It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is it News? Or a Consumer Report?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   
OooOOo like my Chronic Sinusitis? Yeah, I have to cut down to three packs a day when that kicks in.




posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
OooOOo like my Chronic Sinusitis? Yeah, I have to cut down to three packs a day when that kicks in.


See you have a chronic illness...... And you will have a doozey of one if cutting back means dropping to 3 packs a day



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Well... that's different isn't it?


More than 90 million Americans live with chronic illnesses.


If you read the entire piece, these are projected estimates based on death-rates, etc. These estimates are very different than saying 90 million people have been diagnosed. And... the CDC has been widely known (very often) to pad numbers (especially projections) while in bed with their pharma friends.




The chronic disease epidemic is real - and so are the implications. If anything, I think the numbers are under estimated - especially in the USA - but you're right, that is an estimated number. Sorry. However, the crisis has escalated so greatly that nations have international conferences about the financial burdens created by their disabled populations. The epidemic appeared in developed nations several decades ago, but was dismissed as caused by modern living. Now, the epidemic is worldwide. The WHO has been trying to make it world health priority for several years, but was blocked politically. This year, both the World Bank and WHO released fairly frightening reports - which I suspect do NOT show the full extent of the crisis.



www.smh.com.au
....the World Bank says almost a fifth of all ill health in poor countries and millions of deaths can be attributed to environmental factors, including climate change and pollution. ...unsafe water, poor sanitation and hygiene, and air pollution are all said to be killing people and preventing economic development, the bank says. ....Increasing soil pollution, pesticides, hazardous waste and chemicals in food are also significantly affecting health and economies, the bank says.

..."We estimate that 388 million people in the world are expected to die from chronic diseases … in the next 10 years, and everywhere the poor are the hardest hit." ...Eighty per cent of chronic illnesses such as heart disease, stroke, cancer and diabetes were in low- to middle-income nations, contrary to the popular belief that these diseases largely afflict people in wealthy countries, a World Health Organisation report says. ..."We can stop this global epidemic of chronic diseases if we take preventative action now," said Dr Robert Beaglehole, the organisation's Chronic Diseases and Health Promotion director.

WHO Report: Preventing Chronic Diseases: a vital investment

World Bank: Environment Matters: Annual Review, 2005

World Bank: Burden Of Disease Increased By Environmental Degradation

WHO 2002: Integrated chronic disease prevention and control



Information about chronic disease in the USA is noticeably absent in both the World Bank and WHO reports.

For the record: The top 5 chronic diseases - heart disease, cancer, stroke, COPD, and diabetes - cause more than two-thirds of all deaths in the USA. More than 90 million Americans have chronic disease. Over 45.8 million Americans have no medical insurance, and thus, no diagnosis or treatment.
www.wrongdiagnosis.com...
Chronic Disease
Insuring Yourself

Note: The opposite of chronic is "acute," meaning disease that comes on quickly and often does not last long - if it lasts, it is "chronic."

People with chronic disease are more susceptible to complications and death from flu. "You're especially at risk if you are an older adult, have diabetes, chronic heart or lung disease, or an impaired immune system."
Source
Also see: www.niaid.nih.gov...


...I suspect that the Bioterrorism Act together with modifications to quarantine law is designed to deal with the chronic disease epidemic, without ever admitting it existed, or the extent of its impact.

[edit on 27-10-2005 by soficrow]



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Sofi, thanks for sharing your overviews and also your personal experiences, I see that compare to me you have been through some hard times, but still willing.

I enjoy your research in your topics as usual and I see that you dedicate time to do just that, many people more often than not will just go by what doctors tells them and end up like my mother with a medical bill in the hundreds monthly on pills and drugs that she didn't even needed that render her completely without will.

My sister put an end to it she works in the medical field, took her to her own doctor and in less than an hour he took away 6 of the drugs she was taking reducing the amount to only 4 because they were necessary to tread her main problems.

Things like this happen to many American daily and they just go by it and become addicted to prescribe drugs.

Now about chronic diseases I thought that a chronic disease is when you are dependent to drugs for long term care that is the best patient that drug companies and doctor can ask for one that is in need of a drug prescription monthly will ensure a continuously income for the doctor and the manufactures of drugs.

I am correct?



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
More than 90 million Americans have chronic disease.

In one phrase you recognize this number (30% of all Americans) is a projection, then you repeat it again as if it were fact. Which is it?

Yes... I recognize the U.S. is horribly unhealthy population, but if we're going to discuss sensational facts we should do so with care.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by soficrow
More than 90 million Americans have chronic disease.

In one phrase you recognize this number (30% of all Americans) is a projection, then you repeat it again as if it were fact. Which is it?

Yes... I recognize the U.S. is horribly unhealthy population, but if we're going to discuss sensational facts we should do so with care.



