i've had a theory for a long time that jws historically have appealed to people who have been displaced or find themselves in a new environment away from family and friends.
i also read an article recently that suggested that internal migration in italy was a big boost for jw growth.
more generally it has long been theorised that new religious movements are a phenomenon particularly associated with disruptive features of modernity, including the hyper-mobility of people in the modern age.
sfb: Most of the older JWs I know became JWs shortly after moving to a new country or to a new town some distance away.
My grandmother became a Bible Student in the late 20s shortly after moving to Canada from Norway. The 'sisters' who came out to the farm taught her how to read English and made her feel welcome in a new country. And they promised her that her baby that had just died would be brought back to life again. That was the promise that sealed the deal for her
the wt has promoted bloodless surgery as a viable (and better) alternative to surgery with blood transfusions.. i have found a medical study that has been used to back up these "evidence based" claims.
the title of the article is lessons learned from the outcome of bloodless emergency.
these mostly indigent patients died of peritonitis becauseof delays in payment for antibiotics.
vidiot: Recently learning that the "bloodless" med-tech industry itself was crafted almost wholly by the WTS itself (albeit with one or two flimsy degrees of separation) was quite a surprise.
Parts of the industry has been. The blood management world is dominated by WT influence but other things that the WT has tried to take credit for in the industry are misrepresentations.
I just finished Denton Cooley's memoirs and I must say that the story that has been crafted by the WT bloodless machine gives a slightly different perspective on the role of the Jehovah's Witnesses than what Cooley presents in his book 100,000 Hearts.
To read accounts of the history of bloodless surgery from the perspective of authors such as Petra Seeber, the JW doctor who is prominent in the blood management world, you would think that Dr. Cooley designed and implemented bloodless techniques just to satisfy the demands of the JW patients. This myth has been repeated ad nauseum in anything connected to the WT. The blood management world likes to dub Dr. Cooley as a "bloodless pioneer". Funny thing is...Dr. Cooley doesn't call himself that and his accomplishments could never have been possible without blood transfusion technology.
It is a blatant lie. Dr. Cooley developed bloodless no prime in response to the demands of heart surgery - NOT in response to the demands of JWs. The technology and method was one he developed for all patients before it became useful for JW patients and the JWs just happened to be a particular group that was able to take advantage of Dr. Cooley's expertise. They played virtually no role in the demand or development of Cooley's life saving methods.
The WT likes to take credit for playing a role in Dr. Cooley's accomplishments yet they were the ones who requested that Cooley write about the JWs for a scientific journal. The JWs ended up as subjects of a Cooley study at the request of the WT.
After reading Dr. Cooley's autobiography, and then re-reading some of the blood management claims about his connection to their industry, and their claim that he is a "pioneer" of bloodless surgery, I have come away with the impression that the bloodless/blood management world has 'adopted' Dr.Cooley and is trying sail in on his coat tails.
Vidot, I still assert that the WT has their finger in the $ pie of the bloodless world, but I am refining my view on what their actual role has been. The propaganda they have spread about the blood industry takes a lot of sifting through to figure out what has actually happened and what is just part of WT myth making.
the u.k. to start trials in a new synthetic blood substitute.
all previous versions have failed to gain regulatory approval, but perhaps this one will offer a way out for jehovah's witnesses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i7ouuzbg4c.
VI: ....JWs are forbidden from using whole blood unless it comes from cows
Unless, of course the HLC arranges for the compassionate use of the artificial blood made from human blood, Polyheme. Which they have done on occasion
the u.k. to start trials in a new synthetic blood substitute.
all previous versions have failed to gain regulatory approval, but perhaps this one will offer a way out for jehovah's witnesses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i7ouuzbg4c.
So now we have a possible reason for the recent push to have those DPA documents signed and on file
Thanks for posting this Lee
the wt has promoted bloodless surgery as a viable (and better) alternative to surgery with blood transfusions.. i have found a medical study that has been used to back up these "evidence based" claims.
the title of the article is lessons learned from the outcome of bloodless emergency.
these mostly indigent patients died of peritonitis becauseof delays in payment for antibiotics.
Cool, Fisherguy.
Millie, I have been thinking some more about what you said and I think that you have highlighted another problem with this study. It doesn't extrapolate well to a different geographical population. It has little comparison value to populations with different resources.
