250,000 Jehovah's Witnesses have died refusing blood (page 56)

Simon

I haven’t seen anyone demonstrate any assumption on my part that has not always been a part of my extrapolation.

That the 7.5 million current / ~30 million total-ever JWs have the same increased risk of death as the 19 out of 103 patients who refused blood at the NZ hospitals used in the study.

I find the math approach a little simplistic as it doesn't cater for all the changing circumstances throughout the years (either belief, legalities or medical treatment options).

But in the world I live in people are dying all around me and I’m tired of it.

If that is true and not hyperbole then you will have current hard facts of recent data to point to and incorporate into your model.

Simon

A 10-year period is a healthy chunk of time to mitigate extremes upward or downward.

Yes, but it could be composed in a number of ways:

2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1 gives a different view of the data than

10, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 9 e.g. date range picked for best effect (bad surgeon one year? bus crash?) or

10, 7, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 e.g. problem in the past more than recently

Sorry I didn't explain the thinking clearer.

Marvin Shilmer

-

“That the 7.5 million current / ~30 million total-ever JWs have the same increased risk of death as the 19 out of 103 patients who refused blood at the NZ hospitals used in the study.”

My extrapolation assumes people the world over have no more risk of dying due to severe anemia than the population of New Zealanders, and compared to the rest of the world New Zealanders have above average access to healthcare.

“I find the math approach a little simplistic as it doesn't cater for all the changing circumstances throughout the years (either belief, legalities or medical treatment options).”

That simplistic math you speak of assumes the most conservative of multiple factors each time multiple factors arise. In the case of “changing circumstances” two primary ones are the state of medical science (it’s better today than any point since 1961) and the state of Watchtower doctrine (in relation to blood it’s better today than anytime since 1961). Yet the math I’ve used is based on outcomes the result of the most current medical science and Watchtower teaching. That is to say, I’ve not made any regressive adjustments based on yesterday’s reduced medical science or yesterday’s Watchtower teaching, each of which would have driven my extrapolated value higher.

The two items you cite are in each case items where my extrapolation represents a conservative estimate.

Marvin Shilmer

-

“Yes, but it could be composed in a number of ways:

“2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1 gives a different view of the data than

“10, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 9 e.g. date range picked for best effect (bad surgeon one year? bus crash?) or

“10, 7, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 e.g. problem in the past more than recently”

Simon,

I understand your question, but if we assume either of the extremes you cite it would not change the hard count and it would not suggest we’d find something different over the span of 1961 to 2007, which is the period of my extrapolation.

If we assume the earlier years had higher mortalities because of the state of medical science in the treatment of severe anemia among patients refusing blood then using the mitigated average would be make for a conservative extrapolation, meaning the extrapolation would not be an overstatement but, if anything, and understatement.

If we assume the earlier years had higher mortalities because of the then state of Watchtower doctrine prohibiting more blood products then using the mitigated average would make for a conservative extrapolation, meaning the extrapolation would not be an overstatement but, if anything, and understatement.

I checked Beliaev’s other work using the same data set and none spell out the annual value of deaths.

Marvin Shilmer

-

“If that is true and not hyperbole then you will have current hard facts of recent data to point to and incorporate into your model.”

Simon,

My statement was said of the world I live in. As I said, in the world I live in people are dying all around me and I’m tired of it.

This is not hyperbole. I’ve sat in room after room over my years with parents, siblings and children mourning the death of children, siblings and parents who succumbed to death refusing blood with their organ systems shutting down for lack of oxygenation.

To me this is not academic. To me this is as real as it gets. It’s the world I live in, and long ago I tired of sitting by watching it happen without doing more about it. It shames me to look backward at those years thinking I could have done more. Hence a long time ago I decided to do something about it, and to put my money and time where my mouth is at.

There is a reason why incident of JWs dying over blood refusal seems rare. I have shared this reason in various ways in this discussion, and no one has refuted this. The math demonstrates why this appearance exists. But it’s a false appearance. Thousand of JWs have died due to Watchtower’s blood doctrine and for one I’m not going to be silent about it.

If in your world JWs are not dying due to Watchtower’s blood doctrine then I’m glad for you. But I don’t live in that world.

Marvin Shilmer

-

“Again too narrow of base model .

“For example what about people who've suffered extreme blood loss due to traumatic accident or blood infection complications, where a total blood transfusion was required.”

Finkelstein,

That is the sort of response I don’t understand in this discussion. What part of at-or-less than 8 dL of blood don’t you get?

There is nothing narrow about it! If a patient had a blood count at-or-less than 8 dL and they were at least 15 years old then they were included.

Guess what that means? It means a trauma patient who’s at least 15-years-old and who’s lost enough blood that their count is at-or-less than 8 dL is included as suffering “extreme anemia”.

Guess what else that means? It means a trauma patient who’s at least 15-years-old and who’s not lost enough blood that their count is at-or-less than 8 dL is not included as suffering “extreme anemia”.

Marvin Shilmer

steve2

Marvin, I have always believed you come from a meaningful and well-intentioned place. I can accept your vivid account of what it has been - and is - like for you. As with many writers, researchers and others, the closeness to the topic has not always been helpful. Your comments in the previous post use heartfelt but emotive reasoning to bolster your research by, among other things, using language that posits two views: Those like you who are exposed to the actual direct impact of the blood ban and others in which you say the folowing:

If in your world JWs are not dying due to Watchtower’s blood doctrine then I’m glad for you. But I don’t live in that world.

This has absolutely nothing to do with evaluations of your research. You are not the first writer who has become so caught up in their topic of "research" that they use their close involvement in the topic to take liberties with their conclusions. I'm afraid though that the end does not justify the means.

Marvin Shilmer

-

"Marvin … Your comments in the previous post use heartfelt but emotive reasoning to bolster your research..."

Steve2,

Respectfully, what you write is presumptive assertion, and complete hogwash.

Not one word I’ve said above is presented as emotional bolster to my research. What idiocy!

My response you speak to was in answer to a specific question/comment from Simon. Guess what? My answer to THAT question is personal hence the only answer I could give is personal.

But that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether my extrapolation of deaths due to Watchtower’s blood doctrine is somehow overstated or baseless. My extrapolation is based on data before me and assumptions necessary for any extrapolation. These assumptions are stated. These assumptions have not been demonstrated as anything other than conservative.

Now, if you don’t mind, stop with the presumption. I’d rather stay on topic. The topic is not my emotional state. All sane people have emotion. I’m no exception.

Marvin Shilmer

steve2

Marvin, I accept that you were responding "to a specific question/comment from Simon". I should have read the earlier posts more carefully. My apologies for the presumption that you were using it to bolster your research.

You are right to point it out to me.

Finkelstein

There is a reason why incident of JWs dying over blood refusal seems rare. I have shared this reason in various ways in this discussion, and no one has refuted this. The math demonstrates why this appearance exists. But it’s a false appearance. Thousand of JWs have died due to Watchtower’s blood doctrine and for one I’m not going to be silent about it.

If in your world JWs are not dying due to Watchtower’s blood doctrine then I’m glad for you. But I don’t live in that world.

Marvin Shilmer

I don't think anyone here at least would argue with that statement as well toward recognizing JWS deaths are

not as rare as they might seem to be.

Its the statistical methodology you've presented that no one seems to agree with.

Creating a number out incomplete statistics though is being intellectually dishonest and

aren't we all fighting an organization that is intellectually dishonest ?

What does that say of us approaching a matter from that angle?

If you were to present this statistic in a court of law going against the WTS. would it uphold itself as evidence or would

the lawyers for the WTS. succeed in completely smashing it to smithereens ?

250,000 Jehovah's Witnesses have died refusing blood

Share this