It's the difference between "incidence" and "prevalence," the standards terms used. Incidence refers to the # of new cases reported each year. Prevalence refers to the total number of people living with a disease (as opposed to the number newly diagnosed), estimated according to a standard formula that is based on incidence, but subtracts deaths (often estimated). Prevalence estimates can really go out of whack on estimating the number of "undiagnosed" people who don't go to doctors.

However, and as an example, the disease called fibromuscular dysplasia (FMD) is reported at a frequency rate (incidence) of 1.1% (of the adult American population per year), diagnosed in autopsy.


www.emedicine.com...

“FMD frequency in the USA: incidence of new cases in adults diagnosed by angiography – 0.6%; diagnosed in autopsy – 1.1%.”

Also see Puri, PMID: 10334397.



Here's a table that compares the stats for FMD incidence in autopsy with reported death stats:




YEAR - DEATHS - TOTAL POP - EST ADULT POP (75%) - 1.1% ADULT POP: FMD incid in autopsy

1999 - 2,391,399 - 279,295,000 - 209,471,250 - 2,304,184
1998 - 2,337,256 - 276,115,000 - 207,086,250 - 2,277,949
1997 - 2,314,245 - 272,912,000 - 204,684,000 - 2,251,524
1996 - 2,314,690 - 269,667,000 - 202,250,250 - 2,224,750
1995 - 2,312,132 - 266,557,000 - 199,917,750 - 2,199,095

Source: Population: Census; Reported Deaths; World Health Organization.


As you can see, FMD "incidence" diagnosed in autopsy is just a bit less than the total number of deaths reported per year, or close to 100% of the adult population in the USA.

...So while the frequency rate -or incidence- diagnosed in autopsy is only 1.1% of the total adult population, the prevalence is very near 100%, based on an estimate created by comparing the total number of reported deaths with reported incidence. This estimate is likely quite accurate.

...My projection is that this disease is a ticking time bomb - which will be ignited when people already infected with FMD are exposed to bird flu and the virus triggers rapid disease progression. My alternate projection is that FMD confers a degree of immunity to bird flu.


...But either way, the stats on FMD alone indicate that the estimated prevalence of chronic disease in America is WAY low.



NOTE: FMD usually is very slowly progressive unless it is 'triggered,' often taking decades to create acute or life threatening symptoms. Point being that it is an "invisible" disease, that cannot be diagnosed with standard clinical tests. The disease occurs when a misfolded protein called "a-smooth muscle actin" ASMA infects the stem cells for connective tissue and smooth muscle inside the blood vessel walls. By definition, that makes it a cardiovascular disease or 'heart disease' - but because blood vessels run through the entire body, FMD lesions can pop up any where in the body and can cause a huge variety of 'other' diseases, depending on the location of the lesions. These lesions eventually grow large enough to break through the vessel walls and become visible to various imaging technologies. However, insurance only covers imaging for late stage diagnosis, and then, only when symptoms are acute. Which is why 65% of the cases diagnosed are found in autopsy.




.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Now about chronic diseases I thought that a chronic disease is when you are dependent to drugs for long term care that is the best patient that drug companies and doctor can ask for one that is in need of a drug prescription monthly will ensure a continuously income for the doctor and the manufactures of drugs.

I am correct?



Seems that most chronic diseases occur when the underlying problem is not taken care of. Then, secondary symptoms are what's "treated" - but the secondary symptoms never go away because the underlying cause doesn't go away. And yes, it's a bread and butter income for doctors and drug manufacturers. Helps explain why the drug industry has grown to be larger than the oil industry in profits.

So yeah, you're right marg.

.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Hi Sofi,

It seems you have a few different things you want to say, but what I mainly interpreted was an explanation of your situation, your angle on the workings of the world, and some of the reasons behind your particular style. Perhaps an ATSNN Op/Ed is not the most appropriate medium for this, but I commend you at least for your honesty in regards to your personal life, and for what it is, it's a nicely written piece.

On to the topic currently being discussed:


Originally posted by soficrow
Incidence refers to the # of new cases reported each year. Prevalence refers to the total number of people living with a disease...

However, and as an example, the disease called fibromuscular dysplasia (FMD) is reported at a frequency rate (incidence) of 1.1% (of the adult American population per year), diagnosed in autopsy.

YEAR - DEATHS - TOTAL POP - EST ADULT POP (75%) - 1.1% ADULT POP: FMD incid in autopsy

1999 - 2,391,399 - 279,295,000 - 209,471,250 - 2,304,184
1998 - 2,337,256 - 276,115,000 - 207,086,250 - 2,277,949
1997 - 2,314,245 - 272,912,000 - 204,684,000 - 2,251,524
1996 - 2,314,690 - 269,667,000 - 202,250,250 - 2,224,750
1995 - 2,312,132 - 266,557,000 - 199,917,750 - 2,199,095

As you can see, FMD "incidence" diagnosed in autopsy is just a bit less than the total number of deaths reported per year, or close to 100% of the adult population in the USA.

