250,000 Jehovah's Witnesses have died refusing blood

by nicolaou 739 Replies latest watchtower medical

adamah

Marvin said-

When composing my extrapolation I considered the issue of teens and a higher incidence ratio unrelated to refusal of blood product (e.g., Maori ethnicity).

Here’s why I opted not to mathematically account for the issue of teen deaths due to red cell transfusion refusal:

1. I don’t know that there is anything to account for because I don’t know that any of the teens are among the 21 deaths in the 103 JW patients.

Within the framework of science, remember that the rule is, "an absence of evidence is not evidence of absense", since that is what is called, "making an assumption".

Again, your saying "I don't know" as if it's a defense (rather than an admission) is an argument from personal ignorance, and exactly analogous to the believer who says, "Well, I don't know HOW to account for a gap in my personal understanding of how the World actually operates, so I'm assuming God Dun It!" Unfortunatlely, that kind of thinking doesn't fly within a scientific setting, since an absense of evidence or one's personal ignorance does NOT give one carte blanche permission to dismiss all valid criticism(s); thus, anytime you say, "I don't know", it MUST be disclosed as a 'known unknown' if you can't correct the problem IF you want to be honest in your methodology with your readers. "Likely" and "surely" are called ASSUMPTIONS, and are four-letter words in scientific endeavors.

BTW, I'm not quoting any of post-hoc rationalizations (which I don't find very compelling, filled with unproven assumptions), although it's fine to include your reasons (or 'excuses', depending on one's knowledge of the scientific method) in your article to talk your way out of the logistical log-jam of a demonstrable flaw in your extrapolation attempts. It would be advisable to mention the existence of these types of issues in your discussion, as they aren't trivial to anyone who actually KNOWS that studies can be designed to basically show virtually anything, esp when relying on a SINGLE study in NZ (as Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics!").

BTW, that's exactly WHY statisticians use the method of meta-analysis: they attempt to compile the results of MULTIPLE STUDIES that are all looking at the same issue, but with different researchers looking at the same question in order to reduce the statistical effects of errors that may exist within a single study. The topic of how to perform a meta-analysis is WAY over my head, as I'm not a biostat (just a retired provider who's worked with a few in the past).

“Not only does the sample population have a higher rate of anemia, but you admit that in the sub-population it has a higher mortality rate if left untreated, and those two factors explain WHY the study is unfit for extrapolation purposes: it's not truly a representative sample of the entire population Worldwide.”

I do not compare results of the Beliaev study with the entire population worldwide. I compare the result of the Beliaev study with the population of JWs worldwide. JW make up the “the sample population” you speak of and the “sub-population” you speak of, and it's mortality among the JW population that is at issue. If I’ve misunderstood you please feel free to restate yourself or otherwise clarify.

I know that, and assumed you'd know that the "population" you're trying to extrapolate to IS the JW Worldwide population: OF COURSE it's not the entire population of BILLIONS of humans who live on Planet Earth. Odd that you'd think I wouldn't know that, having taken a few years of stats more than you?

Anyway, that actually reminds me of another problem:

If you want to claim to generate a "conservative" figure, you'd also need account for the sub-population of those JWs under 18 who are included in the total head count (7.4 mil, or whatever it is) to remove them from the calculations, since they are generally protected as minors in most Countries. I don't know if JWs provide that a figure for under-18s who are included in the total, but that's another factor which you should account for, since to fail to do so would prevent a claim of being "conservative" in attempts to extrapolate from a NZ sub-population (of 12.7k to 7.4 mil, where NZ JWs represent less than 2 out of 1000 JWs worldwide, and those who died in the study represent 1 out of 353,400 of JWs Worldwide).

If ages can be obtained from those patient's charts (an easy solution to the predicament, digging up 21 charts and noting their age at the time they refused blood), then Beliaev's study SHOULD be used as the basis for legislative actions to try and raise the age of consent from 16 to align with the rest of the Western World. However, that change would likely be contested by abortion rights activists, as it would infringe on the right of a 16 yr old female to seek an abortion without their parent's knowledge and/or consent; the same right that allows a 16 y.o. to die as a Martyr for Jehovah also allows a 16 y.o. to seek an abortion without their parents consent! So ironically, those JWs who demand to exercise their right to to die also entails a cost of increasing deaths due to abortion.

Adam
Finkelstein

Marvin, just wondering how many JWS have died for not taking a BTs under your own beliefs and estimates ?
TD

Adam,

In the U.S., we don't let 16 yr olds die, like they MUST do in NZ.

In the U.S. we try not to let 16 year olds die. JW's have consistently lost legal battles involving small children, but have been fairly successful in cases involving mature minors and the sad reality is they often do end up dying.
Giordano

But it would not surprise me to learn that “cause of death” was not listed as “refusing blood” in even one instance. Yet the reality is that these deaths were identified by retrospective statistical analysis with a common cause: refusing blood when it would have saved a life.

I was hoping we could have moved to other studies and evidence by now and come up with a practical reference point but unfortunately we are still debating one study...... perhaps it's the only one out there.

