The suicides by JWS has another point of relevance that can not be easily dismissed.
There seems to be a problem with that as well.
I've known of at least three while being a JWS and I haven't personally been a JWS for over 30 years .
250,000 Jehovah's Witnesses have died refusing blood
by nicolaou 739 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
Finkelstein
Well said EdenOne the most accurate analysis of this topic as well the indirect consequences of over bloating a claim
that has the potentiality to ruin and weaken the oppositional intents of creating public awareness to this most damaging and false doctrine
by the WTS./JWS.
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“No, the sample is 19 out of 103 patients over a decade. That is a small sample.”
Simon,
Not in my use of the information it’s not, and it’s my use of this information at issue. Right?
Of the 19 and 103 values the sample is 103 and the population of that sample is 19. This sample of 103 was used by Beliaev to form a matched comparison group to identify whatever disparities between the two groups, and in particular disparity of costs between the two groups in relation to outcomes.
That was Beliaev’s use of the 19 and 103 values; not mine.
My use was to take Beliaev’s identification of 19 statistically preventable deaths and compare it with the population of JWs in New Zealand.
My use of Beliaev’s identification of 19 statistically preventable deaths among JWs in New Zealand uses the population of JWs in New Zealand as the sample value (=12,700 annually between 1998-2007) against the 19 identified instances of statistically preventable deaths among JWs in New Zealand.
You don’t understand these things. That’s apparent. Moreover, I don’t see any need in repeating these things.
“Your are assuming that there is no other variance than the patient being a JW. It would be incredible if the same hospitals had two sets of 1000 patients and had the exact same outcomes for both - same number of deaths, same reasons etc...”
Where I’ve assumed I’ve done so conservatively so that if I’m wrong I’m wrong in terms of an understatement rather than an overstatement. My extrapolation is based on these conservative inputs. Hence, if anything, the numbers of preventable would be higher rather than lower. As you don’t understand the sample set and population of that sample set, you don’t understand this either. I see no need in repeating this, either.
“Your issue is that you are taking numbers that have a chance of being correct as being absolutely correct.”
My extrapolation is based on a hard number of preventable deaths that is absolutely correct. That number is 19 over a 10-year period documented in a minority of trauma centers in New Zealand.
My extrapolation is based on a hard number value of JWs in New Zealand at the time and uses the same hard number value of JWs worldwide. These numbers are published.
“If your method was in the least bit scientific you would be able to tell us what the confidence and margin of errors were. I don't think you can.”
I could. But I don’t need to. My extrapolation is not presented as a predictor of preventable deaths. It’s presented as a conservative figure of preventable deaths. The former tends to need a confidence factor and margin of error; the latter does not because it’s based on conservative inputs. You don’t understand this either.
“Marvin, this should be a fairly straightforward question which you've danced around:
“How many JWs have died? (using known populations and normal mortality rates)
“What proportion of those deaths are you claiming are due to refusing blood?”
Simon,
What you say above is not only an insult, worse, it’s a boldfaced lie.
I answered both these questions on page 15 of this discussion, and I provided this information in reply to YOU!!!:
Please stop with the insults.
Marvin Shilmer
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“Marvin, your acknowledgement that you simply assumed the incidence of anaemia in New Zealand matched that of other countries shows how simplistic your research endeavors are. New Zealanders have ready access to the health care system for serious medical conditions and - I would venture far readier access than many other countries, including the USA. Besides, it is also highly likely that the incidence of blood disorders from country to country - and even within countries - varies significantly across socioeconomic groups. It is untenable basing hard numbers research findings on the kinds of assumptions you have made. BTW, whether you openly acknowledge your assumptions or not, unsupportable assumptions remain unsupportable.”
Steve2,
First, what you cite is misplaced because my presentation is not based on incidents of anemia but rather a statistically hard mortality number, and that mortality is not related to anemia but, rather, to refusal of blood product.
Second, assuming New Zealanders have comparatively ready access to healthcare makes my assumption of parity with other socioeconomic regions conservative. If anything this assumption of parity makes my extrapolation an understatement rather than an overstatement.
“I have worked in a metropolitan hospital in New Zealand for over ten years and can categorically state that preventable deaths due to blood-transfusion refusal are extremely rare. All hospitals in New Zealand have a statutory obligation to formally report "sentinel events" which includes deaths due to treatment refusals (although the reporting does not include personal identifiers). Again, the numbers stand out as very low. I personally am very angry about the extrapolations Marvin and his supporters are making. These claims detract from the impressive body of reasoning that exposes the Watchtower's blood doctrine as scripturally and medically unsuppprtable.”
“I have worked at…”?
That’s really great. Are you suggesting Beliaev and his co-researchers lied when reporting the 19 statistically preventable deaths among an annual average of 12,700 JWs over 1998-2007?
I’ll take a documented and published finding over your anecdotes every day of the week.
If my work makes you angry then why not take the evidence as it is presented by Beliaev, compare it with the New Zealand population of JWs and extrapolate your own estimate, first of preventable deaths of JWs suffering severe anemia and refusing blood. Then we can discuss how or whether to use this toward the world population of JWs.
In the end, either Beliaev’s presentation offers a means of estimating the ratio of JWs who died during 1998-2007 with severe anemia and refusing blood versus the number of JWs in New Zealand, or it does not. If it does, then what is YOUR estimate? If it does not then what is YOUR reason why Beliaev’s study is not useful for this purpose?
Marvin Shilmer
-
Simon
Marvin, we get it - you think Beliaev is the messiah himself and can do no wrong, his figures are holy writings and cannot be questioned.
Just accept that many of us aren't so ready to believe your numbers because, well, I think I'll quote you: "You don’t understand these things. That’s apparent." The numbers are questionable and such a small study in one place is of limited value and cannot be extrapolated. Many have explained why.
Maybe "People who do not understand something should refrain from commenting on it."
Of course now I said it to you it will be an insult. Thanks for checking off every one of the bullet-points I listed.
I could. But I don’t need to.
LOL, is that accademic speak for "I claim 5th amendment rights"?
-
Simon
Wait, maybe if you just pasted the same things again this time it will convince us?!
Or not ...
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“Marvin, we get it - you think Beliaev is the messiah himself and can do no wrong, his figures are holy writings and cannot be questioned.”
I haven’t seen anyone in this discussion complaining that Beliaev’s information is suspect. Is that your new premise for complaint? If so, what is your basis for suspecting the accuracy of Beliaev’s presentation of data?
“Just accept that many of us aren't so ready to believe your numbers because, well, I think I'll quote you: "You don’t understand these things. That’s apparent." The numbers are questionable and such a small study in one place is of limited value and cannot be extrapolated. Many have explained why.”
I don’t care if anyone here believes a word I say. I do care if what I present has a solid basis. So far I’ve yet to see anyone here other than myself take a look at Beliaev’s data set of statistically preventable deaths and make an assessment of its ramifications in relation to JWs refusing blood. 19 preventable deaths over a 10-year period in a minority of New Zealand trauma centers servicing the needs of an aggregate value of 126,989 JWs in New Zealand over the same period is staggering in its implications.
That you continue speaking of this as a “small study” is telling. Thanks for sharing it.
Marvin Shilmer
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“Marvin, many many thanks for your well-researched and reasoned article. I am employed by one of the District Health Boards in New Zealand in a community-based mental-health team. I have no statistics to hand but based on anecdotal reports from colleagues who work in the Emergency Department, JWs with sudden massive blood loss (as occurs in motor vehicle accidents) are more likely to die compared to others with similar trauma who are given immediate blood transfusions.
“If it were possible to get statistics on these accident "victims", we would undoubtedly find that the extrapolated 50,000 dead worldwide from non-emergency blood refusal since 1961 would be a low estimate when the blood-refusal deaths from emergency departments are added to the estimates.”
steve2,
Thanks for sharing your view and experience.
Marvin Shilmer
-
LisaRose
I would be interested in looking at the study, do you have a link to that? I have been looking at this off and on all week, so far I have many question about how these patients were selected and if this number is truly representatives of the Jehovah's Witness populations at large. Whether you admit it or not, this is a small localized study. I looked at CDC numbers for severe anemia, for the US, there were 4,501 deaths in 2010, for a population of 281 million, that seems much lower than your New Zealand anemia rates. I have a hard time believing anemia is that much more prevalent in New Zealand than the US. Even if you multiply the US deaths rate by 10( the increased risk percentage from the NZ study)you don't come up with the numbers you claim based on your extrapolation.
I have verified your numbers, and they are good, it's just this assumption that these few patients in NZ are representative of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide, in the same ratios. I would be happy to find you are correct, I am not trying to prove you wrong, I just need more information.
-
LisaRose
Another question Marvin - This is from your blog
The original data was gathered from 4 hospitals in New Zealand. But New Zealand has more than 80 hospitals. The 4 used in this study are in the Northern and Midland regions with 57% of the Nation’s population. Population in the Central and Southern regions constitute the remaining 43%. Each of these regions has comparable basic, district and advanced trauma care services.[ 4 ]
Are you saying that out of 80 hospitals, the four hospitals in the study treat 57% of the population? That would mean the other 76 hospitals treat 43% of the population. That doesn't make any sense to me, can you explain?