This information has been out there a long time, i assumed everyone was aware of the complete scam and bias in reporting these numbers...apparently some people didnt get the news...LOL!
Infant Mortality: The statistical scam continues
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, May 10, 2006
This irritates me every time I see it. Breathless accounts of a high infant mortality rate in the US have again hit the front pages of morning newspapers:An estimated 2 million babies die within their first 24 hours each year worldwide and the United States has the second worst newborn mortality rate in the developed world, according to a new report.
American babies are three times more likely to die in their first month as children born in Japan, and newborn mortality is 2.5 times higher in the United States than in Finland, Iceland or Norway, Save the Children researchers found.
Only Latvia, with six deaths per 1,000 live births, has a higher death rate for newborns than the United States, which is tied near the bottom of industrialized nations with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia with five deaths per 1,000 births.
"The United States has more neonatologists and neonatal intensive care beds per person than Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, but its newborn rate is higher than any of those countries," said the annual State of the World's Mothers report.Well yes, all "statistically" true. But not because the US has an inferior health care system like so many would like to claim (and, of course, then claim that a universal health care system would "save the babies"), but instead because while there is a standard for reporting infant mortality statistics throughout the world, it appears only the US follows it.
WHO defines the standard as follows:According to the World Health Organization (WHO) definition, all babies showing any signs of life, such as muscle activity, a gasp for breath or a heartbeat, should be included as a live birth. The U.S. strictly follows this definition.Switzerland:Switzerland, for instance, doesn't count the deaths of babies shorter than 30 cm, because they are not counted as live births, according to Nicholas Eberstadt, Ph.D., Henry Wendt Scholar in Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute and formerly a Visiting Fellow at the Harvard University Center for Population and Developmental Studies. So, comparing the 1998 infant mortality rates for Switzerland and the U.S., 4.8 and 7.2 per 1,000 births, respectively, is comparing apples and oranges.Why doesn't it count babies shorter than 30cm? Because they're most likely to be low-birth weight babies which statistically have a much higher probability of dying. So Switzerland simply counts such babies as "still-births" which don't impact their infant mortality rates.
Read through the explanations found here to understand why the Swiss would try to exclude this category from its statistics. You'll find that the category they exclude is the category with the highest mortality rate.
Other countries are no different. For instance, former easter bloc countries and Russia:A UNICEF press release noted: "Under the Soviet era definition ... infants who are born at less than 28 weeks, weighing less than 1,000 grams or measuring less than 35 centimeters are not counted as live births if they die within seven days. This Soviet definition still predominates in many [formerly Soviet] CIS countries."Italy:Other countries, such as Italy, use different definitions in various parts of their own countries. Eberstadt observes that "underreporting also seems apparent in the proportion of infant deaths different countries report for the first twenty-four hours after birth".And of course there are many more examples. As an example, look at the statisitcal anomolies here:In Australia, Canada, and the United States, over one-third of all infant deaths are reported to take place in the first day. ..." In contrast, "Less than one-sixth of France's infant deaths are reported to occur in the first day of life. In Hong Kong, such deaths account for only one-twenty-fifth of all infant deaths."In other words just about every country reporting these statistics has a different standard for reporting with only the US, apparently, using the strictest.Since the United States generally uses the WHO definition of live birth, economist John Goodman and others in their 2004 book, "Lives at Risk," conclude, "Taking into account such data-reporting differences, the rates of low-birth-weight babies born in America are about the same as other developed countries in the OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development]." Likewise, infant mortality rates, adjusted for the distribution of newborns by weight, are about the same.And, ironically, US statistics are, in a way, a result of our technological advances, advances that have given more marginal babies a chance for survival than they have had at any other time in our history:American advances in medical treatment now make it possible to save babies who would surely have died only a few decades ago. Until recently, very-low-birth-weight babies, those weighing less than 3 pounds, almost always died. Now some of these babies survive with the help of breathing assistance and other recent inventions.
While such vulnerable babies may live with advanced medical assistance and technology, low-birth-weight babies (weighing less than 5.5 pounds) recently had an infant mortality rate 20 times higher than heavier babies, according to the WHO. And these deaths count as infant deaths even though most would have been counted as stillbirths if they hadn't received the gift of life, however transitory.
Ironically, American doctors' ability to save babies' lives causes higher infant mortality numbers here than would be the case with less advanced medical treatment.So when you hear all the wailing and gnashing of teeth in the following days, and the anguished questions of "why can't the most advanced country on earth save more of it's babies", take it with a huge grain of salt, please. We now save babies who would never have had a chance at life because of our technology, not despite it.
When and if such reports as this can certify that all reporting nations are using the same standards, then you can begin to take them seriously. Until then, feel free to ignore them.
By: Jingo Rex
In: Regional News
Tags: US, Infant, Mortality, Scam, Hoax, Lies, Socialist, Fudge, Numbers, Ignorant, Socialist, uneducated, LOW IQ, Dont Count Same Way
Location: United States (load item map)
Views: 6542 | Comments: 11 | Votes: 3 | Favorites: 1 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 2
|Liveleak on Facebook|