Truth .. JW Style

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
are you also condoning the action? on what basis are you condoning the action?

No, I'm saying your beliefs are insane. You believe that God made blood magic. You believe that God, your infinite, transcendent, all-powerful, wise and loving deity, cares about whether a kid gets a blood transfusion. It's absurd, and that you can't simply see straight away this absurdity indicates the extent to which your ability to reason has been undermined by this blood cult. It's a damn tragedy.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'm sure it isn't 100% infection free. But as i said pointing out something that went on 30+ years ago is not a fair representation of what is happenning today. In fact it's a sepcious argument in my view.

so you have nothing to say about the lives of those persons? Conrau states that because of our beliefs we die (apparently in our droves) as a result of refusing blood transfusions and i cite just one instance in which 5,000 persons received serious injury and in 2000 cases death as a direct consequence of receiving infected blood and its of no consequence? I see partiality has reached a new level!

Originally posted by bbarr
No, I'm saying your beliefs are insane. You believe that God made blood magic. You believe that God, your infinite, transcendent, all-powerful, wise and loving deity, cares about whether a kid gets a blood transfusion. It's absurd, and that you can't simply see straight away this absurdity indicates the extent to which your ability to reason has been undermined by this blood cult. It's a damn tragedy.

you don't know anything about my beliefs, in fact you have been consistently inaccurate in your statements. I suggest you remove the adjectives from your posts, the skin and bones that are left afterwards may indeed reflect a more accurate picture, or get a job with a tabloid newspaper. You have as yet failed to answer a very simple question, are you condoning the actions of tens of thousands of persons receiving serious injury and some death as a direct consequence of having been administered infected blood or are you not? tens of thousands ! the only cult that i can see that has killed thousands of persons is the cult of administering infected blood transfusions, or perhaps you dispute the facts?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so you have nothing to say about the lives of those persons? Conrau states that because of our beliefs we die (apparently in our droves) as a result of refusing blood transfusions and i cite just one instance in which 5,000 persons received serious injury and in 2000 cases death as a direct consequence of receiving infected blood and its of no consequence? I see partiality has reached a new level!

It's a tragedy, what the hell do you want me to say?! Needless death is always a tragedy. This part of the report is pretty galling -

"It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that commercial interests took precedence over public health concerns." The report concluded, "Commercial priorities should never again override the interests of public health."

But the point that i make again, this happenned 30+ years ago, it's not a fair reflection of procedures that are in place today is it? Yes or no Rob?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
5000 persons not big enough , eh

Estimates range from 6,000 to 10,000 haemophiliacs in the United States becoming infected with HIV - New York Times

5000 persons not big enough , eh

Precisely. What that means is that more people receive transfusions a week than contract Hepatitis C over three decades. That is quite a good statistic. Considering that many require transfusions for serious medical reasons, such as substantial blood loss or blood-related cancers (such as lymphoma), then this outweighs the risk of transmission.

Estimates range from 6,000 to 10,000 haemophiliacs in the United States becoming infected with HIV - New York Times

Can you source that claim? And seriously, given that many haemophiliacs require transfusions in order to live, doesn't the need outweigh the risk of contracting HIV? Or don't you know what haemophilia is?

EDIT: Actually as I understand, haemophiliacs take the clotting factor derived from plasma donations. This was explained to me when I first donated plasma. But haven't you already declared your support for blood fractions?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
It's a tragedy, what the hell do you want me to say?! Needless death is always a tragedy. This part of the report is pretty galling -

[i]"It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that commercial interests took precedence over public health concerns." The report concluded, "Commercial priorities should never again override the interests of public heal ...[text shortened]... go, it's not a fair reflection of procedures that are in place today is it? Yes or no Rob?

