Culture

BLACK! Babies Die At White Doctors’ Hands! Wee Ps Say So

Week or two back the world was shocked to learn that white doctors were killing BLACK! babies. Not the ones that haven’t escaped their mothers’ wombs: that’s old, and even welcome, news. No. The white doctors were slaying BLACK! babies that made it past the goalie.

How these maniacal white doctors were doing the killing we never learned. But it was happening. Wee Ps said so.

CNN headline: “Black newborns more likely to die when looked after by White doctors.

Black newborn babies in the United States are more likely to survive childbirth if they are cared for by Black doctors, but three times more likely than White Babies to die when looked after by White doctors, a study has found.

The mortality rate of Black newborns in hospital shrunk by between 39% and 58% when Black physicians took charge of the birth, according to the research, which laid bare how shocking racial disparities in human health can affect even the first hours of a person’s life.

By contrast, the mortality rate for White babies was largely unaffected by the doctor’s race.

One of the authors of the work said “Black babies have been dying at disproportionate rates since as long as we’ve collected data. The time is now to change this and to ensure that Black infants are afforded the opportunity to thrive.”

Damning accusations! Let’s see the evidence.

The peer-reviewed paper is “Physician—patient racial concordance and disparities in
birthing mortality for newborns” by Greenwood and others in the very Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. You can’t get a better imprimatur than this. This paper must be real Science. (Since the paper and CNN capitalized both races, in this post we can dispense with our new racism-free orthography; i.e. BLACKS! vs. whites.)

Greenwood (standing in for all authors) got birth data, including the race of babies, from Florida. Then this happened:

We also receive access to information about the attending physician in charge of the patient’s care, e.g., name, specialty certifications, and date of licensure. Physician race is not coded by the data and is captured from publicly searchable pictures of the physician…all physicians not coded as White or Black, are dropped from the sample, isolating our examination to strictly White and Black patients and physicians.

Don’t laugh. This is Science.

The raw data says 289 dead per 100,000 live births for whites, and 784 for blacks, i.e. 2.7 times more, which is not unexpected.

Now comes the magic, which I present as a picture taken from the paper.

Before talking about that, what’s the deal with the “100”? Why not 0-1 and use a logistic model as is usual? “The estimator is an ordinary least squares (OLS) to avoid interpretation issues associated with nonlinear estimators like logit regression”.

Ah. They couldn’t figure out how to interpret linear regression. “Math is hard,” said Barbie.

What of estimates of y less than 0 or greater than 100? Dude. Never mind. And what would, say, y = 27.2 mean? A little more than a quarter towards dead? Science!

I wanted to leave the equation as a homework problem, but I know the internet is lazy. So I’ll break it down for us. We have:

  1. When x_i = 1 & x_j = 1, y = b_1 + b_2 + b_3,
  2. When x_i = 1 & x_j = 0, y = b_1,
  3. When x_i = 0 & x_j = 1, y = b_2,
  4. When x_i = 0 & x_j = 0, y = 0.

When i = j = 0, it’s white baby and white doc, a combination defined as having all babies survive. Now I ask you: if you run this model, even ignoring the possibility b_1 or b_2 can be less than 0 or greater than 100 (and similarly with constraints for b_3), which group is likely to have the most babies survive? The answer is: HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

They didn’t laugh. They instead added the observed white rate as a “constant” term. They put in 0.290, but didn’t show it in the equation. But only for this model—others in which “adjust” for a host things, it goes missing. Science!

Now the effect for black babies and white doctors, the category that generated the headlines, is when x_i = 1 & x_j = 0, or when y = b_1. Thus the estimate for b_1, ignoring the other flaws, should tell us how evil white doctors are. This estimate should feature prominently in their results.

Does it?

No, sir, it does not. It too has gone missing in their tables. The other betas are in their tables, and all have wee p-values, the sample size being large.

Anyway, are we ready for the R^2 of this model (0 means no predictive ability, 1 means perfect)? This is not a wonderful measure, but it’s not worthless either. Ready? Druuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum Roooooooooooooooooooooool. It’s 0.001.

Without snark or exaggeration, this model is just like that of a student in Statistics 102 who did not pay attention to the lecture on regression.

This paper is terrible, and worse than terrible. It is nonsensical. It is embarrassing.

As I say in our forthcoming book, you can easily lose your job for being right in the wrong direction. ANd you’ll likely keep it for being wrong in the right direction. This model is wrong, but it says what people want to hear. It’s wrong in our “leading” journal, but right in its politics. Science is now just as political as anything else.