...So while the frequency rate -or incidence- diagnosed in autopsy is only 1.1% of the total adult population, the prevalence is very near 100%, based on an estimate created by comparing the total number of reported deaths with reported incidence. This estimate is likely quite accurate.


I don't seem to understand the maths and the logic here of comparing diagnosed-at-autopsy rates to death rates to arrive at a prevalence figure. As I understand it, the assumption is that if the cases diagnosed per year by autopsy approximately equals the number of deaths per year, then that means that just about everyone has it. Roughly: Diagnosed rate = 1% of dead, General Death Rate = 1% of population, => Prevalence = 100%. Is that what's implied, or have I gotten confused somewhere?? By that logic, if 10% of people are diagnosed at autopsy with kidney stones , then the prevalence is 1000%, meaning that 10 times as many people have kidney stones as actually exist!

YEAR - DEATHS - TOTAL POP - EST ADULT POP (75%) - 10% ADULT POP: Kidney Stones in autopsy

2xxx - 2,391,399 - 279,295,000 - 209,471,250 - 20,947,125

If I've interpreted correctly, the problem arises here:


FMD...is reported at a frequency rate (incidence) of 1.1%


You are interpreting the rate of diagnosis at death as equating to incidence, or new cases. It would seem to me that, according to the definitions cited, diagnosis at autopsy is rather a measure of prevalence - existing cases, not of incidence - new cases. If diagnosis at autopsy is 1% and is not increasing, then the prevalence would also be a flat 1% of the population. The autopsy figure is simply a form of survey, the results of which are then extrapolated to determine the figure for the entire population. 1% of those surveyed having the disease simply means 1% of the entire population has it, regardless of the general number of deaths (i.e. both related to the disease and not). The cases are only 'new' to the people doing the autopsies, they're not 'new' in the population.

Again, sorry if I've missed or misunderstood something in your explanation and therefore gotten on the wrong track with the logic/maths.





[edit on 2005-10-28 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   

wecomeinpeace
It seems you have a few different things you want to say, but what I mainly interpreted was an explanation of your situation, your angle on the workings of the world, and some of the reasons behind your particular style. Perhaps an ATSNN Op/Ed is not the most appropriate medium for this, but I commend you at least for your honesty in regards to your personal life, and for what it is, it's a nicely written piece.


That about sums it up. And thanks WCP.

You ask great questions - and methinks the clarification is much-needed.




I don't seem to understand the maths and the logic here of comparing diagnosed-at-autopsy rates to death rates to arrive at a prevalence figure. As I understand it, the assumption is that if the cases diagnosed per year by autopsy approximately equals the number of deaths per year, then that means that just about everyone has it. Roughly: Diagnosed rate = 1% of dead, General Death Rate = 1% of population, => Prevalence = 100%.


That's it.




By that logic, if 10% of people are diagnosed at autopsy with kidney stones , then the prevalence is 1000%, meaning that 10 times as many people have kidney stones as actually exist!


No - you need to back up I think. Incidence rates usually refer to percentage of total population - if they don't, it's specified. So if 10% of autopsies revealed kidney stones, that would be a 10% incidence in the autopsied population - not 10% incidence in the total population. ..Not sure what it works out to as incidence for total pop.

...The stats for FMD specify "in the (total) adult American population" - NOT 1.1% of the autopsied population - and incidence rates are 1.1% diagnosed in autopsy. In addition, 0.06% are diagnosed by angiography, which means 65% of people with FMD are not diagnosed til after they're dead.




You are interpreting the rate of diagnosis at death as equating to incidence, or new cases.


Yes, exactly. But it's not an "intrepretation," it is the incidence rate cited: Frequency in adult Americans: 1.1% diagnosed in autopsy; 0.06% diagnosed by angiography.

The point is: FMD usually remains undiagnosed until after death, and most new cases are diagnosed in autopsy, not in living patients. As I explained earlier, FMD is an invisible disease:

FMD usually is very slowly progressive unless it is 'triggered,' often taking decades to create acute or life threatening symptoms. Point being that it is an "invisible" disease, that cannot be diagnosed with standard clinical tests. The disease occurs when a misfolded protein called "a-smooth muscle actin" ASMA infects the stem cells for connective tissue and smooth muscle inside the blood vessel walls. By definition, that makes it a cardiovascular disease or 'heart disease' - but because blood vessels run through the entire body, FMD lesions can pop up any where in the body and can cause a huge variety of 'other' diseases, depending on the location of the lesions. These lesions eventually grow large enough to break through the vessel walls and become visible to various imaging technologies. However, insurance only covers imaging for late stage diagnosis, and then, only when symptoms are acute. Which is why 65% of the cases diagnosed are found in autopsy.





