blood transference?.
watchtower doctrine has advanced the natural and healthy transference of blood constituents via the placenta as a basis for letting witnesses accept blood fractions.
there is a fundamental flaw in that particular proposition that presents an internal contradiction to watchtowers blood doctrine.
TD - have I ever told you that you're awesome?
I think this explains why the watchtower hasn't really ever commented on this gaping hole in their blood policy. The comment comes from the pro-wt site: noblood.org which supposedly is run by medical professionals that are JWs.
blood transference?.
watchtower doctrine has advanced the natural and healthy transference of blood constituents via the placenta as a basis for letting witnesses accept blood fractions.
there is a fundamental flaw in that particular proposition that presents an internal contradiction to watchtowers blood doctrine.
This issue pretty much broke the camel's back for me. I had stopped believing in many teachings prior to this (1914, global flood, etc.), but upon my own similar research of medical journals (ironically done for a part on the service meeting) I learned about this glaring dillema. I also learned about blood transference between identical twins in the womb. It finally hit me that it would be dangerous for me to be part of a religion where I have to tell other people not to do what occurs in nature (Or as some may claim, by God's own design).
Along those lines, Marvin or TD - I would be very interested in your commentary on this thread from noblood.org:
http://www.noblood.org/general-discussions/6286-mothers-milk
Here are some quotes from the pro JW's rebuttals:
Human breast milk does indeed contain certain white blood cells. These can help to pass on disease-fighting capacity to the nursing infant. It seems however that these white blood cells, or leukocytes, come from the mother's lymphatic system rather than directly from her blood stream (the breasts are richly supplied with lymph vessels). Though clearly identifiable as leukocytes, they appear to have somewhat differing morphology and motility from the ones found in the blood stream.
Here is a quote from the article "How Breastmilk Protects Newborns" by Jack Newman MD
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }Breastfeeding Articles by Dr. Jack Newman - Breastfeeding Online:
"As is true of defensive molecules, immune cells are abundant in human milk. They consist of white blood cells, or leukocytes, that fight infection themselves and activate other defense mechanisms. p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; } The most impressive amount is found in colostrum. Most of the cells are neutrophils, a type of phagocyte that normally circulates in the bloodstream. Some evidence suggests that neutrophils continue to act as phagocytes in the infant's gut. Yet they are less aggressive than blood neutrophils and virtually disappear from breast milk six weeks after birth. So perhaps they serve some other function, such as protecting the breast from infection. "The next most common milk leukocyte is the macrophage, which is phagocytic like neutrophils and performs a number of other protective functions. Macrophages make up some 40 percent of all the leukocytes in colostrum. They are far more active than milk neutrophils, and recent experiments suggest that they are more motile than are their counterparts in blood. Aside from being phagocytic, the macrophages in breast milk manufacture lysozyme, increasing its amount in the infant's gastrointestinal tract. Lysozyme is an enzyme that destroys bacteria by disrupting their cell walls. " In addition, macrophages in the digestive tract can rally lymphocytes into action against invaders. Lymphocytes constitute the remaining 10 percent of white cells in the milk. About 20 percent of these cells are B lymphocytes, which give rise to antibodies; the rest are T lymphocytes, which kill infected cells directly or send out chemical messages that mobilize still other components of the immune system. Milk lymphocytes seem to behave differently from blood lymphocytes. Those in milk, for example, proliferate in the presence of Escherichia coli, a bacterium that can cause life-threatening illness in babies, but they are far less responsive than blood lymphocytes to agents posing less threat to infants. Milk lymphocytes also manufacture several chemicals-including gamma-interferon, migration inhibition factor and monocyte chemotactic factor-that can strengthen an infant's own immune response." p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; } So the leukocytes in mother's milk would appear to be specialized for the particular job they have to do in the baby's immune system. Originating in the lymph vessels, they are evidently separate and distinct from those circulating in the mother's blood vessels.
And also:
Hello again,
I will try to explain it a little bit more what I mean. This is only an addition not a new statement. As everybody here in this forum knows, the whole blood exists of four main components:
plasma, erythrocytes, leucocytes and thrombocytes. JW refuse to get one ore more of this main components or the whole blood for a transfusion.
