ChristianObserver

Joined

• started 19 topics
• posted 252 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by ChristianObserver

• 
  37

  READ MY MOLESTER'S LETTER NOW!

  by morrisamb in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  .

  to read my father's (my abuser) letter:.

  click on link: a letter from my molester .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ChristianObserver

  Hello Donald :o)

  What can I say - except - {{{{{{{{Donald}}}}}}}}

  And have you thought of sending a copy of your book to Betsan Powys from the BBC Panorama team? Just wondering if it might produce some more media coverage.
• 
  73

  Joe Anderson's Letter

  by silentlambs in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  j. anderson

  june 5, 2002

  service department.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ChristianObserver

  I sincerely hope that someone within Bethel pays close attention to what Joe Anderson has expressed in his letter and acts to rectify a deplorable situation.

  If the Organisation wishes to apply Deuteronomy 19 verse 15 in support of their *two witnesses* requirement in cases of child abuse, then it should equally apply verses 16 onwards which specifies that the person who has borne *false witness* - in this case J R Brown who besmirched Barbara Anderson's character - should meet the public punishment at Barbara's hand which he sought to bring upon her.

  According to Deuteronomy 19, verse 16 onwards, Barbara could *disfellowship* J R Brown for his false comments about her.

  Or what is the current punishment for a Jehovah's Witness who publicly slandered another Jehovah's Witness in the way in which Mr Brown did Barbara?
• 
  49

  Many more pedaphiles in the churches with reason

  by Bleep in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  there are many many more pedophiles in the churches.

  before making accusations that jehovahs people are the religion of child abusers look at the other churches.

  1. the priests that they have can not marry.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ChristianObserver

  Hello again Bleep :o)

  I responded to your posting Bleep as the statement which you made initially is one I have heard from other Jehovah's Witnesses, but unfortunately, to date, no evidence of the veracity of such a statement has been provided.

  In your defence, you may well be unaware of debating techniques and the requirement to provide evidence for your conclusions; from your reading of organisational literature, you will consider that *tendentious* reporting is perfectly normal; and you endeavour to repeat the party line which you believe to be the *truth*.

  Now outside the WTBTS, people are allowed to read the Bible and debate, discuss - argue even - with whomsoever is willing to engage with them in such discussions. They are able to read articles and scholarly works in the original - and when they do so, they discover that the WTBTS has a great tendency to *selectively quote* from these works, without giving the whole picture. Indeed, in numerous cases, by their use of *selective quotation*, they actually falsify what was written by the scholar. Outside the WTBTS there are people who - in the UK - are not all Daily Mail readers and who consider matters critically and form their own judgements. Outside the WTBTS there are many who display the fruits of the Spirit; who feed the hungry; tend the sick; visit those in prison; protect the vulnerable.

  I have raised several questions for you. Perhaps you missed them. They are several posts above this if you'd like to have a shot at them.

  You have now stated: *I never promised proof with this topic. I provided the reasons the church has more trouble with the issue.*

  I'm afraid that I have to take issue with your second sentence here as you are making some assumptions and we need to clarify some points. You state that *the church has more trouble with the issue*. I am assuming from your comments that you are here referring to the Roman Catholic Church.

  Can you tell us on what data you are basing your *conclusion*? Is it on something that you have read? And if so, where?

  You suggest the following: *The priests that they have can not marry. Makes me think about other vows the nuns make. They have a lot more reasons to child sexual abuse than my religion.*

  Can you tell us why the priests and nuns *have a lot more reasons to child sexual abuse* than your religion does? Can you explain what you mean by your statement *makes me think about other vows the nuns make*? What *other vows* do you mean?

  This place is a *discussion forum* for anything JW related. To enable an informed discussion, it is necessary to provide evidence for claims which we make, otherwise our postings can only be considered to be our own personal opinions, not necessarily grounded in fact. I would suggest that until all cases have been through the courts and the information becomes available to the public it will be impossible to say whether paedophilia is a greater problem within the Roman Catholic Church or the WTBTS. Indeed, we may never know. But what has become apparent over the last few months is that there are cases where those in authority in both groups are culpable of *child abuse* and others in authority in both groups who are culpable of *hushing up* and *perverting the course of justice* in order not to bring reproach on the Church or the organisation respectively. I belong neither to the Roman Catholic Church, nor the WTBTS - I am merely making observations based on what has been reported and admitted regarding each group.