It would seem to me that, according to the definitions cited, diagnosis at autopsy is rather a measure of prevalence



I think so too.




If diagnosis at autopsy is 1% and is not increasing, then the prevalence would also be a flat 1% of the population.


Again - incidence in total population and incidence in autopsied population are two very different things - leading to completely different prevalence estimates.

If the incidence rate for FMD is 1%, and the death rate is also 1%, then FMD's prevalence is 100%. BUT - If the incidence rate for FMD is 1% of the autopsied population, and the death rate is 1% of the total population, then it's a completely different story.




1% of those surveyed having the disease simply means 1% of the entire population has it, regardless of the general number of deaths (i.e. both related to the disease and not).


It's not 1% of those surveyed (autopsied): it's 1% of the total population. The numbers from reported autopsies were re-packaged. So instead of saying, "Jeez! Willya lookit that. Everyone has FMD," the presentation was modified to say 1% of the total population has FMD.

The death stats are relevant because the death rate also is 1% of the total population.

There has been a lot of twisting, turning, redefining, repositioning, camouflaging and more going on about FMD over the years - this is but one example.

There is a cover-up IMO - although FMD is generally acknowledged as "commonly an incidental finding at autopsy," FMD is described as "benign" and the focus is on "incidental." I don't think so.





The cases are only 'new' to the people doing the autopsies, they're not 'new' in the population.


Again - FMD usually remains undiagnosed until after death, and most new cases are diagnosed in autopsy, not in living patients. ...65% of the cases diagnosed are found in autopsy.




Again, sorry if I've missed or misunderstood something in your explanation and therefore gotten on the wrong track with the logic/maths.


Hey no. Great stuff. Hope I've explained it well enough. And I needed the exercise.




.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I'm getting dizzy with the semantics here, but I shall persevere.

Some definitions:


Incidence
Incidence is the number of new cases of a condition, symptom, death, or injury that arise during a specific period of time, such as a year. It is often expressed as a percentage of a population (e.g., 25% of American residents were diagnosed with the flu in 2002).

Incidence conveys the likelihood that an individual in that population will be affected by the condition.



Prevalence
Medicine. The total number of cases of a disease in a given population at a specific time


This would seem to show that "incidence" and "prevalence" are one and the same - simply different ways of expressing the figures. Incidence is a percentage, prevalence is a total number. In a village of 1000 people where the incidence of leprosy is 1%, 10 people will have the disease - the prevalence of leprosy in this village is 10. In a larger population, incidence can be estimated by appropriate survey, and approximate prevalence can be extrapolated from that. No? :puz So my question is: What exactly are the demographics of the subjects in the autopsy survey you cite?


Soficrow wrote:
So if 10% of autopsies revealed kidney stones, that would be a 10% incidence in the autopsied population - not 10% incidence in the total population. ..Not sure what it works out to as incidence for total pop.


Right, but: Since a) Kidney stones are an ailment, the onset of which, is later-in-life; and b) The larger majority of deaths are in the higher age demographic; and assuming c) The autopsy survey range is large and varied enough; Then: The percentage of living people who have kidney stones, i.e the incidence in the entire population, is equal to or less than the percentage of people diagnosed with kidney stones at autopsy. The number of people diagnosed with kidney stones before death is irrelevant, since if you haven't gotten it by the time you're dead, you aint got no chance to get it later. Incidence measured by surveyof autopsies is the absolute maximum possible incidence.

Apply this same logic to the FMD, which is also an aquired, or later-triggered ailment, and you get



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   
niiice read


maybe you should write a book on your take on this (like you did with this article)...





posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Keep at it wecomeinpeace. You have good questions. The problem now is in your definitions - or more accurately, the source you used.

The terms incidence and prevalence may mean the same thing in some disciplines, but in medicine, the definitions are distinct and different - and pretty much what I said they were - and I stand by my explanation above.

The following definitions are from Dorland's Medical Dictionary (which is kinda like the doctors' Bible).


Source: Dorland's Medical Dictionary via Onelook.com

incidence: 1. the rate at which a certain event occurs, e.g., the number of new cases of a specific disease occurring during a certain period in a population at risk (see incidence rate, under rate). Cf. prevalence.

incidence rate, the probability of developing a particular disease during a given period of time; the numerator of the rate is the number of new cases during the specified time period and the denominator is the population at risk during the period. Cf. prevalence r.

cumulative incidence, cumulative incidence rate. cumulative incidence rate, the proportion of an initially disease-free population developing a disease over a fixed interval, calculated by cumulating the proportions developing the disease within short subintervals.

