Blood Transfusion Revisited Like Never Before (with a gift to readers)

Advertisement

Viewed 2625 times

    arko_n9ne posted Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:43:00 GMT(1/18/2012)

    Post 61 of 93
    Joined 12/17/2011

    Blood, blood, blood. Blah, blah, blah. It's all been said before, right?

    We'll see.

    The resource material is from January 2000's Awake! Magazine. If you have your copy, you should pull it out and dust it off, if you don't have a copy, here is the link to the Watchtower page's version: http://www.watchtower.org/e/20000108/article_02.htm
    (you don't need to click if you don't want to raise the WTS.org's hit rate)

    The article in discussion is Blood Transfusions - A Long History of Controversy

    The new dynamic to the article is the reference material. They name several doctors, and I would like to give you all a bit of information about them that the WTS fails to mention to the casual reader/negligent brother or sister.

    "But in 1873, F. Gesellius, a Polish doctor, slowed the transfusion revival with a frightening discovery: More than half the transfusions performed had ended in death. Upon learning this, eminent physicians began denouncing the procedure. The popularity of transfusions once again waned."

    Franz Gesellius was a polish doctor and medical author who is only notable for having recorded that of all transfusion recipients up to 1872, 56% died from complications. People for the next 27 years after the release of his report had never heard of "blood types."

    "Then, in 1878, French physician Georges Hayem perfected a saline solution, which he claimed could serve as a substitute for blood. Unlike blood, the saline solution had no side effects, did not clot, and was easy to transport. Understandably, Hayem's saline solution came to be widely used. Strangely, however, opinion soon favored blood again."

    Georges Hayem was a french hematologist, who is notable for the first accurate platelet count of blood, identifying hemolytic anemia, and creating a solution to act as a blood thinner. I looked all over the internet and google books for any reference to the alternative to blood, but all I've found were Witness biased articles.

    "But early in the 20th century, Dr. Richard Lewisohn, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, successfully experimented with an anticoagulant called sodium citrate. This exciting breakthrough was regarded by some doctors as a miracle. "It was almost as if the sun had been made to stand still," wrote Dr. Bertram M. Bernheim, a distinguished physician of his day."

    Dr. Bertram was very distinguished. He was a hematologist who performed an extensive number of blood transfusions, and according to most notes, the majority involved patients who survived long after the transfusion.

    ------------------------

    The significance of these listed doctors is that they are used in an article that leans to the negative aspects, the fear shucking aspects of blood transfusions. This article fails to mention that both Georges Hayem and Bertram Bernheim remained hematologists who advocated blood transfusions before they became the industry standard. Franz Gesellius wrote in depth on blood transfusions in an unbiased manner that lead to the continuation of human-to-human blood transfusions in the coming world wars.

    At the head of the article is a quote from Dr. Jeffrey McCullough that reads "If red blood cells were a new drug today, it would be very difficult to get them licensed." In the year 2000, it'd have been difficult to locate Jeffrey McCullough. He is (and at the time of the article) a professor at the University of Minnesota. His quote, using his professional name of Dr. J. Jeffrey McCullough, was taken from an April 21, 1998 New York Times article on Bloodless Surgeries (when references by the Awake!, his name was modified and the NY Times is not credited for the source).

    The article can be seen here: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/21/science/bloodless-surgery-gains-new-acceptance.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

    Jeffrey McCullough, after making this quote, continued his 49 year career in pathology, became the editor of the medical journal Transfusion, taught blood banking & transfusion medicine and clinical pathology (board certified in both), wrote and revised Transfusion Medicine (rev. 2004), and was accepted to the National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Advisory Council in 2005.
    Despite his one quote, he has remained very much in the realm of blood transfusions and blood-based works to this very day.

    ----------

    Why it is the Watchtower Society sees a need to misrepresent sources to this degree is beyond me. I was under the impression that though they can't be taxed, religions are still bound to journalistic integrity when writing reports. It is my hope that people will see this and comprehend how distorted the writings of the Organization really are, even when not "quoting" the scriptures.

