posted October 31, 2013 01:29 PM            

quote:

---

Don't make me laugh acoustic. You've "debunked" nothing.

---

I did lay out several problems with Scott's work in my previous post. No amount of putting your head in the sand is going to change that. Not only so, but you felt so threatened by my post, you've attempted to double down here using this single person as your evidence that the U.S. is the best.

I'm not going to repost what I just posted yesterday to refute this nonsense that I've "debunked" nothing. There were several areas I touched on yesterday, and today I'm going to add to that list so that you may know your man, Scott Atlas, is talking out of his ass.

quote:

---

On the other hand, the guy you say you've debunked is a world famous medical expert and member of the Nobel nominating committee for the Nobel prize in Medicine and Physiology, several times. You would know that if you spent less time running your mouth and more time reading with comprehension.

---

That you don't see him as a partisan hack is unfortunate.
On the positive side, I will say that I'm glad that he's at least a Republican that's looking to constructively move the conversation forward. That's more than I can say of most Republicans.
On the negative side, with books and papers under his belt he should have been able to reference the studies he's referring to specifically. His failure to do so makes him look either lazy or deceitful, neither of which are good qualities when you're looking for a reference in a debate.

quote:

---

the breast cancer mortality rate is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the US

---

First, I'll re-note that the only Verdecchia study I found was a decade old.
Second, I'll re-note that it would be a stretch to draw too many conclusions for comparing survival rates per Dr. Marie Diener-West (an actual statistician in the medical field).

To test this hypothesis that the breast cancer mortality rate in Germany is 52% higher proved a little troublesome. It's a little tough coming up with the stats, but I found this:
THE GLOBOCAN PROJECT

If you use the left hand sidebar to plug in (separately) Germany and the United States (adjusting the resultant page to show both sexes on the lower part of the screen), you'll get results that suggest that the mortality percentage for Germany is 8%, and the mortality percentage for the U.S. is 7.2%. No manner of interpretation will make 8% "52% higher" than 7.2%. The U.K. is only 7.8%, so obviously the "88% higher" is also a bogus number.

If you click on Incidence/Mortality under the heading ONLINE ANALYSIS on the left hand side of the original screen, you'll get options for other reports. Click on the "Age-specific incidence/mortality curves" that now shows. Plug in the countries: Germany, U.K., U.S.A., and select individual. Choose Breast Cancer, individual. Unfortunately, you can only choose one sex, so we'll go with female. All other settings can be left alone. Execute. You will see that incidence is in the same range, and that mortality is in the same range as well. Pay particular attention to the United States Mortality line as it crosses over age groups! Germany actually has the best mortality rate up to about age 44. That's where the U.S. line crosses over and becomes the best for the remaining age groups. Eventually, around age 60, the U.S. mortality rate is around 50% better than both Germany and the U.K. By age 70, the gap has closed significantly, re-opening at 75+ years of age.

posted November 01, 2013 10:09 AM            

You don't even read the reports you cite here or you don't have a clue what the language means.

You cite a report from the useless World Health Organization which with ACTUAL DATA on mortality rates available decided to use ESTIMATION. Wow, how scientific.

To further destroy their credibility the WHO used WEIGHTED AVERAGES which is the sign of pure guesswork.

"Methods of estimation (summary)
Incidence:
Population weighted average of the area-specific country rates applied to the 2008 area population.

Mortality:
Population weighted average of the area-specific country rates applied to the 2008 area population.

Risk of getting or dying from the disease before age 75 (%):
The probability or risk of individuals getting/dying from cancer. It is expressed as the number of new born children (out of 100) who would be expected to develop/die from cancer before the age of 75 if they had cancer rates (in the absence of other causes of death)."
http://globocan.iarc.fr/factsheet.asp

How utterly worthless. While the WHO clowns had actual data, they chose ESTIMATION. Then, to make matters even worse, they based their mortality rates on ESTIMATIONS of how long a new born baby would be ESTIMATED to live...instead of how many actually died at each year of age.

The only kind of people who pull this horseshiit are those trying to manipulate the outcomes of their so called studies to match their pre-conceived ideas. Much like the faux scientists and high priests of the Man Made Global Warming Religion.

posted November 01, 2013 02:09 PM            

quote:

---

To further destroy their credibility the WHO used WEIGHTED AVERAGES which is the sign of pure guesswork.

---

A couple things here...

