Positive Media for Bloodless Surgery and Non-Blood Management

Following are articles that provide facts in support of bloodless medicine as superior to blood transfusions. If you know of other articles in support of bloodless medicine, please provide them in a comment below and I will add them to this list. (Be sure to provide the direct link to the article and not a front page.) For a discussion of the Scriptural, spiritual, logical and medical reasons we have to reject blood transfusions, see the post Do the Scriptures Really Take a Stand on Blood Transfusions?.

As shown in this Englewood Hospital promossional video, our stand has revolutionized modern medicine in ways demonstrated in the list of links below. However, there are irresponsible individuals both in the medical community and among our opposers who would see this progress haulted for their own selfish reasons.

Who Is At Fault for the Mortality Rates?

Imagine a man is in a desert both starving and thirsting and he comes across a diner in the desert. There he orders a glass of water and a piece of toast. But the waiter says, “I’m going to put a little feces in your water to make sure you get your nutrients. But the man says, “No, please. I just want some water, no feces.” But the waiter says, “I’m not going to serve you food or water unless you take it with feces.” So the man, dejected, leaves the diner and dies of thirst while looking for another source of water. Who is at fault for the man’s death? The man himself for refusing something that could kill him with disease? Or the waiter for obstinately refusing to serve the man unless he also took feces in his water? Some might say it is the man’s fault because it would be stupid to refuse water that could prolong his life a little longer despite it being a potential source of disease. But does that make it right that the waiter refused to serve the man clean water simply because the man did not also want feces?

Our opposers would have you believe that it is our stand against blood that is what has caused most of the deaths among patients with blood volume needs, but it is not. As more and more bloodless cures prove more successful than blood-based cures, the truth is steadily coming to light: that people do not die because of bloodless medicine, but because of doctors refusing to treat patients without blood.

What seems to be criminal are the hospitals, and the courts that back them, that, from the beginning, have refused to treat Jehovah's Witnesses because they would not take blood transfusions. If they had allowed Jehovah's Witness patients to get treatment without blood transfusions, these success stories below would have been occurring long ago and in many more hospitals. There are still many hospitals today that refuse to treat Jehovah's Witnesses, yet medical advancements are proving non-blood management to be superior.

It is not because of our beliefs that our members have to fly thousands of miles, and spend a lot more money, to get bloodless surgery, thus we often go broke trying or just don't have the money to begin with. This is because hospitals refuse to treat us with bloodless surgery. The hospitals claim that it is because they cannot deal with the lawsuits for failed surgeries, but this is a blatant lie. Jehovah's Witnesses do not have a habit of suing just because bloodless surgery failed to help. Think about it. Why would we shoot ourselves in the foot? People don't sue hospitals because surgery doesn't work. They sue for negligence. The fact is, it takes an investment of training that the profit-making business arm of those hospitals are unwilling to pay for. Some may even be imposed upon to refuse treatment specifically to Jehovah's Witnesses by the religious organizations that run their hospitals.

If they did not refuse to treat us, we would get the treatment we need when we need it, rather than having treatment delayed until our blood count drops below treatable levels. If one of Jehovah's Witnesses is losing blood, what do you think happens when the hospital they are rushed to refuses to treat them because they are one of Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse blood transfusions? That Witness is forced to locate another hospital that is willing to operate, and in the hours that intervene, the Witness exsanguinates. If they had simply done their jobs to begin with, most of those casualties would have been prevented.

But now, whose fault is it that the Witness exsanguinates? Is it because of the Witness's stand against blood transfusions? No. It is because a doctor—whose job it is to save lives—refused to treat them. It is not like the Witnesses ask these doctors to perform unethical practices. They have simply refused one simple procedure for which there are many viable, practical, and in most cases, better alternatives.

Blood is a profitable business for hospitals and the Red Cross, which is why hospitals tend to be reluctant to consider alternatives. As of my writing this, there are over 2,700 hospitals providing blood transfusions in the U.S., but only 127 hospitals in 31 states (mostly northern states) providing comprehensive bloodless medicine and surgery programs in the U.S., (53 of which are only in 5 states,) leaving only 11 in 7 other countries in the entire world (out of 256 countries and colonies). So how easy do you think it is for Jehovah's Witnesses to get the care they want and need? If there were bloodless medicine and surgery programs in every hospital in the world, do you really think there would be anywhere near so many casualties among Jehovah's Witnesses? Of course not, because we would be getting the care we need when we need it.

