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: TimF who wrote (352816)	9/28/2007 6:34:38 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584705

"I didn't analyze the raw data myself but Eberstadt did. " I remember that. The problem with that analysis is he apparently cooked the numbers. Ok, the bone of contention is how to account for extremely low birth weight babies. Those are under 1.5kg(not the 1 kilo I posted earlier. Should have checked). In 2003, there were a total of 32,320 in the US. emedicine.com Now, a quick search didn't turn up the number of live births in 2003, but in 2000 there were 4 million. infoplease.com So about 1%. Even if all of those babies died, which they didn't, that wouldn't be enough to shift the numbers like Eberstadt claims. So he flunks the smell test. "Even "maybe" is enough if my only aim is to show that the data and argument that you are relying are are weak." "Probably" and "maybe" don't mean squat when the numbers are wrong.