Posts by OrphanCrow

11

What's Artwork Question

by JustVisting in

why does wt artwork always have one person that is looking at the reader when depicting a group of people?

whether it's the little girl in the sermon on the amount scene or the woman in the armagedon scene.

what is the psychological and/or subliminal effect of this one the reader?

OrphanCrow

Having a person in the scene look back at the viewer is a psychological device used to make the viewer part of the scene.

It is meant to increase the sense that the viewer is actually there and not just observing - the viewer participates.

65

Doctors and surgeons say no to blood transfusions

by Mr Negative in

my mum recently told me that even surgeons won't have blood transfusions, but the common people don't get told this.

i have also seen or heard others say that a bunch of doctors/health officials/surgeons were asked, at some point, if they would accept a blood transfusion and they all said no.

is this true?

Backformore, you must have done your nursing education in a school that wasn't an osteopathic one. Most of the doctors and surgeons that I have discovered that work in bloodless medicine are trained in the school of osteopathy.

Rebel, I understand that your story will be disturbing. I have read many disturbing things when researching bloodless surgery and the Watchtower Society's involvement in it. And I don't expect your story to be a pretty one. I will be reading your story as soon as I am able to.

65

Doctors and surgeons say no to blood transfusions

by Mr Negative in

my mum recently told me that even surgeons won't have blood transfusions, but the common people don't get told this.

i have also seen or heard others say that a bunch of doctors/health officials/surgeons were asked, at some point, if they would accept a blood transfusion and they all said no.

is this true?

OrphanCrow

It sure is a small world, snare&racket.

When I did the research on Mr. Earnshaw, I was impressed with his qualifications and his professional reputation. I was also impressed that he took the time to respond to my questions.

If I was a medical professional of his stature, I think I may be somewhat annoyed that a religious cult has misrepresented something that I said. And not only that, to have the quote used to encourage people to refuse life saving procedures should be upsetting to a doctor who takes their Hippocrate oath seriously.

65

Doctors and surgeons say no to blood transfusions

by Mr Negative in

my mum recently told me that even surgeons won't have blood transfusions, but the common people don't get told this.

i have also seen or heard others say that a bunch of doctors/health officials/surgeons were asked, at some point, if they would accept a blood transfusion and they all said no.

is this true?

OrphanCrow

Rebel, I just clicked on the link in your previous post.

I wasn't aware of your experience when I made the above post.

I would like to read your book some day.

65

Doctors and surgeons say no to blood transfusions

by Mr Negative in

my mum recently told me that even surgeons won't have blood transfusions, but the common people don't get told this.

i have also seen or heard others say that a bunch of doctors/health officials/surgeons were asked, at some point, if they would accept a blood transfusion and they all said no.

is this true?

OrphanCrow

Thank you, snare&racket.

Rebel - from the correspondence I had, it was clear that Mr. Earnshaw is not a Jehovah's Witness but it wasn't clear if he actually knew that he was being used as the Society's poster boy for bloodless surgery. I am sorry - when I re-read what I wrote, I can see that I may be misrepresenting what Mr. Earnshaw said. And I wouldn't want to do that - he has been misrepresented enough by the Watchtower Society and the bloodless industry.

"...using him as a sort of endorsement of a dangerous doctrine."

Not only is it a dangerous doctrine, it is also a dangerous surgical procedure that they are endorsing. The society is quick to point to the successes of bloodless surgerry but they fail to mention the countless failures that bloodless surgery has encountered in its history. Many Jehovah's Witnesses have died, not only as a result of refusing a blood transfusion, but from the resulting experimental procedures tried on them. This claim is not hard to prove - the evidence can be found in published medical studies. As well, trials of bovine blood substitutes have been pulled because of high mortality rates in the subjects. And, of course, the JWs were in the clinical trial sample groups.

The Jehovah's witnesses are certainly right about one thing - bloodless surgery would not have the success it has without a willing group of volunteers to test their technology on. The Jehovah's witnesses are the only group in the world that the medical industry can use as test subjects for bloodless surgery methods and actually test the extreme limit of their procedure. Without a 'religious' doctrine on their side, by law, they must intervene with all means possible before death claims their subject. With Jehovah's Witnesses, the subject can be taken right to death's door...and beyond. It is a situation that has been exploited in the quest for bloodless surgical methods and the holy grail of medicine - blood substitutes.

And it is not only surgical procedures that are being tested on Jehovah's Witnesses.

Babies are born all the time that are RH negative who would normally get an exchange transfusion.

People suffer from hemophilia.

There is so much confusion over the Society's stand on blood factions, etc when it is really simple.

If you want to understand the Society's shifting stance on the 'blood issue', do some research into the history of the medical procedures concerning blood. The shifting stance of the Society dovetails very nicely into the required test groups needed by researchers in those fields of study.

