my cursory looks are pretty detailed and I notice you did not address my evidence.My mathematical skills are at least better than that of the OP author and JWfacts if this thread is anything to go by. Perhaps your problem is to do with confirmation bias? I think so. My criticism of the OP and JWfacts stands as Jehovah's Witness lives are being saved almost as much as the general population and hopefully the day will come when no JW will die because of refusing blood as anticipated by Muramoto.. beyond that medicine can only go so far so far.
New Research at AJWRB
Ten bucks says that at least some of the WT higher-ups who crafted the blood prohibition back in the day actually believed that medical science would ultimately vindicate them.
That is true. However, the number of infants/children that have succumbed to a no blood position are not included in any of the estimates that have been done on JW blood deaths. The retrospective studies that have been done, on which the estimates have extrapolated from, have only included the adult population.
Your statement in this is wrong. The study that the Doctor uses does include at least pediatric patients which totalled 123 or 9% of the study's population.
Lee Elder you stated:
There are inherent limitations when developing an estimate of something as complex as the Watchtower's partial blood transfusion ban. Of course it would be ideal if we had better data that would permit us to be more exact than we have been. There are both known limitations, and unknown limitations. With respects to Dr. Muramoto's method, here are his written comments to me:
Why is it that in your essay you do not include any of the limitations that you speak of here in that essay. You don't refer to anyways that you took to overcome some of those limitations.
John: If you think you can do a better job. Go for it.
Lee Elder I did not claim to have written a research paper that used previous studies to make an estimate. if you want to act like a research arm then you need to be able to act like one in all ways.
Also the study that Martin Shilmer is based on just 103 patients with no indication of what the underlying disease process was. I am not sure how you can use this as the sole study when making an estimate that would rival the death toll of the American Casualties of the Korean or Vietnam Wars. That is such a small sample size to make such a dramatic estimate, especially when the study does not include any other information as to the cause of the extra deaths.
Lee this is how false info gets taken as gospel - when those held in esteem say something is so. But you have a good reputation-a reputation for careful analysis. Why throw it away?
Another person I did not expect to see defending this is orphancrow. Although I did not always agree with you in the past orphancrow I kept quiet as I tended to respect the evidence you supplied as the stories you told were more just so stories than false or inaccurate. Same goes for jwfacts but recently I have come to see that he errs on the side of sensationalism rather than caution. What drives you? Is it partly disappointment that the medical community has risen to the challenge by implementing risk cutting protocols and at the same time researching new more benefical practices for using less whole blood and thereby giving JWs incentives to change tack so that fewer people are dying from refusing blood, and you would have preferred to see JWs brought to an end through publicising them as suicidal cult? Well you work has prompted in-depth research and the research has labelled them a sect or mainstream religion albeit strict and authoritarian.
History shows that communities endlessly adapt to challenges making changes where necessary and changing the course of history where possible. This is how evolution works in populations. There are expansions and shrinkages, stagnations and sometimes even extinctions. But someone will come along in the future and say there is a remnant from such and such an extinction to start the process all over again...
My perspective is that this is the best of times to be alive as humans are at their best (prolly their worst too and lots in between). What prompts me to say this? well here is an article from my favourite site The Conversation and they even link to jw.org to dispel myths - shows how mainstream JWs are becoming
this is a fairly current article dated feb 2017 https://theconversation.com/blood-transfusion-refusals-why-new-guidelines-arent-up-to-scratch-70237
Clayton O' Neill a lecturer from the University of Trent Nottingham draws attn to an important change in UK medicine and goes on to discuss informed consent by minors and how this is blocked by courts despite that the UK wants to move away from paternalistic medicine. most here on JWN would consider this a good thing - that the courts block JW children's efforts to make their own informed decisions. But such things are not clear cut and there are cultural pressures that would seem to favour informed commitments to ethics that we may not all agree with but so long as they are carefully thought out and mature they may be considered to be adequate in the future. But this is a grey area in which controversy will continue to occur. However it is refreshing to get an unbiased perspective as O'Neill declares that he has nothing to gain from this article.
In recent years, there has been a move away from paternalistic medicine, where the doctor always knows best, and a move towards “shared-decision making” – a process that is enshrined in English law. This means that the patient is informed of all the risks and, together with the doctor, they make an informed decision.
"JWfacts errs on the side of sensationalism rather than caution..." Ruby456.
Sorry gonna call unfair on that one. I find JWfacts annoyingly factual and cautious at all times.
In fact, he would have to be one of the most polite, patient, fact based, gentlemen posters on here.