I don't know what 'GoT' is referring to.

  For several years, I had a crow family that regularly visited my balcony and they would keep me company on my walks - they would follow me everywhere when I was out walking. I became very close to my crow family - they even brought food to me on a couple occasions, but usually it was me feeding them. The mother would bring each new baby to my balcony when they were ready to fly and I got to know several generations of them. I recently moved and had to leave my crows. So, I am now the orphan crow. I miss my crow family a lot...

  was Dr. Boyd an osteopath? or did he not work in a field, in a renown teaching hospital, in a discipline that involves a lot of Fluid loss?

  I don't know if Dr. Boyd is an oesteopath. I will assume he isn't.

  Yes, Dr. Boyd did do as you say.

  from an article already quoted on this thread:

  Boyd recently completed a study of 100 hysterectomy patients who refused blood transfusions, and about 10% were not Jehovah's Witnesses. He says all did well and left the hospital at the same time as patients in the control group. Furthermore, of the 10 control patients who received blood, 8 transfusions "were unnecessary."

  The above statements are problematic. Dr. Boyd's description of his study reveals a fatal flaw in it. Good research methodolgy would not allow for a 'control group' of 10 transfusion patients measured against 90 patients who refuse blood. It is not a sound study design. There can be no randomization in the type of study that Dr. Boyd is describing and therefore the lacks reliability.

  Maybe that is why I have yet to find any of the medical studies that Dr. Boyd claims to have published.

  Prologos - you speak in defense of Dr. Boyd - I can understand that, as doctors willing to take on such a high risk group of patients must be hard to find. I am sure that many pregnant women were happy to have some kind of assurance when potentially facing a life threatening problem when giving birth.

  Do you know Dr. Boyd, prologos? Did you work with him? Do you know what kind of procedures he was using that would have allowed him to operate on so many JW women? JW women who give birth have an elevated risk of death compared to the general population.

  Boyd, head of gynecology at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal, has performed more than 500 procedures on Jehovah's Witnesses
• 

  neverendingjourney

  If I go to the doctor sick with the flu, I'll refuse a blood transfusion.

  If, on the other hand, I've lost a lot of blood after a car accident, I would absolutely accept a blood transfusion.

  I'm no doctor, but the context in which these statements were made matters.
• 

  prologos

  Dr Boyd practised at the Royal Vic, which was close by, and ascociated with The local universities,like MacGill, but he did not strike me primarily as as a research scientist, but as a valuable reference practioner with his penchant for minimum blood use practise.
• 

  Finkelstein

  I just wanted to point out that the WTS. has never acknowledged that Blood Transfusions have saved millions of people's lives since its inception into medical practice.

  Oopps ... did I reveal the Truth I'm sorry.