Crunching The Numbers On Mortality

Source link

http://www.zerohedge.com

by Tyler Durden

Sat, 09/01/2018

One of the key traits that make human beings unique on planet Earth is that we’re aware of our own mortality.

But, as Visual Capitalist’s Nick Routley notes, scientific advances have given us insight into which behaviors may prolong life, and which activities carry the greatest risk of death. Naturally, there have been some unique attempts to create a unified structure around risk and benefit, and to quantify every aspect of the human lifespan.

As today’s graphic from TitleMax demonstrates, even when we’re thinking about death, the human desire to codify the world around us is alive and well.

Courtesy of: Visual Captitalist

MORTALITY UNITS

Certain events – such as a parachute failing to open or being hit by a meteor – have an easily quantifiable effect on life, but how do we measure the riskiness of day-to-day habits and situations? This is where a unique unit of measurement, micromorts, comes into play.

This concept, invented by renowned decision analyst Ronald A. Howard, helps compare any number of potentially lethal risks. One micromort equals a one in a million chance of sudden death. Here’s the riskiness of various activities measured in micromorts:

LIFE UNITS

The average person, by the time they reach adulthood, will live approximately one million half-hours. Those 30 minute units are known as microlives.

The microlife concept was invented by professor David Spiegelhalter as a way to measure the consequences of various behaviors. For example, 20 minutes of physical activity earns us two microlives, while watching TV for two hours subtracts one microlife.

This measurement extends beyond nutrition and eating habits. Simply living in a modern era earns us an additional 15 microlives per day compared to those who lived a century earlier.

CASTING THE DIE ON HOW WE’LL DIE

How will the estimated 353,000 humans that will be born today eventually meet their end? This was the thought experiment conducted by Reddit user, Presneeze.

While our focus is often drawn to people who meet their end in spectacular and tragic ways, the vast majority of humanity will succumb to conditions such as heart disease and cancer.

Geography can play a big role in shifting these odds:

• In the United States, which is grappling with an opioid addiction crisis, there is a 1-in-96 chance of dying from a drug overdose.
• Diarrheal diseases may not be on the radar of most people living in first world countries, but in developing regions, they remain a leading cause of preventable death – particularly for children.
• In Russia, the odds are 1-in-4 that a man will not live beyond 55 years. The main culprit? Vodka.

“On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.”

–’Tyler Durden’ via Chuck Palahniuk

Advertisements

Which country has more cancer? Data for cancer frequency by country

It seems that Western meat-eating countries have the highest cancer rates in the world. India, which is mostly vegetarian does not even make the list.

Age-standardised rate for all cancers (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer) ordered by the countries with the 50 highest rates

Source link

http://www.wcrf.org

July 27, 2018

Data from 2014

The age-standardised rate for all cancers (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer) for men and women combined was 182 per 100,000 in 2012. The rate was higher for men (205 per 100,000) than women (165 per 100,000).

Both sexes

• The highest cancer rate for men and women together was found in Denmark with 338 people per 100,000 being diagnosed in 2012.
• The age-standardised rate was at least 300 per 100,000 for nine countries (Denmark, France, Australia, Belgium, Norway, US, Ireland, South Korea and the Netherlands).
• The countries in the top ten come from Europe, Oceania, Northern America and Asia.

Rank	Country	Age-standardised rate per 100,000 (world)
1	Denmark	338.1
2	France (metropolitan)	324.6
3	Australia	323.0
4	Belgium	321.1
5	Norway	318.3
6	US	318.0
7	Ireland	307.9
8	South Korea	307.8
9	The Netherlands	304.8
10	New Caledonia	297.9
11	Slovenia	296.3
12	Canada	295.7
13	New Zealand	295.0
14	Czech Republic	293.8
15	Switzerland	287.0
16	Hungary	285.4
17	Iceland	284.3
18	Germany	283.8
19	Israel	283.2
20	Luxembourg	280.3
21	Italy	278.6
22	Slovakia	276.9
23	UK	272.9
24	Sweden	270.0
25	Serbia	269.7
26	Croatia	266.9
27	Barbados	263.1
28	Armenia	257.0
29	Finland	256.8
30	French Polynesia	255.0
31	Austria	254.1
32	Lithuania	251.9
33	Uruguay	251.0
34	Spain	249.0
35	Latvia	246.8
36	Portugal	246.2
37	France, Martinique	245.0
38	Malta	242.9
39	Estonia	242.8
40	Macedonia	239.3
41	Montenegro	238.3
42	Kazakhstan	236.5
43	Bulgaria	234.8
44	Poland	229.6
45	Romania	224.2
46	Belarus	218.7
47	Cuba	218.0
48	Japan	217.1
49	Argentina	216.7
50	Puerto Rico	211.1