    And now... my gift to all readers who've ventured this far. My thanks to you:

    In my search for information on blood transfusions as they related to the Watchtower Society, I found two websites of interest:

    http://www.squidoo.com/blood-transfusions-controversy
    This is an attempt to report on blood transfusions by a Jehovah's Witness without attaching the Watchtower name to it. If you notice, it is the same article provided on the Watchtower website, only reworded to avoid accusations of plagiarism, or most likely to attempt to present it as a personal "researched" opinion.

    http://johnaster.blogspot.com/2009_06_01_archive.html
    This is a blatant attempt to present the Watchtower article as personal opinion. It both rewords and plagiarizes the original article but the author has a surprising bit of information about it:
    " This is an argument essay I wrote at Sinclair Community College English 111 a proud time in my life there were many classes I enjoyed but English Composition was great because I got encouragement as a writer and never got less than a B+ on any essay that first year. My favorite essay is this one because I defended a fundamental religious view to objective secular minds and it was accepted as a viable argumentwinning respect from those who differed in this opinion. Years of getting slammed in the face in the door to door ministry I found writing would get people to listen. this is an edited draft of that essay might not be the final one."

    He "wrote" an essay and submitted it to a college teacher as his own work. He takes credit for the composition and "factual" information presented. And he is proud of it.

    Watchtower:
    "in 1873, F. Gesellius, a Polish doctor, slowed the transfusion revival with a frightening discovery: More than half the transfusions performed had ended in death"

    John Aster:
    "In 1873, F. Gesellius discovered over half of all blood transfusions ended in death. In 1878, Georges Hayem perfected a saline solution blood substitue called Hayem's Solution that did not make blood clots, had no strange side effects and was easily transportable."

    You will notice his next point of reference is Georges Hayem, which was the Watchtower's next point of reference. What fact comes next in the Watchtower article? Let's ask John Aster what HIS next sentence is: "But in 1900 Karl Landsteiner discovered certain blood types existed and could not be mixed."

    That's correct! That's exactly what came next in the Watchtower's version.

    Seriously guys and gals, for all of our rambling and ranting of the mindlessness of the Rank and File Witnesses, the John Aster blog dated June 2009 is the proverbial "proof in the pudding."

    A late Christmas/Birthday gift to you all.

    ~Ryan Kent

    cofty posted Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:52:00 GMT(1/18/2012)

    Post 2140 of 13914
    Joined 12/19/2009

    Interesting read thank you.

    M steve2 posted Wed, 18 Jan 2012 06:12:00 GMT(1/18/2012)

    Post 4153 of 8639
    Joined 10/31/2004

    very interesting comments.

    I was under the impression that though they can't be taxed, religions are still bound to journalistic integrity when writing reports.

    but where did you get that idea? The Watchtower has been scholastically dishonest for most of its history.

    M steve2 posted Wed, 18 Jan 2012 06:14:00 GMT(1/18/2012)

    Post 4154 of 8639
    Joined 10/31/2004

    very interesting comments.

    I was under the impression that though they can't be taxed, religions are still bound to journalistic integrity when writing reports.

    but where did you get that idea? The Watchtower has been scholastically dishonest for most of its history.

    cantleave posted Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:46:00 GMT(1/18/2012)

    Post 7949 of 13276
    Joined 6/25/2009

    A very fine post indeed. Thanks

    Alfred posted Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:38:00 GMT(1/18/2012)

    Post 640 of 954
    Joined 9/10/2010

    Arko... excellent research... very much appreciated... thank you

    Refriedtruth posted Sat, 21 Jan 2012 16:22:00 GMT(1/21/2012)

