They SLAUGHTER KIDS in JWdom, don't they, Mom?

by Focus 26 Replies latest jw friends

  • Focus
    Focus

    Here the prime sources of data are Watchtower publications.

    THE DATA

    FACT ONE (from Watchtower Magazine 15 October, 1993 p32)
    Doctor X, sympathetic to the Jehovah's Witnesses, stated that to forego blood transfusions increases the mortality rate for a standard operating procedure from c0.5% to c1.5% (in the advanced world).

    FACT TWO (from Awake! Magazine 22 November, 1992 p27)
    The academic study conducted by the world-renowned physician Dr. Charles Baron concluded that there is on average only 'one death for every 13,000 bottles of blood transfused.'

    Now 0.5% = 1 in 200.

    It would be wrong to conclude that for the two "facts" to square up, there would need to be 13,000/200 = 65 bottles of blood used per standard operation procedure (which would suggest that Doctor X's data was wrong!).

    This is because blood transfusions are used other than for standard operating procedures - say for routine blood changes or post-op work, and mortality rates may be much lower for these other uses.

    So, let us give Doctor X - the one who is sympathetic to the JWs - the benefit of the doubt, and use his figures - the Watchtower was happy to!

    1.5% - 0.5% = 1%, which is the linear increase in mortality rate ACCORDING TO THE WATCHTOWER ITSELF from "going bloodless"! And that is discounting third-world considerations, where bloodless surgery techniques are less advanced and the increase in mortality rate is likely to be higher.

    Even JWs can work out that 1% = 1 in 100.

    So 1 in 100 JWs or dependents undergoing standard operating procedures die unnecessarily (i.e., due to refusing blood) - BY THEIR **OWN** FIGURES.

    Now, data gleaned at a variety of medical sites including Medline and BMJ suggest that at some point in our lives, c50% of us will undergo one or more standard operating procedures. Let us say half of these (25%) would involve a blood transfusion (the true proportion is higher, but I am trying to be fair to the Watchtower).

    Let us take average life-expectancy to be 70 years.

    Worldwide JW Memorial attendance is a good approximation to the number of JWs and dependents (for whom JWs would make life-or-death decisions) - it currently runs at about 15.5 million judging by their own claims.

    We shall assume that 90% of all such people facing a blood transfusion decision refuse it, directly or indirectly (via their "No Blood" card and the hawklike JW "Hospital Liaison Committee" if they are unconscious).

    From this we can arrive at a "lowest" estimate of the ANNUAL death rate that is a DIRECT result of the Watchtower's unscriptural and illogical blood ban using simple math:

    THE EXTRA DEATHS!

    It is 15,500,000 x 90% x 25% / 70 / 100 = 500 UNNECESSARY DEATHS PER YEAR

    That is almost 10 JWs a week. For whom the Watchtower bears BLOODGUILT.
    MANY OF THEM ARE INNOCENT KIDS

    AND THIS IS A "LOWEST POSSIBLE" CALCULATION

    The real figures are likely to be higher, because of third world (where, increasingly, most JWs live) considerations and because of the other factors stated above (I have always erred on the side favoring the Watchtower - unlike them, I am scrupulously fair).

    And remember - this is using the Watchtower's own statistics, and using numbers given by a doctor quoted by the Watchtower in their own defence! As the Watchtower managed to inflate their estimate of the number of JWs killed by the Nazi's from several hundred to 4,000 (and quite a few more figures in between), you can judge for yourself how much reliability to place on these numbers...

    My guess of the TRUE EXTRA DEATH RATE is probably in the order of one thousand extra deaths per year, or three a day.

    HERE IS A USENET JW-APOLOGIST ON THE SUBJECT

    "how many people died because of taken blood, how many needed blood and given blood still died.you dont get headlines in the newspapers saying( man dies after given blood transfusion or blood tranfusion kills man). got the point im trying to make here."

    But BY THE WATCHTOWER'S OWN "BEST" FIGURES, MORTALITY RATES ON STANDARD (not just serious) OPERATING PROCEDURES ***TRIPLES*** (1.5/0.5) WHEN YOU REFUSE A TRANSFUSION !!!

    SO, WHY DID THE WATCHTOWER ADMIT IT?

    Some of you might wonder why the Watchtower published any figures at all for this, given that they are so damaging to their (utterly false) suggestion that risks are broadly comparable..