***

prevalence: the number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specified time, either at a point in time (point p.) or over a period of time (period p.); when the term is unmodified, the former meaning is usually inferred. See prevalence rate, under rate. Cf. incidence.

prevalence rate, the number of people in a population who have a disease or other condition at a given time: the numerator of the rate is the number of existing cases of the condition at a specified time and the denominator is the total population. Time may be a point or a defined interval; if unspecified it is traditionally the former. Cf. incidence r."




ALSO NOTE - the 1.1% incidence rate of FMD in the US refers to the adult population, NOT the total population. (I went along with your "1% of population" description as a hypothetical.)

FMD can be passed on congenitally, and sometimes may be genetic, but it seems to be acquired about 80% of the time.


CORRECTION - LINK: The correct link for the incidence stats quoted above is Re: FMD Incidence Sorry. Don't know how I did that.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 03:24 PM
link   
I think this hypothetical description might help:

We have a population of 100 people who have only existed for 10 years. Each year, 10 people catch an incurable disease called XXX - so the incidence rate is 10%, and it has not changed during that time period. No one dies, so our calculations are very simple.

At the end of 1 year, 10 people had XXX, making the prevalence rate 10% - same as the incidence rate. At the end of 5 years, there were 50 people with XXX, at a prevalence rate of 50% - although the incidence rate of 10% still hasn't changed. At the end of 10 years, all 100 people have XXX, and the prevalence is now 100% - but the incidence rate remains unchanged at 10%.

Does that help?


.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Okay, with those definitions I got it now. But an autopsy survey would be a direct survey measure of prevalence rate, not of incidence rate.

I can't seem to find the below sentence which you quoted anywhere in the page you linked to as the source:


Soficrow wrote:
“FMD frequency in the USA: incidence of new cases in adults diagnosed by angiography – 0.6%; diagnosed in autopsy – 1.1%.”

Also see Puri, PMID: 10334397


This is what the link says:


www.emedicine.com...
Frequency:

* In the US: Although early autopsy and radiologic series suggested that FMD involving the craniocervical arteries occurs at a frequency of approximately 1%, a more recent large series looking at FMD in the carotid arteries only suggests a lower frequency, on the order of 0.02% (Schievink, 1996).


This doesn't state anywhere that it is incidence rate, but "frequency" seems to imply prevalence.

The web pages on that site seem to have the same format, with frequency and mortality at the bottom. For example, Vascular dementia, the "frequency" portion is this:


www.emedicine.com...
Frequency:

* Internationally: Vascular dementia is the second most common cause of dementia in the United States and Europe, but it is the most common form in some parts of Asia. The prevalence rate of vascular dementia is 1.5% in Western countries and approximately 2.2% in Japan. In Japan, it accounts for 50% of all dementias that occur in individuals older than 65 years. In Europe, vascular dementia and mixed dementia account for approximately 20% and 40% of cases, respectively. In Latin America, 15% of all dementias are vascular. In community-based studies in Australia, the prevalence rate for vascular and mixed dementia is 13% and 28%, respectively. The prevalence rate of dementia is 9 times higher in patients who have had a stroke than in controls. One year after a stroke, 25% of patients develop new-onset dementia. Within 4 years following a stroke, the relative risk of incident dementia is 5.5%.


They are referring to the prevalence rate as being the frequency. This further implies that the 1% frequency figure in the FMD description is indeed prevalence.

So where did you get the incidence rate figures? What is the source for the table you provided with the incident rate comparisons? Did those figures all come from the WHO, or only the population and death rate figures?


Soficrow wrote:
..So while the frequency rate -or incidence- diagnosed in autopsy is only 1.1% of the total adult population, the prevalence is very near 100%
[...]
If the incidence rate for FMD is 1%, and the death rate is also 1%, then FMD's prevalence is 100%.


This just doesn't make sense. Firstly, where did you get the 1% incidence rate from? Secondly, 1% incidence does not imply 100% prevalence, no matter if the death rate is 1% or 50%. Lots of people dying in car accidents doesn't mean that FMD has a prevalence of 100%. As your hypothetical shows, they are unrelated, and only a certain incidence rate, and over a number of years, will produce a high prevalence. If the death rate is 1%, an incidence rate of 0.01% or less will mean the disease actually decreases in prevalence:

Let's say Island X has 100,000 people, a birth rate of 2% and a death rate of 1%. The incidence rate of leprosy is 0.01%. Currently 200 people have leprosy - a prevalence rate of 0.2%. After one year, there are 101,000 people (2000 were born, 1000 died). There were 10 new cases of leprosy (0.01%), but of the 1000 who died, 10 of them (1% death rate) were lepers. So, the number of cases remains at 200. With the increased population, the prevalence rate actually decreases to becomes 0.198%. Add to this the fact that the frequency of lepers amongst the deaths would be higher than the median death rate, it looks like this island is soon to be cured of leprosy, the lepers are dying off faster than the disease is spreading.