Source: Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray, F.
GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.1, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11 [Internet]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2014. Available from: http://globocan.iarc.fr, accessed on 16/01/2015.

Men

• The highest cancer rate was found in France with 385 men per 100,000 being diagnosed in 2012.
• The age-standardised rate was at least 350 per 100,000 in eight countries (France, Australia, Norway, Belgium, Martinique, Slovenia, Hungary and Denmark).
• The countries in the top ten come from Europe, Oceania and the Americas.

Rank	Country	Age-standardised rate per 100,000 (world)
1	France (metropolitan)	385.3
2	Australia	373.9
3	Norway	368.7
4	Belgium	364.8
5	France, Martinique	358.4
6	Slovenia	358.2
7	Hungary	356.1
8	Denmark	354.3
9	US	347.0
10	Czech Republic	345.9
11	Ireland	343.3
12	South Korea	340.0
13	Slovakia	338.2
14	Switzerland	337.9
15	New Caledonia	330.7
16	The Netherlands	327.8
17	Latvia	325.0
18	Germany	323.7
19	Estonia	321.9
20	Canada	320.8
21	New Zealand	320.1
22	Croatia	319.9
23	Israel	318.0
24	Italy	312.9
25	Spain	312.8
26	Lithuania	311.8
27	Luxembourg	309.1
28	Portugal	306.3
29	Armenia	305.6
30	Iceland	299.5
31	Serbia	299.2
32	Uruguay	297.5
33	Sweden	296.8
34	Austria	295.2
35	Finland	290.1
36	French Polynesia	287.4
37	UK	284.0
38	Kazakhstan	282.2
39	Barbados	277.2
40	Belarus	275.5
41	Trinidad and Tobago	273.5
42	Romania	271.0
43	Poland	269.2
44	Malta	267.7
45	Macedonia	265.5
46	Montenegro	262.7
47	France, Guadeloupe	260.9
48	Bulgaria	260.5
49	Japan	260.4
50	Turkey	257.8

Source: Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray, F.
GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.1, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11 [Internet]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2014. Available from: http://globocan.iarc.fr, accessed on 16/01/2015.

Women

• The highest cancer rate was found in Denmark with 329 women per 100,000 being diagnosed in 2012.
• The age-standardised rate was at least 280 per 100,000 for Denmark, US, South Korea, the Netherlands and Belgium.
• The countries in the top ten come from Europe, Oceania, Asia and Northern America.

Rank	Country	Age-standardised rate per 100,000 (world)
1	Denmark	328.8
2	US	297.4
3	South Korea	293.6
4	The Netherlands	289.6
5	Belgium	288.9
6	Ireland	278.9
7	Australia	278.6
8	Canada	277.4
9	Norway	277.1
10	France (metropolitan)	267.7
11	New Zealand	274.3
12	Iceland	274.2
13	New Caledonia	269.3
14	UK	267.3
15	Luxembourg	259.6
16	Czech Republic	258.9
17	Israel	258.7
18	Barbados	258.1
19	Italy	255.2
20	Germany	252.5
21	Slovenia	251.5
22	Sweden	248.7
23	Serbia	247.6
24	Switzerland	245.9
25	Slovakia	238.0
26	Hungary	236.5
27	Finland	234.2
28	Croatia	231.6
29	Malta	228.9
30	French Polynesia	227.3
31	Armenia	226.4
32	Lithuania	224.0
33	Bahamas	223.4
34	Austria	222.7
35	Uruguay	220.9
36	Macedonia	220.8
37	Bulgaria	220.1
38	Montenegro	219.7
39	Kazakhstan	216.7
40	Argentina	211.8
41	Zimbabwe	209.1
42	Latvia	206.5
43	Poland	205.6
44	Estonia	202.7
45	Singapore	198.7
46	Cyprus	198.2
47	Spain	198.1
48	Portugal	198.1
49	Kenya	196.6
50	Mauritius	193.9

