don’t confuse bald assertions with evidence. -You
"Bald assertions" don't validate interpretations and conclusions either. -Me
And let me put it another way: My "bald assertions" don't make your interpretations and conclusions any more valid.
while making bread this morning and between answering the door and phone calls, i listened on steam radio to the programme in our time with melvyn bragg.
his panel of experts explained how the discovery of thousands of bird fossils has revolutionised our perception of avian evolution.
i recall watchtower literature smugly presenting darwin’s admissions in his origin of the species that the geological evidence for bird evolution is “imperfect” in fact missing.
while making bread this morning and between answering the door and phone calls, i listened on steam radio to the programme in our time with melvyn bragg.
his panel of experts explained how the discovery of thousands of bird fossils has revolutionised our perception of avian evolution.
i recall watchtower literature smugly presenting darwin’s admissions in his origin of the species that the geological evidence for bird evolution is “imperfect” in fact missing.
while making bread this morning and between answering the door and phone calls, i listened on steam radio to the programme in our time with melvyn bragg.
his panel of experts explained how the discovery of thousands of bird fossils has revolutionised our perception of avian evolution.
i recall watchtower literature smugly presenting darwin’s admissions in his origin of the species that the geological evidence for bird evolution is “imperfect” in fact missing.
i was just shown a jc letter from a friend and i noticed that the bottom of it was signed by tree elders.
the letter specifically stated that it was an invitation to a "judicial committee" due to the brother having a marital relationship that was not aligned with bible principles.. i am asking because i remember reading experiences of brothers who demanded their jc be arranged over certified mail with signed letters to which elders refused to do.
since they could not get this done the matter was dropped and no dfing ever happened.
female martyrs will be chief of 72 virgins the fairest of the women, and plus she will made beautiful , happy and without jealousy .."whoopee" their paradise is worst than jw's paradise..
female martyrs will be chief of 72 virgins the fairest of the women, and plus she will made beautiful , happy and without jealousy .."whoopee" their paradise is worst than jw's paradise..
http://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/blood-transfusion-case-before-supreme-court/.
blood transfusion case before supreme court.
mother refuses transfusion on religious grounds for daughter with leukemia.
if any alternatives would come under consideration, which in turn, would speak directly to the question(s) of whether they are "more work" and/or "less profitable."
"You can't treat leukemia without blood products."
As it relates to the specific case on this thread, the Court decided that doctors should try alternatives first. Relating to the treatment of leukemia, as a general rule, when chemo is used to treat the disease, blood is also used to treat the effects that chemo has on the blood of the patient, as you already explained. As my linked article shows, some JW survive the chemo without blood, others die, but others die too even with the blood. Also as it relates to leukemia, at this time, not based on a doctor's opinion but according to standard medical treatment for the disease, they use blood, not because it is more propfitable or easier but because they know it works- at least short term. Long term, every 9 minutes someone dies from leukemia, even those with the blood transfusions, whether you want to call the BT treatment for leukemia or for chemo.
http://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/blood-transfusion-case-before-supreme-court/.
blood transfusion case before supreme court.
mother refuses transfusion on religious grounds for daughter with leukemia.
Transfusion is actually not a treatment for leukemia in and of itself
Academic discussion.
No blood management becomes inapplicable at that point. --You can't manage what's not there.
"No blood management" becomes 'inapplicable' at any point in treating any health problem where blood is the one and only efficacious treatment, as for example treating the consequences of chemo given to a patient with leukemia in a given case.
http://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/blood-transfusion-case-before-supreme-court/.
blood transfusion case before supreme court.
mother refuses transfusion on religious grounds for daughter with leukemia.
http://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/blood-transfusion-case-before-supreme-court/.
blood transfusion case before supreme court.
mother refuses transfusion on religious grounds for daughter with leukemia.
Are you sure you understand how leukemia is treated
@TD: My statement is true whether or not blood is the most effective or the only effective treatment for any given illness --but I was not referring specifically to lukemia in my post. If a person looses about 20 percent of blood volume for example, they can go into hypovolemic shock, blood expanders can help to a point but there comes a point where only blood will help.
Blood harvested for BT should come from non infected, willing donors that are not killed for the product; and since blood is being used to save a human life and no harm is being done to another person, it is easy to feel that a BT is not wrong. But is there ever a point where a person should feel that it is wrong to commit an act for the purpose of self preservation?
https://transfusionfree.usc.edu/case-studies/case-study-transfusion-free-leukemia-treatment/