OrphanCrow

Joined

• started 195 topics
• posted 4,799 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by OrphanCrow

• 
  9

  Pity the poor Bible believers - Australian Native People left Africa over 70,000 years ago

  by fulltimestudent in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  many bible believers accept the genesis documents explanations of human origins.

  but the modern science of genomics is making that a very difficult intellectual position to hold.. increasingly, to believe the bible, is to accept superstition over rationality.. three papers published in the scientific journal nature demonstrate the point:.

  1. the ancestors of australia aboriginal and papuan peoples left africa around 72,000 years ago.. 2. they arrived in the geological locations we now identify as australia and papua around 50,000 years ago.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OrphanCrow

  Sir82, you left out the part that says "Satan did it"

  
  
• 
  10

  Canadian Medical Doctor Exposes Dr. Aryeh Shander's Faulty Bloodless Research

  by OrphanCrow in

  1. watchtower
  2. medical

  in the june 2016 issue of cmaj, dr. hebert published an article, survival without transfusion is possible but not recommended for all, that critiques dr. aryeh shander's research study outcomes of protocol-driven care of critically ill severely anemic patients for whom blood transfusion is not an option, published in critical care medicine 2016. .

  http://journals.lww.com/ccmjournal/citation/2016/06000/survival_without_transfusion_is_possible_but_not.31.aspx.

  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26807684.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OrphanCrow

  Thanks for the feedback Simon

  What struck me, and impressed me, about Dr. Hebert's article, was his concern for the families of those who refuse blood. He is saying, "What do I tell the families of my patients who are about to die? What do I tell them when their loved one is approaching that critical threshold point? How do I deal with their protestations that the bloodless research says such and such when I know that this research is faulty? How do I do my job?"

  Dr. Hebert's article reveals his compassion. I like that. He is the kind of doctor I would want and the kind that everyone should be so lucky to have - not a doctor who publishes biased research.
• 
  10

  Canadian Medical Doctor Exposes Dr. Aryeh Shander's Faulty Bloodless Research

  by OrphanCrow in

  1. watchtower
  2. medical

  in the june 2016 issue of cmaj, dr. hebert published an article, survival without transfusion is possible but not recommended for all, that critiques dr. aryeh shander's research study outcomes of protocol-driven care of critically ill severely anemic patients for whom blood transfusion is not an option, published in critical care medicine 2016. .

  http://journals.lww.com/ccmjournal/citation/2016/06000/survival_without_transfusion_is_possible_but_not.31.aspx.

  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26807684.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OrphanCrow

  In the June 2016 issue of CMAJ, Dr. Hebert published an article, Survival Without Transfusion Is Possible but Not Recommended for All, that critiques Dr. Aryeh Shander's research study Outcomes of Protocol-Driven Care of Critically Ill Severely Anemic Patients for Whom Blood Transfusion Is Not an Option, published in Critical Care Medicine 2016.

  http://journals.lww.com/ccmjournal/Citation/2016/06000/Survival_Without_Transfusion_Is_Possible_but_Not.31.aspx

  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26807684

  Dr. Aryeh Shander is familiar to anyone who follows the blood management and the bloodless surgery industry. Shander is the "face" of blood management worldwide. I have spoke of him many times on this forum and elsewhere.

  But who is Dr. Paul Hebert? What qualifies him to critique Shander's research?

  http://criticalcarecanada.com/faculty/scientific-faculty/dr-paul-hebert/
  

  Dr. Paul C. Hébert is Head of Department of Medicine, a scientist and a Critical Care Physician at The Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montreal. He is also Chair of the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. During his 14 years on Faculty at the University of Ottawa, Dr. Hébert established the Clinical Epidemiology Program at the General Campus of The Ottawa Hospital (1998) and the University of Ottawa Centre for Transfusion Research. Dr. Hébert’s research interests center on the examination of transfusion practice, including the use of alternatives to transfusion, blood conservation, resuscitation fluids, as well as on cardiac resuscitation and trauma research. Dr. Hébert has undertaken more than 30 research projects with a focus on transfusion practice and bleeding control. To date, he has published more than 250 articles and he obtained a large number of peer-reviewed grants (with a combined value in excess of $40 millions).

  Dr.Paul Hebert was also the editor-in-chief of the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ), Canada’s leading peer-reviewed medical journal from 2007-2011.

  The objective of Shander et al's study was "to compare the outcomes of severely anemic criticallyill patients for whom transfusion is not an option (“bloodless” patients) with transfused patients." To do this, "one hundred seventy-eight bloodless and 441 transfused consecutive severely anemic, critically ill patients, admitted between May 1996 and April 2011", were selected and compared.

  Shander et al concluded this:

  Overall risk of mortality in severely anemic critically ill bloodless patients appeared to be comparable with transfused patients, albeit the latter group had older age and higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score. Use of a protocol to manage anemia in these patients in a center with established patient blood management and bloodless medicine and surgery programs is feasible and likely to contribute to improved outcome, whereas more studies are needed to better delineate the impact of such programs.

  Is this a valid conclusion? That "...Overall risk of mortality in severely anemic critically ill bloodless patients appeared to be comparable with transfused patients"? Dr. Hebert disagrees and he discusses the problem with Shander's methodology:

  The authors made a number of inferences regarding outcomes
  from the transfused and untransfused population of
  critically ill patients. Overall, these populations were quite different
  at baseline; they were younger, less severely ill, and more
  often admitted to ICU for postoperative care. So comparing
  rates of death without some form of statistical adjustment
  would not be fruitful. There is, however, no guarantee that any
  form of statistical manipulation will provide an unbiased and
  unconfounded comparison.

  Next, Hebert tells us how Shader et al approached this statistical problem:

  Shander et al (1) opted to use a method of analysis called
  propensity analysis to improve the matching between groups.
  The choice of the many propensity analyses is not created
  equal and may not be superior to other methods in this regard
  (2). Using this approach, they ended up selecting a group of
  patients who did not develop extreme anemia.
  So what did happen with the use of the propensity matching
  technique? The technique invariably removed approximately
  half the deaths. The most severely anemic patients
  were removed from the analysis by design. Therefore, mortality
  rates were drastically decreased in both groups but
  more so in the bloodless group. By doing so, both groups
  ended up looking comparable with average hemoglobin
  concentrations that were not much lower than a standard
  restrictive strategy.

  Dr. Hebert identifies the underlying problem with this type of study:

  At the outset, it is not possible to produce meaningful comparisons
  between a group of patients who will not receive any
  blood products to a group who does. This is because risks
  increase as hemoglobin concentrations drop. Therefore, risks
  of death attributed to anemia in the bloodless group will always
  be higher than in a transfused cohort. There is no ethically
  acceptable manner to allow the transfused group to develop
  extreme anemia prior to being transfused.

  Dr. Hebert discusses the one redeeming feature of Shander's study: it shows how risk of death increases dramatically once a certain level of hemoglobin deficiency is reached:

  ...mortality rates with hemoglobin
  concentrations below 3 g/dL is over 55% and drop precipitously
  to somewhere around 28% when hemoglobin concentrations
  are between 3.1 and 4 g/dL. Anemia in the bloodless group was
  thought to be the primary cause of death in 36% of all deaths.

  Dr. Hebert then goes on to identify what information was left out in Shander's study, that could have been useful to include:

  Additional information would have been useful to readers. A
  figure of all patients divided by transfused and not transfused
  would have also been very useful. Also, it would have been interesting
  to examine whether such severe anemia also increases
  other risks: for example, functional outcomes from prolonged
  ICU stays.

  And why would this information be useful?

  These rates, albeit from a single center with extensive
  experience with extreme anemia, provide some information to
  provide families of critically ill patients who refuse blood.

  In conclusion, Dr. Hebert addresses the impact of this failed study on the families who are faced with making decisions about the care of a patient with severe anemia:

  In summary, these observations demonstrate that acute
  severe anemia is lethal. It directly contributes to the death
  when hemoglobin concentrations fall below 3 g/dL. Furthermore,
  from the data provided, we would be unable to
  provide meaningful comparisons of risks of death comparing
  transfused with nontransfused patients to families when
  lowest measured hemoglobin concentrations were between
  3 and 7 g/dL.

  Far too often, JW patients approach medical problems with erroneous and incomplete information that has been fed to them by the WT. Doctors are then left with the task of trying to give those patients reliable and accurate information - a task that is often insurmountable.
  