Behind Your Back Hotline

Hospitals are even using a special hotline to get court orders from judges without due process of law and without the knowledge of parents and patients; a blind decision circumventing patient rights, human rights, and spitting in the face of the legal system. In some states, a hospital can use this hotline to force any procedure on your child regardless of the parent's right to decide the best care for their children. Originally started to protect children from being denied any treatment at all by criminally negligent or abusive parents, the hotline is being abused to force one single procedure when no medical necessity has been established. This could be used, not just for blood, but for other procedures, as well.

The Truth About Ashya King

Our apostates love to exult over the alleged questionable statement of Ashya King's father to the Telegraph, that he would permit the state to determine whether his son needed a blood transfusion. However, after the hospital in the UK refused the parents to have anything to do with the child's treatment in fear that their stand as Jehovah's Witnesses would interfere with their ability to treat the child, they kept the child in a secured wing. So the father sneaked into the wing and wheeled his son out in a stroller and they, with Ashya's mother, fled the country to Spain, where they were arrested.

However, after a court hearing, they were released. Why? Because the father was actually seeking to save his son's life by avoiding a procedure that had a very low success rate and could cause severe discomfort to Ashya while the boy wastes away, and instead try a newly developed procedure that showed promise and would not likely cause his son to waste away. They permitted the father to take Ashya to Prague to receive laser surgery.

After surgery, the child has recovered and the tumor is completely gone. But what you will not see mentioned in any report, especially by those of our apostates, is that there was no need for a blood transfusion. What these hypocrites don't want you to know is that for all the news that was reported about the father's refusing treatment over blood transfusions while he was on the run, the best and safest treatment for his son did not need a blood transfusion at all, which radiation therapy often requires blood replacement because the blood dies or other complications in the blood.

The radiation kills the blood and the body rejecting transfused blood kills the blood. But non-blood management has few, if any chances of complications, which is why it results in faster turn-around times, shorter hospital stays, and more complete recoveries with significantly fewer and less life-threatening post-operative complications. Not to mention, it's a lot less expensive.

Update: As of March 2018, three and a half years later, Ashya King, now 8 years old, remains cancer-free because of a life-saving bloodless surgery treatment, and free of bloodcell-killing chemotherapy and hospitals demanding to transfuse him while he wasted away to death. But note in that article that they do not mention the reason that his parents had to sneak him out of the hospital, nor the fact that his parents were Jehovah's Witnesses seeking the best treatment for their child, nor any mention of the surgery being bloodless, being careful not to inadvertantly show that the view of Jehovah's Witnesses saved Ashya's life and health. What do you think? What saved Ashya's life? Chemo and blood transfusions? Or bloodless medicine? What would have happened to Ashya if his parents had not avoided state-enforced blood transfusions? The same thing that has happened to thousands of other children and adults who have undergone the same thing: wasting away to almost certain death.

Australia Revamping Its Medical Practices to Favor Non-Blood Management

In a full turn-about from funding and encouraging a strong blood supply for transfusions, the Australian government is pushing for what they call "patient-centered care" to focus on asking whether blood is absolutely necessary for the patient's survival or not. They believe that in the great majority of patients, it will not be necessary. They highlight that blood transfusions had become about selfishly bringing comfort to the physician rather than to the patient. See the following link for details:

Patient Blood Management (PBM)      

U.S. Military Gave $4.69M Grant to Englewood Hospital

Due to the success of bloodless surgery, the U.S. military gave a $4.69 million grant to Englewood hospital to teach military doctors how to perform bloodless surgery.  Sara Lee Kessler reported, "Proponents say, ''Going bloodless promotes healing, reduces infection, and saves lives." Dr. Aryah Shander said "It reduces patients' exposure to bank blood, which is associated with negative outcomes." Wilbur Malloy of the U.S. Army Telemedicine Research Center said, "there are always complications associated with transfusions. We're going to save lives. ... we should use transfusion as a last resort." Does that sound like our stand against blood transfusions is dangerous, or that blood transfusions are what is dangerous?