  I will leave you with a further question if I may and would be very interested to know your reply :o)

  As you believe in Satan, do you think that he will be clapping his hands and praising Bill Bowen, Barbara Anderson and those who have highlighted the problem in the Roman Catholic Church for their parts in
  trying to stop children being abused and removing the abusers, or do you think that he will be clapping his hands and praising those priests and their superiors and those elders and their superiors who tried to cover things up, and in so doing, have condemned other innocent victims to suffer at the hands of these known child abusers?
• 
  49

  Many more pedaphiles in the churches with reason

  by Bleep in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  there are many many more pedophiles in the churches.

  before making accusations that jehovahs people are the religion of child abusers look at the other churches.

  1. the priests that they have can not marry.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ChristianObserver

  Hello Bleep :o)

  I'll comment on your point here if I may:

  >There are many many more pedophiles in the churches. Before making accusations that Jehovahs people are the religion of child abusers look at the other churches.

  1. The priests that they have can not marry. Makes me think about other vows the nuns make. They have alot more reasons to child sexual abuse than my religion.>

  I have, unfortunately, and for differing reasons, come into personal contact with 4 paedophiles. The first was a 17 year old boy who molested his sister and 2 of her female friends. The second was a man in his 30's, married with 2 children. The third was another male in his 30's, married with 2 children whose preference was for little boys :'o( The fourth was a male in his 50's, married with 2 children.

  I also taught 2 sisters who could not go to main stream school due to emotional problems following long term sexual abuse by their step-father and his brother. The younger of the sisters was pregnant by her step-father - she was but 15 years old. Both abusers were married men with children.

  So 5 males - all married with children. My personal experience does not bear out your own findings, Bleep.

  I have been told by a Jehovah's Witness that the Roman Catholic Church considers and teaches that it is preferable *for a priest to engage in a sexual relationship with a child, than to marry in order to have a *natural* outlet for their sexual needs*!!!!

  A statement like that could be made only by someone who

  a has absolutely no knowledge of the nature of paedophilia, or

  b has been taught that view by someone with no knowledge themselves, or

  c they or the person who has *taught* them this view, wishes to find fault with the Roman Catholic Church, or

  d has no understanding of the nature of a vow of celibacy.

  Now those within the Roman Catholic Church who have abused children, have broken their vow of celibacy in a most atrocious way. There has been a tremendous scandal about the abuse situation in the Roman Catholic Church and I read that 20 priests implicated in cases have now committed suicide. The Church is now attempting to address the problem that has been exposed, and it is not a moment too soon.

  A vow of celibacy does not solely mean that the person remains unmarried. It is a vow which requires abstension from sexual relations with another person.

  I wonder, Bleep, if you can supply any facts or figures to support your contention that *There are many many more pedophiles in the churches.*?

  Can you supply a reference for these figures which you have for the Churches which have lead you to make such a statement?

  From what figures for Jehovah's Witnesses were you drawing a comparison? Does this statement, *Looking at the database of Jehovahs witnesses (which could be anyone newly baptized) I saw 20,000 cases with three largest countries combined including United States of America* mean that you have had sight of the WTBTS database and that you are confirming a figure of 20,000 paedophiles within three countries within the organisation as recorded therein?

  Apart from the US, what are the other 2 countries included in the 3 countries to which you refer?

  You know, there are a lot of people who are seeking to PROTECT children within the organisation. It is not these people who are bringing *reproach* on Jehovah as Scully has already mentioned. Why would they be bringing *reproach* on Jehovah by trying to protect His children?

  Who in your opinion is bringing the most *reproach* on Jehovah:

  1 the person who claims to be a Jehovah's Witness, but who sexually abuses a child? or

  2 the person who tries to change the policies of the *Watchtower Bible and Tract Society* such that all allegations of sexual abuse are referred to the police so that victims can receive the correct counsel, care and support and the perpetrators of these dreadful crimes can be dealt with appropriately?

