Sometimes one wonders at what otherwise presumably professional people do with statistics.
Researchers writing in the journal British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (BJOG) examined all home births over a decade.
They apparently feel the study indicates there could be ‘serious risks’ for the baby when mothers who chose a home birth are transferred to hospital.
The implication being that home birth is the problem aspect.
The problem is the data is self selecting. They are examining births that have to be transferred to hospital because they have got into trouble serious enough to require it. Also they are not really comparing like for like.
As it stands the particular conclusion mentioned above can really amount to little more than a pointer to a possible direction for further research. Something as easily arrived at by educated logic. It is largely useless - and it needn’t have been, if those conducting it had planned more carefully and harvested the right data. One fears to some extent it is time and money not used to the best advantage it could have been.
Only around 15% of home birthers actually have problems that require they transfer to hospital, for second time mothers the risk is lower.
A valid comparison would have been to look at how women who elected to give birth in hospital, with no contra indications prior to giving birth, fared against women who elected to give birth at home with, no prior contra indications, fared.
One might expect to see that the possible wait and journey to hospital might disadvantage home birthers who got into trouble, compared to Hospital birthers who similarly got into trouble - but it is possible this could be offset by other factors, such as the risk posed by antibiotic resistant infections and other infections present in hospitals, or possible closer individual attention during the initial stages.
Whilst the actual report is more balanced, the BBC headline is dubious in that it baldly states “Home birth to ward increases risk”. It is actually misleading as this is by no means proven, or evident, even from the report. An accurate headline might have prefaced it with “Report claims”.
Showing posts with label Dubious Statistics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dubious Statistics. Show all posts
Wednesday, 2 April 2008
Wednesday, 26 March 2008
NICE advise alcohol ban for expectant mothers
NICE (the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) who withhold life saving treatments to save the Government money are changing the advice they give to pregnant women concerning alcohol. Up ‘till now they have advised that small daily amounts were fine, a unit of alcohol a day.
Now the health facists are insisting women should not drink any alcohol in the first three months of pregnancy.
When pressed NICE conceded the change was not on the basis of any actual evidence – but, for puritanical political social control reasons. It seems they just feel people are drinking too much these days so arbitrarily decided to change the advice.
Typically New Labour’s Chief Medical Office, Professor Sir Liam Donaldson, was enthusiastic about the change.
The advice is of course largely useless, as it is likely many women will not actually initially be aware they are pregnant. So, even if they are inclined to be dragooned by the State, who clearly think they know better than the rest of us lower orders, they will be unable to obey these instructions without going permanently tee total.
NICE’s Dr Gillian Leng said people - particularly women, were drinking more and they wanted to send a "clear message"; "Women should be advised not to drink."
So what it boils down to, is that these people, who make life or death decisions, about whether we can have treatments or not, just don’t fee that the average woman is actually up to making a sensible, informed decision, based on actual evidence, for themselves.
Now the health facists are insisting women should not drink any alcohol in the first three months of pregnancy.
When pressed NICE conceded the change was not on the basis of any actual evidence – but, for puritanical political social control reasons. It seems they just feel people are drinking too much these days so arbitrarily decided to change the advice.
Typically New Labour’s Chief Medical Office, Professor Sir Liam Donaldson, was enthusiastic about the change.
The advice is of course largely useless, as it is likely many women will not actually initially be aware they are pregnant. So, even if they are inclined to be dragooned by the State, who clearly think they know better than the rest of us lower orders, they will be unable to obey these instructions without going permanently tee total.
NICE’s Dr Gillian Leng said people - particularly women, were drinking more and they wanted to send a "clear message"; "Women should be advised not to drink."
So what it boils down to, is that these people, who make life or death decisions, about whether we can have treatments or not, just don’t fee that the average woman is actually up to making a sensible, informed decision, based on actual evidence, for themselves.
Wednesday, 6 February 2008
UK Government objectivity is ‘questionable’ over water flouridisation
It appears the Government are doing a ‘WMD dossier’ on water flouridisation. Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, has taken an authoritative report that shows tooth decay in children across Europe has fallen - irrespective of whether there is fluoride in the water or not - and is using selected bits of it to push the agenda for the compulsory adulteration of water supplies with fluoride.
Some studies have suggested a link between water flouridisation and increased levels of bladder cancer and hip fracture.
It seems Johnson is also pushing the agenda by bribing strategic health authorities to add fluoride with the prospect of an extra £14 million over a three year period.
He claimed: "Fluoridation is scientifically supported, it is legal, and it is our policy, but only two or three areas currently have it and we need to go much further in areas where dental health needs to be improved.”
Concerning the falling tooth decay the report’s authors state: "This trend has occurred regardless of the concentration of fluoride in water, or the use of fluoridated salt and it probably reflects use of fluoridated toothpastes and other factors, including perhaps nutrition."
