Attention: Choir- allopathy deaths in US

[Roger B]

Thank you, John Harvey. I know that it was something like that. It is not the convertion from "times" to "percentage", it is convertion from "as much" to "more" that is so confusing.

So,
"X times more" = "(X * 100) percent times more" = "(X+1) times as much" = "[(X+1) * 100) percent as much"

Golly, that was complicated. I think in the future I will just stick with the raw numbers.

Roger Bird
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: John.P.Harvey@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 01:06:31 +1000
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Attention: Choir- allopathy deaths in US
I see that Null et al.'s paper has already been mentioned.

Roger, your figures here illustrate perfectly why it's actually a better idea to avoid the construction "so-many times more" unless you really understand it.

[Roger B]

Vicki, I already like your politics.

Roger
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: vickih_fla@yahoo.com
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:07:16 -0700
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Attention: Choir- allopathy deaths in US
and we should NEVER forget.
vicki
Join the Campaign to Label GMO's in Florida
We have the Right to Know what is in our Food!
http://www.LabelGMOFlorida.com
Like us @ Label GMO Florida
on Fac ebook and Twitter
"Gluten Free Yummies"
www.GlutenFreeYummies.com

888-Yo-Yummy
________________________________

From: Roger B
To: "Homeopathy minutus@yahoogroups.com"
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 10:30 AM
Subject: RE: [Minutus] Attention: Choir- allopathy deaths in US
I confess that I get all worked up over terrorism. But the integral of my fretting over time is much greater for the medical so-called profession. I spend much more time hating their guts than terrorists, but I just can't get out of my mind those living people falling from the WTC.

Roger
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: vickih_fla@yahoo.com
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 07:05:23 -0700
Subject: [Minutus] Attention: Choir- allopathy deaths in US
I found an article on natural news with some numbers but most are based on a study from 2003. it speaks to the money the US spends on terrorism vs, health care and deaths resulting from each. but it does give some pretty scary numbers, especially for the deaths from OTC drugs that people assume completely harmless. i plucked a few quotes here and the link to the full story follows
Vicki

According to the groundbreaking 2003 medical report Death by Medicine, by Drs. Gary Null, Carolyn Dean, Martin Feldman, Debora Rasio and Dorothy Smith, 783,936 people in the United States die every year from conventional medicine mistakes

According to the study led by Null, which involved a painstaking review of thousands of medical records, the United States spends $282 billion annually on deaths due to medical mistakes, or iatrogenic deaths

That means that prescription drugs in this country are at least 16,400 percent deadlier than terrorism. Again, those are the conservative numbers. A more realistic number, which would include deaths from over-the-counter drugs, makes drug consumption 32,000 percent deadlier than terrorism. But the scope of "Death by Medicine" is even wider. Conventional medicine, including unnecessary surgeries, bedsores and medical errors, is 104,700 percent deadlier than terrorism. Yet, our government's attention and money is not put into reforming health care.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/009278.html#ixzz2ZJMastZK
Join the Campaign to Label GMO's in Florida
We have the Right to Know what is in our Food!
http://www.LabelGMOFlorida.com
Like us @ Label GMO Florida
on Fac ebook and Twitter
"Gluten Free Yummies"
www.GlutenFreeYummies.com