To support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal (in any amount) click here

Categories: Culture

18 replies »

  1. I knew this one was full of crap as soon as I saw the headline, even without bothering to dig into the details. It was either flawed research or bad statistics. Turns out it was both. How else could you get to such an unreliable conclusion?

    The “smell test” is often very valuable when statements like this are made and there’s usually no need to dig into the details too much unless you really want to.

    R2 = 0.001. LOL good one, “researchers”.

  2. And what would, say, y = 27.2 mean? A little more than a quarter towards dead? Science! (Or Schrödinger’s cat)

    The NBA, MLB, et al, should totally cease operations over this

    Keep an eye on Retraction Watch? I hope?

  3. When i = j = 0, it’s white baby and white doc, a combination defined as having all babies survive.

    Not quite, you’re forgetting about epsilon, which should, of course indicate errors in the formula, but in this case would indicate (theoretic/actual) doctor errors (or a baby that couldn’t be helped).

    So our epsilon is actually in place of betas 1 through 3 for the white|white case

    What were the peer review comments on?

  4. Be thankful the headline reads ‘White Doctors’ and not ‘White Christian Doctors’.
    When have headlines ever been about science? What we need are p values for
    agenda driven headlines and their effect on public opinion.

  5. Perfect example of why “peer reviewed” is putting the alligator in charge of guarding the tourists on the beach. “Peer” means pal, friend, wife, made-up person. Yet the masses still fall for this drivel. Anyone with half a brain could see that causality is in no way shown and the paper is just to hate on whites and prove blacks are morally superior (OR they never deliver white babies????). Another knife in the back of science. We are going to have to start selling shirts that say “Science Denier and PROUD of it”. I guess worshipping the gypsy wagon sellers is all the rage now…..

  6. Science is now just as political as anything else.

    Science is empirical and experimental. “The Science!” which will undoubtedly be invoked by the Soros media in citing this study, is not only political but more fluidly dogmatic and more intolerant than any religion.

  7. You know that “The Science!” is invoked for ‘erbibles and botanicals selling for $9.95 per bottle. And, frequently you get two bottles for the price of one.

  8. On Monday in Seattle, mostly peaceful corn pops tried to use quick dry cement to barricade a police department while they set it on fire. Corn pop was a bad dude and he ran a bunch of bad guys. But none of them learned how to read a manual, and they used too much water, which allowed the officers to kick the doors out and escape the mostly peaceful situation.

    On Wednesday, the Wicked Witch of the Plains, Kristi Noem, governor of South Dakota, where the coronavirus mass graves of the non compliant infringe on Elizabeth Warren’s sacred tribal land, gave a speech at the RNC.

    On MSNBC, the Captain of the Gender Fluid All Stars cut away to set the record straight. You see, the Garden Noem had just criticized Seattle, among a few named cities, as violent. As if by magic, suddenly arriving via the Marxist invention of the telephone and digital audio, the Mayor of Starbucks town was brought forth to rebut such silly claims.

    Then the two lizard people had a laugh.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-8YgcVNLLU

  9. “The Science,” is simply a rhetorical device used to shut down open debate that would actually lead to productive, realistic solutions.

    Unfortunately, most of the electorate is not intelligent enough to understand this.

  10. Changes due to peer review are 70% fixing spelling and grammatical errors, 25% accommodating the politics of the review board, 4% the result of one of the reviewers having an obsession with a particular notation or method, and 1% fixes of actual reasoning or methodological errors.

  11. Fine, let BLACK! doctors tend BLACK! patients. And let BLACK! police police BLACKS! And extend the concept to eliminate all interaction between BLACKS! and whites. I’m all for it. Would eliminate a lot of problems. And extend the concept to other peoples/religions who feel victimized by whites. Think of the peace of mind they would all feel without whites. And just imagine the peace of mind whites would feel without hostile minorities— oh, happy day. Then the only problem we’d have would be those damn Lutherans.

    Of course, that’s not what they’re angling for. The Luciferians aim for a hostile takeover and enslavement of white society, and demoralization porn like this absurd black babies story is simply an attempt at softening up opposition to their fiendish plot. But we’ve twigged to the trick, and the Wile E. Coyote left is seeing our resolve harden, instead. Nice shooting, Kyle.

  12. Rudolph

    Thanks

    I’m “assuming” the notational / methodalogical obsession had little to do with the “math”?

  13. While the study may be bogus, the damage has been done, and there will be no consequential accountability.

    And just what is the damage? Anecdotally, black acquaintances are enraged and paranoid, while white acquaintances are enraged and spouting racism I haven’t heard since the sixties.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.