    But in the early 1990s, when they published their data (buried in long articles decrying blood transfusions, and doubtless relying on the laziness, poor reading and math skills etc of the average JW), TOBACCO COMPANIES were increasingly being targeted by punitive legal actions claiming that they knew tobacco was harmful but failed to release data to enable a person to make an INFORMED DECISION about risks.

    And since we know what is most important to the "NON-PROPHET" Organization, no more needs be said!

    HOW MANY DEATHS IN TOTAL?

    Now the WTBTS started their campaign against blood in 1945, describing transfusions as being pagan and God-dishonoring (in the 7/1 WT pp198-201). But the blood-ban campaign did not gather full swing for a few years after that. If we say it has been policy for 50 years, we will not be wrong.

    Now the current level of >500 unnecessary deaths per year reflects the current membership level. If we perform the same calculation over the last 50 years, we arrive at a lower-end estimate of some 12,000 unnecessary deaths at the hands of the Watchtower!

    TWELVE THOUSAND!!!!!!!!!

    No other Cult has done as well!!

    In fairness, I should add that to arrive at the twelve thousand cumulative count figure, I have assumed that the absence of bloodless surgery techniques in early days would have elevated early mortality rates (so the differential was the c1.5% suggested by the 2 "FACTS" together, and not the 1% figure from the 1990s). If we do not do this, the figure might be as low as EIGHT THOUSAND UNNECESSARY DEATHS.

    Of course, in all the other areas the WT has been given the benefit of the doubt...

    AND EVERY JW IS GUILTY OF MURDER, BY WATCHTOWER'S OWN TEACHING

    And ALL JWs are liable to God for this FOUL GENOCIDE, by their own WT teachings RE COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY and COLLECTIVE BLOODGUILT!

    "The people must accept responsibility for the nation's acts .. Nations operate according to the principle of community responsibility. Rulers may start wars, but the people fight them. It is upon the people generally, young and old, male and female, that the enemy nation rains destruction, and not upon the wicked rulers. The nations in their wars sow death on the basis of community responsibility .. If the people either actively or passively support what is corrupt and immoral and murderous, do they not bear some responsibility therefore?" - 1952WTWR 06 01 344-5

    "For one thing, Pharaoh alone could not have oppressed the nation of Israel or defied Jehovah. That took a mighty organization; and so all who supported Pharaoh in his God-defying and oppressive measures became parties to his crimes.. The common people of Egypt, who, as Pharaoh's willing supporters, had a community responsibility, picture those of humankind today who willingly support Satan's visible organization." - 1965WTWR 06 15 366/369

    "Some have not willfully and deliberately done so, but share community responsibility for supporting the spilling of blood in wars." - 1966WTWR 09 15 550

    "Another way in which a person can unwittingly become bloodguilty is by reason of the principle of community responsibility. If one belongs to a religious organization that has shed blood in times past, or that may bless those who do shed innocent blood, then by reason of association he would share in its bloodguilt." - 1970AWAK 10 22 28

    "We personally may not desire to show disrespect for God's name, but, if we have any religious connection, the question for us to ask ourselves is: Do I belong to a religious denomination that disrespects and defames God's name in these and other ways? Suppose that any of us do. Well, then, we should know the course for us to take if we respect God's name. What? This, namely, to disengage ourselves from sharing in the community responsibility of such a religious denomination before the Bible God" - 1971WTWR 11 01 647

    "the clergy of Christendom .. the 'man of lawlessness' .. Of course, what one prominent member of this clerical 'man' does attaches blame to all the other members of the clergy class for their agreeing with what is done or not protesting against it or for acquiescing in it and remaining with the clergy organization. They all share a community responsibility and culpability for what a member of the clergy class does in a representative way as when speaking or acting for the whole group." - 1973GKTY 380-1

    "They want no share in the community responsibility for the sins and corruption of politics. They know that the ones who keep clean from such worldly defilements will be the ones whom God will preserve into His new order." - 1973WTWR 11 15 693

