Senate's Trumpcare Bill Will Kill 50 Times More Americans Than Terrorists Have

Forbes sources Vox.(Red flag right there) The Vox article writers are 2 students and a sociology professor disputing what PROFESSIONAL analysts have been saying which is health insurance doesn't affect mortality.

So let me ask you...who's opinion is more credible? Professional analysts or students.

The source is New England Journal of Medicine, Vox is only citing it.

The analysis is by

"Atul Gawande, MD, MPH, is a surgeon, writer, and public health researcher. He practices general and endocrine surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. He is Professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the Samuel O. Thier Professor of Surgery at Harvard Medical School"

When did professors of surgery at Harvard become students?
 
The source is New England Journal of Medicine, Vox is only citing it.

The analysis is by

"Atul Gawande, MD, MPH, is a surgeon, writer, and public health researcher. He practices general and endocrine surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. He is Professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the Samuel O. Thier Professor of Surgery at Harvard Medical School"

When did professors of surgery at Harvard become students?

The article on Vox is by Ann Crawford-Roberts(student), Nichole Roxas(student) and Ichiro Kawachi(professor) and is the source for your sensationalist headline.

One of the sources that Dr. Atul Gawande used in the NEJM was this

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...up+to+75+minutes+due+to+essential+maintenance.

Funny enough Dr. Atul seems to go with the shorter boston study (4-5 years) vs this study which was 16 years in the making. He also dismissed the Oregon study which went against him stating it was too short(2 years) and too randomized. It's pretty obvious he dismissed the evidence that went against him and found evidence to fit his bias.
 
The article on Vox is by Ann Crawford-Roberts(student), Nichole Roxas(student) and Ichiro Kawachi(professor) and is the source for your sensationalist headline.

There is nothing sensationalist about it, it's a matter of fact that can't be disputed. Nobody has disproved the New England Journal of Medicine study that is basis of all these research articles


One of the sources that Dr. Atul Gawande used in the NEJM was this

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2009.00973.x/abstract;jsessionid=CB46220E414876BA73C94F146959AE88.f02t03?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+'Journal+Subscribe+/+Renew'+page+will+be+down+on+Wednesday+05th+July+starting+at+08.00+EDT+/+13.00+BST+/+17.30+IST+for+up+to+75+minutes+due+to+essential+maintenance.

Funny enough Dr. Atul seems to go with the shorter boston study (4-5 years) vs this study which was 16 years in the making. He also dismissed the Oregon study which went against him stating it was too short(2 years) and too randomized. It's pretty obvious he dismissed the evidence that went against him and found evidence to fit his bias.

So you complain that he used only 4-5 years study and at the same time criticize him for not using the 2 year study..hmmm
 
There is nothing sensationalist about it, it's a matter of fact that can't be disputed. Nobody has disproved the New England Journal of Medicine study that is basis of all these research articles

He literally quoted studies that dispute it!



So you complain that he used only 4-5 years study and at the same time criticize him for not using the 2 year study..hmmm

No, I'm saying that he had a 16 year study and a 2 year study that both contradicted what he said. He chose the 5 year study as his "evidence" If the 2 year study wasn't enough time, why wasn't the 16 year study even better than the 5 year? Oh because the 16 year study went against him.
 
Back
Top