U.S. Military Doctors Learn Bloodless Medicine

Bloodless Cures for Traditionally Blood-Dependent Surgeries

Instead of listing this link below, read it here. It shows that among the eight Jehovah's Witnesses in the bone marrow transplant patients in this Leukemia test group, in 2003, only two died of no causes that could have been prevented with blood transfusions, leading the researchers to recommend further research that has lead to major advancements in Leukemia treatments as found in articles below: Myeloablative therapy and bone marrow transplantation in Jehovah's Witnesses with malignancies: single center experience

Physician Partners of America Offers 'Bloodless' Laser Spine Surgery. August 23, 2018
“I’ve done more than 8,000 surgeries and have never given a blood transfusion,” says Dr. James St. Louis, director of Physician Partners of America Minimally Invasive Spine Group. “There are dramatically fewer complications with bloodless surgery.”

Ashya King may be cancer free after pioneering proton therapy. March 3, 2018
Southampton General Hospital wanted to treat Ashya with intense chemotherapy and radiation, which his parents Naghmeh and Brett thought would leave their then-five-year-old with permanent disability. His mother and father were arrested by Spanish police at the request of the British authorities. But they were ultimately allowed to take Ashya to Prague. There, he underwent a series of short bursts of proton therapy, in which a concentrated beam of energy is used to kill the tumour without damaging the surrounding healthy tissue. It worked, and Ashya has been recovering ever since.

Case Study: Transfusion-Free Leukemia Treatment. (Current Page)
Douer then treated the patient with another experimental drug called arsenic trioxide. Again the patient went into remission — without the need for blood products. “This is a revolution in the treatment of leukemia, because both drugs are not chemotherapy agents,” Douer says. “You can’t treat leukemia without blood products, but APL is one form of cancer that responds to this medication.”

How Jehovah's Witnesses Are Changing Medicine.(3 Parts) August 12, 2015
. . . Before the development of an H.I.V. screening test for donors, in 1985, almost half of all hemophiliacs became infected with the virus. . . . When red blood cells are stored, they become more rigid and undergo chemical changes that make them less efficient at carrying oxygen. . . donor blood can suppress recipients’ immune systems, or it can trigger overactive immune responses, thanks to the waste products the cells secrete. A bag of blood that’s been sitting in storage is “like a dirty fish tank you haven’t cleaned in a month,” Patricia Ford, a hematologist at Pennsylvania Hospital, told me. And of course, while the risk of H.I.V. infection is now extremely low in the developed world, proponents worry about new pathogens. . . .

Treatment of patients who refuse blood offering valuable lessons, doctors say Nov 9, 2014
"Patients receiving bloodless management are doing as well or in some cases better than those with blood transfusions," says Dr. Linda Resar of the Johns Hopkins Center for Bloodless Medicine and Surgery in Baltimore. "What we learn will be relevant to all patients. It makes the whole field more exciting."

Case Report: A Jehovah’s Witness with Acute Myeloid Leukemia Successfully Treated with an Epigenetic Drug, Azacitidine: A Clue for Development of Anti-AML Therapy Requiring Minimum Blood Transfusions. 2 October, 2014
We present the first Jehovah’s Witness patient with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) treated successfully with azacitidine. After achieving complete remission (CR) with one course of azacitidine therapy, the patient received conventional postremission chemotherapy and remained in CR. In the case of patients who accept blood transfusions, there are reports indicating the treatment of AML patients with azacitidine. In these reports, azacitidine therapy was less toxic, including hematoxicity, compared with conventional chemotherapy. The CR rate in azacitidine-treated patients was inadequate; however, some characteristics could be useful in predicting azacitidine responders. The present case is useful for treating Jehovah’s Witnesses patients with AML and provides a clue for anti-AML therapy requiring minimum blood transfusions.

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in Jehovah’s Witnesses. August 1, 2012
A standardized blood management program presents treatment options. Patients should be medically optimized preoperatively, and measures should be taken to minimize intraoperative blood loss. Patients must be educated about transfusion alternatives and the higher risks associated with revision surgery. High-risk surgical patients with multiple medical comorbidities must be warned about the chances of prolonged hospitalization and the risk of death. However, if surgeons familiarize themselves with blood management treatment protocols and adequately evaluate and optimize patients preoperatively, surgery on Jehovah’s Witnesses can be performed safely with favorable clinical outcomes. . . .