The Society's spin is that these procedures developed in response to the Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine.

They are absolutely right. And it is horrifying.

The Jehovah's Witnesses have made for a fine group of guinea pigs. Obediently following the directions from the Society concerning health care choices.

65

Doctors and surgeons say no to blood transfusions

by Mr Negative in

my mum recently told me that even surgeons won't have blood transfusions, but the common people don't get told this.

i have also seen or heard others say that a bunch of doctors/health officials/surgeons were asked, at some point, if they would accept a blood transfusion and they all said no.

is this true?

OrphanCrow

Another doctor that the Watchtower Society has used as expert support for the promotion of bloodless surgery is Dr. Peter Earnshaw from Great Britain.

Mr. Earnshaw was featured as the doctor on the front of one of the Awake magazines in 2000.

He is also featured in the slide presentations and other material published by the Society for the purposes of promoting bloodless surgery to those in the medical field.

"Mr Earnshaw is a Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon and the Clinical Director of Surgery at Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospitals. He trained in medicine at Guy’s Hospital and then continued his postgraduate studies in Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery in Canada and the US where he worked for many years before returning to the UK."

http://www.londonbridgehospital.com/LBH/consultant-det/mr-peter-earnshaw/

The quote that is used in Watchtower publications goes like this:

"It just so happens that bloodless surgery is particularly relevant to Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, this is how we want to treat everybody."

Mr. Earnshaw's assistant, Sinead Flynn, answered an email inquiry that I made a while back concerning this quote with this reply:

"Thank you for your email.

Mr Earnshaw would reply as follows:

"It was a general comment made many years ago simply stating that although Jehovah Witness patients have more exacting needs, we treat most our patients in a similar fashion i.e. we do everything to avoid blood transfusions unless absolutely necessary and the transfusion rate has been significantly reduced over the years. London Bridge Hospital does not therefore offer anything different in this regard"."

I also asked if Mr. Earnshaw was a Jehovah's Witness and if he knew that his photo and quote was used by the Watchtower Society and he replied:

"Mr Earnshaw has read your email and would note:

“......No
I can only assume it was because I did early research on this topic and published papers. I was interviewed at the time and an article was written.
I have not done this type of research for many years.”"

The Watchtower Society has got a lot of mileage from a statement that Dr. Earnshaw made years ago when he was researching the possibility of bloodless surgery methods reducing the need for blood in orthopedic surgery. Orthopedic surgery has very high demands for blood and Dr. Earnshaw's concern at the time he was interviewed for Watchtower literature, was to reduce the use of blood in those cases - not eliminate the use of blood transfusions.

65

Doctors and surgeons say no to blood transfusions

by Mr Negative in

my mum recently told me that even surgeons won't have blood transfusions, but the common people don't get told this.

i have also seen or heard others say that a bunch of doctors/health officials/surgeons were asked, at some point, if they would accept a blood transfusion and they all said no.

is this true?

OrphanCrow

And from the LA Times article about the rape of the nanny and molestation accusations during the custody battle (which didn't hold up with the judge - Ron got custody later):

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-08-24/local/me-699_1_baby-sitter

"The 48-year-old surgeon became well known in medical circles a few years ago for his success with so-called bloodless surgery--operations performed without blood transfusions--which was favored by religious groups opposed to transfusions. But the state medical board frowned on the controversial technique and filed a malpractice claim against him. The claim was eventually dropped when Lapin agreed to stop that type of surgery."

65

Doctors and surgeons say no to blood transfusions

by Mr Negative in

my mum recently told me that even surgeons won't have blood transfusions, but the common people don't get told this.

i have also seen or heard others say that a bunch of doctors/health officials/surgeons were asked, at some point, if they would accept a blood transfusion and they all said no.

is this true?

OrphanCrow

Dr. Ron Lapin.

An article from the LA Times in 1995:

'Bloodless Surgeon' Ron Lapin, 53, Dies.

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-05-16/local/me-2458_1_ron-lapin

SANTA ANA — The man touted as the "bloodless surgeon" among Jehovah's Witnesses and other religious groups died of an apparent heart attack at a local hospital, relatives and friends said Monday. He was 53.

Ron Lapin, a surgeon who introduced an operating procedure that does not require blood transfusions, suffered a heart attack at his Lemon Heights home Friday evening, just hours after he had asked his 42-year-old fiancee to marry him.

He died between 1 and 2 a.m. at Western Medical Center-Santa Ana, said Lapin's fiancee, Deeanne Cassidy.

"We were making wedding plans, not funeral plans," she said. "I'm still very shocked over it. All I can say is that he was the most wonderful, knowledgeable humanitarian to have come around in a long time."

