Does anyone have access to back copies of JAMA? I'm curious if this is in the editorial section and who the author was. It's not important, but if someone has access... It's not a particularly offensive article, but recently it's come to my attention that about 1/2 the articles in med journals are just articles. Not scientific research, just an essay some doctor has written that got printed in a med journal. A former employer pointed it out to me. He has had several articles in med journals, but he said they weren't hard facts, just his opinion.
I wrote a paper about JWs and the blood issue for a medical ethics class I took in university. I recall seeing the article and I might still have it around here somewhere but will have to look for it. In the meantime you can see the abstract of the article here
The reprint in the WT is an exact copy if I remembber correctly. I don't believe it was an editorial but rather an essay - definitely not a research paper
Thanks Lady Lee! I wonder, are the Dixon and Smalley who are authors of the essay JWs? I know there are/were two characters of that name at Bethel. Hardly an unbiased article to feature as a secular opinion on the WTS website. No wonder they did not print the author credit on there. More than just a little deceptive dontcha think?
well if you go back to the link I posted - on the right side the two names Dixon and Smalley appear. If you click on both of them you will see that Dixon seems to be a legit doctor.
Smalley on the other hand has only written a couple of things that are referenced.
When I clicked on related articles on Smalley's page I was taken to this page
Article 6 on the page appears to be written by our very own Lee Elder who occassionally posts here. I suspect he would be able to provide some enlightenment on this subject
This evening I was made aware that this JAMA article citation on the WTS website may very well be yet another example of a shell-game...they get a WTS editorial (by Smalley and Dixon) printed in a professional journal, then quote back their own (WTS) editorial comments as if they are are the professional opinions of others. Similar to what AlanF has exposed in his research on the Creation book.
It's been a long weekend here, and I haven't looked at the links in this thread. But I'd be very interested in additional comments on this.
Also, if this is indeed another concrete example of WTS deception, perhaps it should be archived and posted on Quotes, or freeminds?
Okay, thanks for the bump Craig. For clarification, Gene Smalley is not a doctor, I'm not certain what his capacity at Bethel is, but it's not medical. Dr. Dixon is indeed a Doctor, but AFAIK is not and has never been a surgeon. He is or was also a Bethel Witness. What I find disturbing about this article being posted to www.watchtower.org, is that it's presented as a legitimate 3rd party commentary on the JW position regarding bloodless surgery. In actuality, it is an editorial written by Witnesses, published in a secular magazine, then quoted by the JWs as a secular source.
Crediting this article only to JAMA (as the WTS website did) with no accompanying reference to the true JW authors of the article, is indeed a "shell game" in my opinion. It is deceptive in that it leads people to believe there is mainstream medical support of the No Blood Stance, by presenting it as if it were from a trusted source--a well-known medical journal to which most people have no personal access.
Gene Smalley and Russell Dixon were indeed JWs when they wrote the 1981 JAMA article. Smalley was appointed a "Nethinim" or Governing Body helper in the early 1990s. Dixon (now deceased) was the Bethel doctor for many years.
The Watchtower Society was very deceptive in not crediting the JAMA article to its own staff members. So what else is new? They have no respect for the thinking ability of the JW community -- no surprise since they do everything in their power to get them to quit thinking. So they feel they can get away with all sorts of deceptive tactics.
