Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
In another thread Paul thinks that science is a huge evil because according to the alternative medice group we have 100 000 deaths they don't quantify how the got the number but lets put that out there and the article.

http://www.alternet.org/story/147318/100,000_americans_die_each_year_from_prescription_drugs,_while_pharma_companies_get_rich


I answered that with the UN statistic that 800 Million people have died in sectarian or religious violence. There is a much much bigger number that obviously die from political violence.

That represents around 400 000 deaths from religion year in year out for 2000 years.

So my point was as he is religious why does he not get all upset about that.

His counter is that he obviously believes the situation has improved and he wants to talk about only the recent 20 years.

My rough quick look at the numbers is going to be around 20-30 million most of the variation bassed on seperating political versus religious conflicts.

So I guess we would say nothing has changed this is slightly up on the historic average.

Should conflict break out between Isral and Iran for example the current numbers will seem pale into significance.

Most of the hard part for me as showing religious deaths will be seperating religion versus political and we may have to adopt some part blame formula we will see how we go.

For Paul obviously the pressure will be on him to quantify a number that simply appears in an alternative medicine publication. He will also need to quantify that the deaths would not also have happened without the medicine like cancer patients and again we will probably end up with a part blame formula.

So with that overview let the discussion begin.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I thought I would start with the islamic side, I am atheist so I can't be acused of bias in this I started with it because of its data content.

This is the online book

"body count a quantitative review of political violence across world civilizations"

rissc.jo/books/en/005-Body-Count-Violence-Civilizations.pdf

It is heavily biased and item 4 on its conclussions will sit least comfortably with any christians

Quote:

4. In comparative terms, we have found the open secret of world history to be that the Christian civilization is the most bellicose on all counts: It is the civilization which is responsible for the highest number of death in world history, between 119.32and 236.56 million (median: 177.94 million). This is over 30% of global fatalities for the period 0-2008 CE. In terms of number of instances of political violence, the Christian share is even higher, accounting for 166 events out of 321 in total (nearly 52%). Thus more than half of all major acts of political violence can be attributed to the Christian civilization. Finally, in terms of genocides too the Christian civilization has perpetrated nearly half of all genocides (14 out of 30, or 46.67%). Still, these 14 genocides have had a total death toll of 33.24 million, a whopping 65.50% of all genocide deaths. The Christian civilization, therefore, emerges as the most violent and genocidal in world history.


Remember I am not arguing any of the conclussions indeed we will look at the claims back from the christians against the islamics as well.

What the publication does however do is list each and every conflict throughtout history and the parties involved so we have at least a start discussion point which is data.

We can then argue what of that data is in dispute and which we can agree upon.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
your using data that totals deaths from the years 0-2008

how many pharmaceutical companies were there in the year 0?

lets try and stick to the 20 year time span.

or we could lower it to the last 10 years if you prefer.

Im focusing on recent events , not events that are mostly
pre-science.

what do you think about that?

we cant have a productive discussion unless we pick a time period that better represents todays science and religion.

plus , we should not be concerning ourselves with the many diverse religions , we should only note that the event was
religion based.

if the event was due to non religious reasons yet performed by a
certain religious people then that would not be a religious event.

for instance

if a scientist who has no religion that hates people that do have a religion decides to make a bomb and plant the bomb inside a synagogue and detonates the bomb during a religious service killing hundreds of innocent people.

the fault was not because of science.
the fault was because of hate.

its not one of our events , but the holocaust would be a good example of hate killings in WW2.

the nazi hate killings were because of economic reasons not religious reasons.

so we need to be careful not to include hate deaths as they would not be either a scientific reason or a religious reason.

almost all large scale death events can be traced to greed rather
than science or religion , such as our civil war , it is commonly known to have been a war to end slavery.

yet the true reason was that the northern states were worried that the southern states would become more powerful because of the introduction of industrialization , they were worried that if the south were to use the already in place slave labor worker base along with industrialization then the south would get very powerful and that is why there was a civil war in the U.S.

and that war was to end slavery only to prevent the south from becoming more powerful than the north not because the north was against slavery.

which makes the war a greed thing.
not hate.
not religious.
it was greed.

still the civil war in the US. is portrayed as a war to end slavery , yet the U.S. government now allows approves and applauds the use of slavery in other countries such as china , which shows proof that the war was not against slavery.