    "In similar fashion, the modern-day remnant of spiritual Israel had to do some reforming as to their way and thoughts as World War I ended on November 11, 1918, and they entered still alive on earth into the postwar period. Their exile from God's full favor in Babylon the Great's realm was about to end, and it became the proper time for they to think about their failings and shortcomings with regard to God's worship and service. They had come under a community responsibility because of the bloodshed and violence of World War I. They needed to search for Jehovah and to call upon His name in prayer .. During World War I of 1914-1918 B.C.E., some of the remnant of spiritual Israel accepted non-combatant service in the fighting armies, and thus they came under bloodguilt because of their sharing in community responsibility for the blood spilled in war. However, in 1939, the year in which World War II erupted, all the remnant of spiritual Israel and also those of the 'great crowd' of sheeplike companions declared themselved in favor of absolute neutrality toward all worldly conflicts, regardless of nationality. The publication of the article 'Neutrality' in the issue of November 1, 1939, of The Watchtower set forth their position." - 1975MSWD 114/187-8

    "Why Will Christendom Not Survive? .. Bloodguilty Christendom of today, with her pagan customs, man-made traditions, and mixture of heathen philosophies with Bible teachings, will fare no better than her ancient prototype. She will not escape sharing in the fulfillment of Jehovah's prophecy: 'A great tempest itself will be roused up from the remotest parts of the earth. And those slain by Jehovah will certainly come to be in that day from one end of the earth clear to the other end of the earth. They will not be bewailed, neither will they be gathered up or be buried. As manure on the surface of the ground they will become.' (Jer. 25:32,33) No! Christendom will not survive the impending 'great tribulation.' (Matt. 24:1,2,21,22) Moreover, all the rest of the world empire of false religion will closely follow her into destruction!" - 1979WTWR 08 01 16

    "The Scriptures show that if we are part of any organization that is bloodguilty before God, we must sever our ties with it if we do not want to share in its sins. (Rev. 18;4,24: Mic. 4:3)" - 1983UWTG 155

    "According to the Bible, when we deliberately put someone's life unnecessarily in danger, we could become bloodguilty. (Compare 1 Chronicles 11:17-19.)" - 1985AWAK 06 22

    "Bloodguilt .. Truly such bloodguilty ones are not worthy of living half their lives, as David said. (Ps 55:23)" - 1988INS1 0346-7

    "It is Satan's earthly organization, his earthly seed. Prominent therein is Babylon the Great, the world empire of false religion.. What a load of bloodguiltiness! As long as Babylon the Great exists, the blood of her victims will cry out for justice.. By the fourth century C.E., that old Serpent, Satan the Devil, had brought forth his masterpiece of deception, the apostate religion of Christendom - a Babylonish system hidden under a 'Christian' veneer. It is the principal part of the seed of the serpent and has developed into a multitude of conflicting sects. Like unfaithful Judah of old, Christendom carries a heavy bloodguilt.. For thousands of years, Babylon the Great has been bloodguilty, and she is a gross fornicatrix.. But her major sins, 'massing together clear up to heaven', are her shocking acts of spiritual fornication - this latter in teaching falsehoods and allying herself with corrupt politicians." - 1988REVE 101-2/272

    "Yes, there is such a thing as joint, or community, bloodguilt.. Therefore, the adherents of false religion as well as the supporters and participants in human warfare are bloodguilty before God." - 1995WTWR 11 15 15

    "Pass the buck on to the Rank & File.. As we did in '25 and '75!"

    AGAIN, THE WTS STANDS BLOODGUILTY, AND DAMNED BY ITS OWN WORDS!

    Shameful child-murderers....

    --
    Focus
    (WHISTLE-BLOWER Class)

    TO KNOW ALL THAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, VISIT :-
    http://www.freeminds.org/history/part1.htm
    http://www1.tip.nl/~t661020/wtcitaten/part1.htm
    http://localsonly.wilmington.net/jmalik/TheList.zip
    http://www.concordance.com/watchtower.htm
    http://www.intrex.net/tallyman/the_list.html
    http://www.3dom.freeserve.co.uk/main.htm
    ...................................AND BE PREPARED TO LAUGH YOUR HEAD OFF!

    Edited by - Focus on 5 March 2001 18:44:52

  • waiting
    waiting

    Hey Focus,

    But in the early 1990s, when they published their data (buried in long articles decrying blood transfusions, and doubtless relying on the laziness, poor reading and math skills etc of the average JW), TOBACCO COMPANIES were increasingly being targeted by punitive legal actions claiming that they knew tobacco was harmful but failed to release data to enable a person to make an INFORMED DECISION about risks.

    That is such an interesting thought. The famous WTBTS article about not saying "the Society says..." but say "the Bible says....." seemingly written by WTBTS lawyers has been quoted on the web often.

