Talk:List of causes of death by rate/Archive 1

Archive 1

Iatrogenic deaths

http://www.naturodoc.com/library/public_health/doctors_cause_death.htm

"Doctors Are the Third Leading Cause of Death in the U.S.

Cause 250,000 Deaths Every Year"

The above info does not seem to fit into the lists of causes of death articles - anyone up to putting this info in also somehow? Jkpjkp 15:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC) See also Iatrogenesis for more information. Jkpjkp 15:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is "natural death"? A1 and A2, mostly ~I guess 213.159.118.174 (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is right. Should be up for serious discussion before this happens. There are other over arching causes such as smoking, hunger etc. that cause more then 1 'type' of death on this list.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Iatrogenic Illness

"Citation needed?" Well, let's get a little more accurate here. First of all, the study he is referring to was from JAMA, (Starfeild, B. "Is US Health Really the Best in the World?" 2000 - Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) 284(4): 483-485) But this was a study just based on rough metrics and a lot of statistics were done to extrapolate the numbers, it's certainly true but conservative at best.

Three years later, someone decided to actually do all the math, crunch all the numbers including iatrogenic deaths incorrect medication and iatrogenic illness came out to be the leading cause of death in America, yes that is #1. (Dr. Dean G. Null M.D. N.D. "Death by Medicine" 2003 - New York, Nutrition Institute of America) +/- 300,000.

You can read more about this in former Med School Instructor "The Biology Of Belief" Bruce H. Lipton" page 77 or so, hey google books has a nice link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=iygg8o9EU98C&lpg=PP1&dq=biology%20of%20belief&pg=PA77#v=onepage&q=iatrogenic&f=false

Now, the REASON why "Cardiovascular diseases" is #1 is that if someone comes in for heart disease, and dies at the hand of a doctor's mistake THEY WILL WILL REPORT IT AS HIM OR HER DYING FROM "Cardiovascular disease." That's why you won't find iatrogenic illness in any list of leading causes of death. You're going up against an almost TWO trillion dollar industry here, you think you wikipedia boys can get this out in there? - Laughable. I applaud you, and am with you, if you can.

Darrellx (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: I't funny that over TWO YEARS have past, you've got SOLID good reputable evidence (You will not find a more reputable medical journal citation than JAMA) and yet NOTHING has changed.

Darrellx (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

morbidity?

Does a similar page exist for morbidity? --Gaborgulya 15:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Judging by a search, not yet. Perhaps you'd like to do the service of starting one. Even the basic morbidity page is tiny and could use enlargement. -R. S. Shaw 23:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Suicide

Suicide is listed twice. First under "Intentional injuries" and then as its own entry.Danny 08:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Many things are included on multiple lines. Suicide is in group G and group G.1 is only suicide; murder is in G and in G.2, etc. -R. S. Shaw 18:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There are groups and sub groups.213.159.118.174 (talk) 08:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Timeliness of data

A box was added to the top of the article to say data on the page was not up-to-date. This is due to the fact that, as far as I have been able to determine, WHO has not reported data for a year later than 2002. The latest annual report is the 2006 one, but each report has different statistics, and the latest containing the data for this article is the 2004 report, which has data for 2002. -R. S. Shaw 04:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"crushed by coke machine"

can this be verified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weirdloopyloo (talk • contribs) 09:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I heard once that it caused more deaths then terrorism in Europe at the height of the IRA & ETA campaigns.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

General structure and style

No category in the diagnosis

I see here the same as in every categories on discussion boards and Wikipedia. Why is for example cancer and breast cancer separate while the latter should be a part of the former? The problem is that it makes the list longer and more complex than necessary. It therefore restricts all uses of the list. Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Take another look: "breast cancer" is included in "cancer", that is, the deaths for the former ( 0.84% ) are included in those of the latter ( 12.49 %). This is shown by the values in the "Group" column ("C.5" and "C"), as explained in the article. This allows the reader to pick out the information desired, whether for cancer generally or breast cancer more specifically. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 07:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I see but I saw that the percentages do not coincide. There are many forms of cancer, not to mention other parts, which have unique percentage of the whole gender class. The sum of all cancer percentages should amount to the cancer percentage of the deceases. Instead they amount to the percentage of all deceases. They should be part of the whole cancer percentage, not the gender percentage. Mind you, all chat forums do the same disservice. Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Groups?