and china's economy clearly shows that their fears that the south would become more powerful using slave labor was true.

which brings us to consider that most large scale deaths are a result of greed , whether science or religion is the catalyst that delivers the deaths or injuries will be a major issue that
we will need to determine while we are performing our accounting of these events.

greed cannot kill anyone , greed must have a deliverer of death.

so for now , if you will recount the religious death toll between the years 1992 - 2012 and remember to also use links to the data
or information, we can continue with the discussion in a proper manner.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
This is kind of off topic for the thread but Paul came up with a statement that I was interested in.
Originally Posted By: Paul
such as our civil war , it is commonly known to have been a war to end slavery.

yet the true reason was that the northern states were worried that the southern states would become more powerful because of the introduction of industrialization , they were worried that if the south were to use the already in place slave labor worker base along with industrialization then the south would get very powerful and that is why there was a civil war in the U.S.

I don't think I have ever heard that interpretation. Can you supply a reference?

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I cant seem to find much on it.

but heres something , even though its not much.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/civilwarindustry.htm

Originally Posted By: excerpts from article


1) Only the North possessed an industrial base, small as it was, before the shooting started.

2) America had a total of $1,050,000,000 invested in real and personal property devoted to business, with $949,335,000 concentrated in the North; Pennsylvania, New York, and Massachusetts each had a larger investment than the South as a whole. Finally, the North contributed 92.5% of the $1.9 billion that comprised the total value of annual product in the country in 1860.

3) One body of evidence indicates that the war widened this sectional disparity by destroying the South's minute industrial base and expanding that of the North to prodigious dimensions. Statistics on specific industries provide what appears to be convincing proof.

4) But wartime statistics, positive or negative, fail to tell the full story of the Civil Wars impact on Northern industrialism. Perhaps the primary economic effect of this period of upheaval was to prepare the U.S. for an intense industrialization in the decades following 1865.



the years leading up to the civil war shows that the U.S. Government was intentionally oppressing business and industry in the southern states.

this alone caused division as the south was not given the opportunity that the north was to industrialize.

then when President Lincoln was elected after running on a
anti slavery ticket the southern states seceded.

the south may have broke from the Union because they were not included in the financial aid that was freely given to the north
possibly thinking that their country had turned their back on the south , so they took the only road available to them that made any sence , and that was to break from giving monetary support to a government that did not fairly treat the southern states and use that money to build a new government that did support the southern states that was made up of southern states.

its obvious that the reason was that the north knew the dangers
that slavery along with industrialization would be to the northern economy in the exact same way that chinese slavery has been to the worlds economy.

but I may not find it written down exactly like that because that
is not the pretty picture that is desired.


my opinion is that if the north would have treated the southern states fairly , this alone could have avoided a civil war.

as business opportunities would have arisen from the influx of
federal investments and along with these new businesses a larger
workforce would have been required , economic conditions would have improved throughout the southern states and along with mechanization coming into the picture , the need for slavery would have greatly reduced to the point that it was no longer
necessary or profitable.

slaves would have been freed in order to work in these new businesses so that they could buy the products that these new businesses made.

but thats not the way the people in charge of the federal dollar
chose to apply the federal dollar.

they chose to apply the dollar in a fashion that would create a war , not prevent a war.


wouldnt it have been nice do away with slavery without having a civil war.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Well, some more quotes from that article doesn't seem to support your contention in quite the same way.

Originally Posted By: excerpts from article
The war may also have exerted a negative influence on Northern industry in more generalized ways. The state of the wartime economy, which inspired the issuance of paper currency throughout the Union, produced a steady inflation, a general rise in commodity prices, and a decrease in purchasing power. It also gave rise to trade unions, work strikes, and other conditions considered injurious to industrial growth. By discouraging immigration, the war reduced a source of cheap labor. The conflict also helped unsettle business conditions by drawing off capital and labor from North and South alike, a trend whose impact on the economy lasted well into the 1870s. Predictions early in the war of a quick Union victory hindered industrial growth by making entrepreneurs wary of over expanding. As late as Aug. 1 862, the New York Tribune complained about "our paralyzed industry."

So the war was really a negative impact on the Northern industries, rather than a positive one.

Originally Posted By: excerpts from article
But wartime statistics, positive or negative, fail to tell the full story of the Civil Wars impact on Northern industrialism. Perhaps the primary economic effect of this period of upheaval was to prepare the U.S. for an intense industrialization in the decades following 1865. The conflict helped do away with industry-stifling government regulation; nationalized the regional market system of antebellum years; created a generation of war-weary young men motivated by the acquisitive ethic; reduced the energy-sapping political strife that had adversely affected industrialism prior to 1861; and brought to long-term power a political party that favored business growth. Thus, regardless of the immediacy of its effects, the war contributed much to the long-term economic climate that made a reunited America the industrial giant of the 20th century.

I particularly liked the part about reducing "industry-stifling government regulation".

Any way this doesn't seem to support your comments.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
So the war was really a negative impact on the Northern industries, rather than a positive one.


yes , ( the war years ) ie during and after the war...

heres one I didnt comment on...

Quote:
and brought to long-term power a political party that favored business growth. Thus, regardless of the immediacy of its effects, the war contributed much to the long-term economic climate that made a reunited America the industrial giant of the 20th century.


the political party mentioned above was the republican party that did not believe in selling out the people of the united states in order to pacify the rich that put them in office.

its not the same republican party that it used to be.

today's republican party is something entirely different even backwards from what is was then.

they believe in growth , just not in the U.S.

they believe in protectionism , just not in the U.S.












3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I am no problem with limiting my death toll to any described as sectarian by any on the recognized authorities UN, WHO, Governments etc and I do not care what year periods you make it the average will be several hundred thousand per year.

Thes sectarian death counts increase rapidly wherever stability and law and order is opened up as religious groups use guns to settle differences.

For example look at the Iranq war the cause of which people have opinions on it doesn't matter it is not my category sectarian.

However look at the aftermath
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war_in_Iraq

Quote:

As of late 2010 violence remains at far lower levels than during the worst of the bloodshed in 2006-2007. However hundreds are still killed every month by sectarian groups and insurgents attempting to exploit the perceived weakness of the Iraqi Government.


In this case it is Sunni versus Shi'a muslims and the total stands at 104,463 since 2003-2011


I would also like to discuss and get some guidelines on 100 000 deaths to science.

This is the actual report that data came from
http://www.whale.to/drugs/iat.html

Please read it carefully

I have a number of issues with the number as does the editoral and I also have issues with defining as deaths to science

Quote:

To obtain overall incidence rates of ADRs in hospitalized patients, the researchers combined the incidence of ADRs in
the hospital and the incidence of ADRs causing admission to the hospital.


Now I have no problem with the "ADRs causing admission to the hospital" but the group that are already in hospital which would only be because they already have serious problems I am not sure how we deal with.

Many of those cases would be only given the drugs because of serious conditions into heavily compromised body health.

I think that problem comes out in the finding and they miss the issue.

Quote:

"This result seems surprising since great changes have occurred over the last four decades in U.S. hospitals that should have affected the incidence of ADRs. Perhaps, while length of hospital stay is decreasing, the number of drugs
per day may be rising to compensate. Therefore, while the actual incidence of ADRs has not changed over the last 32 years, the pattern of their occurrence has, undoubtedly changed,"


What they missed is that over those 4 decades the average life expectancy has increased alot and the elderly in the population has also increased its an issue that comes up time and time again in discussion more elderly equals more people in hospital.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/25/3/w141.full

Quote:

This analysis examines how shifts in the age distribution of the U.S. population, reflecting both the aging of the baby-boom generation and increased longevity, will affect demand for hospital inpatient services during the next ten years. Over that period, aging will drive about 0.74 percent annual growth in use of services


What would be interesting to know is the age demographics of those dying in hospitals to ADR's.

My guess at what is happening in the hospitals is simple that the doctors are using drugs in attempt to increase the lifespan of elderly patients who would have historically died from there problem.

What I think you are seeing is a massive rise in deaths from reactions to those drugs in elderly patients for ADR's.

Unfortunately the report didn't do the background age demographics which I find bizzare because it was the first thing I thought of when I read the report.

Anyhow tell me what your view is on how we treat all this.

I would like to ask one final question and it comes from your link from the "alternative medicine" paper

Are you suggesting we give people that are hospitalized alternative medicine?

Last edited by Orac; 09/03/12 04:03 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5