This made me laugh

Just thought that some of us would enjoy this...

http://www.rense.com/general62/gns.htm

LOL :D

LOL +1:D

hmm i say we rebel against those killer doc's. who's with me? :uhoh: ;)

Nice! Too bad it cant be stickied!

Physician Control anyone???:what: :D

kjeff50cal

thats a good one

Here's another one you might enjoy: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=147158

;)

http://www.rense.com/general62/gns.htm

There is a math error. The Mrs. (mathamatician), pointed out that under "guns section C" the number should be .0000188 not .000188.

Important info for all you accuracy freaks. :D

I found that one day while searching for the DOJ website on firearms crime related statistics:evil:

Well, it is funny.

It is also not true.

As I understand it, the 120,000 deaths per year quoted as being caused by doctors are in fact all deaths termed as “iatrogenic.” This is defined as all conditions induced in a patient by medical treatment, activity, manner, or therapy, weather by a doctor, nurse, pharmacist, hospital, etc. Used especially of a complication of treatment.

So when a pharmacist fills a prescription wrong and a patient ends up taking half the required dose and dies from the original disease the medicine was supposed to cure, that counts as one of 120,000 deaths per year.

If one parent gives medicine to a kid, and the second parent comes home again and gives the medicine again because they don’t know the first dose was given, that overdose counts as one of 120,000 deaths per year.

Everyone who dies in a hospital from an infection because the cleaning staff fails to disinfect correctly, that counts as one of 120,000 deaths per year.

I’m not saying there aren’t a lot of doctor screw-ups that cause lots of deaths.

I’m not saying accidental gun deaths are not overblown.

I’m saying doctors caused deaths are not 9,000 times accidental gun deaths.

Here is a link to a Journal of the American Medical Association paper on iatrogenic deaths (among other things) (requires registration to read excerpts, requires subscription to read entire paper):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10904513&dopt=Abstract

I see some missing logic in the comparison, and question how the statistics were framed/defined, ie; they are not comparing apples to apples. If they were they would be comparing the rate of gun users who actively use their weapons weekly/daily or perhaps an even more honest comparison would be "accidental deaths / each time a gun is shot, compared to accidental deaths / each time a doctor sees a patient professionally.

As some have stated there's statistics and then there's damn statistics.

The stats shown on the web site are of the 2nd sort at best and damn lies at worst.