    But your thought about little - highly important - notifications that we usually let whoosh over our heads (gotta get the whole article highlighted quickly) is true.

    And if those little highly important notifications were in study articles - they didn't usually get commented on or brought to our attention by the elder conducting the WT Study. I remember raising my hand and commenting on some of these secondary thoughts. I thought if they were written - they were supposed to be commented upon. I found out that I was wrong. Always an elder's curious look and a quiet thank you, and "let's move on now."

    My 80 yr old mother-in-law came home from the meeting about new blood cards. My husband asked her if she understood the changes. "I just do whatever the Society says. They've researched this, you know."

    waiting

    Edited by - waiting on 5 March 2001 22:46:14

  • Prisca
    Prisca

    Thank you focus for this interesting and well thought-out post. Posts like these make me wish I had a printer!

    Hey waiting, I used to find the "hidden" points as well, and could never understand why I seemed to be the only one to see a "new point" while everyone else glossed over it. Glad I'm not the only one.

    "I just do whatever the Society says. They've researched this, you know."

    Makes me shiver when I hear things like this.

  • Scorpion
    Scorpion

    Excellent Focus!

    Any thinking JW that reads your post has to question the WT and their stand against blood transfusions. The problem is, most JWs have lost the ability to think objectively.

  • Focus
    Focus

    Hey - thanks! waiting, Prisca, scorpion, ianao, mommy, JT, SixofNine, expatbrit, TR, larc etc., your kind words/support has been noted.

    Now, I have placed new material in the PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey? - please read it carefully.

    And note at the start of page 5 in that thread, the tone of dear Friend's comment... His sincerity is truly revealed thereby.

    I hope he doesn't have kids!

    --
    Focus
    (DO THE RIGHT THING. Class)

  • Xandit
    Xandit

    Why Focus is a liar:

    Please read the following quote from the Watchtower that is the supposed basis of Focus post and note that not only does he misrepresent what it says, he seems incapable of understanding simple declarative sentences. Oh, and you might try to find the second quote.

    Ask yourself why someone so accustomed to quoting great tranches of material from the publications didn't quote the whole thing on this one. Ask yourself why you are so credulous.

    *********************************************************************
    Blood transfusions are common in modern medicine, but do they measure up to their reputation? What do you think?

    In The American Journal of Medicine (February 1993), Dr. Craig S. Kitchens asked: "Are Transfusions Overrated?" He noted that physicians often weigh whether the benefit of a therapy is more than the risk it might bring. What about transfusions?

    Kitchens reviewed recent evidence of many risks linked with transfusions, such as hepatitis, compromised immunity, organ system failure, and graft-versus-host reactions. One study summarizing "a myriad of complications" from blood transfusions "concluded that each transfusion event has an aggregate 20% chance for some adverse reaction, some of which are minor but others deleterious," even fatal.
    However, do the supposed benefits justify facing such risks?
    Dr. Kitchens reviewed 16 reported studies involving 1,404 operations on Jehovah's Witnesses, who refuse transfusions in obedience to the Bible command to 'abstain from blood.'-Acts 15:28, 29. The result? "The Jehovah's Witness patients' decision to forego transfusions for major surgical procedures appears to add 0.5% to 1.5% mortality to the overall operative risk. Less clear is how much morbidity and mortality are avoided by this practice, but they probably exceed the risk of not being transfused." (Italics ours.) His point? Any medical risk of refusing blood is probably less than the risks involved in accepting blood transfusions.

    Hence, Kitchens' reasonable question: "If not transfusing Jehovah's
    Witnesses actually results in little acute extra morbidity and mortality and avoids a significant amount of costs and chronic complications, should patients receive fewer transfusions?"

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    Me: Self, why are you so credulous?

    Self: Why do you think, dumbass? We were raised as JW's.

    Any medical risk of refusing blood is probably less than the risks involved in accepting blood transfusions.

    Man! I sure hope whoever is responsible for that sentence is right. Imagine the bloodguilt if the person saying that was wrong, and just engaging in willy nilly speculation in order to further an agenda. Ooooh, this is hard to imagine, but what if they were wrong, yet got millions of people to believe that very thing?
  • Focus
    Focus

    Xandit wrote:

    Why Focus is a liar. Please read the following quote from the Watchtower that is the supposed basis of Focus post and note that not only does he misrepresent what it says, he seems incapable of understanding simple declarative sentences

    We shall see!

    appears to add 0.5% to 1.5% mortality to the overall operative risk

    This can be interpreted in two ways - BUT THEY BOTH ARE MATHEMATICALLY IDENTICAL IN THE RESULTING VALUE. Not close, but IDENTICAL.