First, the WHO doesn't have a credibility problem. We all know that you'd love to make an entity that makes your time debating more difficult out as not being credible, but your deeming something as non-credible holds absolutely no water with reasonable people.

Second, weighted averages depend on [and can't exist without] "actual data". Are you really so dense as to think an international cancer research team would be interested in using GUESSES in compiling stats? Common sense says this is an extraordinarily poor argument.

quote:

---

The probability or risk of individuals getting/dying from cancer. It is expressed as the number of new born children (out of 100) who would be expected to develop/die from cancer before the age of 75 if they had cancer rates (in the absence of other causes of death)."

How utterly worthless. While the WHO clowns had actual data, they chose ESTIMATION. Then, to make matters even worse, they based their mortality rates on ESTIMATIONS of how long a new born baby would be ESTIMATED to live...instead of how many actually died at each year of age.

---

This is stupid reasoning. Just plain stupid. What, pray tell, would they base the probability of new born children surviving upon if not actual past and present performance? It's silly of you to think that this estimation is just a full blown guess, and devoid of any rational explanation.

quote:

---

Then, to make matters even worse, they based their mortality rates on ESTIMATIONS of how long a new born baby would be ESTIMATED to live...instead of how many actually died at each year of age.

---

I know I'm re-quoting this line, but it's important to point out that what you looked at wasn't the ONLY information available at that site. I walked you through how to create a different chart of results:

If you click on Incidence/Mortality under the heading ONLINE ANALYSIS on the left hand side of the original screen, you'll get options for other reports. Click on the "Age-specific incidence/mortality curves" that now shows. Plug in the countries: Germany, U.K., U.S.A., and select individual. Choose Breast Cancer, individual. Unfortunately, you can only choose one sex, so we'll go with female. All other settings can be left alone. Execute. You will see that incidence is in the same range, and that mortality is in the same range as well.

If you want across the board similar mortality rate for breast cancer [in women] plug in Norway. Once again, doing so illustrates Scott Altas' selective use of stats to make a point. If you want better prostate cancer mortality across the board, go to Italy.

quote:

---

The only kind of people who pull this horseshiit are those trying to manipulate the outcomes of their so called studies to match their pre-conceived ideas. Much like the faux scientists and high priests of the Man Made Global Warming Religion.

---

Oh. I see you are going with conspiracy yet again. Yeah, the data doesn't back your claim, so you're going to chalk it up to conspiracy. This will be the new Cancer conspiracy, looking to undermine America by posting guesses.

quote:

---

The US has the best health care delivery system in the history of planet Earth and the best medical outcomes for serious illness and disease among all western nations

---

False. Still unproven by you. Still unproven by your single source of information. I asked you for a study, and you came back with articles that refused to name the studies it was referencing.

Despite the fact that the average American lives into his or her late 70s, the United States ranks 50th on the CIA's life expectancy list. http://health.usnews.com/health-news/living-well-usn/articles/2012/03/09/top-10-hotspots-for-human-longevity

posted November 01, 2013 02:25 PM            

Let's forget about global for a minute. Let's talk about within states, let's talk about economic, and racial differences within the U.S. How well are you off between living in a Red state, as opposed to a Blue state???

The differences are profound.

Medical Bills counted for 60% of bankruptcies in the U.S.
Bankruptcies attributed to medical bills increased by nearly 50% from 2001 to 2007. 75% of all people who went bankrupt because of medical bills had health insurance.

No we did not need health care reform, not at all.

17 states have passed laws restricting navigation, and trained help. Help that would allow consumers to learn about/enroll in the ACA marketplaces.

These new state laws make it difficult for the trained operators to do their jobs.
Guess which states??? And do not for get these states also had some of the poorest outcomes related to costs of the 50 states. These states already had a needy populace, and now those same states are enacting laws to circumvent the ACA.

I've mentioned before that some people are moving state. They see what is going on, and are moving to states that have made it easier to access the ACA through enhanced state exchanges, where the ball was already rolling, where exchanges were set up Three, and two years ago!

So, again, those states that are blocking?

• Georgia
  
• Missouri
  
• Ohio
  
• Tennessee
  
• Iowa
  
• Utah
  
• Wisconsin
  
• Florida

see map below for more:

posted November 01, 2013 02:34 PM            

"Second, weighted averages depend on [and can't exist without] "actual data". Are you really so dense as to think an international cancer research team would be interested in using GUESSES in compiling stats? Common sense says this is an extraordinarily poor argument."...acoustic

I can see you know nothing about "moving averages" and even less about "weighted moving averages". I use them all the time and the GUESSING involves how much WEIGHT to give certain components in a "weighted moving average". Moving averages of all types will give totally different results depending on the length of the "moving average" and whether the beginning segments are given more weight or the newest element is weighted more heavily.

You're in way, way, way over your head acoustic. Weighted moving averages are guess-work as to how much weight to give which component.

Further, your own useless WHO explanation of methodology states they use...ESTIMATION not ACTUAL STATISTICAL FACTS.

"Methods of estimation"

Real scientists and statisticians don't estimate. They weight, count, add, subtract, multiply and divide from real factual data. Only the faux scientists at WHO and the high priests of the Man Made Global Warming Religion ESTIMATE, fudge and falsify data to fit their preconceived premises.

No need to respond to the rest of your horseshiiit since you're illiterate in basic principles you attempt to discuss.

Your placement of the US as 50th in life expectancy is the prime example of your intellectual incompetence. Hint...you might want check how the US treats victims of abortion vs how other nations report those deaths in their mortality stats. I know this might be a novel idea to you but apples should be compared to apples and oranges to oranges...not apples compared to oranges.

posted November 01, 2013 05:04 PM            

quote:

---

I can see you know nothing about "moving averages" and even less about "weighted moving averages". I use them all the time and the GUESSING involves how much WEIGHT to give certain components in a "weighted moving average". Moving averages of all types will give totally different results depending on the length of the "moving average" and whether the beginning segments are given more weight or the newest element is weighted more heavily.

---

Once again your assumption trumps your reasoning.

You assume that because you do something one way that everyone does that same thing in the same manner. Virtually NONE of what you said should be true of this organization.

Why would the organization have to guess at the weighting to give elements? As you pointed out initially, they do have hard data. If you have hard data such as the number of occurrences, and you have a good idea of exactly what percentage of a population that consists of, you have data for very accurate weighted averages. Of course, in this data they were probably looking at multiple data points: occurrence, age, mortality, region, etc. With hard data across these data points, you'd be able to get a fairly accurate weighted average without any use of guessing.

quote:

---

You're in way, way, way over your head acoustic. Weighted moving averages are guess-work as to how much weight to give which component.

---

I know in your fantasyland I can't possibly understand something so simple as weighted averages, but you are wrong as usual.

quote:

---

Further, your own useless WHO explanation of methodology states they use...ESTIMATION not ACTUAL STATISTICAL FACTS

---

"My" own? What do you mean. I said nothing of how the WHO collects data. I did go ahead and look it up for you knowing that you're far too lazy to try to attempt something like that on your own:

Preferred data sources:
Civil registration with complete coverage and medical certification of cause of
death http://www.who.int/gho/publications/world_health_statistics/WHS2013_IndicatorCompendium.pdf

quote:

---

Real scientists and statisticians don't estimate.

---

They do, and you and everyone else know this.

quote:

---

They weight, count, add, subtract, multiply and divide from real factual data.

---

They do this as well, yes.

quote:

---

No need to respond to the rest of your horseshiiit since you're illiterate in basic principles you attempt to discuss.

---

No need to respond to the other significant element of my post? You don't wish to speak about the availability of the other graphs and so forth? You're just going to stick to a strawman conspiracy rather than reckon with the truth? That's so Jwhop.

quote:

---

Your placement of the US as 50th in life expectancy is the prime example of your intellectual incompetence. Hint...you might want check how the US treats victims of abortion vs how other nations report those deaths in their mortality stats. I know this might be a novel idea to you but apples should be compared to apples and oranges to oranges...not apples compared to oranges.

---

I don't think there's any rational person who'd try to argue against a CIA statistic on longevity with abortion "victim" rates. That's ridiculous. Who are you trying to fool here?

quote:

---

The US has the best health care delivery system in the history of planet Earth and the best medical outcomes for serious illness and disease among all western nations...that is until the Marxist Messiah can destroy the system with O'BomberCare.

---

posted November 01, 2013 05:12 PM            

No, it's not. Have you ever heard of "Actuarial Tables"?

While no one can say at what age an individual may die, they sure can say with accuracy how many people will die at a given age.

That's the calculation life insurance companies use for determining life insurance premiums.

It is unscientific to guess/estimate mortality of individuals.

It is unscientific to guess/estimate anything based on "weighted moving averages".

It's absurd for any scientist to use guesses/estimates when writing scientific papers when they have actual data to work with.