The above quote is true and it is part of the fall out about blood. Two cases: A close family member had cancer. She requested a no blood surgical proceedure. During the surgery her blood pressure dropped, perhaps other issues as well caused by blood loss, they were forced to stop the surgery leaving the remaining tumor's in place. Kemo arrested the growth for a while but the cancer came back and she died. Cause of death was cancer.

My mother in law had a serious heart attack, with no blood.... surgery was not going to happen at that time (early 1980's). She recovered but had two more heart attacks in the next five years. She could have had bypass surgery but not without blood. She died soon after, cause of death massive heart attack.

The same goes for severe trauma, and a host of other conditions and situations.

Whatever the extra mortality percentage there is for JW's........... it exists and we all know this.

We also know their membership reached 2 million in 1974 and each year it has grown to 7.8 million by 2012.

They are also an aging group where life saving surgery is often needed.

They also have expanded into third world countries where limited medical options are available.

JW'S have a long history of blindly following what the Society tells them when it comes to medicine. So they have needlessly died from a lack of vaccines, transplants and blood for almost a hundred years.

The WT celebrates these unnecessary deaths and even calls young children martyr's of the faith.

Have 250,000 died? I feel sure that's possible because of the medical decisions a JW has to make and the immediate or future consequences of those decisions.

50,000 is more then possible. When asked I have confidence that the JW'S could fill up those fields in Jonestown with 1,000 bodies on average every year going back to 1945.

As far as any harm quoting the larger number goes this is the religion that said "millions living today will not....may not die". This is a religion that has made up their dogma and ruined many a family. So who gives a crap ...... let them prove the 250,000 figure is wrong. I'll bet they never even kept track of their martyr's
adamah

TD said-

In the U.S. we try not to let 16 year olds die. JW's have consistently lost legal battles involving small children, but have been fairly successful in cases involving mature minors and the sad reality is they often do end up dying.

True, but you're simply pointing out yet another factor that is not accounted for, and only increases the uncertainty in any estimation; that point only undermines the ability to be able to safely say that ANY figure is accurate, much less to claim then that figure as being "conservative".

Of course, if the Beliaev study were done for the purposes Marvin wants to use it for, the simple answer would be to design the study to set the age of exclusion at those less than 18; then the study would be appicable to other legal climates, and this would be a non-issue and would be truly "conservative". They'd also not exclude palliative care patients, since doing so also exaggerates the effects of any deaths in the younger pts (avg. age for hospice pts in the US is around 70, IIRC).

However, Beliaev's team designed the study for THEIR purposes (they were looking at questions of cost-effectiveness within the NZ healthcare system). That's Beliaev's right, of course, and anyone who wants to show something else should go to med school so they too can participate and carry out such clinical investigations.

In a recent comment, LisaRose said something about how she felt most objections were based on concerns that Marvin was inflating the number. Nope, not me: I'm objecting to the fact that we JUST DON'T KNOW, as there's NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE on which to claim ANY number with any statistical reliability; thus, it's impossible to determine if it's high or low (which is done in statistics by reporting the confidence interval/level, AKA the 'margin of error', which would be off-the-scale in this case, due to all of these unknowns which aren't accounted for and which CANNOT be accounted for without input from an omniscient being who's not returning His calls).

As I've said until I'm blue in the face (a sign of anoxia, which is also associated with anemia), trying to fabricate ANY number is a red herring, and missing the forest for the trees: simply reporting the finding of the Believ study (eg that 19 people died over a 10-yr period) should be evidence enough for any rational person. In fact, even considering the complexity of the massive challenge of credibly-estimating ANY number works against the JWs, eg as pointed out above, the ones who COULD answer the question (GB) seemingly are not even counting these so-called "martyrs".

Hence each individual JW needs to ask themselves if they want to sacrifice themselves or their children on the altar to the GB, hoping that perhaps they'll be remembered in the form of post-mortem appearance on the cover of a WT? It doesn't matter HOW many others died, as the only thing that matters to most people is when it's you or your child's life on the line (such concerns are easily-dismissed by thinking, "it'll never happen to ME!"). Jehovah provided Abraham with a ram at the last moment to use instead of his son, Isaac: don't count on the same happening for YOU, since unlike the Genesis account, it's easy to write an account with a happy ending (but not so easy done, in real life).

Adam
LisaRose

I think Adamah has some very good points, it will be interesting to see how you address them.

If you are willing to answer a few more questions from me, how long did the study follow these patients? I know it was a ten year study, but for each patient in the study, how long did they track mortality? For example, if a patient who took a transfusion died six months later of cancer, was that death counted in the mortality statistics?

What I am getting at is that the study was to determine the cost benefit of transfusions. If a patient took a transfusion lived, then died later of their condition, there would have been a cost benefit for the short term, and the patient would be glad to have extended their life by those months, but the transfusion would not alter the outcome of their disease in the long run.

So if a Jehovah's Witness refused the transfusion, and so died sooner rather than later of their underlying condition, can you really attribute that death to the Watchtower?
Simon

Refusing blood is almost never cited as cause of death. The deaths we’re talking about are buried in the numbers in your chart from one side to the other, sometimes including even suicide believe it or not.