    Here - let me explain:

    Interpretation (a): If we interpret the text as meaning an addition of between 0.5% and 1.5% to the mortality rate, that means, on average, (0.5% + 1.5%)/2 = 1% i.e. 1 extra death due to refusing blood per 100 standard surgical procedures.

    Interpretation (b): If we interpret the text as meaning an increase in mortality rate from 0.5% to 1.5%, that means a change of (1.5% - 0.5%) = 1% i.e. 1 extra death due to refusing blood per 100 standard surgical procedures.

    THEREFORE, PROVEN. All my calculations were based on such a stated 1 extra death due to refusing blood per 100 standard surgical procedures, and therefore hold whichever interpretation is placed on the words. Of course, I had considered this before summarizing the facts.

    Don't look so clever now, do you, Xandit, crying "wolf" without engaging your brain?

    Ask yourself why someone so accustomed to quoting great tranches of material from the publications didn't quote the whole thing on this one. Ask yourself why you are so credulous.

    LOL! The answer is easy. Because the rest of the material in the articles was wholly irrelevant to the mathematical computation re the number of deaths.

    And I did state that:

    Doctor X, sympathetic to the Jehovah's Witnesses

    So, what is your issue? Are you confusing yourself again, like in the other thread (before you ran off)? But thanks for quoting the article, you have actually given me more ammunition!

    In it, it is stated by the Watchtower quoting its sympathetic doctor (a rare beast indeed):

    Dr. Kitchens [stated] "The Jehovah's Witness patients' decision to forego transfusions for major surgical procedures appears to add 0.5% to 1.5% mortality to the overall operative risk. Less clear is how much morbidity and mortality are avoided by this practice, but they probably exceed the risk of not being transfused." (Italics ours.) His point? Any medical risk of refusing blood is probably less than the risks involved in accepting blood transfusions.

    As we have seen from the other study (Fact Two), the above conclusion is pretty obviously flawed. Risk from blood transfusions has been computed to run at 1 in 13,000 bottles transfused - even at 5 bottles average per standard surgical procedure (much too high), that translates to 1 in 2600 - miniscule compared to the 1 in 100 risk espoused by the very same anti-transfusion doctor! So his "less clear" and "probably" are terms which virtually the whole medical establishment might take issue with!

    And note that the KEY words:

    His point? Any medical risk of refusing blood is probably less than the risks involved in accepting blood transfusions.

    are NOT the words of the doctor the WT is quoting - they are the conclusion of the Watchtower

    And WOW! They found 1 doctor to side with them. Do you know how many doctors they are in the world? 10 million?

    Oh, and you might try to find the second quote

    Why? Did I get the page number wrong in the Awake! ? Your desperation is showing... LOL!

    --
    Focus
    (Dealing with Monkeys Class)

  • philo
    philo

    Focus

    Thanks for the figures (and the maths lesson). I had no idea this doctrine would have affected/terminated so many.

    However, I think you're flies are down.

    You asserted that the 12,000 deaths were "UNNECESSARY". But you didn't say why. Is it called proof by assertion? So, with your legendary self-control and moderation, you waded into your basins-of-bloodguilt session, which despite being from the whore's own luscious lips, still does not patch the hole.
    You wouldn't want any newbie lurker reading your post, and spotting the gap, to think you had the same low opinion of the intellect of your readership as Madame WTBTS appears to have for hers, would you? At least a reference to "unscriptural blood doctrine (see www.XYZ for the gen)" would do.

    Philo (thought you got it last time class)

  • Focus
    Focus

    philo, I get your drift!

    You asserted that the 12,000 deaths were "UNNECESSARY". But you didn't say why.

    (1) >=8,000, not 12,000, please!
    (2) Definition: A death is UNNECESSARY if it occurred when it could've been prevented without any great extra expenditure or effort. Hence, proved. Proof by definition. Allowed.
    (3) The blood law is Mosaical anyway!
    (4) Furthermore: Life in the hereafter with only JW-types = HELL
    (5) Keep orf me flies!

    --
    Focus
    (WHACKed Class)

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit