So, out of a sample size of 462 children, we have just under 10% with evidence of a broken bone. I had a couple of bones broken when I was under 18, and my parents never abused me. Not once. I broke my collarbone by falling out of bed, I broke a couple of fingers in Tae Kwon Do. I had a friend who broke his leg by jumping off the tractor. As a kid, didn't you ever break a bone? Jumping out of a tree, falling off a ladder, playing sports?
1 in 10 kids having a broken bone can't be that far off the statistical norm for this age group. Now, show me some evidence of cigarette scars, and you have a topic. But this truly appears to be a distortion by the media.
Except that not all of the kids in this group have achieved the age of 18. So, you have a large portion of the kids who are very young and in whom we would not expect to see evidence of broken bones. So, if you change the sample to ages 8-18, does the percentage go up significantly? Or do we see broken bones in kids under 5? Are there radial fractures or are they broken collarbones from the nonexistent jungle gym?
The bottom line is that neither side has enough public information on the broken bones to start performing statistical analysis on the data.
41 only of the few who have been examined. The report says that many have not yet been examined, and of the 41, many were “young”, and not only that, but many of the 41 had multiple fractures.
This is evil. Everythinig about this cult is evil. Anyone who cries foul or claims that there was no just cause for the State’s removal of these children is either totally, willfully, ignorant and spouting off just to hear themselves, or else is a plant of the flds sick and evil cult.
You're the one engaging in (mathematical & just plain common sense) distortion. You're "under 10%" just doesn't work.
According to an MSNBC report: “We do not have X-rays or complete medical information on many children so it is too early to draw any conclusions based on this information, but it is cause for concern and something we’ll continue to examine,” the CPS report said. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24388249/
The person said "many" and not "most"--so the inference is less than half...who knows? Maybe 30-40% they don't have -- probably almost 200 of the kids.
Then when you figure that over 70% of the ones they are holding are 9 & younger...you begin to wonder. I mean over 100 of the "kids" are actually infants or the youngest of toddlers (0-2). Since they said some of these were "very young" how many 2 yo do you see with broken arms?
200 of the kids are 5 & under. That leaves over 250 6 & up--of whom perhaps 40% or so have not undergone exams (guestimate of about 100 of that age group).
Now you're down to 150 kids who are 6 & up who've probably undergone exams -- and the bulk of them constitute the "41 kids." So just with this "guestimate" you're up to 25% of the kids.