This four main components can be subdivided in subcomponents: erytrocytfractions, leucocytefractions, thrombofractions and plasmafraction. Plasma for example includes water (more than 90%), albumin (4%), glubolin (3%) fibrinogen(1%), etc. Erythrocytes: hemoglobin, h?min, etc.
Thrombocytes ...
leucocytes: neutrophil granulocytes (50 bis 80%) * eosinophil granulocytes (2-4%)
* basophile granulocytes (0,5-1%)
* monocytes (2-8 %)
* lymphocytes (25- 40 %)
It ?s a matter of their conscience if JW refuse to get fractions or if they allow to get them transfused. Some say no, others say yes. The question now is: are all the components of the white cell, like neutrophil granulocytes or basophile granulocytes autonomous parts like the erythrocytes as collectivity, or are they "only"components of the white cell and all together are the leucocyte?
In my opinion like for example the hemoglobin alone is not the red blood cell, but only a part of it, so are the neutrophil granulocytes or the basophil granulocytes not the white cell but belongs to the whole part.
On the other side it is interesting to see that for example the neutrophil granulocytes stay only 6-8 hours in the blood circuit - then they disappear to the surface of the mucous membrane. Could they be there still main components of the blood ? They do separate from the blood blood any more. Interesting things are going on in the body. and do "lead a own life", but not in the If all the parts of the leucocytes are autonomous main blood products, that means they are all main components of the whole blood , the question would be legitimate why a main component of the blood is transfused from a mother to a child. But as an embryo do not get the whole blood from the mother, but fractions (also parts of white cells) to stabilize the immunity, so in the mother?s milk the baby gets important components to continue to build up the immunity of the child.
cmdr.
locke: "gawdammit, morpheus.
not everybody believes what you believe!".
For someone claiming to literally talk to an all-knowing all-seeing god, you are so far off from being right, that there's just no other way to say it than this:
cmdr.
locke: "gawdammit, morpheus.
not everybody believes what you believe!".
Also - I should probably qualify my critique on high count posters- some of them are priceless with incredible amounts of quality content. I just find it mind-numbing to see the ones that repeat over and over the same defense of the same imaginary friends or throw out scripture after scripture with no evidence of the scriptures being relevant, much less from any supernatural god.
I also know many more who are awesome high posters, grounded in reality, and have great lives outside JWN and are way more balanced than myself with less addictive personalities.
cmdr.
locke: "gawdammit, morpheus.
not everybody believes what you believe!".
TEC - you read way more into my post than I said - not one part of it was remotely directed at you. Sorry if you took it so. I dig your sweet-to-everyone style. I never question anyone's right to be here. I criticize myself most of all for the amount of time I even spend here.
Didn't completely realize you were not a JW at some point in your life. If I was making a subconscious point about anyone, it would have been ones like Chalam that seem to fall into the crazy-Christian-never-was-a-JW-but-likes-to-cherry-pick-the-bible and pounce on leaving JWs. I explained that I don't understand such ones desire to be here, but never questioned their right to be here.
Anyway do what you gotta do. Hope you don't lose your grip on reality though - cause AG may think she's the oracle - but that's a fantasy too.
cmdr.
locke: "gawdammit, morpheus.
not everybody believes what you believe!".
This still going on?
Curtains - thanks for the props. Although, I don't think anyone seeing this thread takes it too seriously. The only serious thing about it is AG's delusions and her continued persistence to avoid getting professional help.
Using a sci-fi movie to help validate her hallucinations (which is exactly what she is doing whether she acknowledges it or not) speaks for itself. Not really much anyone can say to make that point more obvious than she did by starting the thread in the first place. I think deep inside her she knows it's a game - one that she keeps playing hoping that she'll find validation from different ones that keep her from getting professional help. In the end - she probably is harmless, other than not accepting reality. I was posting to fight off a bit of insomnia, and her's and TEC's replies worked better than valium.