Why this is important is because Shannon Farmer and Axel Hoffman, et al, from the SABM crew, used this study to write an article, in 2009, that they used to promote and establish the blood management program in Australia. And...it also was cited in the European guidelines for blood management
jehovah's witnesses post 'anti-gay' 'harness your habits' leaflet in north devon.
devon and cornwall police have said a leaflet posted through doors in north devon isn't a crime – despite it advising gay people to "control their urges".the leaflet, entitled "how to harness your habits", was distributed in north devon by jehovah's witnesses and contains an article asking "what does the bible say about homosexuality?
"in it, the religious group states that "rejecting homosexuality" is completely different to "rejecting people of a different skin colour" and says their views are the same as people who "view smoking as harmful and even repugnant".it also compares gay people to animals, but says "unlike animals, they can choose not to act on their impulses".the journal was contacted by a reader, who wishes to remain anonymous, who felt "belittled" by the leaflet.
millie: I am searching for the right way to say someone gay or hetero, someone male or female - doesnt matter - who is basically standing outside the long arm of the law (in this case a judicial committee) because they are not doing anything that can be used as a technicality against them.
Haha, Millie! We used to call that being in the closet. Has it changed?
Maybe in JW land it has another term...celibate person seems close. Sorta like the Catholic monks, I guess
the wt has promoted bloodless surgery as a viable (and better) alternative to surgery with blood transfusions.. i have found a medical study that has been used to back up these "evidence based" claims.
the title of the article is lessons learned from the outcome of bloodless emergency.
these mostly indigent patients died of peritonitis becauseof delays in payment for antibiotics.
Sorry, Millie...I meant to add that your observations are valid and do reveal what could easily account for the results.
It is just that the reasons don't contribute to the validity of the study overall. It just explains the mistake in methodology and reveals the underlying bias of the authors and a possible motivation for the study being undertaken
the wt has promoted bloodless surgery as a viable (and better) alternative to surgery with blood transfusions.. i have found a medical study that has been used to back up these "evidence based" claims.
the title of the article is lessons learned from the outcome of bloodless emergency.
these mostly indigent patients died of peritonitis becauseof delays in payment for antibiotics.
You are welcome Fisherman.
Don't worry about the copyright stuff. I sleep well at night.
None of the material I posted on this thread is in violation of copyright - it is freely available online for public consumption. It is a non issue
the wt has promoted bloodless surgery as a viable (and better) alternative to surgery with blood transfusions.. i have found a medical study that has been used to back up these "evidence based" claims.
the title of the article is lessons learned from the outcome of bloodless emergency.
these mostly indigent patients died of peritonitis becauseof delays in payment for antibiotics.
Sokay, Millie. All discussion is valid.
I understand now where you are coming from.
My question, then, is this: if the antibiotic scarcity is an issue, why did the paper not address it?
And, regardless, even if that were the case, that the study dealt with indigent women...we already know that the JW women were NOT indigent. Bloodless surgery would be an additional cost from conventional methods of surgery in that environment. If a woman could not afford simple antibiotics, it would seem unlikely that she would be able to afford the extra care that goes along with bloodless methods. And, the paper did not identify lack of funds as the cause for the death in the noblood group like they did with the blood group deaths
The sample groups were not evenly matched. It is likely that there are other, inherent, problems in the cross matching.
The extra care taken with the no blood patients is detailed but the care for the transfused patients has little to no detail. And, we already know that it was substandard. 6 patients died when medication was held back for nonpayment.
Care cannot be measured on economical value of the patient. That is a huge ethical issue
the wt has promoted bloodless surgery as a viable (and better) alternative to surgery with blood transfusions.. i have found a medical study that has been used to back up these "evidence based" claims.
the title of the article is lessons learned from the outcome of bloodless emergency.
these mostly indigent patients died of peritonitis becauseof delays in payment for antibiotics.
scratchme: What I do know now that I work in the medical industry, is that there have been a number of advances and changes in operating and using several procedures without the use of blood, but the JWs have absolutely nothing to do with it.
I am discovering the same thing to a certain extent.
For example, I am halfway through reading Denton Cooley's memoirs and finding out that the JWs had far less credit for some of the advances they try to claim were because of them, than what actually happened, according to Cooley.
And yet, if you read any amounts of the promotional material put out by the SABM and the HLC fellows, along with the textbook material for blood management, the Jehovah's Witness experience is set up as the 'gold standard' without giving credit to the many, many non-JWs who underwent the procedures so that they could benefit.
Without blood transfusions, surgery would never have advanced to the level it has. And the WT/HLC has the gall to refer to bloodless surgery as the 'golden standard' of care
