Has nothing to do with "humoring you" or "my" definitions.
Posted By: TechSupport on 2009-05-02
In Reply to: Just to clarify - this is for infants who were actually born . - lall
It's important for you to discover the complexities for yourself (Google is all you need), and "my" definitions don't matter unless I am the one doing the analysis.
But I'll start the ball rolling.
1. "Prenatal care" starting at what point in the gestation (1st trimester? 2nd? etc.)?
2. Involving what different features or services?
3. Does the study adequately filter out other coincidental factors that tend to characterize some populations that do not receive prenatal care, but which also might impact infant survival, such as poor nutrition, smoking, alcohol and drug use, squalid living conditions and even low educational levels?
4. What time period after delivery will be used to define a relevant "infant death"?
5. What causes of infant demise will be considered relevant to the question?
6. Will all "modes" of delivery be included?
7. Will "high-risk" pregnancies be included or excluded?
8. Will premature deliveries be included or excluded?
The list of problems that have been identified in the design of studies that look very scientific and conclusive, and have been published in respected journals, has proven to be considerable.
Some have tried to get around these problems using a technique called "meta-analysis", which tries to reconcile and synthesize the findings from multiple studies, but this hasn't been very successful either.
The problems worsen when you simply use empirical evidence - say, by comparing birth/mortality rates in different countries with different "levels" of prenatal care. One study "showed" that the mortality rate in the US was higher than that in one of the Baltic states (I've forgotten now which one), but failed to take into account that in the US we try to deliver and save infants who are much more premature than they try to salvage in the other country - so naturally, our "failure" rate would look worse.
The other problem is really more or less endemic. "Prenatal care", however defined, will represent some set of services and characteristics. We may assume that all of them do not contribute equally (and some, perhaps not at all) to infant survival. This means that even if you can resolve all of the study design problems and show that prenatal care contributes to survival, you haven't said very much that's useful. It might be, for instance, that a simple regimen of multiple vitamins has as much impact on survival as all of the other factors combined. If so, have we presented a case for purchasing "prenatal care" as a constellation of services (from the standpoint of healthcare economics), or should we focus on finding ways to see that pregnant women get the multiple vitamins?
When we see "studies" of complex issues - especially those involving an interplay between myriad scientific and social or cultural factors - we should always put on the brakes and find out more about how the study was done, what assumptions it made, and keep a sharp eye out for flaws in the design of the study (which, I am sad to say, crop up more frequently than you might suspect), even or perhaps especially in the field of medicine. People who study things do have agendas, and sometimes the agenda amounts to grants of $millions in research funds, or sponsorship of the study by an organization that has a "mission", etc. A lot of what masquerades as "scientific proof" in the field of medicine, unfortunately, is nothing of the sort. Let's see now - are eggs good for us or bad for us?
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Definitions....see inside
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative
http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal
There's much more. Just Google for different sites for unbiased definitions. Go to reliable sources, not opinions of the other side, to see definitions.
Then decide for yourself.
learn the definitions
Since you apparently don't think you're paying enough in taxes, here's an idea. Instead of my paying even more in taxes, why not have you go ahead and do it? You seem to think that gov't can run your life better than you can and that you would obviously make wrong/poor decisions otherwise.
Look up the words in the dictionary. Donald Trump said the same thing last PM on Greta about taxing us even more, and how it'd ruin things even more.
Just take the cash out of your wallet and hand it over to those who can make it just fine w/o living under socialism. Your naivity is just scary.
Do us all a favor. Go look up the definitions of tax cut
The only way anybody gets money back more than what they pay in is if they earn very low wages and have many children. The income bracket they are in refunds all revenues back to them that they paid in. In addition, they get a tax CREDIT only if they qualify for earned income tax credit or child tax credit. For example, lowest bracket tops out at $7825. Their tax rate is 10%. Whatever they have paid in over $782.50, they get back and ONLY what they have paid over that amount, because this is based on the tax rate. They get more back only if they have qualified for EIC or CTC.
It you get a tax rate cut, you cannot benefit from it if you do not earn wages. These guys also will not get any additional refundable tax CREDIT as that is paid against tax liabilty. If you take issue with this, show me how I am wrong here.
Economic definitions.............
Recession is when your neighbor loses his job.
Depression is when you lose yours.
Recovery is when Obama loses his.
Look LVMT, you look up all the little definitions you want. You are still wrong. sm
Very very wrong. Christopher Hitchens is hardly a neoconservative. Neither am I and neither are most of the other conservative posters here.
Oh please humor me. Have you pieced together some definitions?
x
I guess our definitions of a Patriot differs
and I guess that's okay, but the truth will come out in the wash, eventually. All the media filters in the world will not keep the truth coming from coming out eventually, and we may all be surprised at what the truth actually is which may be drastically different than either one of our points of view.
You really don't know who "my campain" is
and you are only assuming from some of my posts that I am a Democrat. One would assume by your posts that you are a Republican but you have claimed ad nauseum that you are an independent. I'm not a dem actually, but a pub. But, I don't believe all the garbage the pubs are putting forth.
I also don't hear McCain say much about what the GOP is doing, or trying to do in Michigan and a few other states about voter suppression to people who are in or have undergone foreclosure. That is disgusting to me too.
I have looked at "my" guy
and I've looked at McCain. I wouldn't vote for McCain if you paid me. Did you not HEAR him say he's the biggest free trader ever?
<groan" only 1 more day.
Okay "my friends"
Signed Joe the (not) Plumber.
He's not "my boy". I only catch him
a couple times a week early in the morning if I can't sleep.
I don't have stocks or bonds, so it's really a moot point. I just need some laughs once in a while over how upset he gets over some things.
Make that "my analogy refers to
nm
That "my friends" phrase, so oft-repeated, made him
"my Muslim faith" -- oops meant Christian
nm
great quote "My personal opinion, we don't even have a candidate that I can support as the les
I agree with you 100%! Why doesn't a retired general run or someone who knows what he is doing. It's like all the real men have disappeared from politics.
I am an independent....neither party is "my" party.
THis election cycle I believe the best man is a Republican. Do your research. John McCain warned about this in 2005, named Fannie and freddie by name, co-sponsored legislation to control them. Blocked by Democrats, led by Chris Dodd..same guy now trying to fix what he and the Dems broke. Chris Dodd, #1 on contributions list from fannie/freddie, followed closely by #2, your shining knight Mr. Obama. The chickens have come home to roost all right...or should I say the donkeys. :)
|