# of posts don't matter to me - it's the content of them. If readers here think I need defending from somebody that thinks Bert and Ernie are real people, then I guess I'm the one that really needs help. While I've not read her several thousands of posts, (If I was that sleepless I really would take a valium) the few I have read are the same thing over and over. Eventually, people with real lives move on and see how pointless it is to talk with someone over the internet that has completely lost her grip on reality.
If I ever find myself with that many posts for that many years, I absolutely deserve to have my head checked. For me, being on here is about moving on from my identity as a JW. If I stay here as long as her, I'll never do that. As long as I'm here, I'll always be an ex-JW, or an ex-JW that likes to argue with the ex-JW crazy lady - neither of those are identities I want to embrace. But for now, it helps with the transition and I've made a few friends. I'll be honest, when I first saw some of Aguest's posts, I thought losing one's mind was was a real possibilty for those that left the org. It almost made me want to reconsider. But then I read a bit more and realized few if anyone takes her seriously.
So what's going to happen is that, like so many others have already done, eventually I'll find zero interest in joining her little game-threads. She'll keep posting, she'll never get the psychiatric care she needs, and others will come along and appease her by playing her same-old same-old game threads. It will be this distant memory, of a transition time after I left the JWs for good - and completely removed the JW identity from my life. It will just be this thing I used to do. I won't join some ex-mormon religious board or ex-scientology religion board either. I never was one and can't imagine what would be missing in my life to spend so much time at an internet disscussion forum for former members of a religion that I wasn't raised in nor did I marry into it nor did I every convert to as an adult.
cmdr.
locke: "gawdammit, morpheus.
not everybody believes what you believe!".
Perhaps "contradict" was not the best word. But the quotes I presented apparently didn't resonate with AG's personal revelations - otherwise, why try to make some wierd twist on them to fit her viewpoint? But as lime says, the movie is 100% fantasy, just like her revelations - so you and AG are right. One fantasy can fit in with another, in any way that the hallucinator wants them to. Link them all up. Correlate them. Show their parallels. In the end, they are all just fantasy. Thank you Lime.
Oh and AG, I promise you dear sweet honey child (Anarchy to you), I am not offended by profanity. I really do love it when it's intertwined into modern-day Jesus-linked stories. I mean it, it adds a new kind of meaning of Jesus for me.
A Master over Christ,
JIFB
cmdr.
locke: "gawdammit, morpheus.
not everybody believes what you believe!".
No - I didn't miss the point at all - I added another quote from the same movie that made a point which totally contradicted the OP. Kind of like how that can be done all the time in the Bible. I thought this thread was about Matrix quotes. I added my favorites. The quotes were pretty obvious in how they could be applied to all religous beliefs - so much so that poor dear child AG felt the need to twist the quotes to match her dilusions in a way that makes no sense. Kind of like many personal revelationists do with the Bible. So as she kind of twisted things from there, I just rode with it. In the end though, it comes back to made up characters in her mind and the proper spelling of them, etc. etc. which in turn leads to anybody that sees these symptoms of her pretending hallucinations are real, giving her yet another not-so-subtle hint at her need to get real professional help. Sorry if the truth hurts.
cmdr.
locke: "gawdammit, morpheus.
not everybody believes what you believe!".
Tammy, if someone was showing all the signs of a documented condition of cancer, and they didn't want to get professional help, or even a diagnosis to confirm or disconfirm, and not only that - but continued to say their symptoms were actually healthy, would the ones pointing out the obvious and hoping they get help really be haters?
What if it was a brain trauma that caused hallucinations? Everybody pointing out that such ones need serious help are haters???
Wow - some people really do live their real life in sci-fi movies.
cmdr.
locke: "gawdammit, morpheus.
not everybody believes what you believe!".
Kids there really is a lesson here for everybody. The important thing to remember here is that science fiction makes some people's hallucinations seem more real. So if you are ever experiencing seemingly real-like projections that are based off your cultural religous background while questioning a traumatic cult's teachings - DO NOT, by any means, DO NOT seek out therapy for these hallucinations from a professional. Instead - watch sci-fi movies like The Matrix over and over. That is all you will need. Other choose to listen to Lou Reed while having a little acid - it's all pretty much the same result though.
