US Among Worst in the World for Infant Death - page 2

"In 2004, the most recent year for which statistics are available, roughly seven babies died for every 1,000 live births before reaching their first birthday, the Centers for Disease Control and... Read More

  1. by   Alois Wolf
    Whether or not the statistics are skewed, I still believe that a lot more can be done to provide better health care for the newest generations.

    And while I appreciate that bloggers information.... I think it's somewhat unusual that even though he says where he got the information from he doesn't actually cite any actually sources that we can look directly at the information he gave.

    Well I found his source... but that source doesn't give their sources either. Still says WHO, but no exact document.

    Newsmax
    Last edit by Alois Wolf on Nov 14, '07
  2. by   Kyrshamarks
    is the nih a good source for you?

    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1615029

    and the info the blogger got came from this source:

    [color=#003399]infant mortality myths and mantras
    michael arnold glueck, m.d., and robert j. cihak, m.d., the medicine men
    thursday, march 10, 2005
    Last edit by Kyrshamarks on Nov 14, '07
  3. by   Alois Wolf
    Quote from Kyrshamarks

    Thank you! I was not insulting you. It just frustrated me when online bloggers just seem to get information out of their butts sometimes. You have to admit that is very frustrating. It seems like I'm taking a lot of heat for posting this thread, as if I'm the one who actually wrote those articles at CNN and stuff. I was trying to bring a topic up for conversation. People seem to be very heated over this topic though, which is good and conducive to lively debate... but I'm not on anyone's side for this issue. I just wanted to know where that MqO guy got his info.
    Thanks again!
  4. by   Kyrshamarks
    I did not take it as an insult.
  5. by   EmmaG
    Quote from kyrshamarks
    is the nih a good source for you?

    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1615029

    and the info the blogger got came from this source:

    [color=#003399]infant mortality myths and mantras
    michael arnold glueck, m.d., and robert j. cihak, m.d., the medicine men
    thursday, march 10, 2005
    actually, it's not nih but mathematica, inc. and the other is newsmax. 'nuf said.

    but, that said... just follow the money:

    mathematica policy research and its research affiliate, the center for studying health system change, are wholly owned subsidiaries of mathematica, inc., which is owned by its employees.
    hsc is funded principally by the robert wood johnson foundation and is affiliated with mathematica policy research, inc.
    http://www.rwjf.org/about/founder.jhtml

    bingo.

  6. by   Alois Wolf
    Quote from Emmanuel Goldstein
    Actually, it's not NIH but Mathematica, Inc. And the other is Newsmax. 'Nuf said.

    But, that said... just follow the money:


    http://www.rwjf.org/about/founder.jhtml

    Bingo.

    I knew I smelled something. Thanks Emmanuel!
  7. by   EmmaG
    Quote from Alois Wolf
    I knew I smelled something. Thanks Emmanuel!
    I'm not discounting their research as biased, but their funding comes from a source that could be considered to have a vested interest.
  8. by   Alois Wolf
    Quote from Emmanuel Goldstein
    I'm not discounting their research as biased, but their funding comes from a source that could be considered to have a vested interest.
    True, I agree. And I agree with what everyone has seemed to mutually agree on about this topic. I just couldn't put my finger on what seemed to be "strange" to me. That however, as you have said, does not discount the research that they've completed. I think this is one of those topics that can never be conductively completed because there are just too many variable involved. And you figure with the population differences the economic differences and the over all health differences for each nation, to say that the US is amongst the worst in the world just seems incomprehensible, especially; when you take into account (what someone said earlier) that these articles were based only on industrialized nations. Therefore the topic itself is skewed and very hard to represent in a accurate and truthful light.
  9. by   EmmaG
  10. by   EmmaG
    http://www.cdc.gov/omhd/AMH/factsheets/infant.htm#1

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/infant_health.htm

    IMO, dismissing this with the argument that other countries don't include low birth weight/pre-term infants in their statistics doesn't fly.

    According to the cdc statistics, less than 17% of infant deaths are attributed to low birth weight and short gestation.
    [FONT=Verdana, ariel, helvetica]Live births
    [FONT=Verdana, ariel, helvetica] Number of births: 4,112,052
    [FONT=Verdana, ariel, helvetica] Percent of births with low birthweight (less than 5.5 pounds): 8.1
    [FONT=Verdana, ariel, helvetica] Percent of births that are preterm (less than 37 weeks gestation): 13
    [FONT=Verdana, ariel, helvetica]Source: Births: Final Data for 2004, table 1, 32
    [FONT=Verdana, ariel, helvetica]Mortality
    [FONT=Verdana, ariel, helvetica] Number of infant deaths: 27,936
    [FONT=Verdana, ariel, helvetica] Deaths per 1000 live births: 6.8
    [FONT=Verdana, ariel, helvetica] Number of deaths for leading causes of infant deaths
    [FONT=Verdana, ariel, helvetica] Congenital malformations: 5,622
    [FONT=Verdana, ariel, helvetica] Disorders related to short gestation and low birthweight: 4,642
    [FONT=Verdana, ariel, helvetica] Sudden infant death syndrome: 2,246
    [FONT=Verdana, ariel, helvetica]Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2004, table 30, 31
    Subtracting the number of deaths attributed to low birth weight and short gestation, that comes to 23,294. Which equals ~ 5.7 deaths per 1000 live births. And that still puts the US far below other countries.

    http://www.un.org/esa/population/pub...lights_rev.pdf

    (table A18 and A19)

    As far as rationalizing [not referring to you, btw] that these mortality rates are somehow skewed because of all those darned poor people--- well, sorry. The numbers are what they are.
    Last edit by EmmaG on Nov 14, '07
  11. by   Alois Wolf
    You know, I really don't think it matters where we "rank". I think we as a world should do what we can to improve the quality of life and the chances of baby smith to see his/her second birthday...
  12. by   EmmaG
    Exactly
  13. by   Jolie
    Quote from Emmanuel Goldstein

    According to the cdc statistics, less than 17% of infant deaths are attributed to low birth weight and short gestation.
    To what does the CDC attribute the other 83% of infant deaths in the U.S.? It seems that focusing on those factors would have the greatest impact on our infant mortality rates.

close