  And the paedophile priests from the Roman Catholic Church have brought reproach on whom would you say? God, or the Roman Catholic Church?

  The paedophile Jehovah's Witnesses in positions of service have brought reproach on whom would you say? Jehovah, or the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society?

  Cheers!

  Edited by - ChristianObserver on 18 July 2002 12:43:10
• 
  52

  BRITISH MP CALLS FOR GOV. INQUIRY into abuse

  by hawkaw in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  bill bowen just emailed this to me and i wasn't too sure if had been posted.

  this is very significant.

  if anyone has helen's email or the email of the minister she wrote too asking for the enquiry, please post them.. hawk.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ChristianObserver

  BTTT
• 
  4

  Two witnesses v false witness

  by ChristianObserver in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  "no single witness should rise up against a man respecting any error or any sin, in the case of any sin that he may commit.

  at the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good.

  the wtbts pleads in defence of its policy for paedophile cases that 2 witnesses are required in accordance with deuteronomy 19 v 15. what they fail to grasp is the significance of verse 16 onwards.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ChristianObserver

  Hello :o)

  "No single witness should rise up against a man respecting any error or any sin, in the case of any sin that he may commit. At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good."

  The WTBTS pleads in defence of its policy for paedophile cases that 2 witnesses are required in accordance with Deuteronomy 19 v 15. What they fail to grasp is the significance of verse 16 onwards. The problem, as is often the case with the WTBTS' interpretations, is that they have isolated a verse from its context and then used it in support of their practices. Unfortunately, they do this all too frequently when quoting from the Bible or indeed from most other sources.

  It is necessary to read chapter 19 and more particularly verses 16 onwards, to see what should be done if someone bears *false witness* which MUST be the case if one person accuses another of a wrongdoing which the latter denies (such as in the child abuse cases featured on Dateline and Panorama).

  When an *allegedly* abused person reports to the elders an *alleged abuser*, if the abuser *confesses* - he becomes his own *witness* and verse 15 is fulfilled. HOWEVER, if the *alleged abuser* denies the allegation, verse 16 onwards comes into play in this context as we now have a *false witness* - either the accuser or the accused - and according to the Scriptures, *waiting on Jehovah* is not an option, but the matter is pursued in order to clear the name of the innocent party and then to administer punishment to the guilty one.

  verse 16 onwards: If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him [that which is] wrong Then both the men, between whom the controversy [is], shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, [if] the witness [be] a false witness, [and] hath testified falsely against his brother; Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.

  The provision had previously been made that:

  Exodus 18 v 21: Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place [such] over them, [to be] rulers of thousands, [and] rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, [that] every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear [the burden] with thee.

  Exodus 18 v 26: And they judged the people at all seasons: the hard causes they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves

  Deuteronomy 16 v 18: Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment.

  So in ancient Israel, the accuser and accused would be questioned together by the judges and the implication of *And those which remain shall hear and fear* is that this was a public interrogation (these *courts* were held in public at the gates of the cities).

  The importance of the words in verse 16, however, *shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges* would indicate that here, the *hearing* would be at the gate of the sanctuary as the conflict rendered it too difficult for the ordinary judges and required greater wisdom and experience such as the more difficult cases which Moses heard personally (see Deuteronomy chapter 17).

  So the cases don't stop with the absence of 2 witnesses!! Others know about the cases so that they too can bear witness. These were not hushed up affairs and every effort was to be made to determine which was the guilty party. [In any environment - whether religious or secular - where the general members are kept in the dark about possible paedophile activity, paedophiles, rather than their victims are the ones protected and their reputations remain intact whilst they continue to abuse. This is something that paedophiles rely on - the *secrecy* of their activities.] Moreover, once it was established which of the 2 was the *false witness*, punishment was administered.

  Ancient Israel recognised that not all those who sat as judges at the gates were qualified to hear the complex cases and so further provision was made for dealing with them. This is comparable to the elders of the WTBTS being unqualified to hear cases of alleged child abuse and provision being made for 'both the men, between whom the controversy [is], shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and THE JUDGES WHICH SHALL BE IN THOSE DAYS'.

