by nicolaou 739 Replies latest watchtower medical
we need to reach over all these heads and 'speak' to active Jehovah's Witnesses themselves - especially young parents.
A more convincing approach than 50,000 JWs have die in total would likely be:
"Would you be willing to let your young child die based on a doctrine that has changed many times over the last 40 years?"
When you make it about the child it's the one person a parent loves the most and the only number that matters then is '1'.
-
“This is why anything that's based on a simple calculation is fundamentally flawed.”
That’s false.
A calculation’s level of complexity (less or more) is no indicator of correctness.
“A true model is needed taking into account the different factors of both WatchTower doctrine AND medical treatments available as well as the number of JWs around and the likelihood that they would refuse blood treatment and die as a result of it as each period of time (whether per year or per decade).”
That’s false.
We do not need to account for all different factors if we want to extrapolate based on conservative inputs. My calculation was done intentionally with the use of conservative inputs at every turn in order to establish what amounts to a minimum value. So 1) when it comes to Watchtower doctrine the conservative approach is to use statistics influenced by changes that were formally issued in year 2000. The data collection of Beliaev has this statistical influence because most of the data was accrued from year 2000 onward. And 2) when it comes to medical treatments available the conservative approach is to use statistics based on current medical technology rather than outdated medical technology. The Beliaev study fits this bill, too.
“Simple logic: if the period the study covered was the worst period for JWs dying then you can't apply the results to ALL periods. Does anyone truly believe that the risk has been constant and that changes in doctrine and treatment have no effect?”
In answer, no. More importantly, my extrapolated value opts for inputs that are least likely to inflate the outcome and most likely to deflate the outcome. This is a strength of the approach I took to answering the question of how many JWs have died due to Watchtower’s blood doctrine. My extrapolation is conservative.
Marvin Shilmer
To take it a bit further ...
Find the cases where people died because they followed a doctrine that has been abandoned and tell the world that "Suzy died because of rules invented by a few old men and now abandoned". Describe "Suzy" and her life, what her loss means to her children etc...
THAT is media-worthy.
I know I sound like a cold, cynical hack whenever I say that but it's true. We have a tendency to focus on what is compelling to us but that is rarely of the same interest to outsiders.
A calculation’s level of complexity (less or more) is no indicator of correctness.
I'm not talking about how complex it is or isn't, I'm saying that it doesn't encapsulate all the changing variables over time. However complex you make your calculation it's still just a formula and not a real model which I think is necessary.
Given that you admit that the changes would have an impact on thedeath rate, isn't it a little disingenuous to suggest that the figure produced by a formula that ignores these changes is accurate and conservative?
We do not need to account for all different factors if we want to extrapolate based on conservative inputs.
Again, you are so convinced that you are 'conservative' that you are not even willing to even consider any ways that you may not be. The 19 dead in the study could be a large cluster for all you know and not indicative of results elsewhere or even there for the following or preceeding time periods.
-
“I am just asking the questions at this point. I understand the study excluded patients in palliative care. But they could have had cancer that was still being treated, no?”
LisaRose,
Yes. There were many comorbidities other than severe anemia. But, again, this was a matched comparison study so these comorbidities existed in each group; hence the differential in mortality was solely due to lack of red cell transfusion. When it comes to cancer, the study shows the non-JW group included nearly twice as many with this comorbidity/history. Despite this the non-JW group had a mortality rate that was in the basement compared to the JW group.
Marvin Shilmer
-
“Marvin: You keep with the assumption that things could only ever increase your value and seem blind to anything that could possibly decrease it.”
Simon,
Then name something that would tend to inflate my value that I have engaged in.
“When extrapolating very small numbers to very large ones the slightest change can have a dramatic effect on the final figure.
“It's for this reason that I think your conclusions, while well intentioned, are possibly incorrect and misleading.”
Let’s talk about how small numbers and their influence.
My input number of 19 deaths comes from 4 hospitals with trauma services out of 14 hospitals with trauma services in the same region. Do you think there were ANY additional like deaths at any of the other 10 hospitals with trauma services? How about the scores of other hospitals in the same region that don’t offer trauma services but do have emergency rooms and treat bleeding patients? Do you really think my input value of 19 is POSSIBLY inflated based on this?
