Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (349260)	8/31/2007 8:12:45 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583868

"I see nothing in there to support your conclusion." Then you either didn't read the document I linked to or haven't been following Tim's posts. Maybe both. WHO calculates infant mortality by their own methods. It states that pretty clearly. Now Tim claims that the way that infant mortality is defined in various countries artificially boosts the infant mortality rate in the US. And he states that because of that, there is no way to compare the figures and get any insight into how the health systems compare. He also implies that using an equivalent standard, the US would compare better. Because the WHO uses their own methodology, direct comparisons can be made. Bottom line, the US infant mortality rate is still high when compared to a number of countries like Slovenia or Slovakia, just to randomly pick two. Those are much poorer countries. So Tim's thesis is deeply flawed. Now this supports the general consensus that infant mortality rates are generally linked to the availability of prenatal care. Which is encouraged in most countries outside of the US. And it shows.