New Research at AJWRB

by Lee Elder 103 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Ruby456

  Lee Elder

  Hello Ruby 456. The calculation you bring up (150 deaths per year) is not mine. Its from Dr. Muramoto, M.D. It refers to deaths during the year 2001, and just in the U.S. where "bloodless medicine" is performed at a advanced level. There were approximately 6 millions JWs worldwide at that time. 150 x 6 = 900 worldwide deaths in 2001, and these are just deaths related to elective surgery without blood. They do not include deaths from trauma, blood disorders or childbirth. Actual numbers are certainly higher. The numbers have been presented at a major medical conference, and carefully reviewed by capable researchers working with AJWRB. They will stand up to scrutiny.

  the 150 deaths per year are yours and not Dr Muramoto's (you need to say this explicitly in your article and in your comments otherwise you are misrepresenting his work). They may be based on Dr Muramoto's work but your calculations from his research are incorrect. I understand and sympathise with your motives but please get your figures corrected so we can focus on those who are most at risk according to Muramoto's work and warn them.
• 

  never a jw

  "The act of taking blood is considered like you disassociated yourself. Same way they treat someone who joins the armed services."

  That's not what the elder's book say: If you allow me to paraphrase, it suggests that if a person gets a blood transfusion but shows repentance then she/he is not disfellowshipped. It adds that the patient may have been subject to pressure.
  
• 

  Listener

  It seems that a fair number of posters have misunderstood my comment posted after the OP, with 5 dislikes (but 2 likes). It's good to see the comments written in response. My initial comment was

  Dunedain, I hear you loud and clear.
  If the organization wants to accuse ex Jws of hate speech then let them site your comments as an example and see what sort of sympathy that incites.

  I was commenting from the POV of the organisation. I did not personally call it hate speech. They accuse much of what ex JWs say as being hate speech and I could see them accusing what Dunedin said as being hate speech also but I was pointing out that if they did, then they would be wrong, it would be impossible to garner any sympathy because there was too much truth in Dunedain's words that explains the damage they cause.

  I'll try to be a bit more careful in the way I express myself in the future and apologize if I upset anyone.
  
  
• 

  inbetween09

  @Lee elder

  thanks for your research. In fact, years ago, your website was the very first "apostate" site I read, and it sparked the bginning of my jounrey of gathering information outside of WT approved sources, leading me to be menatlly totally out of the JW control.

  One question though regarding your statistics: In order to be fair regarding the blood policy ( which I find wrong on so many levels) would it not be necessary to include those, who survived because of refusing blood? What i mean is, that in some treatments, the mortality of those refusing blood is (was) lower than those accepting it. therefore bloodless surgery is often called the gold standard.

  So considering the blood policy, what is the overall outcome? Balancing those who died needlessly because of refusing blood with those who lived because of it?

  (It would not justify the policy, but in order to use the argument with other witnesses, it would certainly be helpful)

  inbetween
  
• 

  Ruby456

  found the study http://www.amjmed.com/article/0002-9343(93)90171-K/pdf

  95% of the patients who died were having cardiovascular surgery. so this is the vulnerable group. to put it into context out of 1404 jw patients 731 were undergoing cardiovascular surgery and 19 died (there were 20 in all who died, however only 8 were directly related to refusal of blood). the period covered by the study was 7 years so what are the maths if we were to extrapolate from this for the numbers of witnesses who could die in a year.

  the first thing would be to examine the figures for cardiovascular surgery in the US for that year and to find out how many lives were saved by means of blood transfusions in the general population. this shouldn't be too difficult?

  to get facts isn't to be pro JW at all but means that we do not get caught out in future. the subject is much too serious and sad for xjws - isn't exaggerated figures going to make them feel worse and more depressed. think of the number of people who have given their lives to the cause of fighting for justice. don't they deserve accurate figures.

  apologies if my arithmetic is wrong - I am very weak on maths and have tried my very best to do it properly
• 

  Ruby456

  sorry this should read

  the first thing would be to examine the figures for cardiovascular surgery in the US for those years (instead of for that year) and to find out how many lives were saved by means of blood transfusions in the general population. this shouldn't be too difficult?
  
• 

  John Davis

  Ruby, I agree with you on your issues with the methodology that was used for this essay on AJWRB. The study that was used showed a range from actually 0 increase in morbid and mortality issues, for certain classifications of procedures, all the way up to 1.5% increase for cardiovascular procedures.

  So yes a conservative number of 1% for cardiovascular procedures is correct. But then you say that because the Blood Bank Association says that 4 million people in the US need a blood

  And yes, the math does show that for every 1000 people in the US 150 of them need a blood transfusion a year.

  Though you then try and correlate a 1% increase in mortality for all procedures that blood could possibly be used. That is not a fair assessment of the original author's intention. While yes for certain procedures the mortality would be higher without a blood transfusion that is not all of the procedures that were even listed in the original study. The author even states this in his conclusion:

  "The impact on the overall morbidity and mortality is not known; such a study would take decades of observation with large numbers of randomized patients and is unlikely to ever be done. Patients now often question the risk."
  
• 

  Ruby456

  I don't understand what you are saying John Davis. pls provide links to my comments where I have claimed what you are saying - as i explained I have to work very hard to work out mathematical problems. another thing is that you may be mixing up what I claim and what Lee Elder claims.
• 

  John Davis

  Sorry Ruby. I guess I didn't put in the break correctly. I meant I am agreeing with you. I mixed up my comment to you with my critique of the methodology in the essay.
• 

  Ruby456

  thats okay