In order to consider if FMD is an emergent pandemic, you'll have to examine the incidence rate.

But are you actually saying that approximately 100% of the adult population in the United States currently has FMD, or do I misunderstand your meaning?

Thanks for your patience.

[edit on 2005-10-28 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

In order to consider if FMD is an emergent pandemic, you'll have to examine the incidence rate.




Just above your post I wrote:

CORRECTION - LINK: The correct link for the incidence stats quoted above is Re: FMD Incidence Sorry. Don't know how I did that.


Here is the current phrasing from that source:

"In the US: The reported incidence of FMD in adults is 0.6% via angiography and 1.1% via autopsy."


As you can see, the reference is to reported incidence. As stated earlier, a second reference also was given (Puri).





But are you actually saying that approximately 100% of the adult population in the United States currently has FMD, or do I misunderstand your meaning?



You understand me perfectly well, and I you.



.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Just above your post I wrote:

CORRECTION - LINK: The correct link for the incidence stats quoted above is Re: FMD Incidence Sorry. Don't know how I did that.


Sorry, I honestly missed that. My bad.

"In the US: The reported incidence of FMD in adults is 0.6% via angiography and 1.1% via autopsy."

Wow. I've just been looking at figures for heart disease, diabetes and other chronic ailments, and that is high. But I still don't see that it equates to a 100% prevalence rate. I'm not trying to harass you here, Sofi, especially since I know you've been on the defensive lately, and because I know this is an issue that affects you personally. I hope the "...and I you" didn't carry the tone that it reads as. But 100% of the population just seems like an outrageous claim, especially since you appear to use the comparison of incidence rate to death rate to arrive at a 100% prevalence figure, which I don't really understand how that works. I hope you understand my natural reaction to err on the side of caution in accepting such a huge figure.

Here's some figures for Diabetes:


www.wrongdiagnosis.com...

Incidence Rate for Diabetes: approx 1 in 340 or 0.29% or 798,000 people in USA.

Prevalance of Diabetes: 16 million Americans with 10.3 million diagnosed.


Assuming - for the sake of simplicity - a model where both ailments appear historically at the same time and maintain a constant proportion in relation to each other throughout, FMD, having twice the incidence rate of Diabetes, would be expected to have twice the prevalence: about 32 million, or 11%. Yet you claim 100% prevalence. Is there something I'm missing?



[edit on 2005-10-28 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Originally posted by soficrow
Just above your post I wrote:

CORRECTION - LINK: The correct link for the incidence stats quoted above is Re: FMD Incidence Sorry. Don't know how I did that.


Sorry, I honestly missed that. My bad.



It's okay.






"In the US: The reported incidence of FMD in adults is 0.6% via angiography and 1.1% via autopsy."


Wow. I've just been looking at figures for heart disease, diabetes and other chronic ailments, and that is high. But I still don't see that it equates to a 100% prevalence rate.



That's why I provided a direct comparison to death stats.

What we do know from the comparison is that almost every adult American has FMD when they die - so it follows that almost every adult American acquires FMD before they die.





I'm not trying to harass you here, Sofi, especially since I know you've been on the defensive lately, and because I know this is an issue that affects you personally. I hope the "...and I you" didn't carry the tone that it reads as.



Thanks for telling me. I think I needed to hear that.


I reread that bit - and it sure sounds beachy! Not sure what the heck I was thinking, but - Sorry.

Personal Interest Interlude: When I was writing that, my 15 year-old daughter and friend returned from a walk by the river - with 3 bones - saying they had found a skeleton they thought was human. They were excited and frightened. The sternum and leg bone looked like a child's, altho the scapula looked like an animal's. I called police - 3 cars came, 6 cops, and we escorted them to the scene. They spent about 20-30 minutes examining the scene - and around the area - with flashlights. After all that, they said the pile of bones (it wasn't a full skeleton, no skull or pelvis) belonged to an animal. ...I kinda think it was mixed human and animal - definitely quite old - maybe the scene of an attack? I hope not a native burial site. Will investigate more tomorrow. But point being - I was mightily distracted.





But 100% of the population just seems like an outrageous claim,



That it is - but I did say close to 100%.


Hard to handle anyway, I know. IMO - The difficulty in accepting this claim is not a logical one, it's psychological. And understandably so.





especially since you appear to use the comparison of incidence rate to death rate to arrive at a 100% prevalence figure,



I think the comparison is more direct, and hence more valid than other methods of estimating prevalence.




which I don't really understand how that works. I hope you understand my natural reaction to err on the side of caution in accepting such a huge figure.


Gotcha. Please - go back, review and rethink. Then come back at me again if you must.



Here's some figures for Diabetes:


www.wrongdiagnosis.com...

