Hah caught red handed. What numpties. People who think AWAA can morph into something better are incorrigible optimists.
250,000 Jehovah's Witnesses have died refusing blood
by nicolaou 739 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
nicolaou
TTATT is Bo Juel Jensen?!
I'd like to hear you deny that if you can.
In any case you're correct, AAWA do have an official Twitter account but if you're implying that JB's tweet was just her own personal statement you'd be wrong. Julia Barrick not only carries the AAWA logo but she herself told me that her original tweet originated with Bo Juel Jensen (you?).
She said she'd tell Bo that I'd called him stupid which of course I hadn't, I'd called her stupid and that's why I capitalised YOU and YOUR in my second reply to her. Unfortunately, because Julia deleted her original tweet and replies at the encouragement of a third party none of this can now be verified . . .
Now then, I'm not going to get drawn into a childish tit-for-tat on who said what and when. I think this thread has proved very useful and I'd like it not to dissolve into another slugfest.Nic'
-
adamah
Ruby456 said-
But then again I will say that you put a womans name up and you are not even showing your own. To me you look like a real clown. You where just trying to name and shame Julia AND AAWA, but you did not check your facts. She just used her twitter account to say something that is really important, that the Watchtower cult is more deadly than Jim Jones and his Jonestown.
Check your facts again, because you're wrong. She didn't make a comparison to Jim Jones in the Tweet in question (the subject of this thread): she SAID 250k JWs deaths have resulted from refusing blood.
You're right, though, that details matter, and you're extending HER claim: that's how these situations develop in the first place, where someone extends the claim of another until a Leaning Tower of Pisa of questionable assumptions arises.
In summary, the ultra-conservative (safest) stance is to admit that ANY and ALL attempts to quantify (even as an estimate) is difficult if not impossible. We just don't know, which is an honest assessment.
The ultra-liberal (risky, as far as losing credibility) stance would be to claim knowing ANY figure (250k lives have been lost, or Marvin's attempts to extrapolate from the NZ study), since it actually IS unknown and would require supportive data that just doesn't exist.
Thus quoting anything beyond what the Belieav research (and other scientific studies) found and reported is risky, and the person who extends the claim beyond what the study reported has to defend an indefensible claim. Citing Beliaev's study IS valid, as Beliaev's study has been published and methods disclosed so it's open to challenge, and then he'd have the onus of defending his own work; anyone who doubts its validity has to provide their evidence on which to base their challenge (eg claiming improper methods used, etc). But to cite the study as it stands is OK, and intellectually-honest.
Fact remains, though, we ALL have to deal with uncertainty in life; simply because we can fashion a question into a grammatically-correct sentence doesn't mean an answer exists, or that we're entitled to know the answer (whether handed down from science or by God). Sure, JWs like to tell themselves they have God on their side, since they apparently choose not deal with life's uncertainties. Flip-side is those outside of the JWs also will fool themselves, thinking science has all the answers it doesn't claim to HAVE all the answers.Uncertainty exists in life, so learn to live with it and embrace it.
As that press review of Beliaev's study pointed out, JWs are ironically helping others to find data for a problem of their own making, since the results of the study actually SHOULD matter to them, as they're the ones who refuse blood on religious grounds. The study showed that blood transfusions ARE assocated with less complications and lowered risk of death, both at a lower cost (caveats being that the results of the Beliaev study only applies to those who participated in the study, but it's reasonable to assume that it applies to other groups, although such transferability to a population Worldwide has yet to be proven in what would be an EXTREMELY costly study to conduct, so don't hold your breath!).
But even there, individual outcomes will vary, and in fact for an unknown minority of those who refuse blood, that WOULD be the RIGHT CHOICE for THEIR situation, since there IS a small minority who experience complications from accepting blood, and would even DIE as a result of those complications: for them, refusal would be the RIGHT CHOICE, they in fact might've LIVED if they refused, and DIED if they accepted. HOWEVER, such individuals would be in an unknown minority, but such a risk-population exists.That example shows why it's important NOT to go to the other extreme on this issue and claiming certainty which just doesn't exist, since such a claim isn't justified based on the clinical data.
Similarly, the pitfall of reliance on anecdotal reports (eg as presented in this thread) are many and well-known, since each patient is different, so citing individual results which have not been proven constitutes "cherry picking". In fact, that's exactly WHY scientists use large populations: individual results may vary, and a small sample size may not be representative.Now granted, there may be many anecdotal reports of such cases, and generally speaking, where there's smoke there IS fire. But again, there is a small risk in drawing conclusions without further investigation in a controlled manner being completed. Why? While there may be smoke that indicates fire, there's many other causes of smoke besides fire (eg it could actually be fog/haze, fumes from non-combustion, etc). That's exactly WHY we use studies to CONFIRM anecdotal evidence: to see if there is a causal connection. Anecdotal accounts POINT to questions that need further study, but don't replace the results obtained from conducting such studies.
So sure, we can cite a long list of anecdotal cases, but it's not a compelling argument, and drawing conclusions from them carries risk. Sure, it's an emotional appeal, but do we really want to play that game of fighting unproven and invalid hyperbolic WT claims with counter-hyperbolic claims? JWs can lie all day long seemingly with immunity, but how does using anything BUT THE TRUTH make you any better?Remember: we also share the moral blood-guilt of those who rely on OUR hyperbolic claims, when an unknown number likely WOULD experience complications from accepting blood (and maybe even die from following our unfounded emotional pleas). Are you willing to personally take the blame? The GB has no problem claiming to play God: do you?
