Originally posted by soficrow
47.8 babies out of 1000 born in the USA have birth defects. The rate in war torn countries is higher, perhaps due to contamination by depleted
uranium. "Prevalence ranges from a high of 82 defects per 1,000 live births in Sudan to a low of 39.7 per 1,000 in France," reports MSN. In Iraq,
75.2 of 1000 newborns have birth defects, and 74.9 of 1000 Afghani babies do. Many babies with birth defects die before the age of five, but the fact
that these fatalities are linked to birth defects is hidden from view.
Just a couple of things. First, sofi, I am not going to argue that it sucks that babies are born with defects and some die.
Next, while the intro gives a
tiny bit of perspective, a better bit of perspective is this:
Based on the rate of 3 births per second in the world, we can extrapolate roughly 94-95 MILLION births per year. That equates to roughly 8.5%
(
higher than what your numbers suggest) of babies worldwide born with defects. Considering the number of birth defects (which are many and run
the range from Tay-Sachs disease to heart defects to fetal alcohol syndrome), I am actually surprised that the number is so
low.
Now, sofi, I know we rarely agree, but that doesn't come from me not reading what you write. That said, I've noticed your penchant for ignoring
Occam's Razor and seeking out
alternative causalities for disease.
While you are certainly to be commended for keeping your mental wheel's greased by questioning conventional medical wisdom (actually, I confess that
I am quite taken with Dr. Duesberg's
chemical basis theory), there is such a thing as taking it too far. You can, in fact, be
too
skeptical. And, that overly-skeptical nature has often led you down paths where you see high-level intrigue, government/corporate cover-ups, and all
sorts of medical ill-doings.
I cannot walk that path with you, unfortunately, because I do not believe that we should be so quick to dismiss
very reasonable disease/defect
linkages.
For instance, by pointing out DU as a source for birth defects, you take focus away from other, more probable causes. These causes include the best
known congenital infection that can cause birth defects, Rubella (German Measles). Interestingly enough, where vaccination programs are in effect
(such as the places you note with the lowest number of birth defects), congenital rubella syndrome is quite rare.
So, perhaps it would be better to point out that lack of vaccination programs (probably, in part, a by-product of a current war) is a likely major
factor in the higher number of birth defects in "war-torn" countries. It seems more reasonable to me, and it is certainly just as much a tragedy,
no? Unless, of course, you believe that vaccines are the ultimate evil and do much more harm than good, as some others here do.
Clearly the vaccination example is just one of many reasons for a higher number of defects in some areas that in others (sanitation and
local-government support of health programs are others). But, I think my point is clear that we should look to
known,
likely causes
first (and address
them) before we start pointing the finger at other less-probable causes like DU.
Finally, as to this problem being "hidden from view," I doubt the veracity of that claim as well. I base this simply on the fact that your source is
a major mainstream media outlet, suggestive of the fact that this issue is, in fact, not being "hidden from view."
Just some food for thought. Good luck with the thread.
Hambone