-
“Whether you realize it or not, you ARE making a claim in your assumption that is implied: you ARE claiming that the rates of rejection are the SAME in NZ JW and in JW's Worldwide, and hence the burden of proof falls on YOU to PROVE that claim, since YOU want to make the positive assertion that this assumption is valid.”
Adamah,
I do assume what you say for sake of an extrapolation.
If someone has reason to doubt that assumption then they will have reason to doubt my extrapolation to the extent they think it a factor.
To my knowledge no one can quantify the point you raise so I accounted for the factor by assuming the neutral. I'm fine with that, and I'm fine leaving it for each person to make of as they wish. This is why I stated the assumption.
“Marvin, it comes down to this:
“Does the sub-population of JWs with anemia who refused blood and who were included in the study have a higher mortality rate than:
“1.JWs
2.JWs in NZ
3.JWs in NZ who face a treatment choice
4.JWs in NZ who face a treatment choice and refuse blood
5.JWs in NZ who face a treatment choice and refuse blood and were in the study area
6.JWs in NZ who face a treatment choice and refuse blood and were in the study area but excluded from it“If your answer to those is "yes" then how can you extrapolate the numbers to those populations? Even the last couple would be a stretch, the first ones would be a giant leap.”
Simon,
I do not answer yes to those questions because I treat each one on par between the JW population in New Zealand and the rest of the world on average.
My extrapolation assumes in each case that JWs elsewhere in the world do not on average have a higher mortality rate than the 12,700 annual number of JWs living in New Zealand at the time for all causes and circumstances. My reason for thinking this a safe (conservative) assumption is because of the published longevity and healthcare opportunities available to JWs living in New Zealand compared to the rest of the world on average.
Marvin Shilmer