Heart Surgery Safe In Jehovah's Witnesses. July 2, 2012
Doctors sometimes give heart patients a transfusion of red blood cells if tests show they have low levels of hemoglobin or hematocrit after the procedure to prevent severe anemia, despite some transfusion-related risks. Because Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t have that option, surgeons typically take extra pre-procedure precautions – such as giving patients B vitamins and iron – to ensure their red blood cell counts don’t get too low during surgery. And those precautions seem to be working, according to the new study. . . .

Treatment of acute myeloid leukaemia without blood transfusion in a member of Jehovah's Witnesses. Nov 14, 2011
We present a case in which a young woman was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukaemia, FAB-classification type M2. As a member of Jehovah's Witnesses she refused to accept any treatment involving blood transfusions. A modified induction and consolidation chemotherapy regimen was applied, tailored to reduce prolonged myelosuppression. Despite severe anaemia, she survived to achieve complete remission. She is currently under treatment-free observation after two courses of consolidation treatment.

Evidence in Favor of Bloodless Surgery Mounts. October 28, 2009
Physicians around the world are now successfully treating patients with bloodless surgery. Evidence shows that many benefits are being realized by using alternative medicine. . . .

Blood Management Primer: A Primer for Clinicians. 2007
Includes Risks of Allogeneic Transfusions, Informed Consent for Transfusion Therapy, Blood Transfusion Economics, Blood Management Strategies, and Cost-Effectiveness of Transfusion Alternatives.

Babies returned to Jehovah's Witnesses. February 7, 2007
The father of four surviving sextuplets vowed yesterday to prevent his newborns from having further blood transfusions to save their lives. Government social workers seized three of the four babies on the weekend and, the dad said, at least one received a blood transfusion. "Because we choose alternative medical treatments to blood transfusions, we have been stripped of our parental rights and have been labelled unfit," the father, a Jehovah's Witness, said in an affidavit in B.C. Supreme Court. "We want the best medical care for our children and want them to live. We have consented to all required treatment and have asked the doctors to more actively employ available alternatives to blood transfusions. We will not, however, consent to blood transfusions." [...] The government yesterday backed off its bid for legal custody of the three babies. "When the government came to court, they announced they were withdrawing," said Shane Brady, the parents' lawyer. No explanation was given, he said. "They just withdrew."

Bloodless surgery of acute type A aortic dissection in a Jehovah’s Witness patient. 2004
We report successful surgery for acute type A aortic dissection in a Jehovah’s Witness patient without the use of any transfusion of allogeneic blood or blood products. We combined the normothermic cross-clamping technique with a blood conservation strategy. ... A 55-year-old man (height, 194 cm; weight, 85 kg) with a body surface area of 2.16 m2 experienced acute severe chest pain. ... A computed tomographic scan of the chest was performed, which showed dissection of the entire aorta (Stanford type A, DeBakey type I) (Fig 1) and a pericardial effusion. The patient refused transfusion of allogeneic blood and blood products. The operative risk was assessed as extremely high with these conditions; therefore he was not accepted for surgery at three cardiovascular centers. The patient was then transferred to our institution.

Transfusion-Free Complex Cardiac Surgery With Cardiopulmonary Bypass in a 3.55-Kg Jehovah’s Witness Neonate. 2004
We report on a strategy to minimize the cardiopulmonary bypass circuit and adjust the perfusion technique that resulted in transfusion-free correction of tetralogy of Fallot with an absent pulmonary valve and an aneurysm of the left pulmonary artery in a 3.55 kg Jehovah’s Witness neonate boy. ... The hemoglobin level after arrival to the intensive care unit was 8.5 g/dL. The total postoperative blood loss was 25 mL. Therapy with recombinant erythropoietin and iron was continued postoperatively. The patient was weaned from the ventilator after 5 days, and he was transferred from the intensive care unit with a hemoglobin level of 10.0 g/dL after 7 days.

CMV and blood transfusions. July-August 2002
Among the human herpesviruses, cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the only one that has assumed significant importance in blood transfusion. Transfusion transmission of CMV (TT-CMV) to seronegative immunocompromised patients can lead to lethal CMV disease. Studies over the past 30 years have demonstrated that monocytes latently infected with CMV represent the primary vector for TT-CMV, and that TT-CMV can be largely abrogated by transfusing at-risk patients with either seronegative units or blood filtered to remove white blood cells. However, the small number of cases of breakthrough TT-CMV that follow transfusion of either seronegative or filtered blood still produce morbidity and mortality. These circumstances have motivated ongoing efforts to provide improved protection from TT-CMV, including the use of CMV DNA amplification for blood screening, and pathogen inactivation to sterilise all blood components prior to transfusion.

Blood Substitute and Erythropoietin Therapy in a Severely Injured Jehovah's Witness. April 4, 2002
Blood substitutes provide adequate oxygen-carrying capacity and can act as a bridge until bone marrow production compensates for the loss of red cells. Exogenous erythropoietin stimulates red-cell production. Although the optimal dose of erythropoietin in a critically ill patient remains to be established, our empirically chosen high dose was associated with a rapid response. Combination therapy with erythropoietin and PolyHeme may be particularly useful in the case of a critically ill Jehovah's Witness.

Transfusions Kill Patients, Say Doctors. February 11, 1999
Blood transfusions given routinely to tens of thousands of critically ill patients may be killing them, doctors have found. Canadian researchers have found that giving extra blood, despite its essential role in maintaining life, can cause more harm than good in those who have been thought in greatest need of it. . . .

Total Hip Replacement Surgery Without Blood Transfusion in Jehovah's Witnesses. 1992
 Uncemented total hip replacement surgery without blood transfusion is described in 12 Jehovah's Witnesses and morbidity is compared with a group who each received 3 units of blood. There were no deaths and all the patients except two, one from each group, left hospital within 3 weeks.

Hemophelia and AIDS: Silent Suffering. May 16, 1988
Hit harder by AIDS than perhaps any other group, the nation's 15,000 hemophiliacs have been racked by anguish, confusion and anger, and forced to confront a threat that is taking the lives of many and scarring the emotions of many more. . . .

Total hip replacement in Jehovah's Witnesses under spinal anesthesia without transfusion. January 16, 1987
Ninety patients who were Jehovah's Witnesses underwent 107 total hip replacements without transfusion; all procedures were performed under spinal anesthesia. Of these 90, 87 had not previously undergone hip replacement surgery. They sustained an average intraoperative blood loss of 300 mL, which was a significant reduction compared with that in controlled groups of patients reported by other authors. Factors other than spinal anesthesia that aided in reducing blood loss were posterior surgical exposure of the hip without capsulectomy or removal of the greater trochanter, hemostasis without electrocauterization, and rapidly performed surgery. There were three operative complications and one death, none of which were related to spinal anesthesia.

Other Independent Media regarding Blood Transfusions:

Search Google for the more than 300,000 entries for "dies after blood transfusion".

Session 3: Adverse Consequences of Blood Transfusions (Dr. Brian Quinn)


Unknown said…
One site worth visiting, although it;s very technical is the Network for the Advancement of Transfusion Alternatives.


It's a site run by doctors for doctors and is not affiliated with Witnesses in any way. I believe Dr Peter Earnshaw - the doctor who appeared on the front cover of Awake! some years ago and who features in some of our videos, is one of the founding members of this site.

Dismythed said…
There is also noblood.org

What I'm hoping for, though, is specific articles in support for bloodless medicine and exposing the dangers of blood transfusions. Though those sites are great places to find such articles. I should give them a thorough check.
Dismythed said…
And there is also the Society for the Advancement of Blood Management: http://www.sabm.org/

Their mission page is enlightening: http://www.sabm.org/mission
Dismythed said…
To Anonymous of August 18, 2014 at 2:06PM and 2:08PM:

That's not proof. That's a link to an article that is a synopsis of a symposium involving many different speakers. Besides, I do not know what statement you are referring to because you did not provide a reference to a publication page and paragraph, nor a quote, nor a video time stamp. Mind you, I'm not saying you are lying. I am just saying that you presented a couple of accusations without any proof whatsoever. Also, your first accusation appears to have no bearing upon any of the links posted above.

Here is the board of directors for SABM and its history:


There is no mention of Jehovah's Witnesses. You will need more proof of your claims than simple assertions.
Dismythed said…
Yeah, I found the article. Again, as I said, it is a synopsis of a symposium involving many different speakers.

So then that's "no" to the proof?