If so, please tell me how. I’d really love to know.
My input number of 19 deaths DOES NOT include any deaths resulting from JW refusing a blood product other than red cells. Do you know how many other blood products prevent premature death everyday of the week by their administration by transfusion? Were I to account for any of these additional deaths it would only increase my input value of 19. Right? So, do you really think my input value of 19 is POSSIBLY inflated based on this?
If so, please tell me how. I’d really love to know.
Oh, and I could keep going with a pretty long list. Need I?
Marvin Shilmer
Simon, I agree with you, but there are still unanswered questions in my mind, I would like to finish the process I started.
Marvin, you say the patients were matched, but how closely? 103 patients is a very small sample. The paper that critiqued the study did mention they were comparing apples and oranges, as far as ages, and other criteria. it makes me wonder if it really is a valid comparison. I guess that is enough for the purposes of the study to say that, yes, taking blood results in less mortality, but is it enough to extrapolate from a sample with any degree of accuracy?There has to be a level of error in that study, and that level of error could result a huge difference, even if you are conservative on other areas.
-
“Given that you admit that the changes would have an impact on thedeath rate, isn't it a little disingenuous to suggest that the figure produced by a formula that ignores these changes is accurate and conservative?”
Simon,
Of course the figure produced by my extrapolation is not disingenuous because my extrapolation is as stated: Since 1961 we can conservatively estimate that at least 50,000 of Jehovah's Witnesses have died due to Watchtower's blood doctrine. What does "at least" mean to you, Simon?
Whether my extrapolation is conservative in order to establish a minimum value is for critics to examine. So far I’ve been offered no evidence showing my value is anything other than minimal.
“Again, you are so convinced that you are 'conservative' that you are not even willing to even consider any ways that you may not be. The 19 dead in the study could be a large cluster for all you know and not indicative of results elsewhere or even there for the following or preceeding time periods.”
The 19 deaths are still 19 deaths. Right? Guess what? The 19 deaths is not an understatement because we know they occurred, and that is the baseline input used in my extrapolation.
Mortality resulting from refusal of red cell transfusion in years previous to 1998 would only inflate the value of my extrapolation because in previous years patients were more dependant on red cell transfusion than today.
Marvin Shilmer
here are some statistics that at one time were widely believed.
Men think of sex every six or seven seconds.
Three out of four women will experience a violent rape in their lifetime.
Spousal abuse skyrockets during the Superbowl.
Christmas causes suicide.
the number of anointed is steadily going down proving that Armageddon is near.
Some of you may even believe some of the things I posted above. There are no statistics to back them up. Are we no better than people who offer these without proof if we do the same?
-
“Marvin, you say the patients were matched, but how closely? 103 patients is a very small sample. The paper that critiqued the study did mention they were comparing apples and oranges, as far as ages, and other criteria. it makes me wonder if it really is a valid comparison. I guess that is enough for the purposes of the study to say that, yes, taking blood results in less mortality, but is it enough to extrapolate from a sample with any degree of accuracy?There has to be a level of error in that study, and that level of error could result a huge difference, even if you are conservative on other areas.”
LisaRose,
The article “Comparing Apples with Oranges” by Isbister is based on a false premise that deviations such as age were not responsibly corrected for. Don’t ask me how Isbister overlooked this. But he did. You can see the corrections made in the tables, and it’s even pointed out in a footnote for those who didn’t take time to analyze the tables.
If we assume an extreme error (say, 50%) it would not begin to offset all the conservative inputs I assumed for sake of my extrapolation. I used an input value of 19 deaths. There are way more than just the 19 deaths due to refusing red cell transfusion. On top of this are additional deaths due to refusing platelets transfusion. On top of this are yet more deaths to add to the input due to refusing plasma exchange transfusion. Then we have the previous years’ greater dependency on blood transfusion prior to alternative techniques, methods and medicines we have today. This previous increased dependency on blood transfusion would add yet again to the input value.
Marvin Shilmer