Incidence Rate for Diabetes: approx 1 in 340 or 0.29% or 798,000 people in USA.

Prevalance of Diabetes: 16 million Americans with 10.3 million diagnosed.


Assuming - for the sake of simplicity - a model where both ailments appear historically at the same time and maintain a constant proportion in relation to each other throughout, FMD, having twice the incidence rate of Diabetes, would be expected to have twice the prevalence: about 32 million, or 11%. Yet you claim 100% prevalence. Is there something I'm missing?


So the diabetes incidence rate is 0.29%, or 798,000 new cases diagnosed each year in the USA. Prevalence is 16 million.

The incidence rate of FMD diagnosed in autopsy is 1.1%, just less than the death rate. We know that most adult Americans are diagnosed with FMD when they die, and are speculating that therefore, most adult Americans acquire FMD before they die - making prevalence nearly 100%.

Why the big difference in prevalence between the two diseases?

1. FMD's incidence rate actually is almost 6 times higher than diabetes, not 2 (1.1% dx in autopsy + 0.6% dx by angio = 1.7% total incidence rate: 1.7 divided by .29 = over 57%).

2. BUT - even without getting further into the math and extrapolating prevalence - that still doesn't seem to explain the difference in prevalence.

3. Speculation - The big factor may be life expectancy - prevalence is about the number of people living with a disease, and people with diabetes may die sooner than people with FMD, or the other way around.

4. Maybe the math could explain the apparent discrepancy - except I can't find my calculator - and I have no blessed idea what formula might apply here anyway.



.



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 08:23 AM
link   
I think we need a statistician in here.



What we do know from the comparison is that almost every adult American has FMD when they die - so it follows that almost every adult American acquires FMD before they die.


Again, how did you arrive at this conclusion? The incidence rate equalling the death rate does not mean that everybody has it. They are unconnected. Take the island example again:

Island X has 100,000 people, a birth rate of 2% and a death rate of 1%. The incidence rate of leprosy is 1% this time, so death rate and incidence rate are the same. Let's up the ante and say that 20,000 people already have leprosy: Prevalence is 20%. After one year, there are 101,000 people (2000 were born, 1000 died). There were 1000 new cases of leprosy (1%), and 10 people with leprosy died. So there are 990 new cases of leprosy, to make a total of 20,990. Prevalence is now 20,990/100,000 = 20.78%

The incidence rate of a disease equalling the general death rate of the population means nothing.

It seems you're assuming that if 2 million people died, and 2 million people got the disease, then that means everyone has it. It's a logical fallacy, which the maths in the hypothetical above shows.

Again, I'm no statistician, but I would posit that the two incidence rates as diagnosed by autopsy and angiography would not be added to come to a new incidence rate, because autopsy is the ultimate (subtle pun there) survey. The fact that those figures are given separately also supports this. FMD has an incidence of 1.1%, which is 3.8 times the incidence rate of Diabetes. So therefore, the prevalence rate of FMD would be roughly 60 million, or 20%. But even if they were added together to make 1.7% incidence, that still gives a prevalence figure of 32%.


That it is - but I did say close to 100%. Hard to handle anyway, I know. IMO - The difficulty in accepting this claim is not a logical one, it's psychological. And understandably so.


I would say it's both. If the logic doesn't stand up, and there are no other figures to support the claim, the psychological hurdle becomes non-existant.


We know that most adult Americans are diagnosed with FMD when they die, and are speculating that therefore, most adult Americans acquire FMD before they die - making prevalence nearly 100%.


How do we know that most adult Americans are diagnosed with FMD when they die? What is the statistic that supports this? Do you have autopsy reports that show this? Death rate equalling incidence rate does not mean that most adults are diagnosed with FMD when they die.


Why the big difference in prevalence between the two diseases?


As far as I can tell, your only support for 100% prevalence is the equivalence between the death and incidence rates. Again, they are unrelated.


1. FMD's incidence rate actually is almost 6 times higher than diabetes, not 2 (1.1% dx in autopsy + 0.6% dx by angio = 1.7% total incidence rate: 1.7 divided by .29 = over 57%).

2. BUT - even without getting further into the math and extrapolating prevalence - that still doesn't seem to explain the difference in prevalence.

3. Speculation - The big factor may be life expectancy - prevalence is about the number of people living with a disease, and people with diabetes may die sooner than people with FMD, or the other way around.

4. Maybe the math could explain the apparent discrepancy - except I can't find my calculator - and I have no blessed idea what formula might apply here anyway.


1. I've done the math, and it comes to 32% prevalence rate max.

2. Where is the difference in prevalence? I can't see one.

3. The Diabetes mortality rate is not high enough to produce such a vast and illogical difference in prevalence between the two.