  Dr. Paul Hebert has shown why Dr. Aryeh Shader's research is shoddy and incomplete. Shander's study fails the sniff test and the reader is left wondering why and how research like this comes about. Sponsorship is the very first place that a person can get some clues.
  

  Dr. Hebert's article has this attached to it:

  The author has disclosed that he does not have any potential conflicts of
  interest

  Aryeh Shander's study has this attached to it:
  

  Dr. Shander received funding from Bayer, Luitpold, and Masimo; has been
  a consultant or speaker with honorarium for or received research support
  from Bayer, Luitpold, Masimo, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, OrthoBiotech,
  Pfizer, Masimo, and Zymogenetics; and is a founding member of the Society
  for the Advancement of Blood Management (SABM).

  Aryeh Shander - a founding member of the Society for the Advancement of Blood Management. The society that sets the standards for blood management. The society that was founded along with members of the Hospital Liaison Committees of the Watchtower Society.

  Dr. Shander - the "face" of blood management. The hero of bloodless surgery. The co-author of the seminal textbook used to educate blood management professionals - co-authored with a German JW doctor - Dr. Petra Seeber.

  Dr. Shander - the spokesperson for STORMACT.

  Dr. Shander - the doctor who went to Russia to promote blood management with Sherri Ozawa, the JW blood management 'specialist'.

  Dr. Shander - a researcher who manipulates data to get the results he needs in order to promote bloodless procedures

  It will be interesting to see if Shander's latest published research get presented at upcoming professional seminars and cited in support of bloodless procedures. I wonder how many citations Shander's shoddy research will get within the blood management world.

  Much thanks goes out to Dr. Paul Hebert who has taken the time to expose researchers like Aryeh Shander who manipulate data to get the results they want.
  

  *note - if anyone is having trouble accessing Dr. Hebert's article and Shander's research study...I am pretty sure Wifibandit will be able to help you out
• 
  9

  The Blood Transfusion Act 1960 - Australia

  by OrphanCrow in

  1. watchtower
  2. medical

  australia passed an act in 1960 that allowed doctors to give a blood transfusion, if necessary, to minor children.. i am curious as to whether this act - the blood transfusion act 1960 - is still in effect in australia.

  and i would also like to know if any australian jws are aware of this act.

  are australian jws still told to resist blood transfusions for their minor children?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OrphanCrow

  These cases are complex. As you likely read, the 17 y.o. young man in one of my cited cases is stating that he will not allow a transfusion to be given to him.
  And, in a comparatively short time, when he is of age, it will all be hypothetical.

  The novel written by Ian McEwen, The Children Act, deals with exactly that issue. It is an interesting novel told from the point of view of the judge who decides the case
• 
  9

  The Blood Transfusion Act 1960 - Australia

  by OrphanCrow in

  1. watchtower
  2. medical

  australia passed an act in 1960 that allowed doctors to give a blood transfusion, if necessary, to minor children.. i am curious as to whether this act - the blood transfusion act 1960 - is still in effect in australia.

  and i would also like to know if any australian jws are aware of this act.

  are australian jws still told to resist blood transfusions for their minor children?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OrphanCrow

  fts: what do you think of this case?

  I think the boy was fortunate to have a smart judge
• 
  9

  The Blood Transfusion Act 1960 - Australia

  by OrphanCrow in

  1. watchtower
  2. medical

  australia passed an act in 1960 that allowed doctors to give a blood transfusion, if necessary, to minor children.. i am curious as to whether this act - the blood transfusion act 1960 - is still in effect in australia.

  and i would also like to know if any australian jws are aware of this act.

  are australian jws still told to resist blood transfusions for their minor children?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OrphanCrow

  Fulltimestudent, I just read the case you linked about the 7 year old boy.

  It seems so pointless. If the JW parents know about this act, then they should know that going to court is a lost cause. So does the WTS - they know that the court will order blood transfusions for minor children

  Why doesn't the WTS back off on making the parents refuse blood for minor children when they know damn well that it will just cost money and cause stress for the JW parents to go to court? And the ones who pay the price are the children and parents...not the WTS

  Why do they still insist on making this issue into a media circus? Do they need the publicity that bad? What law are they trying to challenge? The right of the parent to engage in child sacrifice as a religious activity?
• 
  9

  The Blood Transfusion Act 1960 - Australia

  by OrphanCrow in

  1. watchtower
  2. medical

  australia passed an act in 1960 that allowed doctors to give a blood transfusion, if necessary, to minor children.. i am curious as to whether this act - the blood transfusion act 1960 - is still in effect in australia.

  and i would also like to know if any australian jws are aware of this act.

  are australian jws still told to resist blood transfusions for their minor children?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OrphanCrow

  fts: I was lucky enough to get disfellowshipped last century, but back in the day all JWs in OZ are (i'm quite sure) are aware of the act.

