-
“And it's exactly what the researchers were able to do in the controlled environment to create a matched comparison group (Group B) that I suspect is what most are objecting to: you are ASSUMING that Group B (the group of JWs who refused BT in the study) is similar to a third group, called Group C (the entire NZ population of JWs, which is a questionable extrapolation).”
Adamah,
My method has no dependency on a “Group C” except to have a total against which to establish a ratio. That is to say, the only dependency of the “Group C” you speak of in my method is to establish the number of JWs in New Zealand over the period of the study (1998-2007). This aggregate value for years 1998-2007 is: 126,989.
The number of preventable deaths is established solely on the basis of comparing Group A and Group B. The number established by Beliaev’s data is 19 over 10 years, or 1.9 per year for the 4 hospitals whose patient data was used. This aggregate value for years 1998-2007 is: 19.
Hence we have a ratio of 19-per-126,989 JWs over 10 years, or annually 1-per-6683 JWs.
If we adjust this ratio by assuming the 4 hospitals whose records were used were the only hospitals in those 2 regions with like mortalities, and that hospitals in the New Zealand’s other 2 regions had a similar mortality rate based on population then we have a ratio of 33-per-126,989 JWs over 10 years, or annually 1-per-3838 JWs.
“Then you want to extrapolate Globally, creating a group D (the Worldwide population of JWs), which is even MORE PROBLEMATIC, since you're willing to assume that it's a matched set, even though it's KNOWN that it isn't: all the factors you mentioned (eg ethinicity, comorbidities, hospital admission, treatment modalities, treatment protocols, etc) are KNOWN to be different for various hospitals Worldwide.”
I’ve not assumed any matched set against a world population. I’ve assumed that JW patients in New Zealand receive on average a better standard of care across the spectrum you cite compared with the average standard of care in the world. When it comes to comorbidities, hospital admission, treatment modalities, treatment protocols, etc. what we find among JWs in New Zealand is no different than the rest of the world overall, and I have not treated these as different. As for ethnicity, in the New Zealand region there is a factor to consider regarding Maori, but this is adjusted for within the Beliaev study and it’s the findings of the Beliaev study driving my extrapolation.
Otherwise I’ve made assumptions atop assumptions that, if anything, minimize the number of deaths due to Watchtower’s blood doctrine using the Beliaev data set. For instance, I assume there is not a single hospital in the 2 regions of New Zealand with even 1 more death of a JW refusing blood. This includes even the advanced and district trauma service hospitals. Given the fact that EACH of the 4 hospitals in Beliaev’s study incurred some of these deaths, this assumption of mine is very generous and it minimizes my findings.
“THAT'S the objection, and you assume it doesn't matter, but your methodology is built on unproven assumptions and is likely flawed, since it can only leads to a questionable figure. Is the actual figure too low? Is it too high? Who knows!”
Assumptions matter for one reason, so readers can understand what’s being said. From what I’ve read of your complaints you neither understand assumptions I’ve made nor care to. That’s why I’ve not responded to more often than I have to what you’ve said.
Marvin Shilmer