Lapin, a Tel Aviv-born physician who was working at Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital in Norwalk, had battled colleagues and blood-bank industry officials who questioned the appropriateness of his operating method, which was introduced in the 1970s.

The procedure was intended to prevent excessive bleeding through the use of an electric cautery at the end of each blood vessel as tissues were sliced. It also involved liberal doses of folic acid and Vitamin B-12 to lower blood pressure.

Artificial blood known as blood volume expanders also were used, Lapin said in earlier interviews with The Times.

Lapin's medical practices led to a five-year investigation by state medical authorities, who dropped it in 1986, citing an inability to prove their case against him.

He also gained notice when his third wife was charged with two counts of felony kidnaping in 1987 when she failed to return the couple's two children to their father's house after a visit.

Orly Lapin, a former Israeli beauty queen, then accused him of molesting the couple's daughter and raping the child's nanny, according to court records at the time.

Neither husband nor wife was convicted, and the children remained in Ron Lapin's custody. He also had a third child by another wife.

Funeral arrangements are pending. An autopsy was performed but results were not available pending the outcome of toxicology tests.

65

Doctors and surgeons say no to blood transfusions

by Mr Negative in

my mum recently told me that even surgeons won't have blood transfusions, but the common people don't get told this.

i have also seen or heard others say that a bunch of doctors/health officials/surgeons were asked, at some point, if they would accept a blood transfusion and they all said no.

is this true?

OrphanCrow

Yes. The quote exists. I tracked it down a few years back.

This book here:

http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Blood-George-Dalgleish/dp/B001KT7P4O

Bad Blood by George Dalgleish.

This thread has a bit about the book and George:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/54353/book-bad-blood?page=1&size=10

Yes, George Dalgleish was a Jehovah's Witness. He had a television home improvement show in Winnipeg at one time. He also ran a home construction company.

Mr. Dalgleish had no medical training or education.

George has now passed on. I tried to find out some information on the publisher, Pennefeather Press in Winnipeg, but the best I could come up with was a google map image of a bare lot in the industrial area of Winnipeg. The address doesn't really exist.

The book is terrible because it is written as though the author has credibilty and he has none. And it is in that piece of bloodless surgery propaganda that you will find that quote. I believe it may have been Dr. Ron Lapin who said it - along with saying that he brought family members from overseas to have bloodless surgery at his clinic in California.

But, the quote is in that horrible book.

43

Account of Jehovah's Witness Women Prisoners in Auschwitz (very creepy)

by objectivetruth in

a book titled written by a long ti me ss member .rudolf franz ferdinand hoess.

here is a quote from this book : .

"a pleasant contrast to this type were the female jehovah's witnesses, called "bible bees" or "bible worms.

OrphanCrow

Yes, Kaik, there are many wartime records that have yet to see the light of day. And I am sure that archives in Germany, Austria and Czech republic would have valuable material.

The fifty year release date for the declassification of some war records has come and gone which has seen an upsurge of research material being presented, yet there are classified files that are still sealed - some have a 100 year release date and some will be never be unsealed. And then, there are the missing files, ones that have yet to be found. Like the box of files that mysteriously disappeared from Wewelsburg. Wewelsburg Castle had JW caretakers that looked after the castle until the end of the war. It would be interesting to know what was in that particular box of files.

As much as the Watchtower Society is perceived to be a USA based corporation with a religious arm/front, there are activities in other countries that have been critical to how their religion developed and Germany's role in the Watchtower Society's historical development is not always considered well enough.

I had posted earlier that the Society had major upheavals, financial difficulties, and re-structuring that occurred during the 20s and 30s. It was during this time period, between the two wars, that Rutherford changed his political/doctrinal stance and re-emerged from the dust as a brand new religion with American friends in high places and a mansion in California. What I left out of that earlier post on this thread was a mention of the activities that were happening in Germany with the Watchtower during those same years.

At the time that the USA Watchtower Society had major strife happening within its ranks, the same thing was going on in Germany. Conrad Binkele, of the German Watchtower Society, had a falling out with Rutherford and Binkele left the German Watchtower Society in 1925, leaving the Watchtower in Germany as a playground for Rutherford's plans to re-organize the Society's activities and re-structure the religion. From 1925 onwards, Germany was used as a 'testing ground' for congregational reorganizing. There is a good past thread on this forum that lays out the details of how, in Germany, the congregations were made smaller, the number of meetings changed, and the material simplified in the literature - all with a goal of retaining control and managing the sales force for the distribution of the literature. By the time Rutherford made his announcement about the new name for his religion in 1931, the 'market testing' for the most effective ways on how the religion was going to change had already been done in Germany. Germany had a much larger influence on how the American based religion developed during the critical years of 1925-1931, and then emerged as a 'new' religion, than most people realize.