  Thanks for your feedback

  That is interesting. I have a exJW friend in Australia (that left last century too) and she often expresses her concern that she wouldn't have received blood as a minor. She didn't know that as a child, she wouldn't have been allowed to bleed to death.

  This is what I found out about why the act was put in place to begin with:

  VICTORIA v. ALVIN LEONARD JEHU was AUSTRALIA'S FIRST CRIMINAL PROSECUTION of a Jehovah's Witness Parent for refusing to provide consent for blood transfusions needed by their child who eventually died. In January 1959, the Jehus FOURTH child needed an exchange blood transfusion due to complications from Rh factor incompatibility between the mother and child. For two days, newborn Stephen Jehu clung to life as doctors, nurses, and hospital administrators at Queen Victoria Hospital futilely begged Alvin L. Jehu, age 28, and his unidentified JW Wife, of East Preston, to give them consent to perform the required life-saving blood transfusions.
  Thereafter, the State of Victoria indicted Alvin Leonard Jehu on charges of MANSLAUGHTER. In March 1960, a jury convicted Alvin Jehu of manslaughter, but also recommended "mercy" regarding his sentence. Jehu was sentenced to 5 years in prison, but that sentence was instantly probated, and Jehu was released on a 5-year "good behavior" bond.
  Undoubtedly at the behest of the WatchTower Society, Jehu filed an appeal based on the alleged violation of his religious rights, and the alleged violation of his rights as a parent to choose the best medical care for his children. (During the trial, Jehu had testified that he genuinely believed that blood transfusions actually were physically "dangerous" based on the "medical evidence" presented in WatchTower Cult publications.) Appeal not found. The WatchTower Society PRAISED the Jehus in an AWAKE! magazine article published later in 1960.
  The positive from this well-publicized MURDER was that Australia's hospitals became aware and were motivated to petition local courts for legal intervention in such scenarios. Prior to this case, there had been scattered instances of hospitals seeking court intervention, but such was the exception rather than the rule, and the result had been multiple deaths of children of Jehovah's Witness parents across Australia during the 1950s.
  In December 1960, the State of Victoria passed the BLOOD TRANSFUSION ACT OF 1960, which amended the Medical Act of 1958, to hold that a competent medical technician who administers a blood transfusion to a person under the age of 21 was considered to have been authorized by a person capable of such authorization when such person has refused or otherwise is unavailable to do so, and when two physicians have agreed that such transfusion is medically necessary.

  http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com/bloode.html
  

  The website I found this on list many, many court cases concerning blood refusal. I have to say, though...the editor/website owner's commentary leaves a little to be desired - sometimes his comments come across as racist and misogynistic. However, the website has a lot of good information...if you can ignore the commentary
• 
  9

  The Blood Transfusion Act 1960 - Australia

  by OrphanCrow in

  1. watchtower
  2. medical

  australia passed an act in 1960 that allowed doctors to give a blood transfusion, if necessary, to minor children.. i am curious as to whether this act - the blood transfusion act 1960 - is still in effect in australia.

  and i would also like to know if any australian jws are aware of this act.

  are australian jws still told to resist blood transfusions for their minor children?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OrphanCrow

  Australia passed an act in 1960 that allowed doctors to give a blood transfusion, if necessary, to minor children.

  I am curious as to whether this Act - the Blood Transfusion Act 1960 - is still in effect in Australia. And I would also like to know if any Australian JWs are aware of this act. Are Australian JWs still told to resist blood transfusions for their minor children?

  http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/acts/1960-27.pdf
  

  PUBLIC HEALTH (AMENDMENT) ACT.
  Act No. 27, 1960.
  An Act relating to the immunisation of children against
  certain diseases and the giving of blood transfusions
  to children; for these purposes to amend
  the Public Health Act, 1902-1952; and for
  purposes connected therewith. [Assented to, 19th
  April, 1960.]

  The first past of the act concerns vaccinations and the latter part, with administrating blood transfusions to minors:

  39D. (1) A legally qualified medical practitioner may
  perform the operation of transfusion of human blood
  upon a minor without the consent of the parents or surviving
  parent of such minor or any other person legally
  entitled to consent to such operation if: —
  (a) such parents, parent or other person when
  requested so to do have or has not consented to
  such operation, or after such search and inquiry
  as is reasonably practicable in the emergency
  such parents, parent or other person cannot be
  found; and
  (b) such legally qualified medical practitioner and at
  least one other legally qualified medical practitioner
  have agreed—
  (i) upon the condition from which the minor
  is suffering; and
  (ii) that such operation is a reasonable and
  proper one to be performed for such
  condition; and
  (iii) that such operation is essential in order
  to save the life of such minor; and
  (c) such legally qualified medical practitioner has
  had previous experience in performing the
  operation of transfusion of human blood and
  before commencing such operation has assured
  himself that the blood to be transfused is compatible
  with that of the minor.
  (2) Where an operation of the nature referred to
  in subsection one of this section has been performed on a
  minor without the consent of the parents or surviving
  parent of such minor or any other person legally entitled
  to consent to such operation and in respect of such operation
  the requirements and conditions of the said subsection
  have been complied with such operation shall be
  deemed to have been performed with the consent which
  but for the provisions of this section would have been
  required for the performance of such operation.
  (3) The powers conferred on a legally qualified
  medical practitioner by this section shall be in addition to
  and not in derogation of any other powers of the legally
  qualified medical practitioner in relation to the performance
  of the operation of transfusion of human blood
  upon a minor.

  It appears as though New Zealand has also had much the same legislation in place since at least 1961:

  http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/haa19611961n113176.pdf
  

  2. Blood transfusions-The principal Act is hereby amended
  by inserting, after section 126A (as inserted by section 6 of
  the Health Amendment Act 1960), the following section:
  "126B. (1) In this section, the term 'blood transfusion',
  or 'transfusion', means the injection of whole human blood,
  or any constituent part or parts thereof, into the bloodstream
  of any person.
  "(2) Except by leave of a Judge of ,the Supreme Court,
  no proceedings, civil or criminal, shall be brought against any
  person, in respect of the administration by any medical practitioner
  of any blood transfusion to any person under the age
  of twenty-one years (in this section referred to as the patient),
  by reason of the lack of consent of any person whose consent
  is required by law.

  It is too bad that other countries, most notably, the United States, didn't follow Australia and New Zealand's example in back in the 60s. The number of courtroom dramas played out in American courts in the 60s and 70s (and later...) concerning minors and the administration of blood, would not have been necessary and, the number of JW children who died because of blood refusal would have been substantially reduced.
• 
  32

  Using the term "Watchtower" when talking to a JW

  by Sanchy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  has anyone else noticed how alarm bells go off inside a jw mind as soon as they hear someone that "is out" refer to the leaders of this org as "watchtower"?

  i've chatted with a few friends now about my doubts and each and every time i've started using phrases such as "watchtower said this" or "watchtower did that", i can almost see their heads about to explode in anger, as if they've just realized they are talking to the lucifer himself.

  some have even interrupted and corrected me by reminding me that it's not "watchtower", it's "god's organization".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OrphanCrow

  polishclarinet: a few months ago, I was not very surprised to learn that ISIS wa also called "the organization" by its followers...

  Here is a tip - don't ever walk into a police station and tell them that you used to be a member of a worldwide organization...
• 
  14

  Elder Arrest Scaremongering

  by jw07 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  last week there was a meeting with all the elders and ministerial servants about responsibility in the kingdom hall and blah blah blah.. one elder brought up a scenario where all the elders were arrested, and we were asked if the meeting would still go on, and how.. this is the second time within a month that i've heard that scenario posed by an elder in my congregation.. does anyone have any idea of the trash being fed to them in letters recently?.

  is this a scenario that hq is putting out there, or are the fear mongering convention videos driving their imaginations wild?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OrphanCrow

  sir82: ...dude took the RC videos too seriously

  Yeah...he was probably reading threads on here that speculated that very thing - that elders were going to be arrested for non-compliance with mandatory reporting laws. Their suspicions likely come from reading *gasp* apostate sites