Here is the proof I need from you. I can't spell it out any clearer than this:

Publication name, page and paragraph
Quotes are a must
Video name, time stamp

The burden of proof lies with you. You can't just make unsupported accusations and say "look it up".
Dismythed said…
You will be doing us both a favor if you just don't post until you have the proof of either claim. (Proverbs 10:19; 11:2; 14:15; 18:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:11)
Dismythed said…
(Correction on one of the scriptures above: 1 Thessalonians 5:21)

I guess the guy couldn't find his proof.
Robert said…
CJ, in my opinion, this is the most important topic on your blog. Why? Because THIS is the issue used by all apostates and most opposers to show how we allegedly "let our children die".

This shows what the truth is -- we want BETTER medical options that aren't so risky and aren't in violation of Jehovah's principles. So are people who champion less-risky alternative medical procedures looking to "let their children die?"

If anything, Jehovah's Witnesses are pioneers of bloodless surgery, and have been instrumental in advancing science in medicine!!

Imagine that! Some of the biggest contributors to science believe in God.

Who'da thunk it!!

Robert said…
CJ, I am also proud to see the seriousness and respect that you give this topic, as its deserved.

Thank you for telling the truth about the King's Story, and thank you for providing all the links that present facts that contradict baseless claims made by both opposers.

What always goes ignored by our opposers, is the sheer number of those who have died after taking a blood transfusion.

I mean, to sit there and not only cherry-picked information like that, but to exploit the deaths of people to score points against an organization that you just have some personal disagreements with, is reprehensible.

And what's more troubling about that, is that they seem to have no problem with it.

Dismythed said…
Prince, who was one of Jehovah's Witnesses, died today and our opposers are already making baseless claims that he refused surgery because he had a bad hip and refused hip-replacement surgery on the false claim that hip replacement surgery required a blood transfusion. The claim is patently false as hip replacement surgery does not require blood transfusion and there is no evidence that lack of transfusion causes greater mortality rates, as this study shows:

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in Jehovah’s Witnesses
Robert said…
Why I am not surprised. But thanks for the link. There is also a Wikipedia entry on Prince that says he refused the surgery unless it was a bloodless surgery.

If they are still saying bloodless surgery is somehow fanatical, they are misinforming people and are just willfully ignorant.
Dismythed said…
For a more relevant article about total hip replacement, this article in 1992 shows a high success rate:

Total Hip Replacement Surgery Without Blood Transfusion in Jehovah's Witnesses

Now consider that medicine has advanced by 24 years since that study. It has advanced 29 years since this study:

Total hip replacement in Jehovah's Witnesses under spinal anesthesia without transfusion
Dismythed said…
Ugh. Sensationalist morons now they're not claiming hip problems, but now another co-called "report" from an unknown source claims Prince had AIDS for the last 6 months and had HIV since the 80's, but chose not to do anything about it. Why? Get this . . . "because he believed God would heal him". As if we're some kind of faith healing evangelists. They then say he committed suicide because he could deal with the pain anymore. In his elevator??? Okay, so he didn't get help for his HIV from the 80's because of his faith even though he didn't start studying until 1999 and baptized in 2001 and yet he abandons his faith to commit suicide instead of get help?

AS IF! Man, these people will believe anything just because they refuse to actually research our beliefs. The final police report is going to be so mundane in comparison to the claims and they will still do what they can to twist it into something absurd once again having to do with his beliefs as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, of which they know nothing about. Then a year or two later they'll post a front page on the Enquirer claiming some lame cover-up. Even now they're setting it up with the claim that thousands of pills went missing from his residence before the police arrived. And who gave them that insight? Not the police. They wouldn't know. These people are animalistic, begging for scraps and digging through fecal matter and rot to get at nothing real.
Dismythed said…
By the way, the average life expectancy after infection is 11 years. The likelihood that Prince beat the average survival time without medication 3 times over is essentially nil. I think we can put that useless rumor to rest.
Robert said…
That HIV/AIDS claim came out less than 24 hours after his death in an article I read. Then, anticipating that readers would want evidence, it simply stated: "it has been reported" without revealing the source, because either the source did not exist or it was purely apostate.

You're right, they can easily research our real beliefs or talk to us, like this reporter did, and experienced Witnesses first-hand:


Its a very simple thing to do, that many people would not want to do because they don't want to change their minds. Sad and pathetic.

Dismythed said…
Thanks for that, Robert! I think this puts to rest the claim about his hip:

"Graham also denied claims that Prince couldn’t have hip surgery because his faith prohibited blood transfusions."
Robert said…
I was going to post just that quote, but I thought posting the article would be better. Thanks for sharing that!