Source: Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray, F.
GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.1, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11 [Internet]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2014. Available from: http://globocan.iarc.fr, accessed on 16/01/2015.

The 2017 Statistics Just Came out — and the ‘War on Cops’ Is Officially a Myth

Police Officer at City of Fairfax Fourth of July 2010 Parade | by martnpro

Source link

ANTIMEDIA Op-ed

Written by Carey Wedler

May 10, 2018

— Though right-wing commentators continue to decry the ‘war on cops,’ the latest data released by the country’s top law enforcement undermines that alarmist narrative.

According to the FBI’s annual Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted report, released this week, there were fewer police deaths in 2017 than in 2016. In 2016, 118 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty while in 2017, that number was 93.

More telling is the type of death the officers suffered. Last year, 46 officers were killed “feloniously” on the job while 47 died in accidents. As the FBI’s press release noted, “Both numbers have decreased from 2016, during which 66 officers were feloniously killed and 52 were accidentally killed, for a total of 118 line-of-duty deaths.”

The data is collected from “local, state, tribal, campus, and federal law enforcement agencies from around the country, as well as organizations that track officer deaths.” 

A closer look at the statistics reveals further just how nonexistent the war on cops actually is. Of the 46 officers feloniously killed on the job, five were ambushed (defined as “entrapment/premeditation” by the FBI) and 3 were victims of unprovoked attacks. Twenty-one died during “investigative or enforcement activities,” which include traffic stops, investigating suspicious persons, or tactical situations.

In other words, they were killed doing the jobs they signed up to do (consider the popular refrain that ‘cops risk their lives’ — that’s part of the job description), though police officer does not even crack the top ten most dangerous jobs in the United States.

The takeaway here is that while some officers die on the job — and that is unfortunate — the deliberate sentiment to kill officers simply because they are police officers is not on the rise.

Thirty-five officers died in car accidents — more than four times the number killed by ambushes and unprovoked attacks (eight) — and according to the FBI, “of the 29 officers killed in automobile accidents, 12 were wearing seatbelts, and 15 were not,” though two of the officers not wearing seatbelts were sitting in parked cars.  Regardless, more officers died in car accidents while not wearing seatbelts (a violation of the laws they enforce, as it happens) than died as a result of flagrant attacks on their lives isolated from situational circumstances.

Further, the total number of officers killed by accident far dwarfs the number killed in ambushes or unprovoked attacks, and the total is still greater than all law enforcement deaths recorded in the annual report.

Further still, the number of cops killed feloniously was higher in 2016, 2014, 2012, 2011, 2010, and 2009 than it was last year, suggesting the rate of cop murders is subject to fluctuation and not consistently on the rise.

In another relevant detail, zero federal law enforcement agents were killed in 2017. In 2016, one was killed.

Despite the ongoing claims that police are under assault (as they continue to assault the public) — and despite congressional action to designate killing police officers a hate crime — for yet another year, this war on cops notion is proving to be nothing more than a myth.

Death by Guns Contrasted Against Death by Vaccines

“Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?

•    480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
•    344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
•    333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
•    119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington DC (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities.  All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.”

We have to question deaths by gun and vaccines—one illegal and the other definitely legal. When the statistics are matched up, does this make sense?

