Malawi and MCP Cards?

[Many Miles]

23 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

...there are two versions of this AP story...

I understand what you mean now.

Newspapers, for the most part, write to sell rather than write to educate. I don't really pay much attention to them, except to get a general idea of what's going on in the world. That's probably why I didn't pick up on the nuance you pointed out to me. Thanks.

[Many Miles]

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

A conspiratorially-minded person could take this confession for an admission that...

I'll just get my popcorn.

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

I'll just get my popcorn.

Evading the question, methinks.

[TrueTomHarley]

I would never say that the Librarian and Many Miles are the same person, but they do bear a certain relationship to each other.

And the exact nature of that relationship is . . . IDENTITY

(sigh . . . Naw, I don’t really know it. But there are enough clues one might piece together as to make it at least a 60% probability, or even higher.)

[Pudgy]

… I was just getting ready to reply something I thought was profound, wise, insightful and wrong.

…. but then the idea occorred to methat we have never seen MM and the Big L in the same post….

Coincidence?

[Thinking]

12 hours ago, Many Miles said:

I don't understand that comment.

Nothing on "the list of alternatives" is a "cure all".

What do you mean?

You said this treatment wasn’t known To most witness…in other words not discussed or talked about or widely known …..

[Pudgy]

… sorta like skipping praying at breakfast if you use whole milk in your Count Chocula cereal ?

[TrueTomHarley]

7 hours ago, Pudgy said:

… I was just getting ready to reply something I thought was profound, wise, insightful and wrong.

…. but then the idea occorred to methat we have never seen MM and the Big L in the same post….

Coincidence?

And then … Pudgy is actually . . . . . .drum roll, please . . . . .pass the popcorn . . . .. .MARMADUKE!!

[Pudgy]

i had to look that up ….

[TrueTomHarley]

19 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Maybe I missed something, but the article I read that you linked to was an apologetic work. . . 

Was it? 

How is the following any more than a reasonable conclusion upon reflection of the article itself?

“The problem is that transfused blood needs nitric oxide to keep the blood vessels open, otherwise, the carried oxygen never reaches the tissues. But nitric oxide begins to break down within three hours of storage, and donated blood is presently stored up to 42 days. To be sure, researchers think they can remedy the problem. But that does nothing to improve the effectiveness of blood transfusions already given, each one of which was hailed as "life-saving," yet few of them actually qualifying as such, at least not any more so than saline solution, which offers no danger of rejection. We all know that the body spots foreign tissue in an instant, and tries hard to get rid of it.”

I mean, I get where you’re coming from. I make clear in the article that I am a Witness. That negates the commentary itself, which even acknowledges researchers aim to rectify the problem and perhaps partially have by now? This is the mindset with which, for example one reads something about an uncontrolled southern border and says, ‘Well—what do you expect? He’s a Republican who wrote it.’ Or one reads something about the abuses of big business and says, ‘He’s a Democrat. Of course he’s going to say that.’ 

This is example of the inane prejudging of information the greater world typifies today. The Great Courses philosophy professor does this in spades. Discussing climate change, he touches on the fact that many weatherman don’t believe it. ‘A meteorologist is not a climatogist,’ he tells us, thus equating anything the former might write to so much toilet paper. How did it get to be a world where people are brilliant in their chosen field, but if you nudge them just a tiny bit out of it, they are clueless? What Great Educator fallen from the heavens packages information this way? And why—unless he is also the Great College Administrator. Hehehe )))). 

If I refer frequently to this philosophy professor, it is because I can see he and his featuring prominently in any future book about Job and other theodicies that I may write, and I am getting a few licks in early. How should I present such a future book? If I include reference to Jehovah’s Witnesses in it, people will say, ‘Oh, that’s an apologetic work.’ But if I don’t, it will leave a gaping hole because the theodicy most coherent is that of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (with a possible nod to the Seventh Day Adventist writer) If I cover all the Witness theology, but don’t say where it came from, it’s as though to say it can be found anywhere—even though it can’t. It becomes like pointing the person seeking water in any random direction, unconcerned with whether I am pointing to the Sahara Desert. Moreover, if I cover the ‘theodicy’ without saying where it came from, I give the impression it came from myself! 

No. I will say it came from JWs. And guys like MM may say, ‘Oh, well, this book is an apologetic work. Why waste my time?’ But I cannot conscientiously do it any other way.

[Many Miles]

13 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Was it? 

When I say a presentation looks like an apologetic work it's not a disparagement. There's nothing wrong with apologetic presentations. What I mean by "apologetic work" is a presentation that's written to protect a particular point of view.

What you wrote about problems related to donor blood and its availability and efficacy for transfusion medicine is not necessarily false, but it may lead to a false impression. Here's an example of what I mean:

You have two patients. Both patients are otherwise healthy young adults. But they have just suffered horrendous trauma and are hemorrhaging blood at an alarming rate. Each is bleeding out internally so fast that both will die before the underlying reason(s) for hemorrhage can be found, let alone remedied. Their Hb levels are lower than 2.0 g/dL. What to do? The doctors need more time. One thing can give them that time. Transfusion of volume expander and red cells. This will buy time to find and attempt to repair underlying cause(s) of hemorrhage, if that's possible.

All the problems you pointed out remain. But the simple fact is that if one of those patients accepts red cell transfusion and one declines, then there's a near 100% probability that one of those patients will die.

When it comes to subjects like this, any and all problems deserve attention and discussion, but if medical outcome is the critical factor then that factor can't be ignored as though it doesn't matter. So, for instance, the patient who accepted red cells and lived, maybe he contracts some disease or condition the result of that choice. But he's alive to deal with it.

If you want to write about difficulties of medical use of blood then do that. If you want to write about religious aspects of medical use of blood then do that. But those two things have nothing to do with one another. If religiously taking red cells is wrong then say so and show why religiously. If medically taking red cells is wrong then say so and show why medically. Sweeping statements about problems of using blood can easily mislead.

Apologetic works are written to protect (defend) a particular point of view. I prefer works that are written to share information and let people make of what they will. 

But, again, there is nothing inherently wrong with apologetic works.

[Srecko Sostar]

For those who have a religious dilemma about taking blood transfusions and fear the consequences of such a "sin", I can say that God has forgiven much greater (intentional and unintentional) sins committed by people who have declared themselves to be his worshippers. Why torture your soul as if everything after "sin" is irreparable and futile.

The only problem a sinner will have is a problem with people, not with God. Then tell me, whose, which relationship is more important to you?