250,000 Jehovah's Witnesses have died refusing blood (page 29)

Marvin Shilmer

-

“let me know when you have 'looked into this'”

besty,

My algorithm was correct. I had only mislabeled it.

Marvin Shilmer

runForever

Simon: I used 20m as a rough estimate for all the witnesses living through the 60 year blood ban. I took 7.5 m and doubled it and added some more. I don't

think anywhere near 30m witnesses in different generations existed since 1945 til now.

Marvin: Are you saying that witnesses have a higher anemia death rate than sao tome and pricipe of 50.2 deaths per 100,000?

You can't add up the witness population from year to year because they are the same people being counted from year to year.

EdenOne

besty wrote:

- Beliaev and Marvin agree 10x mortality for anemic JWs

- 0.2/100,000 is the accepted mortality rate for anemic non-JW's

- 2/100,000 mortality would be a reasonable assumption for anemic JW's

So, correct me please if I'm reading it wrong, but let's make a little exercise here. Let's assume that there had been a steady number of JW's since 1945: say, 8 million every year (there hasn't, but anyway, indulge me on this "worst case scenario"). Then, we should discover what is the average percentage of the population that will become anemic at some point during their existence as Jehovah's Witness for a year. Anyone would like to take a wild guess?

In the US alone, in the year 2004, a total of 12,105,081 individuals suffered from anemia, out of a total population of 293,655,405 individuals.

( Source: http://www.rightdiagnosis.com/i/iron_deficiency_anemia/stats-country.htm )

This represents a ratio of 4,12 % of the population. Let us for a moment imagine that this is a valid sample that we could use to extrapolate for the population of the whole world (we can't, but let's just presume we can).

So, let's just assume that 4,12% of those 8,000,000 JW's have developed serious anemia that would require a blood transfusion. This means roughly 329.600 JW individuals who statistically would have needed blood every year - and refused it.

Now, applying Marvin's mortality rate of 0,2 / 100.000 to 329.600 individuals, the result would be 0,66 individuals. But, applying besty's educated guess of a 10x higher mortality rate of 2 / 100.000 for anemic Jehovah's Witnesses, then the result is a staggering ... 6,6 individuals per year, worldwide. Now, let's multiply this for 68 years (1945-2013), ad the result is ... *drum roll* ... 449 JW's who presumably might have died from refusing to take blood when facing serious anemia, since the blood ban became a doctrine among the Jehovah's Witnesses in 1945.

Of course the above is a flawed calculation, but you surely get my point with that "worst case scenario": the figures of 50.000 or 250.000 deaths of Jehovah's Witnesses linked with refusal of blood transfusions are but a farse aimed (or having it as a convenient byproduct) at raising hate in the public eye against the Witnesses. This issue deserves awareness based on solid data and solid studies, not baseless sensationalism designed to incite to hate.

Eden

runForever

You know what I am learning things here. the death rate of 50.2 deaths per 100,000 is also per year so that definitely changes things. thanks jw forum board.

Simon

That is an absurdity and is nothing I’ve claimed.

So please explain: your 50,000 would be over 20% of 240,000 which would be the number if the regular mortality rate was applied to 30,000,000 JWs

Are you saying that the regular mortality rate for people is wrong, or the number of JWs is wrong? What?

Both of those numbers seem much easier to obtain and are far, far more reliable than extrapolating things from 20 deaths over a decade.

Simon

You know what I am learning things here. the death rate of 50.2 deaths per 100,000 is also per year so that definitely changes things. thanks jw forum board.

Yes, if it didn't have a time limit it would be 100,000 per 100,000

runForever

now that i've looked at it again to reach 50k total deaths the jw's would need a death rate of roughly 25 deaths per 100,000 per year for 60+ years

Simon

Also Marvin, I think your terminology is wrong.

Population is the entire set and sample is, well, the sample that you look at. In your case the sample was 19 out of a population of 103.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_(statistics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_population

Simon

That presumes those who use blood transfusion advocate the practice based on preference rather than sound science.

That reply makes no sense to me and isn't anything to do with the question. Let me state it again for you:

You asked "says who" when I said the study was done by proponents of blood transfusion.

The study was by the International Society of Blood Transfusion which I would consider to be proponents of blood transfusion.

Which part of that do you disagree with?

steve2

My usage of coefficient was colloquial meaning in this case it’s a property that’s inherent to the data set.

Marvin Shilmer

Marvin please be careful in your "colloquial" use of this strict statistical measure. Even your clarification baffles me because describing 3.3 as "a property that's inherent in the data set" sounds like puffery.

I have done postgraduate work in statistics and, I could be wrong, but suspect you are describing something that has taken you out of your depth.

250,000 Jehovah's Witnesses have died refusing blood

Share this