@marvin
what is the mortality rate per 100,000 due to anemia for JW's
same figure for non JW's please.
250,000 Jehovah's Witnesses have died refusing blood
by nicolaou 739 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
Simon
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
Exactly, the number is way too high to be believable IMO.
Instead of extrapolating from such small numbers we can do much better and be much more confident by starting with well known and agreed numbers and bigger numbers that are far less likely to vary (vs amplifying small numbers):
Standard mortality rate in the US: 800 per 100,000
Number of JWs: 7m
The number of JWs who will die this year is therefore: 56,000
Now instead of just the current 7m if we apply it to the roughly 30m total JWs (over all years) then we get to 240,000 JWs who have ever died.
50,000 is over 20%, very close to the number who would die for Cancer or for Heart Disease. Does that sound reasonable?
I very much doubt the number of JWs who die from refusing blood is higher than 1% of the total deaths but even that would only give 2,400 in total.
I suspect that far fewer than 1 in 100 JWs die from not having blood. Many of the publishers counted would never dream of 'going all the way' on the issue or would not get to make the decision because they are too young etc... and of course the window for most damage was when they were smaller and fewer alternative treatments were available and the HLCs weren't secretly telling JWs that all the blood products were actually OK.
Marvin: can you show me the flaw in my math or reasoning? (without resorting to telling me I'm too stupid to understand)
-
OUTLAW
JWN looking for 250,000 JWs who Died from Lack of Blood..
.
.............................Nope!..Not There!!..
................
............................................................................
...OUTLAW -
adamah
Simon said-
Yes, if it didn't have a time limit it would be 100,000 per 100,000
Says the naysayer who seemingly doesn't believe that the JWs will enjoy Everlasting Life™ in the New System™, where the mortality rate will plummet to 0 per 100,000 per forever!
Outlaw said-
JWN looking for 250,000 JWs who Died from Lack of Blood..
Nope!..Not There!!..
Well, it's impossible to say how many deaths have occurred with any kind of certainty, other than it's likely between thousands to half a million (for all we know, it could actually be higher than 250k). Only Jehovah knows for sure (yes, said with tongue-in-cheek).
.............
Adam
-
Simon
Says the naysayer who seemingly doesn't believe that the JWs will enjoy Everlasting Life™ in the New System™, where the mortality rate will plummet to 0 per 100,000 per forever!
Yes, spot the non-believer! LOL
I guess I didn't factor in the memorial attendees who stopped dying around the 70's and then return as zombies to partake at the memorial (zombies are my preferred explanation for the numbers going back up).
Well, it's impossible to say how many deaths have occurred with any kind of certainty, other than it's likely between thousands to half a million (for all we know, it could actually be higher than 250k). Only Jehovah knows for sure (yes, said with tongue-in-cheek).
I think we can actually say what a reasonably accurate number is for overall deaths which would stand unless someone produces convincing evidence that one of the factors is wrong*. We know how many JWs there are each year and how they are distributed by country and we know the mortality rates for those countries - we have all the numbers necessary to produce limits which we can then work within using less accurate approaches: supposition, Marvin's home-made-calculation-contraption etc...
The important thing this provides is a basic sanity check to make sure the numbers produced are reasonable and believable. If we think more JWs have died from a perticular cause than the number of JWs who have likely died in total ... there is a very good chance we've made a mistake.
*For any increased risk from refusing blood you can counter with reduced risk from not taking part in dangerous activities, taking drugs, having guns etc... Overall I think JWs tend to be a fairly conservative bunch of people who are unlikely to be at much increased risk of many things other than the few who refuse blood treatment.
-
Simon
FYI: I removed all of the off-topic comments on this thead.
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“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.”
Simon,
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
The 50-year period of 1961 to 2011 has an annual mortality rate at or about 1%.
During this 50-year period an annual 1% mortality rate applied to JWs results in this many deaths: 1,823,957.