You have a choice as to what sort of toothpaste you use, with tap water it is Hobson's choice.
Lets hope the authors can manage to steer clear of Harrowdown Hill.
Some studies have suggested a link between water flouridisation and increased levels of bladder cancer and hip fracture.
It seems Johnson is also pushing the agenda by bribing strategic health authorities to add fluoride with the prospect of an extra £14 million over a three year period.
He claimed: "Fluoridation is scientifically supported, it is legal, and it is our policy, but only two or three areas currently have it and we need to go much further in areas where dental health needs to be improved.”
Concerning the falling tooth decay the report’s authors state: "This trend has occurred regardless of the concentration of fluoride in water, or the use of fluoridated salt and it probably reflects use of fluoridated toothpastes and other factors, including perhaps nutrition."
You have a choice as to what sort of toothpaste you use, with tap water it is Hobson's choice.
Lets hope the authors can manage to steer clear of Harrowdown Hill.
Monday, 21 January 2008
New Labour want to impose random breath tests
It seems New Labour now want to give the police powers to be able to breath test drivers on a whim and institute mass roadside checkpoints.
They appear to base this on their normal inability to understand the implications of their own skewed statistics combined with their tendency towards an authoritarian solution to anything they perceive as a ‘problem’.
It seems they are attempting to justify this with their Christmas Drink driving states. They show that the number of drink drivers stopped dropped despite a recorded increase in the number of tests (that police are measured on).
During the 1980s the number of people killed and seriously injured in drink-drive collisions in Great Britain fell from over 9000 (1,450 deaths, 7,970 serious injuries) to just less than 5,000 (760 deaths, 4,090 serious injuries).
Over the last decade or so, figures have fluctuated year on year, but overall there has been no particular trend up or down.
It is questionable if even massively increasing the number of breath tests will make a significant difference.
If the government actually wanted to reduce drink driving, as opposed to extending it's grip on the citizen, it might be better advised to reprise the hard hitting anti drink drive campaigns of the 80s and early 90s and helped make drink driving unacceptable. But this time include drugs in the message. From the figures it appears that actually worked quite effectively.
Our current system seems to have served us well over the decades, but New Labour never heard of leaving anything that works alone - and by their actions one could be forgiven for assuming they are embarked of a long term plan to undermine public trust in the police in an attempt to turn them into an occup
They appear to base this on their normal inability to understand the implications of their own skewed statistics combined with their tendency towards an authoritarian solution to anything they perceive as a ‘problem’.
It seems they are attempting to justify this with their Christmas Drink driving states. They show that the number of drink drivers stopped dropped despite a recorded increase in the number of tests (that police are measured on).
During the 1980s the number of people killed and seriously injured in drink-drive collisions in Great Britain fell from over 9000 (1,450 deaths, 7,970 serious injuries) to just less than 5,000 (760 deaths, 4,090 serious injuries).
Over the last decade or so, figures have fluctuated year on year, but overall there has been no particular trend up or down.
It is questionable if even massively increasing the number of breath tests will make a significant difference.
If the government actually wanted to reduce drink driving, as opposed to extending it's grip on the citizen, it might be better advised to reprise the hard hitting anti drink drive campaigns of the 80s and early 90s and helped make drink driving unacceptable. But this time include drugs in the message. From the figures it appears that actually worked quite effectively.
Our current system seems to have served us well over the decades, but New Labour never heard of leaving anything that works alone - and by their actions one could be forgiven for assuming they are embarked of a long term plan to undermine public trust in the police in an attempt to turn them into an occup
Tuesday, 11 December 2007
Are 80% of UK jobs really going to ‘foreigners’?
Far be it for me to defend the current UK Government in any way. The low opinion in which I hold them - and the many reasons for it should be readily apparent within the posts of CFD.
However there seems to be much interest in the MSM recently over the Statistics Commission study that indicates 1.4 million of the 1.7 million jobs created since 1997, over 80%, had gone to people born overseas.
This conjures up images of hoards of foreigners stealing jobs from the willing, but down trodden British worker. Gordon Brown’s dubious 'British jobs for British workers' sound bite.
Now let’s see if we can spot any weasel words here – ah yes! Not too far to look: ‘born overseas’.
So that will include British citizens born abroad - Not necessarily actually ‘foreigners’ at all then. It would for instance include three of my nieces and nephews, were they not students. That inflates the headline figure by 300,000.
Now those jobs. Exactly what sort of jobs are we talking about here. I don’t have the figures but I would hazard a guess that they are not all well paid highly sought after posts.
Might some include poorly paid work with unsociable hours; janitorial posts, security work, waiting at tables, maybe even fruit picking?
The numbers are high enough to cause some concern, but not legitimately as high as the study claims - and the figures do not tell the whole story.
