Skip to content

    Announcements

    Exciting News for WebMD Members!

    We've been busy behind the scenes building new message boards for you. You'll have new and easier ways to find messages, connect with others, and share your stories.

    And, this will all be available on your smartphone or other mobile device!

    What Do You Need to Do?

    The message board you're used to will be closing in the coming weeks. While many of your boards will be making the move to our new home, your posts will not. Want to keep a discussion going? Save posts you want to continue (this includes your member profile story), so that you can re-post them in the new message boards.

    Keep an eye here and on your email inbox, we'll be back in touch soon to give you all the information you need!


    Yours in health,
    WebMD Message Boards Management

    Decline in Death RATES Coronary Heat Disease
    avatar
    bobby75703 posted:
    Reply
     
    avatar
    bobby75703 responded:
    This is a more colorful updated graph of the decline in Death Rates from coronary heart disease. It shows the actual number of deaths as well.

    Steepest rate of decline is clearly from 1968-1975. We must have been doing something right back then.

    But statins would not appear until 1987. Decline rate pre and post statins remained unchanged.
     
    avatar
    iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:

    Here's the actual:




    This is a "what if" chart which is simply a representation of a theory. It's inaccuracy can be seen by the note of 380K actual deaths in 2010 when the "what if" graph projects approx 100K deaths. Even the one you post shows an end point inaccuracy.

    Also, this graph concerns projected data and end points and I know there is some here that have said often they don't rely on data that is projected.
     
    avatar
    iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
    I'm sorry, I'm not trying to mislead anyone. It was some one else here that said that data with end points that were projected were not reliable and could never be trusted.

    What else do you call a graph that says "this is what would happen if the rise had continued", that's a what if. Also, if it was a factual representation it would not have a disclaimer that there were 380K deaths in 2010 and not the 100K the graph depicts in the bold black line. How do you explain the difference?

    Also, I have never tried to pass off anything, I posted my graph of CVD deaths in thousands, it's right there on he right side;



    The data from the CDC as derived from a data base from the Department of Vital Statistics shows that the rate of the type of heart disease you are talking about went back up in the early 80s and did not start going down again until the mid to late 1980s which can be seen when you focus in on a smaller period of time. This data scrubs all congenital, genetic, electrical and cardiomyopathy deaths from the number and is published by the CDC. Also, do you know how the data was derived? Do you know how unreliable the data for the period before the 1960s on your graph is? There's more to a graph than the lines, look deeper. All you have to do is read the footnotes;

    "Deaths attributable to diseases of the heart (United States: 1900—2008). See Glossary (Chapter 25) for an explanation of "diseases of the heart." Note: In the years 1900—1920, the International Classification of Diseases codes were 77—80; for 1925, 87—90; for 1930—1945, 90—95; for 1950—1960, 402—404, 410—443; for 1965, 402—404, 410—443; for 1970—1975, 390—398, 404—429; for 1980—1995, 390—398, 402, 404—429; and for 2000—2008, I00—I09, I11, I13, I20—I51. Before 1933, data are for a death registration area and not the entire United States. In 1900, only 10 states were in the death registration area, and this increased over the years, so part of the increase in numbers of deaths is attributable to an increase in the number of states. Source: National Center for Health Statistics"

    To be clear what it says, the increase in the number of deaths is attributable by the number of states meaning that as the states became consistent in their reporting procedures. I know this data to be correct PERSONALLY.

    Again, not misleading anyone or discrediting any information, just taking a deeper dive into the numbers to more accurately represent the topic in the discussion. Again, a graph is a line, I can show you one for any outcome, it's whats behind the graph that matters.
     
    avatar
    iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
    Maybe this will help;

    The crude death rate, the total number of deaths per year per 1000 people.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortality_rate

    I'm not missing anything, just trying to show a little broader understanding.
     
    avatar
    iride6606 replied to iride6606's response:
    And yes I understand my graphs are in thousands, that's the number that counts, total deaths.
     
    avatar
    bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
    Good morning iride.

    Both the actual number of deaths, and the death rate, have their significance. That is why the NIH goes to trouble and expense of creating both.

    Death rates is a vital statistic that tells a more complete picture. It tells us if death from a disease is on the increase or decline within a population when graphed over time. ( Is the airplane climbing or descending?)


    Featuring Experts

    There are no Expert stories for this community right now

    Helpful Tips

    Task Force Recommends Statins for Adults Under 75 With Risk Factors
    Low- to moderate-dose statins should be used by patients at risk for CVD who are between the ages of 40 and 75 years, according to draft ... More
    Was this Helpful?
    0 of 0 found this helpful

    Helpful Resources

    Be the first to post a Resource!

    Related Drug Reviews

    • Drug Name User Reviews

    Report Problems With Your Medications to the FDA

    FDAYou are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.