  As sexual abuse is a criminal activity as defined by law, such cases need to be dealt with by the appropriate authorities who have the duty, the expertise and the resources to follow up allegations. By its very nature, a case involving paedophilia is a complex one, usually involving minors as victims. These cases require the utmost delicacy and sensitivity on the part of those dealing with traumatised individuals, in order to keep further emotional damage to an absolute minimum.

  A couple of questions I have for the WTBTS or its members: how does the organisation fulfill its scriptural public duty as set out in Deuteronomy 19 verse 16 onwards, to deal with the *false witness* situation which occurs in most cases of paedophilia? How does it exonerate the innocent and punish the ones guilty of being a *false witness*?

  When will the organisation realise that the elders are unqualified to conduct enquiries into paedophilia?

  Those running the organisation and dictating the policies have a religious and moral duty of care to their members and will be held accountable according to their own beliefs. Have they been *faithful and discreet* witnesses or have they been *false* witnesses?

  My two penn'orth after watching Panorama!
• 
  21

  Lobby BBCAmerica To Air Panorama!!!

  by AngryXJW in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  bbcamerica has a page where one can submit requests for specific programs:______.

  http://www.bbcamerica.com/about/contactus_email.jsp.

  i have no clue whether this is intended for "other programs" aired by "other bbc affiliates", but it would seem to be worth 5 minutes for everyone to take the time to fill out a request that "suffer the little chidren" be aired on bbcamerica.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ChristianObserver

  And bttt!
• 

  The Governing Body

  by ChristianObserver in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a *gem* from the aol christianity message board.. any thoughts?.

  >subject: re: a strange conversation.... date: 10/07/2002 14:32 gmt standard time.

  from: [email protected] .

• 

  ChristianObserver

  Hello :o)

  A *gem* from the AOL Christianity Message Board.

  Any thoughts?

  >Subject: Re: A strange conversation...
  Date: 10/07/2002 14:32 GMT Standard Time
  From: [email protected]

  >>>>Fro strange conversation with a Jehovah's Witness.
  >But she then said, 'in fact, I don't even know who is on the Governing Body, who give us proper spiritual food at the right time, because they are so humble.'
  > Now, to be perfectly honest, I found that a little bit disturbing.>>>

  She probably meant that she didn't know the names of the Governing Body by heart. I can name one or two from memory but if I wanted the entire list I would have to look them up. There are millions of witnesses throughout the world - we cannot know everybody. We know intimately the elders in our own congregations and we are obviously very close to our Circuit Overseers - similar to a Bishop who visits the congregation every 6 months - he reports back to the organisation with our needs and concerns. As for knowing the Governing Body - they are not that important - they do not teach their own opinions - everything in the Watchtower is supported by scripture and it is the scripture that we follow - not the teachings of the governing body.

  and

  >>>> And more particularly, why do you need the W/T or Awake mags in the first place? Aren't they extra-biblical, ongoing revelation, like the mormon teachings?>>

  They are designed to help us keep up with Bible teaching and also to help teach others about the Bible.

  The Bible is complete - the magazines merely draw attention to what the Bible says and puts it in modern context. In addition there are articles which attempt to answer questions people have about the Bible and to address problems which arise in the Christian congregation amongst imperfect humans.

  Hmmm!
• 
  2

  Bloodless Operations - AOL posting

  by ChristianObserver in

  1. watchtower
  2. medical

  i just found this posted on the christianity board of aol in *topic suggestions* and post it below for anyone interested in the matter or for any aol member who might wish to respond on that board.

  no source was indicated, but the unusaul spacing in parts of the original posting which i have sought to rectify here, would imply an organisational cd or publication.. .

  subject: re: bloodless operations.

  1. 
  2. 
• 

  ChristianObserver

  Hello :o)

  I just found this posted on the Christianity board of AOL in *Topic Suggestions* and post it below for anyone interested in the matter or for any AOL member who might wish to respond on that board. No source was indicated, but the unusaul spacing in parts of the original posting which I have sought to rectify here, would imply an organisational CD or publication.