Why are "Respiratory infections" group B, but "Respiratory diseases" group D? Those seem as though they would be related? If not, they don't seem clear enough what the difference is. TheHYPO (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The divisions are those used by the WHO report from which the data is taken, so details might be found there. Generally infectious diseases are separated from non-infectious diseases. "Respiratory infections" is not group B, it is B.1 (and hence included in B "Infectious and parasitic diseases"). Group D are non-infectious respiratory diseases (not being included in group B), such as D.2, asthma. Similarly, "Diarrheal diseases" is B.3 (also under B as an infectious disease), and not included in F "Digestive diseases", etc. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 06:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Complementary causes: Smoking, malnutrition, obesity etc

How about adding a second table with complementary or original causes? For example: Smoking may cause lung cancer, which in turn is the "real" cause of death. Malnutrition may cause dysenteria or easily avodiable diseases, where each of these I have seen estimates from WHO, FAO and The Lancet which places child deaths due to malnutrition between 10 million and 15 million per day depending on how you factor the causes. DanielDemaret (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

CDC tells a different story!

I am not a coroner nor a medic, but though that table at the bottom was odd as septicemia is a big problem (MRSA and C difficile). The CDC website gives different groupings but the key points are different here. The source was taken from a website out to prove a point (we in the west die of different causes than in third world) which gets the data from a WHO poster where the groups are "europe" (former-soviet block + nordic countries) and the Americas surely that is not a good idea. 1 in 20 is TB? No Diabetics and Alzeimers? 1 in 20 deaths is "suicide"? --Squidonius (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Is HIV/AIDS Really A Cause of Death?

I ask this because HIV/AIDS, by nature, destroys the immune system, but not really anything else. HIV and AIDS do not directly cause death, however, due to the heavily impaired immune system, popportunistic infections can be the causation of death. Persons with HIV and AIDS have been known to suffer expiration resultant of the common cold. So is it really true to cite HIV / AIDS as a c.o.d.? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 15:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. There's a clear causal connection. Of course, if I say "Would they have died if they didn't have AIDS?" then you could say "Would they have died if they hadn't taken the bus that morning?", but this is game-playing and is merely evasive from what is clearly true, that AIDS is the reason for these people's deaths. 68.239.78.65 (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say that for practical purposes, AIDS related deaths should be classified as such. Classifying these deaths as "the cold" or "pneumonia" would just be more complicated for curious wikipedians who want to find these statistics quickly. Paxuniv (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Starvation?

I found this on the "starvation" article, and it seems to me the numbers don't match up.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, more than 25,000 people died of starvation every day in 2003...

That would be 9,000,000 every year, more than the top causes listed here. Are the starvation deaths just split up or am I missing something else here? Paxuniv (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I can believe the numbers don't match up; each are produced by different bureaucracies with different objectives (even though both are part of the UN).

9 million would be 15.8 % of the 57 million deaths in 2002, so group A and B are both bigger than that, whatever significance that has. There is the "Nutritional deficiencies" category with 0.8 %, but no starvation category otherwise it appears. Perhaps many get counted under other categories like infectious diseases and heart failure, and perhaps some aren't in any category or even tabulated in the totals. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Malnutrition is a classic problem of measuring the "underlying cause". Relatively few people die directly of starvation, but many more are helped along the way to dying of other things (particularly infections, such as TB) by being undernourished, especially young children. Underlying causes are generally not addressed in this list (except, arguably, HIV/AIDS). Other major underlying causes might include access to healthcare, obesity, poor sanitation, smoking, etc.