If we assume a higher mortality rate among severely anemic JWs at a ratio of 3848-to-1 annually (my calculated ratio based on the New Zealand data set) then in addition to mortality resulting from the annual 1% rate we have a 50-year value of 1,873,957 (i.e., 1,823,957 plus 50,000).
50,000 is 2.7% of the aggregate total of 1,873,957.
What does this mean?
It means what I’ve said before in terms of how noticeable this would be to the JW community. It means:
- In 1961 this would amount to 1 death for refusing blood per 96 congregations. (For a total of 230 preventable deaths)
- In 1971 this would amount to 1 death for refusing blood in 72 congregations. (For a total of 392 preventable deaths)
- In 1981 this would amount to 1 death for refusing blood per 77 congregations. (For a total of 584 preventable deaths)
- In 1991 this would amount to 1 death for refusing blood in 66 congregations. (For a total of 1058 preventable deaths)
- In 2001 this would amount to 1 death for refusing blood in 62 congregations. (For a total of 1528 preventable deaths)
- In 2011 this would mean 1 death for refusing blood in 57 congregations. (For a total of 1878 preventable deaths)
I have no idea what your 240,000 value is supposed to represent in correlation to the 50,000 let alone the hypothetical 30,000,000. The mortality rate is an annual rate. The aggregate total of JWs subject to an annual mortality of 1% over the 40-year period of 1961 to 2007 is 182,395,680; not 30,000,000.
“Also Marvin, I think your terminology is wrong.”
No.
In my presentation the sample is the number of JWs in New Zealand during the 10-year period of 1998-2007. Annualized this number is 12,700.
In my presentation the population of that sample is the statistical number of deaths during the 10-year period of 1998-2007 over and beyond the norm for patients suffering severe anemia who refused blood. Annualized this number is 3.3.
I chose the sample of JWs in New Zealand during the 10-year period of 1998-2007 because thanks to Dr. Beliaev and company I have a reliable value of deaths in New Zealand suffered by JWs during the same period with severe anemia who refused blood product over and beyond the number that should have died (i.e., the matched comparison). Dr. Beliaev’s study provided a population for the sample of JWs in New Zealand. The resulting ratio of annual deaths per capita of JWs is 3848-to-1. Applied to the JW community, over the 50-year period of 1961 to 2011 this amounts to, in round numbers, 50,000.
“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?”
The part that characterizes authors published by the International Society of Blood Transfusion as proponents of blood transfusion as though not independent in relation to blood transfusion as a therapy. Maybe it surprises you, but these authors are typically looking for good science to improve upon what we have and know. Typically they are not pushing an agenda of blood transfusion as though their work is “hardly an independent study”. This particular complain of yours is an unsupported sweeping generalization.
“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.”
Then put it to use.
Though it can be easy for any individual to reach beyond their training, I doubt this is going on in this case. Regardless of my opinion, the data is there for whoever wants to crunch the numbers, which is as it should be.
“what is the mortality rate per 100,000 due to anemia for JW's
“same figure for non JW's please.”
The study by Beliaev does not provide a mortality rate for patients suffering severe anemia who accept blood.
Hence the published 10x reduced mortality for patients suffering severe anemia who accept blood provides no benchmark to extrapolate a mortality rate for patients suffering severe anemia who reject blood.
Beliaev’s finding is that severely anemic patients who accept blood have a 10x reduced mortality compared with severely anemic patients who reject blood. He offers no such comparison to overall mortality rates.
To use Beliaev’s statistics to extrapolate how many JWs suffer death the result of severe anemia and blood refusal I’ve used the statistical value of deaths over the norm among a given population of JWs (33 over 10 years) to form what amounts to a ratio of deaths over the norm suffered by JWs suffering severe anemia. The ratio is 3848-to-1.
So, and again besty:
In year 1998 there were 5,544,059 JWs. You do the math and tell readers what a ratio of 3848-to-1 gives us for the year 1998 alone.
Can you do that, and put this hard number in writing for readers to watch your math?