A deceased’s cause of death listed as “heart disease” may well be a result of refusing blood.

Same with cancer.

The numbers of those who’ve died prematurely are buried in the statistics you show, only the deaths we’re talking about add to the overall mortality. But, again, they’re buried under “cause of death” that does not identify the active consequent of refusing blood when it would have made a difference.

Again, you're missing the point and again I think it's so you can skip what I'm saying. I'm not saying these are "extra" deaths *not* included in the other ones, I'm demonstrating what the NUMBERS equate to and what the likelyhood should be of us all being personally aquainted with someone who dies from refusing blood.

From your figures, for every KH of 100 people then 3+ of them will die from refusing blood.

I don't think that number is believable or matches most people's experience which is that people tend to know the same very few cases.

I don't think as many JWs are dying from refusing blood as from these other causes. If the died-from-blood numbers were taken out of the other causes then the ratio would look even more dramatic than it does.
Simon

Of course, if the Beliaev study were done for the purposes Marvin wants to use it for

Yes, the study was obviously designed to show the biggest gap possible in outcomes between having and not having blood transfusion. Hardly a surprise given that it was by the Institute for Blood Transfusion.

It's also no surprise that applying the findings from such a narrow, focused study (dare I say contrived?) and extrapolating them to a huge population would produce such an unbelievable number that doesn't appear reasonable when compared alongside other, more robust statistics.
LisaRose

Have 250,000 died? I feel sure that's possible because of the medical decisions a JW has to make and the immediate or future consequences of those decisions.

50,000 is more then possible. When asked I have confidence that the JW'S could fill up those fields in Jonestown with 1,000 bodies on average every year going back to 1945.

As far as any harm quoting the larger number goes this is the religion that said "millions living today will not....may not die". This is a religion that has made up their dogma and ruined many a family. So who gives a crap ...... let them prove the 250,000 figure is wrong. I'll bet they never even kept track

I do think there is harm in overstating the numbers. You could get easily pay an expert in the field to say that Marvin' s numbers are wrong, then use that as an examine of Apostate lies and manipulations. The average JW would not look on it as a well intentioned effort to show the dangers of refusing blood, but an example of Apostate lies and persecution. They would then be less likely to trust anything else put out by ex JWs.

Marvin is focusing on this particular study because other studies have failed to show increased mortality, at least not in the way this study dos. But this study was one study, in only four hospitals, in one part of one small country. It simply cannot be extrapolated out over the entire JW population, over fifty years. But, as everyone else has said, even one death is too many and we should focus on those individuals and their stories, rather than trying to make this study show something it doesn't and can't.
adamah

Simon said-

Yes, the study was obviously designed to show the biggest gap possible in outcomes between having and not having blood transfusion. Hardly a surprise given that it was by the Institute for Blood Transfusion.

Well, the FACT is that JWs in the past actually had some valid concerns over the safety of blood transfusions, and many studies have pointed to some doctors who think of BT as a benign intervention which carries no risk, which simply isn't the case: overlooking the AIDs tainted blood issue in the 1980s, there are risks of complications and adverse reactions from accepting a BT which ARE known as risks.

However, all cases vary, and YMMV depending on the specifics of the case. I have no problem saying that BTs are beneficial in most cases, and absolutely essential to saving a life in some (as well as the damage that results from failing to accept treatment at an early stage, thus allowing the condition to "snowball" and making it much-more-difficult to manage thereafter).

It's a fact that studies cost $$$, and it's always going to be problematic funding a study without some special interest group picking up the bill. In fact, many more studies and clinical trials are paid for by big pharma, where it stretches credibility to believe that there's NOT some pressure on the clinical investigators to find what's in the best interests of the sponsor.

HOWEVER, it does little good for the company to put out a drug, and then have a scandal erupt afterwards when it "fails to do what it says on the tin", or WORSE, to cause side effects that weren't disclosed and found in the clinical trials.

It's also no surprise that applying the findings from such a narrow, focused study (dare I say contrived?) and extrapolating them to a huge population would produce such an unbelievable number that doesn't appear reasonable when compared alongside other, more robust statistics.

Yeah, it's a credibility issue, and the fight is asymmetrical, as the JW's GB can demand death on cue based on lies, yet we're held to a higher standard of being not allowed to abuse scientific standards.

I'm going to write an article on Beliaev's study later today (or tomorrow) on my blog, using some of the ideas discussed in this thread but handled in an honest manner (carrying bias is a KILLER to one's credibility). At the end of the day, the issues AREN'T easily addressed (eg a teen's right to refuse BT is tied to the right of another teen to abort an unplanned pregnancy without their parent's or the State's permission, where ironically the JW parent is depending on 'Caesar' to step in to bail themselves and their child from their own religious beliefs; yet they also don't donate blood, vote, etc. so fail to contribute to the public welfare).

I'll be soliciting input and feedback on the article when I get it in rough-enough shape to share! Heck, I'll be ripping off ideas discussed here, so I'm TAKING much of it anyway, LOL!

Adam

250,000 Jehovah's Witnesses have died refusing blood

Share this