Source: Death by Guns Contrasted Against Death by Vaccines

Vaccines

http://www.activistpost.com

By Catherine J. Frompovich

July 16, 2016

Please be forewarned.   I’m going to go where no one probably has gone before or probably will attempt to go again.  However, after reading statistics about gun deaths in the USA and how they are spun in order to gain gun control and negate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, I feel perhaps something’s just not quite cricket, so I’d like to know if readers think the same.

Furthermore, if one Constitutional Amendment is negated, that sets the stage that all can be lost!  Ever think of that?  Do we want that?

Recently a reader emailed me the Rense.com article “Gun Control Facts You’ll Never Hear.”  Knowing how statistics are spun in general, I began to appreciate there’s an agenda for controlling the population’s perception and also what’s been called “problem-reaction-solution”—the apparent solution being a preprogrammed end result impacting special interests’ agendas, e.g., total gun control.

According to Rense, these are how U.S. gun deaths break down:

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms.  That is not disputed.

What is never shown, though, is a breakdown of those deaths to put them in perspective, as compared to other causes of death.   [CJF emphasis]

 

•    65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws
•    15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and mostly justified
•    17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons
•    3% are accidental discharge deathsSo technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100 (0.17 x 30,000).

Still too many?  Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?

•    480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
•    344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
•    333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
•    119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington DC (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities.  All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation or about 75 per state. That is an average because some states have much higher rates than others.  [50 states + DC]

So who are responsible for the majority of gun deaths? 

Suicides claim 65 percent; law enforcement 15 percent; accidental gun discharges 3 percent.  That leaves 17 percent of gun deaths from criminal type activity or mentally ill persons with four large cities accounting for most of those criminal deaths: Chicago 9.4 percent; Baltimore 6.7 percent; Detroit 6.5 percent; and Washington, DC 2.3 percent.  Interesting?

However, there are no classifications for “false flag event” [4] and terrorism deaths, which really should become specific forensic categories, I think.

Now, let’s take a look at deaths from vaccines! 

No correlation, you say.  I beg to differ and here’s why.

One type of death—gun—is targeted to be dealt with publicly, while the other—vaccine deaths—are totally disregarded and apparently considered ‘normal collateral damage’ necessary to protect ‘herd immunity’.

What’s wrong with such mental perceptions?  Innocent lives are impacted by both types of deaths!  What happens when it’s your child?

According to Page 5 of the HRSA Vaccine Payout Schedule [1], we see that 1,197 deaths from vaccines have been reported since October 1, 1988 to July 1, 2016.  Granted, it’s not 30,000 per year but, if people are concerned about deaths perpetrated by others, shouldn’t there be more concern about vaccinees’ lives too?

And yet, seemingly, there’s no one in HHS, CDC, FDA or federal bureaucrats doing anything to expose the problems of vaccines causing deaths or even the fraudulent science that goes on in those agencies, especially at the CDC [2].  Something is tragically wrong!

Not only do vaccines cause deaths, they also cause horrendous adverse health effects that can last a lifetime [5].  Pages 8 and 9 of the HRSA Vaccine Payout Schedule [1] document the scope of vaccine health damages, which probably represents less than 5 to 10 percent of what’s reported by doctors, according to former FDA Commissioner David Kessler, MD [3].

A point of reference—and rightfully so—is that “Black Lives Matter” regarding young black boys who receive vaccines.  During interviews with African-American mothers about their vaccine-damaged children, you can begin to grasp the scope of vaccine damage, which sometimes can be a lifetime of suffering for the family, something possibly even more traumatic than experiencing a death.

Very courageous mothers, who care for vaccine-damaged children, speak out here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTFKUBZTJeY

Families have to pay the costs for vaccine adverse events healthcare in many, if not all, instances.  Furthermore, families are abandoned by the medical profession, which incorrectly mandates infants and children receive vaccinations or be dismissed from a healthcare facility’s practice if they question vaccine safety or refuse vaccinations.  Isn’t a physician’s credo, “First, do no harm”?  Can a vaccination hypodermic needle also be considered a lethal weapon?

Consequently, we have to question deaths by gun and vaccine syringe—one illegal and the other definitely legal.  How can a profession harm and/or kill [6] innocent children and still get away with it?

So why aren’t people enraged about vaccine deaths like they are about guns?

References:

[1] http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/data/statisticsreport.pdf
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5pZD79uALHs#t=383
[3] [Kessler, DA. “Introducing MEDWatch,” JAMA, June 2, 1993: 2765-2768
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
[5] http://sanevax.org/
[6] http://www.activistpost.com/2016/07/cdcs-vaers-data-confirm-multiple-vaccines-given-at-same-time-increase-morbidity-and-mortality-in-children.html

Image Credit

Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.

Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com.

Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook.

Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008)

Catherine’s NEW book: Eat To Beat Disease, Foods Medicinal Qualities ©2016 Catherine J Frompovich coming in Summer 2016

US Statistics: 110,489,000 on Welfare

The president of the US should begin learning how to play the violin?

Welfare Statistics and Demographics

Source: Welfare Statistics – Statistic Brain

http://www.statisticbrain.com

May 9, 2016

Welfare Statistics

FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditShare

Welfare Statistics
Total number of Americans on welfare	110,489,000
Total number of Americans on food stamps	41,700,000
Total number of Americans on unemployment insurance	10,200,000
Percent of the US population on welfare	35.4 %
Total government spending on welfare annually (not including food stamps or unemployment)	$131,900,000,000
Welfare Demographics
Percent of recipients who are white	38.8 %
Percent of recipients who are black	39.8 %
Percent of recipients who are Hispanic	15.7 %
Percent of recipients who are Asian	2.4 %
Percent of recipients who are Other	3.3 %
Welfare Statistics
Total amount of money you can make monthly and still receive Welfare	$1000
Total Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than an $8 per hour job	39
Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than a $12 per hour job	6
Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than the average salary of a U.S. Teacher	8

Average Time on AFCD (Aid to Families with Dependent Children)
Time on AFDC	Percent of Recipients
Less than 7 months	19%
7 to 12 months	15.2%
1 to 2 years	19.3%
2 to 5 years	26.9%
Over 5 years	19.6%
Top 10 Hourly Wage Equivalent Welfare States in U.S.
State	Hourly Wage Equivalent
Hawaii	$17.50
Alaska	$15.48
Massachusetts	$14.66
Connecticut	$14.23
Washington, D.C.	$13.99
New York	$13.13
New Jersey	$12.55
Rhode Island	$12.55
California	$11.59
Virginia	$11.11

<< PRIOR DATA SET

NEXT DATA SET >>

Welfare is the organized public or private social services for the assistance of disadvantaged groups. Aid could include general Welfare payments, health care through Medicaid, food stamps, special payments for pregnant women and young mothers, and federal and state housing benefits. The Welfare system in the United States began in the 1930s, during the Great Depression. Opponents of Welfare argue that it affects work incentives.

Related Statistics

	Food Stamp Statistics
	Unemployment Statistics
	Home Foreclosure Statistics

Play the Statistic Brain Weekly Quiz!

History of Welfare

Welfare in the United States commonly refers to the federal government welfare programs that have been put in place to assist the unemployed or underemployed. State financed public assistance programs were often inadequate to meet the challenges of large-scale unemployment and urban poverty that often afflicted states and urban areas. But it was the Great Depression of the 1930’s that led to the collapse of state financed public relief programs. Conditions were so grave it became necessary for the federal government to step in and help with the costs of public relief. A number of government agencies were created to oversee the welfare programs. Some of the agencies that deal with welfare in the United States are the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Department of Labor, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Education. Welfare can take a variety of forms, such as monetary payments, subsidies and vouchers, or housing assistance. Welfare systems differ from country to country, but welfare is commonly provided to individuals who are unemployed, those with illness or disability, the elderly, those with dependent children, and veterans.

	Statistic Verification
	Source: US Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Commerce, CATO Institute
	Research Date: January 23rd, 2016
	Questions: How many people are on welfare? Welfare demographics? How long does the average person stay on welfare?