  Subject: Re: Bloodless Operations
  Date: 09/07/2002 23:09 GMT Standard Time
  From: [email protected]
  
  >Just heard on the news that Derriford Hospital in Plymouth have been pioneering a 'use you own blood' proceedure in thier theatres. While your operation is in progress, a machine cleans your blood and returns it to your body, thus ending the need for using other people's blood. Its not suitable for everyone apparently, but it does reduce the chance of infection and speeds up recovery.
  >
  >Would this be of some use to JWs?

  This technology has been around for some years and many Jehovah's Witnesses make use of machines such as these during surgery. The technology is not only useful for Jehovah's Witnesses though. Many people prefer not to be transfused with blood these days.

  The World Health Organisation reported recently that there are 5,000,000 Hepatitis C virus infections each year as a result of Transfusion and Injection practices.

  As a result of fear of litigation the medical profession are trying to improve the safety of blood transfusion which has resulted in the cost of a unit of blood almost doubling to 142 Euros.

  Added to this has been the cost of compensation to those whose tainted blood transfusion has resulted in major complications resulting in on-going health problems, together with compensation paid out to surviving family members where death of the patient has occurred.

  Major Operations are being carried out throughout the world without blood. There was a case study on a 10 month old girl with a congenital heart defect where the surgery was completed with virtually no blood loss resulting in no transfusion being performed where the heart was stopped for just 26 minutes during the procedure.

  Liver surgery has always traditionally been an operation where there has been severe blood loss and requiring large transfusions of blood. However, using modern methods the cancerous portion of the liver of an elderly man in Germany was performed recently using no blood whatsoever.

  Another operation where there has in the past been high blood loss is knee replacement. However, new techniques of surgery now mean that these operations can be carried out much more safely and successfully without resorting to blood transfusion at all.

  A 4yr old girl in Italy had serious heart defects and required a series of operations, one of these operations was performed with only 100 ml of blood loss and all were carried out without any transfusions of blood.

  Another patient, aged 62 years, had a hip revision, a procedure usually involving greater amounts of transfused blood. He had a total blood loss of 200 ml plus 50 ml post operatively using modern techniques, compared with a patient in the same hospital using standard methods who was transfused with 20 units of blood for the same operation.

  In Leeds St James University Hospital has found that it has had a 70% cost reduction in blood supplies since implementing new techniques. It has carried out numerous operations without using blood. Recently a 19 year old from South Africa flew to Leeds to have a liver transplant performed without blood and was able to fly home again 4 weeks later.

  The medical journal "Clinical Transplantation" documents the case of a 23 year old man with acute liver failure, needing a liver transplant. The average number of units for the type of operation he needed is 43 units, although up to 300 units have been used. By the time he was admitted to hospital he had suffered severe internal bleeding for some time and was in a coma. The medical team that was chosen was able to perform the procedure with a blood loss of two cupfuls, with no blood transfusion. 7 days after the operation he was taken from intensive care to a general ward where he was discharge 11 days later. Within 6 months his blood count was back to normal.

  The recent world wide Sanguis study has shown that many transfusions have been performed unnecessarily exposing patients to nonessential risk. Some hospitals and surgical teams transfuse routinely in hugely larger quantities than others for the same operations. Those who transfused less were able to perform these procedures cheaper, patients had a lower mortality rate and were discharged from hospital earlier with lessened post-operative complications.

  One problem is that of ignorance and failure of medical staff to keep up to date with new information because of the pressure of their working conditions. We are aware personally of a 3 year old with a large tumour of the bowel where doctors were pressurising the parents to consider blood transfusion. When told of the number of drugs plus devices and techniques to reduce blood loss and maximise the body's ability to transport oxygen cells
  available, the consultant had to admit that he had little knowledge and no experience of them.