888-Yo-Yummy
________________________________

From: tamarque
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Attention: Choir
John
It was around 1998 I think that the JAMA published the article stating 100,000 deaths annually
in American hospitals due to legally prescribed allopathic treatment.
It is many years since that article and that number is still used to describe the problem
However, people like Mercola have analyzed the situation and have come up with 1-2 million
deaths/year from allopathic ‘care.’ There reasoning is as follows:
1. These are only deaths that have been openly attributed to the care given. They do not
examine the many deaths attributed to cancer and heart disease or many other faux pas
of the medical industry.
2. Deaths caused by treatment in private institutions or outside of hospitals are not included in
these numbers. Doctors are not required to report adverse effects of any sort. It is a voluntary
system that most doctors ignore.
I saw some numbers from the UK this past year. They were reported at a lower number but somewhere
in the 10’s of thousands
Further, I think it reasonable to look at all the cancer deaths, heart disease, growing alzheimer and
Parkinson diseases and attribute them to the medical industry which refuses to link rotten nutrition
to all kinds of diseases and deaths. The medical industry’s active discouragement of looking to
nutrition is as much part of the medical industry treatment protocol as the toxic drugs they push.
It is failure numbers like this that make the medical industry hungry to prove harm from homeopathy, nutrition
and other holistic protocols.
t
From: John Harvey
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 12:49 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Attention: Choir
Roger, your 50 million… you're not speaking globally here, are you. This figure is only for your country? You're in the U.S., I gather? I don't suppose you have a figure for global allopathic deaths and how it was calculated?
John
________________________________

[John Harvey]

You're welcome, Roger. These confusions are so common in U.S. literature that, if it were possible, they'd become the norm. (It's only not possible for that to occur because of the contradictions that arise from them.)

I really don't mean to pick on you -- but some of your other numbers concerning centuries etc. embed equally suspect translations or assumptions. The reason you might imagine that the first century A.D. contains only 99 years is the unjustified assumption that the year 100 is the beginning of the second century. That assumption is no more valid than the assumption that the year after your birth is your zeroth year. The year after your birth is your first year; the first ten years are the first decade; the end of that decade is the beginning of the next; the end of the tenth decade is the end of the first century. That is why mathematically literate people shook their heads in disbelief at a supposedly literate society's millennial celebrations at the beginning, rather than at the end, of the year 2000.

On a slightly tangential note, but similarly, it is only inattention to counting and to the value of consistency in mathematical notation that leads the otherwise mathematically literate to accept "1800s" as a description of any hundred-year period. Just as "1810s" accurately describes only the period from 1811 to 1820, "1800s" describes only the period from 1801 to 1810, not an entire century.

Once we're clear on this, the consistency in using no zeroth year between B.C. and A.D. becomes evident. There's a moment in time: the moment at which a story is born. The year forward from that moment is the first -- the earliest -- of the years A.D. The year backward from that moment is the first -- the latest -- of the years B.C. The two-year period encompassing both those years, 1 B.C. and A.D. 1, is readily calculated by adding the years in both directions, 1 + 1, which would not be so if we labelled one of those years (or perhaps both!) the year zero.

And, actually, it makes sense, from the point of view of overcoming the memory creep you described occurring as 9000 years ago becomes 9001 years ago and 9002 years ago, to refer an event in relation to a fixed point in history rather than in relation to today.

The same argument, though, applies to the mistaken notion that B.C.E. (before current epoch) is somehow more culturally neutral than B.C. (before Christ). At least B.C. indicates clear two things: (1) which particular point in time -- which particular epoch -- the writer is referring to; and (2) that there is no assumption that the Christian epoch is the current one.

Both of these points are clarified by a thought experiment. Suppose a Moslem writer, deciding to be equally culturally sensitive, abandons the common Moslem practice of referring to the year in relation not to the birth not of Christ but, according to Wikipedia, to the migration of Mohammed from Mecca to Medina, and instead of referring to a particular year as 1434 A.H. refers to it as 1434 B.C.E. His reasons for doing so are the same reasons as Westerners imagine justify using B.C.E. instead of B.C. The whole point of the Christian B.C.E. notation is to make it unobjectionable to readers in Moslem cultures, and the whole point of Moslems' using B.C.E. notation would be to acknowledge that the Moslem calendar too is not the only calendar around. Yet the result of both cultures adopting this "culturally sensitive" practice would be utter confusion.

So the A.D./B.C. notation, rather than the C.E./B.C.E. notation or "in… years"/"ago", seems at the moment to offer the clearest temporal navigation both to the western reader and to those using calendars other than the Gregorian one.

Cheers!

John

[Roger B]

No, no, no, John. There are only 99 years in the first century because there is no zeroth year, no matter where you start to count. There is no zeroth year because the there was no zero when the counting began in around the year 500 when some monk started it. This is the same reason why there are only 99 addresses in the first block off Main Street. Where in the world is there a # 0 Elm Street? There is a # 1 Elm Street, and a # 10 Downing Street, but no # 0 Downing Street.

Homeopathy is BOSS.

Roger
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: John.P.Harvey@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 11:50:20 +1000
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Attention: Choir- allopathy deaths in US
You're welcome, Roger. These confusions are so common in U.S. literature that, if it were possible, they'd become the norm. (It's only not possible for that to occur because of the contradictions that arise from them.)

I really don't mean to pick on you -- but some of your other numbers concerning centuries etc. embed equally suspect translations or assumptions. The reason you might imagine that the first century A.D. contains only 99 years is the unjustified assumption that the year 100 is the beginning of the second century. That assumption is no more valid than the assumption that the year after your birth is your zeroth year. The year after your birth is your first year; the first ten years are the first decade; the end of that decade is the beginning of the next; the end of the tenth decade is the end of the first century. That is why mathematically literate people shook their heads in disbelief at a supposedly literate society's millennial celebrations at the beginning, rather than at the end, of the year 2000.

On a slightly tangential note, but similarly, it is only inattention to counting and to the value of consistency in mathematical notation that leads the otherwise mathematically literate to accept "1800s" as a description of any hundred-year period. Just as "1810s" accurately describes only the period from 1811 to 1820, "1800s" describes only the period from 1801 to 1810, not an entire century.

Once we're clear on this, the consistency in using no zeroth year between B.C. and A.D. becomes evident. There's a moment in time: the moment at which a story is born. The year forward from that moment is the first -- the earliest -- of the years A.D. The year backward from that moment is the first -- the latest -- of the years B.C. The two-year period encompassing both those years, 1 B.C. and A.D. 1, is readily calculated by adding the years in both directions, 1 + 1, which would not be so if we labelled one of those years (or perhaps both!) the year zero.

And, actually, it makes sense, from the point of view of overcoming the memory creep you described occurring as 9000 years ago becomes 9001 years ago and 9002 years ago, to refer an event in relation to a fixed point in history rather than in relation to today.

The same argument, though, applies to the mistaken notion that B.C.E. (before current epoch) is somehow more culturally neutral than B.C. (before Christ). At least B.C. indicates clear two things: (1) which particular point in time -- which particular epoch -- the writer is referring to; and (2) that there is no assumption that the Christian epoch is the current one.

Both of these points are clarified by a thought experiment. Suppose a Moslem writer, deciding to be equally culturally sensitive, abandons the common Moslem practice of referring to the year in relation not to the birth not of Christ but, according to Wikipedia, to the migration of Mohammed from Mecca to Medina, and instead of referring to a particular year as 1434 A.H. refers to it as 1434 B.C.E. His reasons for doing so are the same reasons as Westerners imagine justify using B.C.E. instead of B.C. The whole point of the Christian B.C.E. notation is to make it unobjectionable to readers in Moslem cultures, and the whole point of Moslems' using B.C.E. notation would be to acknowledge that the Moslem calendar too is not the only calendar around. Yet the result of both cultures adopting this "culturally sensitive" practice would be utter confusion.

So the A.D./B.C. notation, rather than the C.E./B.C.E. notation or "in… years"/"ago", seems at the moment to offer the clearest temporal navigation both to the western reader and to those using calendars other than the Gregorian one.

Cheers!

John

[John Harvey]

Roger, a century is a century is a hundred years. As I said below: the reason you might imagine that the first century A.D. contains only 99 years is the unjustified assumption that the year 100 is the beginning of the second century. The first year is the year one; the first century (i.e. hundred years) therefore ends at the end of the year 100. The second century then begins at the beginning of the year 101 (the 101st year) and ends with the end of the year 200 (the 200th year). It's simple arithmetic, and it's exactly how you tell when the century ends!

Once that's straightened out, everything fits perfectly.

Cheers!