I think it is very important to have a breakdown of underlying causes that includes starvation. The UN or some NGOs must have that data. -Pgan002 (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Data Misleading

The fact that the causes are broken up into subgroups seems to make the data misleading. For example, if 29.34% of deaths are caused by Cardiovascular Diseases, how can 12.64% of deaths be caused by Ischemic Heart Disease, which is a type of cardiovascular disease? It seems like the higher level categories (Cardiovascular Diseases) should be left off, or only include the percentages that are not included by other more specific entries (ie, "Other Cardiovascular Diseases"). David Mitchell (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That would impose an arbitrary order on the list which is only governed by how fine each category is subdivided and not by the actual death rates. It would subvert the whole point of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.187.126.130 (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

{{WPMED}}

Request to add {{WPMED}} project banner to this talk page.

Thanks.

193.63.130.1 (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

-- Added -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Where's influenza

Influenza on a normal year probably causes about one thousand deathss every day. Which makes it hard to understand the panic for 200 deaths over a couple months. Where is influenza ? B.1.1 or B.1.2 ? Or somewhere else? Why aren't the most deadly diseases of group B.1.1 mentioned? Many of them cause over 0,1% of all deaths 213.159.118.174 (talk) 08:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

hunger

on the page on hunger it said that >50% of death is hunger related. how is this not represented on the page??

thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.185.14 (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Same reason other collective causes aren't included. Deaths due to medical professionals would be ranked 3rd if it was there and it isn't for many of the same reasons. Most deaths from this reason and from hunger as far as I know are actually caused by bowel movements and bacteria.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Half of child deaths are have malnutrition and hunger as an underlying cause. -Pgan002 (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Inconcsistent numbers

I sumed up percents of deaths all the major groups (A,B,C...) and all the causes that belong to no group (marked with -) and the result I got is 93,05%, not 100% (checked it three times). Something is wrong. What is more, A.1 + A.2 + A.3+ A.4 + A.5 = 12.64% + 9.66% +...= 25,18%, but A (Cardiovascular diseases) = 29.34% (sumed up percents of all deaths here too). If the remaining percents are "other cardiovascular diseases" then it should be written so.--Tired time (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Pharmaceutical Drugs are the fourth largest cause of death in the USA

While this article is not a great source, it cites some good references. Why aren't prescription drug errors in the list?

BOO!!!!!!

I'm with u on this one! I had it as #3 cause, but whatever it is it is still not included! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.161.148 (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute

Deaths per 100,000 per year means that the Deaths of men and women MUST be equal. Even if the life span of men or women are different, or if there are more men than women on Earth, "per 100,000" will still take an example of exactly 100,000, probably at random ages.

So if the numbers are different, the ratio of men to women would gradually shift and everyone would be extint. I doubt that is actually happening.

"'crushed by coke machine' can this be verified?

I heard once that it caused more deaths then terrorism in Europe at the height of the IRA & ETA campaigns"--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC) <--- "terrorism in Europe at the height of the IRA & ETA campaigns" is not on the list, so coke machine doesn't have to be lol

No. The reason there can be much larger death numbers for men than for women is that the worlds population is expanding and aging. This means that there were more people born say 55 years ago than there were, say, 60 year ago. So if women die at an age of, say, 5 years later on average than men, this means that the size of the age group that constitutes female dying average is smaller than the agegroup of male peak death. Also thereare about 5% more male than female births. Which further contributes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.78.36.86 (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Breast Cancer?

the percentage of mortality in breast cancer for males is 0.1. Kinda self explanatory but guys dont have breasts so it should be 0.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.77.98 (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Go back to school. Ofcause males have breasts. They just do not devalope the same way as females do. Lots of males get breast cancer, I would think the number should be somewhat higher.210.185.17.23 (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone please update this article to 2010

This article needs to update the statistics, because the data shown on the article right now is 6 years old, and that is just too long a time to go on with no update. Someone must update! Please and thank you. WinterSpw (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

United States section?

Why is there a United States section? It seems no more relevant than the specific statistics of any other countries, so it seems strange that only the one country would have a section on this page. Anyway, it has its own page already... Spock of Vulcan (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)