iBores
in [UK Mac]
|
From: zoara on 14 Jun 2010 05:45 Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > I spent a good chunk of my life working as an immunologist, I often wonder if there's anything you *haven't* done. -z- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
From: Steve Firth on 14 Jun 2010 16:59 zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > > > I spent a good chunk of my life working as an immunologist, > > I often wonder if there's anything you *haven't* done. pAy me �335,000 and I'll send you my CV.
From: Rowland McDonnell on 15 Jun 2010 11:24 James Jolley <jrjolley(a)me.com> wrote: > %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) said: > > > D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> That's incorrect. The reason for a combined vaccination is that what > >> happens otherwise is that 90% of children will get their first one, 90% > >> of 90% will get the second, and only 90% of 90% of 90% will get the > >> third - and that's not enough to protect the population (the actual > >> figures aren't actually 90%, but you get the point). Except that the actual situation we had was that the population was pretty well protected, and became less well protected as a result of the introduction of the combined jab. This is well documented, so you've got it wrong somewhere. The Firth creature explained one of your errors. It seems to me that the basic problem is the thinking of the planners - they *assumed* that they'd get better uptake with a single jab using reasoning such as above, but found that their assumptions about the behaviour of people were wrong. Rather than modifying the policy, they attacked because of course they could not admit that they'd come up with broken policy, could they? Oh no, couldn't possibily admit that it would have been a better idea to improve education to improve uptake of vaccines, oh no, much better to bully people and get their backs up. [snip] > He won't, you forget, he's a failed philosopher hense the reason why > his wife's getting the pH.d and not him. In other words, he spends more > time talking shite than doing something useful. <cough> Descartes was a mercenary who never got a PhD and died because the queen of Sweden insisted on him getting out of bed in the morning to teach her[1]. He's also one of the most notable philosphers the world's produced - possibly because he was a good deal less silly and more practical than most of 'em. So don't go talking as if a lack of PhD proves you're a `failure' at whatever - that's just silliness. Consider: the scientists who get the deepest respects in my circles are the ones who pick up professorships and FRSs and things like that *WITHOUT* a PhD. Rowland. [1] Or so the Wikip article suggests. Sounds like a bit of a French explanation to me, and very disappointing. Someone like that *ought* to have died of syphillis or in a duel or possibly trying out his new parachute design... -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 16 Jun 2010 13:19 D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > The exact circumstances of his: > > > > > > * dishonesty > > > * failing to disclose very serious conflicts of interest > > > * conducting invasive medical investigations for which he was > > > unqualified > > > * and conducting them without approval > > > * and conducting them against the interests of the patients > > > * purchasing blood samples from children at a birthday party > > > * dishonest use of Legal Aid Board funds > > > > > > are pretty well documented, and don't need me to restate them. > > > > [snip] > > > > It's just struck me that this is the problem, the mode of argument > > you're using. > > > > All those allegations you're making against him are presented without > > evidence. > > Much of the evidence comes from his own statements. So you say - but you see, you don't actually provide any of the actual facts you say exist and I know that none of the evidence I've seen confirms your allegations. I have read up on the subject quite a lot; I've tended to take the line that any and all comments are deliberately biased for or against. This helps me to eliminate the deliberate distortions of the truth that both sides have conducted. > For example, he admits pretty much all the actions that add up to the > "very serious conflicts of interest" charges, but denies that they > represent a conflict of interest. Yes indeed - because he has a coherent case which shows that his claim to be not guilty is just as valid as the claim against him that he is guilty. You present none of the actual details - not one. Just generalized allegations. > He admits performing certain procedures on children, but denies that > doing so amounted to gross misconduct. Certainly - and why not? Doctors are supposed to perform `certain procedures' on children. It is their job to do so. So no problems there either. > And so on. And so on indeed - he was just doing his job normally from what you've mentioned. What you write is typical: lots of insinuations directed at him, but never a single solid bit of evidence of actual serious wrong-doing short of *perhaps* evidence of a conflict of interest (being the only real thing he appears to be really guilty of from my reading - but it's marginal, certainly not serious enough to take him off the medical register). <shrug> I've read a lot on the subject, you see - not just on-line, paper stuff too. I see someone who's been hounded by the authorities for daring to speak out against official policy and they've dug deep to find any and all ammunition to use against him. It's perfectly plain if you approach the evidence with an open mind, rather than assuming that the official authorities are in the right all the time. > > And you stated: "The exact circumstances of his: <BLAH> are pretty well > > documented, and don't need me to restate them." > > > > which is dishonest arguing, a bit of pre-emptive mud-flinging. The > > implication you are making is that anyone who doesn't agree with you is > > ill-informed - too ignorant to have a valid opinion on the subject. > > That kind of dishonesty is a problem - mud flung always sticks, doesn't > > it, Daniele? Right - so you're being