    Post 145 of 754
    Joined 5/5/2010

    Jehovah's Witnesses take blood. They take all fractions of blood. This includes hemoglobin, albumin, clotting factors, cryosupernatant and cryopoor too, and many, many, others. If one adds up all the blood fractions the JWs takes, it equals a whole unit of blood. Any, many of these fractions are made from thousands upon thousands of units of donated blood.Jehovah's Witnesses can take Bovine *cow's blood* as long as it is euphemistically called synthetic Hemopure. Here on Hemopure http://www.ajwrb.org/noblood/hemopure.html Jehovah's Witnesses also take whole blood, as long as it's called "current therapy." This is something not found in medical literature, per se. But, it is described by the religion as a taking of blood from a person, mixing it with compounds in a lab, and later retransfusing the blood back into the patient. So, it appears that JWs can have their blood separated from their body and later reuse it too. Jehovah's Witnesses now accept EVERY fraction of blood except the skin of the red blood cell. See AJWRB.org. JWs now accept blood transfusions. Only a small fraction of JWs still reject blood transfusions. those members that don't accept blood are a fringe group of extremist JWs, not the majority. More and more JWs are accepting blood every day. The doctrine is over and gone the way of their rejection of vaccinations and organ transplants

    M Billy the Ex-Bethelite posted Sun, 22 Jan 2012 01:18:00 GMT(1/22/2012)

    Post 3967 of 7263
    Joined 11/29/2007

    "never got less than a B+ on any essay that first year"

    Haha, he's bragging about never getting less than a B+ for essays in an introductory English Composition class at a community college? What a dumbass. Here's a hint: Watchtower isn't a grade "A" publication to be plagarizing.

    Anony Mous posted Sun, 22 Jan 2012 01:41:00 GMT(1/22/2012)

    Post 611 of 1100
    Joined 3/11/2011

    The thing is that even though legalistically they may allow blood transfusions, they still advocate to their members to refuse it. See for example form S-55 which was created in 2010 which advocates that parents should refuse blood transfusions EVEN IF COURT ORDERED they are still supposed to harass doctors!

    I have a copy of S-55 for anyone that wants it. PM me.

    The matter of fact is that legalistically they will do everything to get around it so they can save their own asses within the JW org as long as they don't call it a blood transfusion, they won't get expelled. HOWEVER if they do accept the standard blood transfusions at first try they will get booted, they need some type of modifier to the blood before they will accept it.

    Another thing is that their medical directive does not give a list of options they do NOT accept, they only give a list of things they DO accept thus denying in an emergency ALL other care.

    jonathan dough posted Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:07:39 GMT(10/24/2012)

    Post 1486 of 1386
    Joined 6/10/2009

    I'm looking for the Watchtower quote whereby parents who allow their children to be transfused are disfellowshipped and lose the prospect of eternal life. Anybody?

    M james_woods posted Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:10:54 GMT(10/24/2012)

    Post 11611 of 12292
    Joined 10/26/2005
    I'm looking for the Watchtower quote whereby parents who allow their children to be transfused are disfellowshipped and lose the prospect of eternal life. Anybody?

    They have never printed this idea in plain terminology in their publications.

    That does not mean they have not taught it.

    jonathan dough posted Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:16:47 GMT(10/24/2012)

    Post 1488 of 1386
    Joined 6/10/2009

    Okay, that seems strange. Here is another question. Where does it say that 100 percent of fractions can now be transfused? How is that calculated or put in their literature, and where?

    M james_woods posted Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:21:44 GMT(10/24/2012)

    Post 11614 of 12292
    Joined 10/26/2005

    It is not so strange if you consider the problem they have with liability issues. They do not want to be caught in a situation where it can be proven that they directly influenced the death of a dependent child.

    Someone else more familiar with current blood teachings would have to answer the second point - but I do not believe that they say that 100 percent of fractions can be used for transfusion.

    M steve2 posted Wed, 24 Oct 2012 22:36:17 GMT(10/24/2012)

    Post 5186 of 8639
    Joined 10/31/2004

    jd's questions appear awfully loaded. What you on man and where you going with this?

      Close

      Confirm ...