4. That's the thing. The maths doesn't add up to support the prevalency you posit.

Let's look at AIDS in gay and bisexual men:


www.aegis.com...
Valleroy said that among those they tested, the overall HIV incidence was 4.4 percent. The rate varied tremendously between groups. The rate for white gay men was 2.5 percent, for Hispanics 3.5 percent, and for African Americans 14.7 percent.


4.4% incidence rate. According to your logic, with the death rate at ~1%, every single gay man should have AIDS. And every single African-American gay man should have AIDS...14.7 times over.

The only reason I'm continuing with this is because I know how brilliant you are, and that forces me to doubt my own reasoning, or to surmise that you have other information somewhere that proves what you posit. So how did you arrive at the ~100% prevalence figure?

[edit on 2005-10-29 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 12:27 PM
link   
I think we need to go back to the basics here, wecomeinpeace. As we all know, focusing on statistics often is a game played to re-direct attention, and obscure truth.

So let's look at the plain facts, and not get sidetracked by complicated statistical formulas and concepts.

FMD is diagnosed in two ways:

1. Using molecular diagnostics on tissues biopsied during autopsy: To test for a prion called "a-smooth muscle actin" (ASMA), and the mutated stem cells called myofibroblasts that are caused by ASMA when it takes over the stem cells; and

2. Using imaging technologies to diagnose living patients: By looking for visible advanced lesions in the blood vessels created by "a-smooth muscle actin" (ASMA), and the mutated stem cells called myofibroblasts that caused by ASMA when it takes over the stem cells.

This is why FMD has two incidence rates, one for each method of diagnosis: In the USA, 65% of reported adult cases are diagnosed in autopsy, after the patients are dead; 35% of reported adult cases are diagnosed in living patients. "In the US: The reported incidence of FMD in adults is 0.6% via angiography and 1.1% via autopsy.

Back to the table comparing the incidence rate of reported FMD found in autopsy with actual reported deaths.

YEAR - DEATHS - TOTAL POP - EST ADULT POP (75%) - 1.1% ADULT POP: FMD incid in autopsy

1999 - 2,391,399 - 279,295,000 - 209,471,250 - 2,304,184
1998 - 2,337,256 - 276,115,000 - 207,086,250 - 2,277,949
1997 - 2,314,245 - 272,912,000 - 204,684,000 - 2,251,524
1996 - 2,314,690 - 269,667,000 - 202,250,250 - 2,224,750
1995 - 2,312,132 - 266,557,000 - 199,917,750 - 2,199,095


The above table shows that for 5 years running, the FMD incidence rate of 1.1% adult Americans diagnosed in autopsy, based on actual reported cases, is just less than the actual number of adult Americans who were reported dead.

No fancy formulas, no tricky hard-to-understand statistical concepts: The number of adult Americans diagnosed with FMD in autopsy is almost equal to the number of adult Americans reported dead. Put another way, almost every adult in America has FMD when they die.

Policy-makers knew long ago that FMD/ASMA is widespread in America, and have attempted to explain away the phenomenon in a variety of often amusing ways. Here are two of my favorite medical myths and contradictions about FMD:

1. FMD is a rare disease: But also, it is frequently an incidental finding in autopsy, and is a natural consequence of aging to boot.


2. FMD is a genetic disease that primarily affects young women: But also is found in turkeys and Japanese quail, for example. Which leads to the pivotal question driving cutting-edge research in epidemiology, virology, and molecular biology today: "Who's been diddling the chickens?"




As I have shown elsewhere here on ATS - publicly available research documents the evolution of ASMA-related diseases -at the molecular level- from FMD to Mad Cow and then, bird flu - and associates ASMA with a huge variety of other diseases, notably all modern epidemic chronic disease. Everything hinges on ASMA, and its abilities to: spread through the body using the vascular and immune systems; hitchhike on microbes; mutate into new strains; and cross species and kingdom barriers.

For the past 50-odd years, ASMA-related diseases have been renamed, reclassified, and recategorized to cover up the extent of it's spread. It's dangers were hidden, camouflaged, minimized, and denied outright. Corporate-funded research says FMD/ASMA is "benign," and seldom causes acute symptoms - although responsible research proves that it always is progressive, and is triggered - and changed - by various environmental exposures. ASMA was identified in 1950 as the primary causal factor in ASMA-related diseases - but because the speed of progression, location of the lesions, and ability to mutate are influenced by other factors, the official spin is that FMD/ASMA has an "unknown etiology." Technically true, sure. But puh-leeze.

Now, the poop is hitting the fan. It's time to own up, acknowledge reality - and allow people to make fully informed decisions about their own lives, finances, and futures.



More on Actin: Cytoskeleton, Cell Motility and Motors
For those who are interested: BUILD YOUR OWN ACTIN



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Okay, I got it now. Weee, what a ride.


Thanks for your patience.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join