However there seems to be much interest in the MSM recently over the Statistics Commission study that indicates 1.4 million of the 1.7 million jobs created since 1997, over 80%, had gone to people born overseas.
This conjures up images of hoards of foreigners stealing jobs from the willing, but down trodden British worker. Gordon Brown’s dubious 'British jobs for British workers' sound bite.
Now let’s see if we can spot any weasel words here – ah yes! Not too far to look: ‘born overseas’.
So that will include British citizens born abroad - Not necessarily actually ‘foreigners’ at all then. It would for instance include three of my nieces and nephews, were they not students. That inflates the headline figure by 300,000.
Now those jobs. Exactly what sort of jobs are we talking about here. I don’t have the figures but I would hazard a guess that they are not all well paid highly sought after posts.
Might some include poorly paid work with unsociable hours; janitorial posts, security work, waiting at tables, maybe even fruit picking?
The numbers are high enough to cause some concern, but not legitimately as high as the study claims - and the figures do not tell the whole story.
Tuesday, 13 November 2007
Yet more ‘calls’ for increased UK stealth taxation on alcohol
The BBC Reports that an ‘Alliance’ has been formed by ‘medical organisations’ and ‘charities’ to increase pressure on the government to curb excessive drinking and provide more ‘resources’ for alcohol-related health problems and increasing tax.
An ‘alliance’ coincidentally makes it difficult to follow the money, but normally when an individual pressure group/charity sticks it’s head above the parapet individually, they have a strong vested interest in talking up funding for themselves, and/or they are directly, or indirectly, funded by the state - so have a strong vested interest in promoting more taxation for their paymasters. Alcohol Concern for instance is largely funded by UK Department of Health.
It is interesting to note that many groups that regularly call on the Government to raise taxation levels for various reasons are part of a set of Russian dolls, that if you follow the money, through various sources eventually turn out to be State funded.
These groups justify their claims by inflating the statistics on their particular bête noire to include not only examples of their particular ‘problem behaviour’ but by stretching the goal mouth a significant proportion of the general population. Alcohol being a particular case in point.
'Hazardous' drinking for instance - The way that is classified would effectively make the entire French nation, who are held up both as both healthy and as sensible continental drinkers, hazardous drinkers, according to the state-funded NWPHO. I am sure the French will be pleased to hear that.
The BBC report contains uncritically reported claims about under age drinking yet their own recent reporting points out that fewer underage teenagers are drinking regularly, due, according to a Trading Standards survey, at least in part, to more effective enforcement of the perfectly adequate existing sales regulations.
Is it not time the public stood up to these people and told them where to stick their dubious reports, authoritarian ways and continuous demands for higher stealth taxes?
An ‘alliance’ coincidentally makes it difficult to follow the money, but normally when an individual pressure group/charity sticks it’s head above the parapet individually, they have a strong vested interest in talking up funding for themselves, and/or they are directly, or indirectly, funded by the state - so have a strong vested interest in promoting more taxation for their paymasters. Alcohol Concern for instance is largely funded by UK Department of Health.
It is interesting to note that many groups that regularly call on the Government to raise taxation levels for various reasons are part of a set of Russian dolls, that if you follow the money, through various sources eventually turn out to be State funded.
These groups justify their claims by inflating the statistics on their particular bête noire to include not only examples of their particular ‘problem behaviour’ but by stretching the goal mouth a significant proportion of the general population. Alcohol being a particular case in point.
'Hazardous' drinking for instance - The way that is classified would effectively make the entire French nation, who are held up both as both healthy and as sensible continental drinkers, hazardous drinkers, according to the state-funded NWPHO. I am sure the French will be pleased to hear that.
The BBC report contains uncritically reported claims about under age drinking yet their own recent reporting points out that fewer underage teenagers are drinking regularly, due, according to a Trading Standards survey, at least in part, to more effective enforcement of the perfectly adequate existing sales regulations.
Is it not time the public stood up to these people and told them where to stick their dubious reports, authoritarian ways and continuous demands for higher stealth taxes?
Sunday, 4 November 2007
Getting Warmer?
The Devil’s Kitchen makes some interesting arguments concerning the methodologies of the Anthropomorphic Global Warming cheering section. I recommend you have a look at his post.
From what he quotes it sounds as if, effectively, they may be fiddling the figures and any rising temperature trend since the 60s may well be in their adjustments, or ‘corrections‘ ;-) to the actual figures.
From what he quotes it sounds as if, effectively, they may be fiddling the figures and any rising temperature trend since the 60s may well be in their adjustments, or ‘corrections‘ ;-) to the actual figures.
Tuesday, 16 October 2007
Another Government funded health body pushing for tax hikes on alcohol
The health fascists are at it again.