Also, I wanted to show how reputable people go to the source. Opposers and those with agendas stick to second and third-hand information, that way they can have an excuse and a scape-goat when called on it.

Robert said…
Here's another really good article which dispels myths about Prince and our faith:


I am sure this counteracts the venomous filth in the comment section as well.
Robert said…
CJ, do you have this article and is this something you'd use?


Dismythed said…
I will add it later along with a couple others I found. Thanks. :)

Excellent article about Prince. Of course, it's written by a brother. Only our brothers are interested in the whole truth.
Robert said…
I shared this comment elsewhere CJ, but this whole "controversy" puts non-Witnesses on the spot: either they can do the right and proper thing and learn about us from us, or keep relying on misleading, filter, edited, and doctored second-hand information.

Its all on them now. They know how to find us.
Robert said…
What, you mean to tell me Prince did NOT die as a result of not having hip surgery because of our views on blood?


Color me shocked!
Dismythed said…
One of the rumors was that Prince died of drug overdose on account of his hip because he refused surgery due to our beliefs on blood. So to a non-Witnesses this would appear to support that claim. However, what should be highlighted is the fact that he was treating his hip pain for many years before he got involved with Jehovah's Witnesses, so it had nothing to do with our beliefs. His excessive self-medicating with unprescribed opioids is also contrary to our beliefs.
Anthony said…
Hi C.J.

Thanks for the great article. I work in internal medicine and this matter is near and dear to my heart even more so than to other brothers who don't work in this field. I was wondering if you had information on treatment of patients that are involved in traumas or need emergent transfusions. I'd like to be able to provide this information to colleagues. A lot of our videos and information pertains to elective surgeries or surgeries that are needed but can be scheduled. Any references you can provide would be helpful! I know that volume repletion is key when a person experiences heavy blood loss, but I wish the brothers would publish more on this topic in particular.
Dismythed said…
There looks to be plenty here:

Google search: emergency blood salvage

Google search: emergency non-blood management

If you don't already know about it, you can also get help with questions at NoBlood.org.
Anthony said…
Thank you for the links. I'm going to check out noblood.org!
Dismythed said…
You're welcome. I hope you find what you're looking for. Be sure to share anything you find that you think might fit well with the topic of this thread. I'll look through those myself as well.
Anonymous said…
Hi C.J.

I'm Omar from the Philippines. For a long time i'm really wondering why there's still a lot of hospitals in the U.S.A. that don't provide bloodless surgery for JWs. I mean, medically speaking, you're more advance than us. But here in the Philippines there are a lot of doctors who are willing to help JWs with their bloodless surgery. So I guess you're right - "Blood is a profitable business for hospitals and the Red Cross, which is why hospitals tend to be reluctant to consider alternatives."
Robert said…
I was doing some personal study tonight, and I came across what could be used as good point to those who says its somehow "wrong" to be willing to die before accepting a blood transfusion. This taken from the 1996 Awake!, November 22 p20:

"You asked me if I would let my son die by refusing a blood transfusion. With all due respect, I would like to ask if you would let your son die in the military service of any nation?’ He answered immediately and emphatically, ‘Yes! Because that is his obligation!’ I said: ‘You would allow your son to die because it is for a cause you believe in. Allow me the same privilege with my son."

I think this is a very interesting point. The same people who would castigate Witnesses for standing on their beliefs about blood even in the face of death, are many of the same people who would tell their children that its worth dying to secure freedoms and liberties for others for their country. Even more, this country honors the ultimate sacrifice those men and women made. Of course, this makes their criticism of us extremely hypocritical, but the expectation is that they simply respect our stance as we do theirs.

What's the real difference? None, other than the cause. This would be a good reasoning point in the ministry I think. It does not provoke arguments, but deep thought.

Dismythed said…
Indeed. It is now burned into my brain. I will definitely use this if I face a similar statement.
Anthony said…
Wow! What a powerful analogy. Now I have something great to use when reasoning with people on the blood issue. Although, I'm sure they will come up with some counterargument. I'd like to think of some possible objections the person might make to the argument and how to counter them...
Robert Murphey said…
Thank you.

Its all about being as respectful as possible. Even though people may not agree with our stand, they really can't help but to see how we truly live what we believe, even if it may cost us plenty. We aren't Witnesses because its convenient to be one. We aren't like Christendom.