  Until recently no clinical trials were conducted on blood transfusion to determine accurately the level of haemoglobin at which transfusion should take place. It has been in the past an arbitrary decision of the surgical team involved. It is now recognised that patients can tolerate much lower haemoglobin levels than previously thought provided that fluid volume is compensated for. Some hospitals have changed their blood transfusion trigger from 10 g/dl to 8 g/dl and have found that they have been able to halve the number of units transfused. At Mount Sinai hospital a male patient made a successful recovery from 1.7 g/dl without transfusion. It has also recently been discovered that stored units of blood are subject to bacterial contamination and viral infections which can have severe effects on the patient who is already in a weakened physical condition. Blood is a living organism and yet it is stored in refrigeration units, unfrozen, for up to 6 weeks. Added to this it has also been found that blood transfusion greatly suppresses the Immune System and when given to cancer patients can dramatically increase the risk of further cancer and tumours. In other patients it increases the chance of primary cancer and tumours and other infections overwhelming the body. Some studies indicated that cancer patients who are transfused have a 50% increased chance of death during recovery. The American Journal of Medicine estimated that there are 215 deaths every year for cancer patients caused by post operative infection due to immune suppression from blood transfusion.

  The Canadian Journal of Surgery 1988 reported that in patients with rectal cancer the 10 year survival rate was 82% with no blood transfusion, 53% for those who received 1 - 5 units of blood, 31% for those with 6 - 10 units and 14% for those who had been given more than 10 units.

  Blood transfusion also carried with it the risk of human error, the wrong blood type being transfused which accounts for half of the deaths attributable to blood transfusion. Studies have shown that the more units of blood are transfused the greater number of post operative complications occurred and patients needed to stay in hospital for more days. TRICC study showed that patients who were transfused in liberal amounts had a much higher mortality rate than those who were given restrictive amounts and those that did best were those who were given no blood at all. Therefore blood transfusion does not reduce morbidity and mortality but would appear to actually increase it. In Australia surveys have indicated that 96% of the population there would rather not have blood if there was a choice, however only 4% of those were aware of the alternatives available.

  A much safer treatment is to stimulate red-cell production in the patient by administering Erithmopoetin (EPO), so that the body can compensate for severe blood loss itself.

  Improved surgical methods, for example electro-cautery devices, glue pads and meticulous surgery can minimise blood loss. It is now quite usual and normal practice to use blood salvage techniques during surgery resulting in up to 50% of blood loss during surgery to be reintroduced into the patient.

  Good doctors want to respect patients own views and decisions and to do what is best for the patient bearing in mind their personal choices. Most now recognise that the patients mental well-being has a marked effect on their recovery. In Canada a 15 yr old girl with Leukemia made it quite clear that she did not want treatment involving blood transfusion. Despite her maturity and informed decision the hospital obtained a court decision to give her a blood transfusion and strapped her down on the bed whilst she screamed and struggled and forced blood on her. She subsequently died. This is surely barbaric and tantamount to rape. (Is this Shunned Father's daughter? :o( ) The United Nations recognise that people have the right to make informed decisions on what is done to his or her own body. The UN declaration of human rights and biomedicine, article 5 states that an intervention may only be carried out after the person concerned has given free and informed consent to it. Article 6 states that the opinion of the minor should be taken into consideration in proportion to age and maturity.

  If an individual doctor feels inadequate or underqualified to perform procedures without blood transfusion they should refer the patient to doctors who have the knowledge and experience to perform these modern techniques.

  Whilst in Australia we visited the Kaleeya hospital in Fremantle, near Perth and spent the day with the Coordinator of the Blood Conservation Programme there, together with one of the anaesthetists, who is not one of Jehovah's Witnesses but who regards non-blood surgery as the gold standard to which all doctors should aim, regardless of the religious beliefs of the patient concerned.

  He made the point that 300 years before it was generally accepted there were scientific indications that the universe is expanding. Strongly entrenched beliefs that the universe is static prevented that truth from being accepted. A similar thing has happened with blood transfusion.

  For 2,500 years blood letting was the norm. Whether the patient had broken bones or bleeding blood letting was the treatment. There was no scientific evidence of benefit but they believed in it and so performed it.

  In 1667 the first transfusion of animal blood into a human being was performed in an attempt to cure mental illness. The patient died and blood transfusion was banned for 150 years.

  In 1818 James Blundell, of London, performed the first human blood transfusion, the patient died. He continued to transfuse blood and 50% of his patients died.

  In 1901Kal Landsteiner discovered that humans had different blood groups, for 20 years doctors refused to accept this discovery and ridiculed the idea.

