That's great, more ammo for bloodless surgery.

by James Mixon 7 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • James Mixon
    James Mixon

    KTLA news this morning. The topic bloodless surgery, Dr. Rahul Jandial, MD, PhD Surgeon and Scientist.

    "They will say I would rather die then receive blood from someone else, that will prevent me from going to heaven".

    Twitter, Instagram and [email protected] or ktla.com/drjandial

    The discussion , JW belief..

  • OrphanCrow
    OrphanCrow

    James, this link works better:

    http://ktla.com/2016/02/23/dr-rahul-jandial-and-bloodless-surgery/

    Humph...something is happening in the bloodless world...the outside bloodless propaganda has been getting amped up recently....

    Whenever the media yaps about bloodless options, there has been something going on behind the scenes...wonder what it is this time.

    The Watchtower bloodless media feed has sure been busy lately. Maybe there are some court cases going on behind the curtain.

    CBS just put out a bloodless fluff piece* as well:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/doctors-explore-potential-benefits-of-bloodless-surgery/

    *Heh...Sherry Ozawa is a doctor now!?!!! Wow...I wonder if that was an inside Watchtower promotion or if she actually got her doctorate. It seems like the Watchtower degree requirements have a different scale than most.

    Nice gig if ya can land it....from JW publisher to JW Registered Nurse, and now....a JW doctor! And who said that education was discouraged in the WT?....pffft. Not if ya know the right people. Way to go Sherry!!!! And a JW woman, to boot! Wow....look at 'er go...a fine upstanding role model she is for all you young JW women.

  • steve2
    steve2

    The research they cite comparing survival rates in intensive care (95% for Witnesses with bloodless surgery vs 89% for nonWitnesses who have transfusions) invite questions.

    Does the research compare outcomes for comparable procedures and levels of risk?

    I note the article states that the child needed boosting of blood count prior to the bloodless surgery. Cool. What about in emergencies though, where there is massive blood volume loss? Without blood transfusions, the surivival rate plummets significantly.

    Also, the article does not identify Dr Sherri Ozawa as a Jehovah's Witness. BTW, OrphanCrow, Sherri Ozawa likely has a doctorate in nursing and is not a medical doctor,

  • James Mixon
    James Mixon
    Thanks OrphanCrow. Yes you wonder what is happening in the bloodless world.
  • OrphanCrow
    OrphanCrow
    steve2: Also, the article does not identify Dr Sherri Ozawa as a Jehovah's Witness. BTW, OrphanCrow, Sherri Ozawa likely has a doctorate in nursing and is not a medical doctor,

    No, she is not identified as a Jehovah's Witness in the article.

    And the last I checked, Sherry does NOT have a doctorate in nursing. That is a new title. I am sure that she will claim that it is a journalist error...but, I have noticed that the bloodless WT drones have a nasty little habit of either hiding their lack of education or they make it up. My guess is that it is a deliberate exaggeration.

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/sherri-ozawa-6102b710

    Sherry has been VERY active in the blood management world for years now and it is common knowledge that she is a Jehovah's Witness, even if she rarely (never) self-identifies as one and it is never stated as a conflict of interest. And, we all know that being a JW has HUGE implications on how a person would carry out their professional responsibilities.

    The research they cite comparing survival rates in intensive care (95% for Witnesses with bloodless surgery vs 89% for nonWitnesses who have transfusions) invite questions.

    Does it ever invite questions. That research is hung out all the time whenever the bloodless people want to promote their quack medicine. The holes in that research are so big that you could drop a whole lab full of rats through it.

    I note the article states that the child needed boosting of blood count prior to the bloodless surgery. Cool.

    Yeah. The infant needed blood boosting - days, weeks? not sure....but, regardless...all that prep work isn't taken into consideration when they promote their quack brand of medicine.

    The bloodless people just pull out that old research out of their asses whenever they want to say how good their noblood treatment is and they don't count how long and expensive it is to get their lab rats ready for surgery. They just talk about how they leave the hospital earlier after surgery. No follow up stats...they just get out a day or so earlier.

    Incredibly irresponsible and lazy research. And bad media coverage - they just publish whatever 'feel good' article they are fed. And we know who does the media feeding on this.

  • James Mixon
    James Mixon

    Don't you just hate to give credit for something that may be good to that JW organization.

    Adolf Lorenz in the 20th central in Vienna came up with the methods for treating patients

    with non invasive techniques. His medical practice was a consequence of his severe allergy

    to carbolic acid routinely used in operating rooms of the era. His condition forced him to become

    a dry surgeon.

    JW's we told you so, never mind about all the other BS we told you. We got this one right...

  • OrphanCrow
    OrphanCrow
    James: Adolf Lorenz in the 20th central in Vienna came up with the methods for treating patients
    with non invasive techniques. His medical practice was a consequence of his severe allergy
    to carbolic acid routinely used in operating rooms of the era. His condition forced him to become
    a dry surgeon.

    Yeah...today's bloodless people like to say that Lorenz is their 'father". How silly.

    Lorenz's methods were practiced by the chiropractors - bloodless surgery was promoted by people like George Starr White as a form of "deep massage". Early bloodless medicine had nothing at all to do with the transfusing of blood. Nothing at all.

    Bloodless surgery practiced by Lorenz was totally non-invasive. The methods that Lorenz used were popular with the Watchtower "doctors" - the osteopaths and the chiros. Bloodless surgery (deep massage) was used by the "doctors" who were anti-AMA. It was also the method that Dr. Felix Kersten used on Heinrich Himmler.

    Modern bloodless surgery is so far removed from what Lorenz was practicing that it is strange that the new methods still carry that old chiro term from the early 1900s.

    Today's "bloodless" methods are VERY invasive - in fact, far more invasive than traditional methods of surgery that use blood transfusions.

    The JWs did NOT get this one right. I disagree.

    The Watchtower Society has been relentless in the promotion of yet another one of their medical marvels - in years past it was the radium belt and the electric diagnostic machine and whatever quack cure that the chiros and osteos were promoting...in today's world it is the bloodless technology that is the Watchtower "baby".

    They got it right? Well, if you want to buy into the bloodless cult propaganda...for myself, I don't buy into it. The WTS has NEVER got anything right. Why would their blood stance be right? Nope, I don't buy into the fear mongering and inaccurate medical research that the WTS has promoted. Not for one single minute. Not one second.

  • steve2
    steve2

    In one of the earlier links in this thread, a surgeon who spoke positively about "the Jehovah's" (to quote him precisely), reservedly and politely acknowledged that in instances of massive and sudden blood loss, "the Jehovah's" pose a "challenge" for treatment in refusing blood to the point of death.

    Well, yes! Goes without saying, doc! But ultimately whose problem is it? Medical professionals or blood-refusing patients?

    If a patient has an advanced directive that stipulates "No blood" even in instances of significant blood loss, it would be extremely rare to survive - and should that rare event occur, the patient would be medically compromised in terms of convalescence for an even longer duration than expected.

    This is a huge expensive burden on treating hospitals. And so it has been for nearly 60 years whilst this doctrine has been in force.

    Yet, despite the organization publically crowing about the dubious cost-benefits of preparation-heavy bloodless surgery (for a limited range of nontraumatic procedures), not one peep from the organization about the burden of the No Blood rule to taxpayers. And we haven't even considered the cost of the needless loss of lives.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit