RedhorseWoman
Active Member
Oh, there are those that meet your criteria. JWs are far from unique. Check around...unless you're afraid to do so?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Who Has the truth? Who Will Bring World Peace?
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
Oh, there are those that meet your criteria. JWs are far from unique. Check around...unless you're afraid to do so?
Well, post them! Join them! As a brother with serious responsibilities for almost 30 years, I’ve checked. They all fail. I know what I’ve found!
ManSinha
Well-Known Member
Briefly - 11 year old child was in a traffic accident - and blood count was down to 3.9 (normal is 11-14 across the genders)
So yes - needed blood in a hurry else would have died - I do not know what your medical qualifications are to say if blood is life saving but around 20 years ago - there was nothing else in a trauma center that would have been an appropriate substitute - like I said I used to be an ICU doc - this is what I did for a living
Did you by any chance watch the video I posted? The patient in the video had severe gastrointestinal bleeding and a blood count down to 2.8.
A Cytoscan showed what happened when the patient was initially infused with saline solution and then when 3 units of whole blood were administered. The saline carried what red cells were left to every part of the patient's body, whereas the blood just became 'sludgy' and was not carrying red cells to the tissues effectively at all. These doctors are warning that blood transfusions are actually dangerous. When you go to hospital for any procedure, you don't want to hear the words "morbidity" or "mortality" associated with it, do you?
It appears as if many patients who were transfused survived in spite of the treatment rather than because of it. How many died or had adverse reactions is anybody's guess.It has been assumed for many years that patients could not survive with a low hemoglobin count, and also assumed that a patient would die if not transfused immediately. If this is what was taught in medical schools then it was assumed to be correct. Doctors in this field of medicine have now proven this to be incorrect....and more dangerous than they ever imagined. 20 years ago they had saline as an option. It probably just wasn't standard practice. Thankfully it is now.
It is our experience that when we have been told point blank that we will die without blood, none of the people that I know personally, have. Every one of them survived. One with an ectopic pregnancy, another with advanced bowel cancer and another with a ruptured spleen after a car accident. The oldest living hemophiliac in Australia was a JW. He never had a transfusion. I knew him personally too. There are thousands upon thousands of such stories.
No one can say for certain that someone will die without blood if the volume is maintained and everything is done to stop the bleeding.....all they can give is their medical opinion and that opinion, if unchallenged, usually remains as standard practice.
For JW's this is not negotiable. We endured decades of abuse for our position, until truly dedicated physicians began to develop alternative treatments to accommodate our strongly held beliefs. So successful were the results, that now bloodless surgery and treatments even in trauma centers are commonplace.
For us, death is preferable to breaking the law of God on the consumption of blood. Some may protest that the prohibition is on eating blood, but when a patient cannot eat by mouth, they are fed intravenously.....consuming blood is against God's law no matter how you take it into the body.
For Christians, Acts 15:28-29 is clear.....we are to "abstain" from blood. So if a doctor told his patient that they had to abstain from alcohol, would it be OK to infuse it straight into the bloodstream?
We don't tell other people what to do, but we are firm in our decision not to receive blood. The findings of those dedicated doctors has vindicated our position.
We don't need a medical degree to understand the issues. These videos explain why our position is completely reasonable.
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODMoviesDocumentary/pub-ivnb_x_VIDEO
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODMoviesDocumentary/pub-ivae_x_VIDEO
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODMoviesDocumentary/pub-ivnr_x_VIDEO
Last edited:
ManSinha
Well-Known Member
Tell me of one treatment that does not have those associated with it
In the US we practice medicine based on medical guidelines - not on the information generated by religious organizations - may be it is different in Australia
In the case I mentioned - the patient, their other parent, 4 trauma trained physicians and the healthcare team and subsequently a judge - all agreed that blood transfusion was the way to go - thereby overruling the JW parent - case closed
You were not there and a representative of your organization made the case and got overruled - we are done discussing this
And understand something - chronic blood loss is much easier to deal with as the human body has time to accommodate - hence people with chronic illnesses like chronic kidney disease can tolerate levels of blood constituents that would harm a other wise normal person
An acute bleed down to 3.9 can be fatal as beyond a certain level - the proteins that permit blood to clot are exhausted and DIC sets in - look that up
Again @Deeje -
You do need a medical degree to understand pathophysiology - that is why there are medical schools - else anyone could read a textbook and watch videos put out there and become a doctor - it does not work that way - does it?
Journal of Blood - the first line there sets the tone for what I am referring to
Last edited:
Shad
Veteran Member
I was talking about the internal structure and I was clear about that. Your point is nonsense as your ignored that factor in my post.
The internal structure is required to prevent the hull from collapse. That structure was modern knowledge injected ergo does not prove anything about the Biblical Ark
Try again. Include more reading next time
Lol....you know I made the point. Read the posted link more thoroughly, yourself!
RedhorseWoman
Active Member
They all fail simply because you don't want to acknowledge that many other sects do exactly what JWs say are requirements for the "true religion."
Every religious group has some sort of ministry in place, and many of them have their members going out into the community to preach. Additionally, other religious groups have had their ministries cover more of the world than JWs have or ever will.
Some groups that don't believe in the Trinity are Christian Science, Christadelphians, Oneness Pentacostals, Dawn Bible Students, Living Church of God, Assemblies of Yahweh, Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ, Members Church of God International, Unitarian Universalist Christians, The Way International, The Church of God International, and the United Church of God.
I'm sure that there are others not listed.
The fact is, according to the specialists who feature in the Australian Government video, blood transfusions carry greater risk than all of them. That is something for everyone to consider surely?
It was acknowledged that the number of transfusions was reduced radically when it was discovered that a huge percentage of them were not beneficial to the patients at all. They were administered because the doctor felt that it needed to be given as a matter of routine, not because the patient's condition warranted it. Old habits sometimes die hard and often older medicos do not like being told to change their ways....especially by those who imply that their attitude and methods need updating.
I think we also have to acknowledge that blood is big business. The cost of a single unit of blood is actually ridiculous and by cutting the number of unnecessary transfusions, hospitals saved massive amounts of money in purchase, as well as time spent in extra patient care with delayed recovery time after transfusions.
Money is a great motivator on both sides here. The blood industry is not going to go down with a whimper.....they have much to lose in this.....so do patients.
Doing research in recent years, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the medical profession has lost its way in its approach to patient care. In America e.g. the health system is all geared around money. Access to doctors and medications are not for the poor. We in Australia don't have a system where people have to sell their homes to pay for medical treatments that in many cases do not work. I have read about many people who were drained of all their resources and died anyway. Where there is big money, there is often big corruption. As my scripture says..."the love of money is the root of all evil".
Today's doctors know their pharmacology because they are trained in a system that enslaves both doctors and patients to the pharmaceutical industry. But the sad thing is that they don't know how to "cure" anything. (or is it a case of don't want to?) Both doctors and patients are locked into a system of "treatments", many of which will never end because their condition will never be "fixed". The pharmaceutical industry, whose money trains our doctors, has no interest in cures because there is no profit in it....they just create customers for life.
This, I believe is why so many are turning to alternative practitioners and supplements. Having said that, I am not suggesting for a moment that we don't need doctors and surgeons who save lives every day. I am saying that we need to look at how medicine is used and practiced these days. Not only to follow the money trail, but to look at the results of the treatments and their outcomes.
Again, the doctors in the video (specialists in this field) suggest that all conditions and surgeries can be treated and performed successfully without blood....our brotherhood is proof of that. We thank these doctors for respecting our position and they have also benefitted from the experience as the treatments they try then become best practice.
If it was uneducated people or those without medical degrees suggesting these things, then you may have a case....but in the videos I provided, if you care to view them, you will see that these are top specialists in their fields. You need to argue with them, not me....I am only a messenger.
It's the medical profession's party line as we would expect. Blood transfusions are an ingrained part of orthodox medical practice. But, if it's the specialists in this field of medicine all over the world who are sounding the warning, then shouldn't the rest be taking notice? If they don't, what does that say about their attitude?
RedhorseWoman
Active Member
Amazingly enough, I do have to agree with Deeje on this particular point, based on my personal experience. When I was in my 20s, I developed Crohn's Disease and ended up in the hospital (and this ended my "career" as a JW pioneer minister.) My blood count had gone down to 3. I did not accept a blood transfusion, and, obviously, I survived. I will say, though, that my recovery was horribly long and it took months before I regained any strength at all.
My mother, years later, had hip replacement surgery that was done without a blood transfusion, and she did well.
That being said, my family had one more experience involving blood that highlights the necessity of a blood transfusion in certain cases. My father was taking a blood thinner for a heart condition and developed a small intestinal fissure that, due to the blood thinner, would not clot. He was very stoic and was slowly bleeding out for several days before my mother realized what was happening and got him to the hospital.
They tried every option available at the time to try to get his blood to clot, but to no avail. Saline would have done nothing whatsoever to ameliorate the problem. By the time my mother called me and asked me to come to the emergency room, my father was in a coma and looked like a breathing corpse, with dead white skin and blue lips. The only option was a blood transfusion...nothing else worked.
My mother was in turmoil. She knew that she shouldn't approve a transfusion because she was a JW, but she also knew that my father would definitely die without one...no possibility of recovery. While I was there trying to comfort my mother, my father briefly came out of the coma, turned to look at the doctor and said he would accept the transfusion and then lapsed back into a coma. He had the transfusion and survived.
There are many times that refusing a blood transfusion will not adversely affect the outcome, but there are also times when a transfusion is the only option. Such a decision should be left up to the patient and whatever they decide to do should be the end of it. No person should have to fear being thrown out of their religion and be told that they are cursed by God for accepting the medical use of blood.
After all, the injunction against blood was never made about the medical use of human blood freely donated. The Biblical injunction against blood was to not EAT animal blood. JWs have twisted this injunction and have been responsible for the deaths of many.
The same way Christs fulfills the Old Testament and Christian use of it, is not plagiarism. All those and many other scriptures sing the Praises of the Bab and Baha'u'llah.
Regards Tony
I can inform you that it is Baha'u'llah that has ushered in the 'Day of Jehovah'.
Regards Tony
sooda
Veteran Member
I didn't realize you were an MD.
ManSinha
Well-Known Member
Was there something in my post that suggested I was? Did you view any of the videos I posted? They were all doctors.......so I guess not. (Proverbs 18:13)
You can rest you case if you wish, but there has been a lot of change in the way patients with massive blood loss are treated in the last twenty years or more.
Cell salvage is mentioned in the videos as a way to prevent blood loss in the most serious types of surgery like orthopedics. This was made available before the year 2000. In our case, the machine is primed with saline.
The use of EPO to stimulate red cell production is also mentioned as a way to assist patients to rapidly restore lost red blood cells if they have successfully stopped the hemorrhage and kept the blood volume up with saline or Ringer's Lactate. Patients can tolerate quite low blood counts for short periods of time, as my brothers have proven.
And as these doctors will tell you, stopping the bleeding is the paramount thing in any trauma case. But sometimes patients will die because the injury is just too severe. No amount of blood or any other intervention would have saved them. These are usually the cases that make headlines in newspapers stating that a JW patient died because they refused a blood transfusion. It sells newspapers.
We have proven time after time that doctors can be wrong in their assessments, and lives can be saved if those in trauma units are abreast of the latest techniques. Blood need not be the first port of call if its administration is going to compromise the patient's immune system and they end up dying of a massive infection. There is no place like a hospital to pick up these infections, as we all know.
Acute verses chronic?.....watch the videos and see.....these doctors know what they are talking about.
ManSinha
Well-Known Member
Do you have any idea of what you are talking about?
It is clear that you will continue to push your religious position ahead of any and all scientific evidence I provide - suffice it to say - you are wrong on this one.
I also ran a "transfusion free service" dedicated largely to JW's but others as well - you have no experience other than what is told to you through the filters of the Watchtower
Like I said before - I did this for a living - and can run circles around you all day if I chose to
I have provided videos that contain the testimony of world class specialists in their field and yet you say they are wrong and you are right? Forgive me if I take their word over yours.
No one is suggesting that EPO alone can take a person out of anemia immediately, but if a regime of also providing folic acid, vitamin B, and especially Iron dextran (Imferon) administered intravenously is the fastest way to supply needed iron. Vitamin K, important for blood coagulation, can also be used. EPO is important for red cell production.
It has also been acknowledged by some that taking regular blood samples will sap an already depleted circulatory system. So not taking unnecessary blood samples makes sense.
So you are saying that world class specialists in the field of blood management are pushing my religious agenda? Are you saying that we have power over governments now?
The video on the Australian Government website had nothing to do with Jehovah's Witnesses. What filters were they running? And what reasons did they have to support bloodless medicine other than to state that it was best practice?
I am not interested in your circles. Run yourself ragged if you wish. The doctors in the videos suggest that you don't know as much about this topic as they do. I'll take their word for it...you can do whatever you wish.
The videos speak louder than you do. The doctors in those videos are not JW's. They have no agenda except to tell the truth and warn of the dangers. That's it. Run your rings around them.
Secular humanist are, and they promote these values. In the United States, it's the secular humanists resisting conservative Christian intolerance of homosexuality, transgendered people, people of color, same sex marriage, stem cell research, reproductive rights, and gender equality. Liberal Christians seem to be more tolerant than their white evangelical neighbors.
That sounds like the Jehovah's Witnesses. What are they doing for outsiders that don't care about their message or want to increase their numbers and fill their collection plates?
The Jehovah's Witnesses preach hopelessness without the cure that only they can provide. It is a false message two times. The world is not hopeless, and the hope you offer is purely a faith-based promise that needn't be kept and for which.no evidence exists.
It sure looks random to me. They go from door-to-door without skipping doors. How is that not random? They have no idea who lives behind those doors. Not that I mind. It's done all the time by people trying to promote some idea or product.
Irrelevant if they didn't die from the transfusion. Many very sick or badly traumatized patients get blood, but die anyway.
I looked at one of your links on blood transfusion. "How is the safety and efficacy of blood and blood products ensured in Australia? There are a number of standards and principles employed in Australia to ensure the quality, safety and efficacy of blood and blood products in Australia."
Sounds like Australia considers proper blood banking and transfusion protocol safe and effective.
It does if local law says it does.
Of course you are. You're selling hope for the hopelessness of mankind that you have accepted is the case. The price is submission to the Jehovah's Witnesses expectations for you.
And it appears to be a profitable enterprise. It's hard to get reliable data on the net worth of the denomination, but it appears to be in the tens or hundreds of billions. Can you provide any accurate data or sources?
Do you have a medical source to support that bare claim? The links you've provided contradict you.
Faith is not a reliable source for information on science or medicine. When it comes to understanding how the world works, the method that uses evidence and experiment has been stunningly successful. Faith has been a sterile approach to understanding such things.
The Genesis creation story was guessing, and it's been shown to be very incomplete and with error. It's scientific alternatives have been confirmed in the main, and are considered settled science.
We don't claim to know what happened during the Planck epoch, which ended at approximately 10E−43 seconds, but we do know how the material universe evolved thereafter - the splitting of forces and the formation of particles, expansion and cooling including an inflationary period, the formation of galaxies and stars, etc.. The data supporting that claim is robust, and several unexpected yet confirmed predictions derived from it attest to its accuracy.
Likewise with Darwin's theory. The theory has been confirmed by the fact that it a system of ideas that unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture.
Those are the credentials of correct ideas.
How would that even be possible if such a creator exists? Science can't discredit belief in anything real, nor does it have any interest in so doing.
And if science can explain phenomena without invoking a god, it will, and has thus far. What's being discredited is the claim that a deity is needed, not that one exists, and even that is unintended.