  In 1915 Richard Lewisohn discovered an anticoagulent and found that this improved the ability to store and transfuse blood. It was not until WWII that blood became an accepted method of treatment, and not really until 1945 that it was used on the civilian population.

  In 1957 Denton Cooley found that by performing bloodless heart surgery patients did better and that transfusion complications were avoided. For 40 years prejudice has prevented the acceptance of this fact and doctors routinely give unnecessary blood transfusions.

  In 1970's Dr Ron Lapin and anesthesiologist Fred Garcia established the Institite of Bloodless Medicine and Surgery in California, by 1986 they were able to report their experience with several thousand patients who had undergone major surgery without the use of blood, including general, brain, heart, chest, vascular, cancer, urinary tract, gynaecology and orthopedic surgery. Emergency operations had also been carried out successfully on patients who had haemorrhaged and lost up to 90% of their blood volume. They reported that their patients did as well, or in many cases better than patients who had blood transfusions. The mortality rate and incidence of morbidity was less than in conventional surgery.

  In 1987 Dr Richard Walker writing in the American Journal of Clinical Pathology reported that about 20% of all transfusions resulted in some type of adverse effect.

  In 1990 Dr Charles Higgins, Director of Transfusion Services in the Massachusetts General Hospital was quoted in the Boston Globe magazine as saying that blood is the most dangerous substance we use in medicine.

  The hospital that we visited spoke about two particular cases where accidental injury had resulted in patients having a hemoglobin reading of 4 g/dl where surgery was successfully performed without blood and the patients went on to make excellent recovery within 2 weeks. The normal count for a man is between 14-18 and for a woman between 12 and 16.

  There are wide discrepancies in the practice of transfusing blood. For example for hip replacement operations in the U.K. some hospitals have a 98% rate of transfusion, others have a 25% rate.

  Most doctors will now agree to avoid all allogenic blood on adults, this means that they will agree to not transfuse blood, it does not mean that they are skilled or proficient in employing other methods of treatment. If I decide that I want my bedroom furnished using only natural fabrics and I go to a company that normally supplies man made fabrics and they agree to decorate my room without using these fabrics, they may do so but without curtains, without carpets, without bed-coverings, and the result is not going to be very favourable. They need to be honest and say that they have no ability to provided natural fabrics and refer me to a company that specialises in the fabrics that I require. The same is true of surgery. Patients that request non-blood surgery need to go to doctors who have the modern training and experience in that kind of surgery, otherwise doctors who are used only to surgical techniques where blood transfusion is normally required are not going to be able to carry out these procedures successfully without blood.
  
  Before performing surgery a doctor must prepare his patient by maximising blood production with Iron and EPO. No car driver would set off on a long desert journey without first having a mechanic check out his car and filling up with fuel and water. Iron can be likened to fuel for the body's blood levels and EPO can be likened to an accelerator. You would choose a mechanic who is familiar with the car engine that you have and understands modern engines. Likewise we need doctors who are up-to-date with modern methods of minimising blood loss and blood salvage and understand what actions should be taken in an emergency without using blood. Before surgery it is possible to use haemodilution, taking out blood, diluting the blood in the body so that blood lost contains less red cells, and reintroducing the patient's own blood after surgery. Much blood can be saved by using microsampling for blood tests, it is quite possible to use 1 ml of blood rather than the normal 5 - 10 ml per test previously used which can enable the patient needing multiple tests to retain more of his/her own blood.

