“This is all irrelevant because we know the CDC collected and coded information for the purposes of issuing natality reports. Regardless of whether any states’ certificates are pre-coded or whether those codes are used or not, the VSIM you posted contains problems in that they don’t jibe with natality reports that have been posted online already.”
Sooooooooo, post your proof. I’m sure it will be interesting. And irrefutable. And all that. Did you post it previously?
And by Dr. Con. - I meant Dr. Conspiracy. Duh.
Again, the federal codes in 1961 are completely irrelevant to the state codes applied at the local level. Hence - the nativity reports compiled from the info coded at the federal level STILL would be irrelevant to the local coding - which is the point that I was making.
If YOU have proof that the data compiled after the revised 1961 VSIM invalidates the summaries, by all means do an article about that - it should be very fascinating. I am certain that we should all enjoy reading it.
Only “drama queen” would be you.
That’s why you make us laugh.
I'm pretty sure I did, but we don't have to look for an old post. I said these reports are online, so here's one that specifically talks about how persons are classified as Negroes when they are foreign-born, which would not be allowed for under the coding procedures in your manual.
See the 25th and 29th pages of the PDF in this report from 1960.
This is a CDC report and it references racial classifications as cited from the 1960 VSIM with NO instruction on using the foreign birth place of a Negro father to classify race as "other nonwhite" and the second page gives a table listing classification of foreign-born and Negro together. Again, this would be not possible under the instructions in the alleged manual you posted.
Again, the federal codes in 1961 are completely irrelevant to the state codes applied at the local level. Hence - the nativity reports compiled from the info coded at the federal level STILL would be irrelevant to the local coding - which is the point that I was making.
We don't know that the Federal codes are irrelevant to state codes. In the link I just provided, the footnote about the 1960 VSIM references in parentheses "State and NOVS coding" ... NOVS stands for National Office of Vital Statistics.
If YOU have proof that the data compiled after the revised 1961 VSIM invalidates the summaries, by all means do an article about that - it should be very fascinating. I am certain that we should all enjoy reading it.
I don't need to "do an article." I just gave you a report that explains how these things worked prior to your "revised in August" VSIM.
Only “drama queen” would be you.
That’s why you make us laugh.
What "us"?? No one is else is defending you.p