he said predictor he did not say cause

predictor=correlation not causation

Separating diseases into various categories s invalid.

how so?

right @Doc I'm trying to keep my heart healthy so I can live long enough to die from cancer

heart disease and diabetes is largely controllable regardless of your environment

when we apply for research grants we have to come up with a new trendy research idea, but in fact if we were given money to install toilets on the street we would probably have more impact. nobody wants to fund that type of research study

typhus and malaria are not

Because the list I gave of things we have addressed and treated medically was ejusdem generis.

https://youtu.be/YO_VN2NoO0c

"Results Infectious disease mortality declined during the first 8 decades of the 20th century from 797 deaths per 100,000 in 1900 to 36 deaths per 100,000 in 1980. From 1981 to 1995, the mortality rate increased to a peak of 63 deaths per 100,000 in 1995 and declined to 59 deaths per 100,000 in 1996. "

@MatiLuc This is more like part 4 or 7. But NYC didn't put up with the efforts there.

sometimes they refer to it as the CHODE

is it something different?

Please note here that especially infections diseases of the OBST-ward (started dropping with antibiotics) had a massive impact on MR, if you measure mortality not in persons, but in lost "lifeyears"

@Phil- I am not sure. How many categories of Chaz do we have to observe for the 72 recognized genders?

@Whithers only 72?

@Doc That is an interesting theory, but one cannot measure against what is only theoretically calculable and has never been defined through rigorous controlled and comparative studies.

trump should troll them by letting it stand, maybe he can get some electoral votes

@Phil Prolly not. My genders are I don't give a Martian's flying saucer and ground squirrels eat dinosaurs.

I really think Trump should have worn a Muumuu some April 1 and declared himself the first woman president.

@Whithers makes no sense

youd have to rephrase

what kind of study do you suppose for Mortality? an RCT?

because what you see above is supported by large naturalistic comparatives.

@Whithers yeah i heard that he could do that before the inauguration if it doesn't go well for him

@Doc You cannot know what life years are lost. There is no experience of what did not occur. Everything in the mathematical projection is merely mathematical projection and not observed reality.

@Whithers which is all medical statistics.

what is your point?

He could do it anytime. I just don't think he will. Don Jr maybe, but not daddy.

we do not measure counterfacts.

No it is not all medical statistics. Only those.

well, then how would you design a study of Mortaliy?

You can only prove what is positive experience. I am not saying the other is without value - but in Western Logic it has no validity as a truth claim. It has not existed. One cannot posit a value on the vastness of the void. It is an absence of evidence. Without the experience of the evidence, a conclusion is only supposition.

speaking of statistics ... with the sample size of the duplicated ballots they did in AZ, the projection onto the entire population of duplicated ballots of the results from the sample is within 3 percent of true with 99 percent confidence level ... assuming random sampling etc.

@Whithers How would you design a study of mortality?

@Whithers There is no such thing as evidence in science. Epistemology 101.

I think you're waxing philosophical here when there's no real reason to

In near Eastern logic one can ask,"All though it is impossible, what if ... ?" But in Western Logic, hence science, that speculation into what can not be observed is not evidentiary. @Doc

@Whithers How would you design a study of Mortality?

I told you. You can only look at the real. You cannot project what did not occur.