Adam
-
Simon
So sure, we can cite a long list of anecdotal cases, but it's not a compelling argument, and drawing conclusions from them carries risk. Sure, it's an emotional appeal, but do we really want to play that game of fighting unproven and invalid hyperbolic WT claims with counter-hyperbolic claims? JWs can lie all day long seemingly with immunity, but how does using anything BUT THE TRUTH make you any better?
We need to be careful too that even with many anecdotal cases we identify the cases. Otherwise 100 people remembering the same single case becomes 100x what it really was. I think many of the cases we all think of are actually the same few that have been reported. Yes, some will have accounts of more and different ones - clusters are normal in sparse data.
For me, the main thing is to be truthful. If you ever find out that a claim made was false and the originators knew it was likely to be false or were "intentionally careless with the facts" (because the result supported their agenda) then I discount anything else from the same source.
That doesn't mean that people can't be wrong - mistakes get made, new evidence emerges etc... but when things seem shady then trust quickly evaporates. Without trust there is little hope of convincing anyone of the message you want to get across.
-
slimboyfat
One of the big unknowns (only one of many unknowns) in this discussion about how many JWs may have died from refusing blood is how the policy affects people in poorer countries in Africa and elsewhere where health care is not the best. Is it possible that many JWs die in these countries because they don't have access to non-blood substitutes and more advanced blood conserving measures? It's possible, but we don't know, much less be able to put a figure on it.
-
TTATT
Fine. Making a post that is not totally bashing aawa makes me "Bo Juel Jensen". Chessus....
-
Simon
Fine. Making a post that is not totally bashing aawa makes me "Bo Juel Jensen". Chessus....
No, having duplicate accounts when one is 'bojuel' from a norwegian email provider, starting topics promoting AAWA, defending criticism of AAWA and talking about 'knowing the AAWA president, Richard E Kelly, was interviewed' about something ... probably makes it you. You can see how one could easily get that impression, right?
Rather than trying to give the impression by implying that it isn't you, why not give a clear statement ... if indeed it isn't you.
If it is you then I just wish you'd all learn to be more open and honest and less antagonistic as I think you'll find a lot more people willing to be more supportive if you were. Just because people criticise doesn't mean they are against you, critics can be our biggest supporters if you listen to them.
-
Terry
A sidebar and digression. . .
I use to meet an active Jehovah's Witness (friend from long ago) for lunch secretly. It was his idea.
Invariably, we'd get into it.
No matter what we discussed or how heated it became or what facts I presented-- I was astonished the next time we met.
Why?
He not only forgot 99% of my facts--he twisted the outcome around in his head!
Example:
I told him Isaac Asimov had died of HIV from a blood transfusion he had received.
Pretty simple, eh?
A month later in conversation, my JW friend pipes up with this comment, "Hey did you know Isaac Asimov was a queer?"
Disgustedly, I blasted him. "No, Asimov wasn't gay and I'm the one who told you he had died and how and why. How do you manage
to sift out all the facts?"
Not two months later, he repeated the same claim to me!
Moral of the story, It doesn't matter to Jehovah's Witnesses what facts, evidence or reports are transmitted to them outside of the Kingdom Hall because
they hear what they want to hear and believe what they want to believe and will simply repeated what's left.
More back on topic--
What I feared (I don't know if "fear" is the word I want) when I saw this Topic and read Julia's words was the carelessness with which
the statistic was stated publicly. IT REMINDED ME of what my ex-friend and active JW always seemed to do.
Back to our regularly scheduled topic. . .
-
adamah
Simon said-
We need to be careful too that even with many anecdotal cases we identify the cases. Otherwise 100 people remembering the same single case becomes 100x what it really was. I think many of the cases we all think of are actually the same few that have been reported. Yes, some will have accounts of more and different ones - clusters are normal in sparse data.
Yeah, I wasn't suggesting that we all actually waste time compliling a string of ancedotal cases: I didn't intend those words as prescriptive advice, but merely to give AAWA some morsel of hope in their work, other than criticism. I was trying to point out how anecdotal evidence provides some value to scientists (by pointing to areas which warrant further investigation), although it is considered the weakest evidence out there. File it under 'silver-linings of clouds'.
But at the end of the day, we're back at the same point: those who SHOULD be stepping up to the plate to provide "firm data" on this issue likely won't do so, since they're obviously have no motivation to do so (and have more motivation to let a sleeping dog lie); further, they aren't exactly an impartial source of data (it would be highly-suspect data, EVEN IF they DID offer it, and whether they'd tend to inflate or deflate numbers is another topic for speculation just as trying to determine a hard figure is).
The absense of such hard data SHOULD raise questions in the minds of those MOST AT RISK, JW members themselves. It's on THEM to save themselves and act in THEIR own interests, as no one else can save them BUT themselves, since no one can save us from the greatest risk we often face: OURSELVES. People need to accept personal responsibility for THEIR choices, and not look to blame others, since the only one harmed or rewarded is primarily EACH OF US.
But gaining that insight seems to be a solo endeavor, as we cannot force it upon others, and insisting they see it is paradoxical, likely only wasted breath (although one's tendency to believe in talking snakes is a known-risk factor for death from refusing a life-saving medical treatment).
Adam
-
TD
One of the big unknowns (only one of many unknowns) in this discussion about how many JWs may have died from refusing blood is how the policy affects people in poorer countries in Africa and elsewhere where health care is not the best. Is it possible that many JWs die in these countries because they don't have access to non-blood substitutes and more advanced blood conserving measures? It's possible, but we don't know, much less be able to put a figure on it.
On page 13 of this thread I quoted a letter to the Editor from BMJ where a medical director for a hospital in Uganda said as much.
He concluded:
"The choice is easy here in Uganda. When a child who has severe anaemia from malaria with hookworm infestation and undernutrition comes in the choice is simple: he or she has a transfusion or dies."