John
________________________________

[Roger B]

John, have you visited # 0 Elm Street? Have you EVER heard of a # 0 Any Street? There is no zeroth year. "Century" is a label that can apply to 100 years or 99 years or to a sprint race or to 100 dollars or to other things. If the second century starts with 100, then the 1st century has to start with 0. But there is no 0 year. And there weren't any zeros in 500's or so when the system was invented. The concept of the number zero had not been introduced into Europe until around 1200 by Fibonacci. If there is no 0 year, then there are only 99 years in the 1st "century". 1 to 99. That is by definition 99 years. If you are insisting that every century start at X01, then that just seems like confusion to me. 1900 is would be in the century with numbers that all started with 18, except 1900. Labels mean whatever the speaker says that they mean. There are only 99 addresses (not counting fractions) possible on the 1st block north or south of Main Street. There are 100 addresses possible on all of the other blocks. The third millennium started for me when there was all the excitement and the calendar went from 1999 to 2000. You may have waited a year, but your party wasn't as big as mine. (:->)

Roger
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: John.P.Harvey@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 12:15:19 +1000
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Attention: Choir- allopathy deaths in US
Roger, a century is a century is a hundred years. As I said below: the reason you might imagine that the first century A.D. contains only 99 years is the unjustified assumption that the year 100 is the beginning of the second century. The first year is the year one; the first century (i.e. hundred years) therefore ends at the end of the year 100. The second century then begins at the beginning of the year 101 (the 101st year) and ends with the end of the year 200 (the 200th year). It's simple arithmetic, and it's exactly how you tell when the century ends!

Once that's straightened out, everything fits perfectly.

Cheers!

John
________________________________

[John Harvey]

Yep, that's exactly the massive confusion I'm referring to: the confusion that is unnecessary when you realise that, yes, the 20th century (100 years) did in fact begin with the year 1901 and not the year 1900, just as the first century (100 years) began with the year 1 and not the year zero, which, we both agree, never was.

Cheers!

John
________________________________
________________________________

[Roger B]

Well, I think that that is a confusion that you put on yourself. I have but one inconsistency, which is that the first century after the birth of Christ had only 99 years. You have to deal with 21 inconsistencies, each century starting at XX01. I'll take my inconsistency over yours any century. And anyway, my party was massively bigger than your party. (:->) In fact, I don't even remember. Did you people even have a party on December 31, 2000? (:->)

Roger
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: John.P.Harvey@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 12:45:15 +1000
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Attention: Choir- allopathy deaths in US
Yep, that's exactly the massive confusion I'm referring to: the confusion that is unnecessary when you realise that, yes, the 20th century (100 years) did in fact begin with the year 1901 and not the year 1900, just as the first century (100 years) began with the year 1 and not the year zero, which, we both agree, never was.

Cheers!

John
________________________________
________________________________
--

.
"What is ironic here is that what is being held out as a justification for high regulation and compliance in the area of Complementary Medicines, Natural Products, Traditional Products, Supplements, Vitamins etc, is public safety and risk. Despite a diligent search of Coronial records and the literature, no instances have been found to demonstrate that in fact with these products in NZ there is any serious public health issue or risk to the public. The problem is clearly with prescription and other drugs and no demonstrable risk at all with these natural products… The Coronial and literature searches in so far as natural products etc are concerned and linkages to public safety and risk can be described legally as De minimis non curat lex. That is—of minimal risk importance. The law (regulations etc) does not and should not concern itself with trifles."
—D.W. Bain, Report to IM Health Trust: Complementary Medicines, Natural Products, Traditional Products, Supplements, Vitamins etc., Lamb, Bain & Laubscher, New Zealand, viewed Feb 20 2013, (emphasis added).

[John Harvey]

Righto. But I didn't start this thread by listing what I thought were inconsistencies in temporal nomenclature; you did. I simply pointed out the false assumptions that underlay those confusions and demonstrated that the inconsistencies don't exist once you abandon those assumptions.

But having no confusions to mull over makes for a shorter party, so yours was obviously longer!
Cheers --

John