  There are many diseases that can be carried in donated blood. AIDS, CJD, VCJD, Hepatitis Cytomeglavirus, Epstein-Barr, Prion Diseaseas, T-T Virus, Malaria, Toxoplasmosis, Typhus, Babesiosis, Borrelia, Filiariasis, Syphilis, Bartonella, Brucella, Salmonellosis, Typhoid etc. In 1975 it was reported that there were 17,000 cases of hepatitis B alone resulting from blood transfusions, with an average of 3,500 deaths per year. A report published in 1998 showed that there were 4 million people in USA along suffering from hepatitis C with 8 - 10,000 deaths per year. In 1993 a study published in the American Journal of Reproductive Medicine estimated that 250,000 women had contracted hepatitis C after being transfused following cesarean sections. Another report in 1995 showed that 20,000 Americans had contracted AIDS from blood transfusion. In Germany in 1993 it was found that a blood supply company had taken short cuts in screening and batches of contaminated blood had been shipped to 86 hospitals including the UK. At the same time a Bombay hospital reported that between 1992 and 1994 1,200 had been infected with HIV and 60,000 with hepatitis C. "Although many measures have been taken to reduce the risks of blood transfusions and although sophisticated technology will continue to improve its safety, it is not possible to provide a blood supply with zero risk." Practice parameter for the use of red blood cell transfusion - 1998. It has been estimated that the risk of contracting a serious or fatal transfusion transmitted disease is about 3 in every 10,000 units. The mortality rate is estimated at between 29 and 103 per million units. That seems small until you realise that there are 11- 12 million units transfused each year in the USA alone. In the UK the most obvious threat is
  CJD. In Australia no-one who has lived in the United Kingdom for last 10 years can be blood donor. Far more people are dying as a direct result of blood transfusion than have died from refusing one. In July 1999 the medical journal Transfusion showed that there was 35% greater risk of serious bacterial infection and a 52% greater risk of pneumonia associated with blood transfusion. Additionally 28.8% died as a result of these infections.

  To sum up - the benefits of bloodless surgery are that your avoid the potential risks of contracting disease. You avoid a host of transfusion reactions and possible complications. You enhance your chances of quicker recovery after an operation. You generally can expect to spend fewer bed days in hospital with lower hospital and medical costs. If you have surgery for cancer chances for your long-term survival are likely to be improved. You reduce the risk of getting an infection after an operation and are thereby less like to need antibiotic therapy with its attendant risks and complications.

  For those who would like more information John Wilson Booksales in Princes Risborough distribute a book called Your Body, Your Choice. Tel: 01844 275927 Fax: 01844 274402. The book gives frank information about the dangers and risks of blood transfusions and outlines the many alternatives that there are available to us today.

  Andrea

  End of quote.
• 
  63

  Calgary Blood Case Effectively Over - We Won!

  by AlanF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  thought everyone would like to hear some great news about the calgary blood case.

  i was sent the following, which i've modified to protect the guilty:.

  at the witnesses' request, the trial has been put over till october.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ChristianObserver

  Hello Alan and Lee and all others who have been posting news of this court case and who have been *fighting* on behalf of this young girl :o)

  I am shedding tears of joy that she has been given the best chance of survival with the best available medical treatment and I pray that she will recover and that one day she will recognise *truth*.

  Will she ever know that her father's battle against an organisation which required her *possible* death and which reputedly informed her that she would make the front page of Awake as a martyr, was partly funded by anonymous people from an international internet community?

  Will she ever know that there is a committed group of people at the AJWRB who are trying to get the WTBTS to *think* rationally?

  Will she ever know that there were those who voluntarily gave of their time and resources in order to give her the best medical treatment currently available for her disease?

  Maybe...........maybe..........

  But what is clear is that now there is a *counter-organisation* of caring individuals which has become mobilised, which is focussing on important issues and which is making itself heard at last.

  The WTBTS with all its wealth and with all its lawyers has essentailly backed down and we are left to wonder why.

  Perhaps they have not before met with such *organised* and *informed* opposition maybe.......?

  Is this a first? Well, I'm certain that it won't be the last! And as HQ ponders this case and the financial implications of it, what changes to the blood policy will emerge?

  To all the major *players* in this case - what an achievement! You may have saved the life of an innocent who has never been taught the *other side* of the scriptural argument.

  To all the minor *players* - you rock!

  To Simon - gee, thanks for this board!

  And to all who are members of the organisation, the words of the official blood brochure come to mind: *Still, for years claims have been made that blood saves lives. Doctors can relate cases in which someone had acute blood loss but was transfused and then improved rapidly. So you may wonder, 'How wise or unwise is this medically?' Medical evidence is offered to support blood therapy. Thus, you owe it to yourself to get the facts in order to make an informed choice about blood.*

  I suggest that you visit: www.ajwrb.org