In a story, largely picked up and uncritically reported by the media, the North West Public Health Observatory NWPHO are pushing the idea that middle class drinkers regularly indulge in drinking ’hazardous’ levels of alcohol.
'Hazardous' drinking is defined as regularly consuming between 22 and 50 units a week for men. Guys - That would make you a hazardous drinker if you often have a pint and a half a day.
For women, hazardous drinking is defined as regularly consuming 15 to 35 units a week. Ladies – If my sums are correct that means you are a hazardous drinker if you often have a glass of wine a day.
So then. More of the current practice of picking a range of figures that is slanted to take in normal behaviour and allowing that to ‘inflate’ the results. Results that are then given an alarming semantically loaded label. A label that conceals the actual range and can be used to beat up on anyone who queries the figures.
Exactly why are they pushing this agenda? Someone has to pay for all that lost cigarette tax if the Government are to be kept in the style they are accustomed to.
Tellingly, having effectively invented, or at least massively inflated, a so-called ‘problem‘ the Director of the (you guessed it) NWPHO, Professor Mark Bellis, is pushing for ‘substantial’ increases in the price of alcohol to help to tackle it.
Now who funds the NWPHO? Why the people who tax us of course, the Government, through the Department of Health.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The average French person drinks 60.13 Ltrs of wine per annum. That is over 80 bottles or around 321 glasses. Around the bottom end of the ‘Hazardous’ range.
So that would make the entire French nation (who are reputed to know a thing or two about wine and be reasonably healthy with it) hazardous drinkers according to the NWPHO…
In a story, largely picked up and uncritically reported by the media, the North West Public Health Observatory NWPHO are pushing the idea that middle class drinkers regularly indulge in drinking ’hazardous’ levels of alcohol.
'Hazardous' drinking is defined as regularly consuming between 22 and 50 units a week for men. Guys - That would make you a hazardous drinker if you often have a pint and a half a day.
For women, hazardous drinking is defined as regularly consuming 15 to 35 units a week. Ladies – If my sums are correct that means you are a hazardous drinker if you often have a glass of wine a day.
So then. More of the current practice of picking a range of figures that is slanted to take in normal behaviour and allowing that to ‘inflate’ the results. Results that are then given an alarming semantically loaded label. A label that conceals the actual range and can be used to beat up on anyone who queries the figures.
Exactly why are they pushing this agenda? Someone has to pay for all that lost cigarette tax if the Government are to be kept in the style they are accustomed to.
Tellingly, having effectively invented, or at least massively inflated, a so-called ‘problem‘ the Director of the (you guessed it) NWPHO, Professor Mark Bellis, is pushing for ‘substantial’ increases in the price of alcohol to help to tackle it.
Now who funds the NWPHO? Why the people who tax us of course, the Government, through the Department of Health.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The average French person drinks 60.13 Ltrs of wine per annum. That is over 80 bottles or around 321 glasses. Around the bottom end of the ‘Hazardous’ range.
So that would make the entire French nation (who are reputed to know a thing or two about wine and be reasonably healthy with it) hazardous drinkers according to the NWPHO…
Wednesday, 15 August 2007
UK Government survey claims majority in favour of rubbish bin tax
Very few householders in the UK can be unaware of the State campaign to levy extra charges for rubbish collection. The Government wants to get local councils to impose new "incentive" charges on homes throwing out the most rubbish. There was talk of having chips fitted to rubbish bins to monitor how much rubbish was thrown out.
It is highly contentious and has met with much public resistance, including popular petitions.
Basically more stealth Taxation - brought to you by the Original Taxmeister himself the PM Gordon Broon, disguised as Green measures.
Imagine the surprise the other day when DEFRA released the results of a poll it had carried out purporting to show that 52% of the population were avid for the new tax to be introduced. How did the phrase those questions?
A DEFRA spokesman stated the ‘findings’ of the survey would be taken into consideration by ministers in waste disposal developing policy. You just bet they will. One wonders if they will give similar weight to petitions against the proposal, or surveys that might show less public enthusiasm…
Curious that a government department produces a survey that supports the Government line on such a contentious issue…
It is highly contentious and has met with much public resistance, including popular petitions.
Basically more stealth Taxation - brought to you by the Original Taxmeister himself the PM Gordon Broon, disguised as Green measures.
Imagine the surprise the other day when DEFRA released the results of a poll it had carried out purporting to show that 52% of the population were avid for the new tax to be introduced. How did the phrase those questions?
A DEFRA spokesman stated the ‘findings’ of the survey would be taken into consideration by ministers in waste disposal developing policy. You just bet they will. One wonders if they will give similar weight to petitions against the proposal, or surveys that might show less public enthusiasm…
Curious that a government department produces a survey that supports the Government line on such a contentious issue…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)