I have no doubt my friend that because of this instance and others that standards of screening have improved.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you don't know anything about my beliefs, in fact you have been consistently inaccurate in your statements. I suggest you remove the adjectives from your posts, the skin and bones that are left afterwards may indeed reflect a more accurate picture, or get a job with a tabloid newspaper. You have as yet failed to answer a very simple question, are y ...[text shortened]... d some death as a direct consequence of having been administered infected blood or are you not?

No, I've been spot on. You're a nutter because you believe that blood has special metaphysical properties (ie. is magic) and that God cares about whether we put it in bags to give to sick people. Can you see the two places where this belief of yours is crazy?

Yes, I condone the use of blood transfusions when doctors sincerely believe they are in the best interests of the patient. That some patients die as a result of good-faith efforts at treating them is tragic. But you are mistaken if you think that the deaths you cite were the result of blood transfusions directly. Those deaths were directly caused by HIV or Hep C. That hemophiliacs (which are, by and large, the folks you're talking about who died from the transfusions 30 years back) contracted these viruses resulted from blood-transfusions, but these transfusions were given because patients were hemophiliacs. So, what should we blame? The hemophilia, the transfusion, or the virus? You say the transfusion, but that's because you are really bad at thinking about data, and are partial, and are laboring under your insane beliefs about blood and God. But the question you fail to ask (though it's not surprising you didn't think to ask it) is what other treatments for hemophiliacs were available in the 70's. If hemophiliacs didn't get those transfusions, how many would have died? Probably more than 5,000. But, really, why bother with thinking clearly? For you, good data is whatever supports your religious beliefs.

Originally posted by bbarr
No, I'm saying your beliefs are insane. You believe that God made blood magic. You believe that God, your infinite, transcendent, all-powerful, wise and loving deity, cares about whether a kid gets a blood transfusion. It's absurd, and that you can't simply see straight away this absurdity indicates the extent to which your ability to reason has been undermined by this blood cult. It's a damn tragedy.

What I find particularly strange is that RC simultaneously argues that blood is sacred, in particular, red blood cells, but then that blood cells are useless and can be replaced by numerous blood fractions. There is some weird cognitive dissonance in this.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]5000 persons not big enough , eh

Precisely. What that means is that more people receive transfusions a week than contract Hepatitis C over three decades. That is quite a good statistic. Considering that many require transfusions for serious medical reasons, such as substantial blood loss or blood-related cancers (such as lymphoma), then this outwe ...[text shortened]... doesn't the need outweigh the risk of contracting HIV? Or don't you know what haemophilia is?[/b]

we are now at tens of thousands and its still not enough. why don't you admit that the practice of transfusing blood has killed more persons in one go than persons who have died as a consequence of refusing a blood transfusion? shall we go on to Canada? India? what about Africa? to be optimistic about the correlation between those who live and those who die is well despicable.

i cited the source, the New York Times,

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/16/us/hemophilia-and-aids-silent-suffering.html

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have no doubt my friend that because of this instance and others that standards of screening have improved.

Considerably improved.

Originally posted by bbarr
No, I've been spot on. You're a nutter because you believe that blood has special metaphysical properties (ie. is magic) and that God cares about whether we put it in bags to give to sick people. Can you see the two places where this belief of yours is crazy?

no, you don't know anything, i do not believe that blood is magic, its use is clearly outlined in scripture, simply because you do not share the same belief hardly nullifies these facts. As for putting it in bags and giving it to sick people, what about tens of thousands of already sick people that were killed when your cult killed them!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
we are now at tens of thousands and its still not enough. why don't you admit that the practice of transfusing blood has killed more persons in one go than persons who have died as a consequence of refusing a blood transfusion? shall we go on to Canada? India? what about Africa? to be optimistic about the correlation between those who live and ...[text shortened]... York Times,

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/16/us/hemophilia-and-aids-silent-suffering.html

But haemophiliacs need this treatment anyway. Severe cases can die without it. That is the nature of their disease.

By the way, the article is incorrect. The clotting agent that haemophliacs take is not derived from whole blood donations but plasma. You have already said you support blood fractions. Have you changed your mind?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no, you don't know anything, i do not believe that blood is magic, its use is clearly outlined in scripture, simply because you do not share the same belief hardly nullifies these facts. As for putting it in bags and giving it to sick people, what about tens of thousands of already sick people that were killed when your cult killed them!

But haven't you basically said that blood is not useful? You have said that it can be replaced by fractions or saline solution.

How disgusting is this?

It was night-time. The Supreme Court building had emptied hours before, except for the duty judge hearing an urgent application.

The Children's Hospital at Westmead was seeking the court's approval for a life-saving blood transfusion for one of its patients.

The 16-year-old cancer patient and his parents were Jehovah's Witnesses. They opposed the transfusion because it violated their religious beliefs, even as they grappled with the doctors' pleas that the teenager had a 50-50 chance of dying overnight if he did not receive a transfusion.

The teenager, known only as Joseph, was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in March, and was attending the hospital's oncology unit. But by last Wednesday his red cell count and platelet count were life-threateningly low.

By the time the hospital asked Justice Ian Gzell to invoke the court's parens patriae jurisdiction, the doctors said Joseph was very likely to die within three days.

Joseph's father gave the judge a statement from his son in which the teenager said he did not wish to receive a blood transfusion and that his parents treated him as an adult. Both parents told the judge that if he received a transfusion they would not condemn him, and would continue to "relate to him lovingly as their son".

Soon after 8.30pm Justice Gzell said the medical advice was that there was no alternative treatment. "I have no doubt ... that it is in Joseph's best interests that he have the blood transfusion. He will die otherwise. His life ought to be spared. Notwithstanding that he is over 16 years old and his wishes must be given serious consideration, he is still a child."

He authorised the hospital to begin a transfusion immediately.

A senior elder of the 60,000 strong Jehovah's Witnesses church in Australia, Don Maclean, said court intervention was very rare, but there had been cases where an adult's "no blood" instructions had been overridden, which had ended up in the courts.

While there are media reports overseas of Jehovah's Witness families and congregations "shunning" members who have received transfusions, Mr Maclean said in this case the treatment had been against the will of the family, and they would be supported.

"It is a matter of deeply held principle ... I think they would feel violated by such treatment, and that is how we think, of compassion for the boy that he was violated."

Yesterday, The Children's Hospital at Westmead refused to comment, and the family could not be contacted.

Simon Longstaff, executive director of Sydney's St James Ethics Centre, said the court had recognised Joseph's expressed desire to refuse treatment, but it did not recognise that as a child he was fully competent.

The ethical consideration was for the court to preserve his life, until such time, as an adult, he could make this decision, Dr Longstaff said.

The Australian Medical Association's medical director in NSW, Dr Robyn Napier, said doctors' obligations were spelt out in its code of ethics. It dealt with "the best treatment, the best outcome, and how to get that".

She said if a patient was incapable of making a decision for their best treatment - such as a child - the doctor was required to obtain a court determination.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Against-his-will-the-transfusion-that-saved-a-boy/2005/05/03/1115092504492.html?oneclick=true

This kid has a high likelihood of death. No blood fraction can increase his red blood cell count, except a whole blood transfusion, and the JWs have the nerve to say he was 'violated'.

Originally posted by Conrau K
But haemophiliacs need this treatment anyway. Severe cases can die without it. That is the nature of their disease.

By the way, the article is incorrect. The clotting agent that haemophliacs take is not derived from whole blood donations but plasma. You have already said you support blood fractions. Have you changed your mind?

what does this purport to be? have more persons been killed through the practice of receiving transfused blood or have they not? this is my point? you state that because of our religious beliefs we wantonly die in our droves, i have produced statistics and real instances which clearly show that transfusion has killed more persons than even the meanest suicide cult could hope to achieve and you disregard that fact!

Yes it is understood that clotting agents are derived from Plasma.