Marvin Shilmer
-
adamah
BTW, rather than trying to get JWs to change their policy, perhaps we should be THANKING THEM?
In reading this press review of Beliaev's study, Roberto Reverberi points out that Beliaev wasn't focusing on death rates of JWs who refused blood transfusions vs non-JWs who accepted: that actually wasn't the goal of the study. Instead, Beliaev was examining the COST-EFFECTIVENESS of blood transfusion vs refusal in patients with severe anemia.
JWs were in essence volunteering to serve as human guinea pigs, willingly making the ultimate sacrifice in the name of Jehovah's GB, yes, but also advancing human knowledge and medical science, whether they recognized it or not (both of which are endeavors they ironically claim not to place trust in, being the work of "mere haughty men"). The author of the review notes how the JW "no blood" policy makes them the perfect subjects to serve as a control group, as it would be completely unethical to ask a patient to forego blood (much less withhold blood from them); instead, JW patients INSIST on their RIGHT to refuse blood, so there's no ethical complications with conducting the study.
Remember, Beliaev's published study is called, "Clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of allogeneic red-blood-cell transfusion in severe symptomatic anaemia".
In his press review, Roberto Reverberi notes:
Blood transfusion became established long before modern clinical methodology. As a result, even basic evidence on cost-effectiveness of blood transfusion is lacking but, as the Authors of the present study rightly point out, it would be unethical to collect it now. At least, it would be unethical to conduct a prospective clinical trial in which patients with severe anaemia are randomly allocated to receive or not receive transfusion. However, there are in fact people treated like the controls of that hypothetical study: these people are Jehovah’s Witnesses, whose clinical outcome, in comparison to patients transfused with allogeneic blood, is the object of the present study.
But their human sacrifice comes at a price, since Beliaev's study found that the JW's "no blood" policy ends up costing society due to the greater costs incurred in treating the complications of refusing blood (i.e. the costs if they DON'T die right away incurred from treating complications such as shock, infections, cardiac arrhythmia, angina, myocardial ischaemia, heart failure, stroke/hypoxic encephalopathy, acute renal failure, delirium, and depression):
The total health care cost was US$ 1,123,145 in the transfusion group and US$ 1,550,933 in the group of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Authors also calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which is the ratio between the difference in cost and the difference in clinical effectiveness. Being both more effective and less expensive, transfusion actually leads to a cost saving (US$ 22,515) per death prevented.
The author continues:
In conclusion, in patients with symptomatic anaemia, most of whom were admitted to hospital for an acute condition and operated on, transfusion was associated with much less mortality, morbidity, and cost. These conclusions are not particularly weakened by the retrospective, observational nature of this study, unless Jehovah’s Witnesses are believed to be more prone to complications, irrespective of their refusal of transfusion. It seems, therefore, that Jehovah’s Witnesses have made a fundamental contribution towards establishing blood transfusion as a cost-effective therapy for severe anaemia.
Talk about finding a silver lining in voluntary death!
Although perhaps New Zealanders shouldn't send JWs "thank you" cards just yet: the JW "no blood" policy costs everyone, in the end.
Adam
-
OUTLAW
JWs were in essence volunteeringto serve as human guinea pigs, willingly making the ultimate sacrifice in the name of Jehovah's GB,
Would`nt that invalidate the study?!..
Only Hard Core JWs are going to volunteer..
It`s not JWs in General..
Not every JW is going to be willing to die over a Blood Transfusion..
..........................................................................
...OUTLAW -
Marvin Shilmer
-
“Not every JW is going to be willing to die over a Blood Transfusion.”
Published findings in many well vetted medical articles support that point.
Incidentally, a detail mentioned in Beliaev’s study of the New Zealand data set is that fresh frozen plasma was administered to 2 of the JW patients. Given the age criterion, I suspect these JW patients accepted this blood product rather than it being forced upon them.
Fresh frozen plasma is a blood product forbidden under Watchtower doctrine.
Marvin Shilmer
...OUTLAW