dishonest here. > > The evidence and the judgement, in its great detail, are all available > online. Yes indeed - and since he's been found guilty by the kangaroo court that tried him, all you'll find in the official records is the official version of events. You're missing the point that the *real* reason children died from measles due to inadequate vaccination take-up was the idiotic refusal - purely on cost grounds - on the part of the government to permit parents to choose the older three part vaccines for MMR given that they didn't trust the newer single MMR jab. Of course the government had to distract attention from its evil policies in that line, and has done so very successfully, hasn't it? It even managed to have most of the dirty work done by the GMC... You blame a maverick doctor for the deaths - but you are wrong to do so. He raised concerns - ask yourself how come parents believed his concerns rather than the protestations of the official authorities that it was all perfectly safe? Maybe it's because the public doesn't trust the official authorities because the official authorities are known to be devious untrustworthy lying bastards? Oh yes, that'll be it - if the official authorities weren't a bunch of devious untrustworthy lying bastards, then this problem wouldn't have happened. Doesn't matter how you look at it, it's the fault of the government in this case. > > Oh yeah, and the alleged reason for forcing the single jab on everyone > > was to save money. Bloody hasn't worked, has it? Not with the increase > > in cases of measles and so on. > > That's incorrect. <deeply puzzled> Well, erm, no, actually it's the actual sole real reason, for real. Why claim otherwise? And where did you get the mistaken idea you present below? > The reason for a combined vaccination is that what > happens otherwise is that 90% of children will get their first one, 90% > of 90% will get the second, and only 90% of 90% of 90% will get the > third - and that's not enough to protect the population (the actual > figures aren't actually 90%, but you get the point). <puzzled> But your figures are pure fiction. They have nothing to do with reality. Where did you get the mistaken idea you have above about the figures for vaccination take-up? - looking in to this should be an interesting case study for you into how come people get things badly wrong. 'cos you have in this case. You should start out by looking up the real figures, which are nothing like what you claim they are. Single dose drugs are often touted by the makers as `providing better patient compliance' and doctors often swallow the bullshit, missing the point that the whole idea of `compliance' is a mistaken one (and also the point that if you forget one dose of a one-a-day drug it's a lot worse than forgotting one dose of a three-a-day drug). Patients don't `comply' with medical orders - they choose what to do. Sometimes they forget. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes they don't trust the doctors or the other official authorities. Trust is the most important thing - if patients trusted doctors more, they'd do what doctors wanted more. And that's the main outrage with this whole MMR vaccination scandal - because the public lost trust in the official authorities, and because the official authorities refused to meet public demand, children have died of measles. If you want to address the problem of lack of vaccination take-up, you need to address the problem of trust and of information - parents do not *trust* the vaccinations in many cases; and often do not understand the point of them, how to get them, and so on[1]. In most cases, it's got nothing to do with what number of jabs are required. You should not blame those deaths from measles on this one doctor who had concerns and did the proper thing about them - no, it's not his fault that the government refused to do what the public that it serves needed it to do for the health of the nation. You should criticise the government - it's New Labour's fault the children died of measles. Rowland. [1] The official authorities are responsible for education and health care in this country. If the population were properly educated, then they would have better health, all the vaccinations they needed, and so on. But because the government, which took responsibility for health care and education, because this arrogant entity has screwed up health care and education, the population is being badly served by their servants, the government. It's a scandal, a disgrace, it's killed children - and what do we get? A witch-hunt against one doctor who made an error of judgement... It wouldn't be this bad if the government weren't so bad. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 16 Jun 2010 13:31
D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > > > D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > That's incorrect. The reason for a combined vaccination is that what > > > happens otherwise is that 90% of children will get their first one, 90% > > > of 90% will get the second, and only 90% of 90% of 90% will get the > > > third - and that's not enough to protect the population (the actual > > > figures aren't actually 90%, but you get the point). > > > > Well, I get the point that you're wrong. The variables are not > > independent, so it's incorrect to multiply probabilities as you are > > doing. For a vaccination programme it's fairly clear that the 90% of > > parents who ensure their children are vaccinated in the first round will > > be most likely to be the same 90% who get their children vaccinated in > > the next rounds. > > No, that isn't what in fact happens. It happens the way I described: the > numbers fall off each time. So you claim - but you silently snipped The Firth's comment: "FWIW the actually uptake is in the range 82 -86% according to the WHO." Where do you get your numbers from? Firth has figure he claims come from a particular source - where does your data come from? Is it reliable? btw, if both claims are right, then the actual take-up per stage of a three shot course is nearer 95.1% (86% tot) or 93.6% (82% tot) [snip] Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking |