I would like to just focus on the study deaths. What is the outermost error indicated?
250,000 Jehovah's Witnesses have died refusing blood
by nicolaou 739 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“But Marvin, I'm struggling to understand whether your extrapolation is reliable or not, even whether the nature of an extrapolation is something that is relevant in this case.”
Nicolaou,
My extrapolation is invalid only if it’s an overstatement. My extrapolation is presented as: 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?
“Who are we trying to reach here?”
My work is not part of a “we” who are trying to reach anyone.
My work is my own, and I’m trying to reach a broad spectrum of readers, whoever they may be. One of the most frequently asked questions has to do with the extent of mortality this doctrine has caused.
Marvin Shilmer
-
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?
To me it means that you are blinded by your own belief in your method and are unwilling to even consider the chance that it could be wrong or you could have missed something.
You keep repeating the 19 deaths out of 103. Yes, 19 over a decade in practically 2/3rd of a whole country is a pretty small rate of incidence which means that while it could well be representative it could equally a cluster of cases or even a dip, whatever - I haven't seen anything presented that indicates whether this has been considered or not and certainly nothing that consititutes evidence that it isn't.
All the time you are convinced that "there must be more in the other hospitals". Well, OK ... what if there were 1 or 2 more? Yes, your total goes up but now the 19 looks like a bit of an anomaly. Would that make you more or less confident in the extrapolation? Would the result look more or less conservative?
This is the danger ot taking a small sample and extrapolating the result and applying it to a large population and then being too dogmatic about the whole thing.
I don't have confidence in your method or assumptions but it's obviously a waste of time trying to explain why as you simply refuse to accept anything that disagrees with your view.
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“To me it means that you are blinded by your own belief in your method and are unwilling to even consider the chance that it could be wrong or you could have missed something.”
Simon,
To the contrary, I want to know if I’ve missed or overstated something. When are you going to show me something to this effect?
“You keep repeating the 19 deaths out of 103. Yes, 19 over a decade in practically 2/3rd of a whole country is a pretty small rate of incidence which means that while it could well be representative it could equally a cluster of cases or even a dip, whatever - I haven't seen anything presented that indicates whether this has been considered or not and certainly nothing that consititutes evidence that it isn't.”
Read the study.
“All the time you are convinced that "there must be more in the other hospitals". Well, OK ... what if there were 1 or 2 more? Yes, your total goes up but now the 19 looks like a bit of an anomaly. Would that make you more or less confident in the extrapolation? Would the result look more or less conservative?”
I’m using the information before me. I’m not assuming anything of the numbers other than what’s presented. There are 19 deaths over and beyond the norm due to refusing blood.
I’m not going to ignore that.
Oh, and there were more than 19 deaths.
In the JW grouping there were 21 deaths out of 103 patients.
In the non-JW grouping there were 2 deaths out of 103 matched patients.
“This is the danger ot taking a small sample and extrapolating the result and applying it to a large population and then being too dogmatic about the whole thing.”
21 of 103 compared to 2 of 103 is not small. It’s huge.
“I don't have confidence in your method or assumptions but it's obviously a waste of time trying to explain why as you simply refuse to accept anything that disagrees with your view.”
You don’t know the math, the means or even the subject! So what?
Share a specific disagreement rather than the ambiguity you keep repeating. Then you’ve said something we can talk about. Until then you’ve said nothing.
Marvin Shilmer
-
Simon
Marvin, all you can truly say from your data is that "at least" 19 people have died from refusing blood.
Are there more? Definitelty. We know of several cases that are not included in that study.
Are there 49,981 more? I'm not so sure. You have not presented any compelling evidence that there are that many, just a lot of hand waving and telling anyone who questions things that they are not as intelligent as you are, are too dumb to understand (basic math) or that their questions aren't valid or worth answering.
You come across as someone very defensive. Not "defending" you material which is good, just overly defensive. That doesn't inspire any confidence - it comes across as a bullying tactic to try and silence people who have simply questioned some of your assumptions which it has to be said, you could drive a bus through.
-
Simon
I’m not going to ignore that.
Oh, and there were more than 19 deaths.
Drum roll ....
In the JW grouping there were 21 deaths ...
Yeah, so 19 above the norm. I think we all understood that. That's the 19 we've been talking about for some 30+ pages
Can you even hear yourself?
-
nicolaou
What does “at least” mean to you?
It means 'not less than' to me and I'm sorry but that's almost a guarantee and I'm sure even you wouldn't offer that. In fact in mathematics, which is most pertinent here, 'at least' means ' equal to or greater than '.
Would you seriously state that the Watchtowers Blood Transfusion Policy has resulted in a number of fatalites amongst Jehovah's Witnesses equal to or greater than 50,000?
Respectfully
-
Simon
On page 1 Marvin said he believed 250,000 was the number.
Though I don’t intend to spend time developing a mathematical algorithm to construct a statistical number for deaths since 1961 that accounts for 1) medical practices from 1961 to 1997 and for 2) any increased mortality due to medical assets in lesser world regions, I don’t doubt the figure would easily reach 250,000 over the years of 1961 to now.
Do you still believe that Marvin?
That the number would easily be 250,000 (I take that to be "at least").
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“Marvin, all you can truly say from your data is that "at least" 19 people have died from refusing blood.”
Simon,
If I can “truly” say from the given data set that at least 19 people have died from refusing blood then I can “truly” say what that would mean applied broadly based on given assumptions.
Apparently you don’t get this. But it’s what I’ve done.
I’ve not predicted a number. I’ve extrapolated a number based on something that is ‘true’ and stated assumptions.
“Are there 49,981 more? I'm not so sure. You have not presented any compelling evidence that there are that many, just a lot of hand waving and telling anyone who questions things that they are not as intelligent as you are, are too dumb to understand (basic math) or that their questions aren't valid or worth answering.”
A lot of hand waving? Telling folks they are not as intelligent as me?
Giving specific information is not hand waving.
Answering questions crucial to my extrapolation is not hand waving.
In case you missed the memo, I do not consider myself more intelligent than other participants here. So what?
That’s not the discussion. The discussion is whether my extrapolation presents an inflated value, and if you think it does then SHOW WHY and be done with it. This latter part is what you keep failing to do. Put some skin on your complaints in the way of specific assertions so we have something to discuss. Until then you’ve said nothing.
Marvin Shilmer
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“Would you seriously state that the Watchtowers Blood Transfusion Policy has resulted in a number of fatalities amongst Jehovah's Witnesses equal to or greater than 50,000?”
Nicolaou,
Based on my personal experience I could easily agree with that figure as a minimum over the 50 previous years.
Based on the statistical deaths in Beliaev’s study I can extrapolate that number at least, and more if I attempted to adjust for any additional like deaths at other facilities equal to those whose patient data he used.
Marvin Shilmer