iBores
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Rowland McDonnell on 10 Jun 2010 08:07 Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > No, no, not you lot, honest! > > A new strip in Private Eye. It remains to be seen whether it is a > one-off. You received the *second* iBores cartoon today, assuming you got the previous Eye. I know I did. 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
From: Rowland McDonnell on 10 Jun 2010 09:21 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > > > Except they got the MMR business quite wrong. > > Completely wrong. Nope - that was covered in Eye letters: you claiming that they got it wrong just shows you missed the point entirely. > They sometimes do; it's not a paper that you believe > holus bolus, but it's a very useful corrective to pomposity and sleaze. > > You read it to get a sense of proportion, but never abandon your > judgement. It's got a much higher percentage of accurate stories than any other newspaper or magazine outside the tech press that I can think of. But the Eye is, I reckon, more reliable than almost all the tech press. I used to write professionally myself. The Eye is so much more careful about accuracy than any other publication I can think of - has to be, or they risk being sued for libel (which tends to nearly wipe out the Eye - they ain't rich). Thing is, if the Eye is hauled up on an error, it usually admits it cheerfully. 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
From: James Jolley on 10 Jun 2010 13:40 On 2010-06-10 18:36:39 +0100, Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> said: > In article > <1jjvj4y.37kssyrf5hjhN%real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>, > real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: > >> Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > >>> Except they got the MMR business quite wrong. >> >> Oh no they didn't. They got it quite right - someone is being >> persecuted for daring to speak out against the official consensus. >> >> Yeah, *is*. >> >> The methods used to shut him up were iniquitous. >> >> He had a case to put, and it should have had a fair hearing, and it did >> not. > > Not really. A statistically tiny sample. Another example of blasted > doctors with no training in mathematics; see: > > http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/goodcures.html > > for some more examples. > >> Wosisname had perfectly good reasons for thinking what he thought, which >> should have been able to have been discussed and sorted out in the usual >> way where there is a difference of opinion. >> >> But that's not what happened: he got attacked, persecuted. They even >> struck him off - and for what crime? For acting in accordance with what >> his professional judgement, based on the available evidence, considered >> the most medically appropriate line. > > As I understand it, he was struck off for misconduct: specifically, he > had some sort of commercial link to the study in question > >> All he did was exactly what a doctor's supposed to do - okay, so the >> evidence available turns out to be inadequate to justify his actions. > > And how. Meanwhile lots of children die of measles. > >> You should consider that the available evidence is not actually capable >> of telling whether or not the MMR vaccine - so it's wrong to persecute >> this bloke and tell everyone that MMR is safe. >> >> What they should have done is more investigation - but that's not >> happening. It's being treated as open-and-shut, job done, case closed. >> The case is *NOT* closed, because the investigations into MMR safety are >> so far inadequate to spot the problems that need to be checked up on. >> >> Yes, really - adequate studies have not yet been done. > > Funny, I keep hearing of large studies being done and all of them seeing > no issues with MMR. Was it written byy your dad then? Interesting read that by the way.
From: James Jolley on 10 Jun 2010 13:49 On 2010-06-10 18:45:14 +0100, Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> said: > In article <87cmcoF2gnU2(a)mid.individual.net>, > James Jolley <jrjolley(a)me.com> wrote: > >> Was it written byy your dad then? Interesting read that by the way. > > The link I put in, you mean? No, that's my brother. Yeah. Seems that the pair of you are well educated then, god knows what dinner was like with you two as kids. Only kidding, but interesting articles.
From: D.M. Procida on 10 Jun 2010 14:11
Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > > But that's not what happened: he got attacked, persecuted. They even > > struck him off - and for what crime? For acting in accordance with what > > his professional judgement, based on the available evidence, considered > > the most medically appropriate line. > > As I understand it, he was struck off for misconduct: specifically, he > had some sort of commercial link to the study in question He was struck off for misconduct, which included dishonesty, failing to disclose very serious conflicts of interest, conducting invasive medical investigations for which he was unqualified, without approval, and against the interests of the subjects (who were children), and purchasing blood samples from children at a birthday party. He is indirectly responsible for several cases of measles, some very serious, some fatal. He's utterly unrepentant. He is a disgrace. > > All he did was exactly what a doctor's supposed to do - okay, so the > > evidence available turns out to be inadequate to justify his actions. > > And how. Meanwhile lots of children die of measles. Some, if not lots. I don't know what the world-wide figure would be. I think two died in the UK, and it is pretty likely that their deaths are directly linked his claims. The justification for his actions *never* turned on evidence. No amount of evidence would have justified his behaviour. It turned on fundamental medical priciples of consent, honesty, care for clinical and research subjects, ethical approval and disclosure. I hesitate to invoke the Nazis, but these principles are exactly the ones that became enshrined in the Nuremberg and Helsinki accords governing medical clinical and research practice following the horrors of Nazi medical 'science'. Andrew Wakefield went a long way down a pretty dark road. I know a little bit about these subjects: <http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=book&id=4272 > also maybe (if you are interested in how people end up in Andrew Wakefield's predicament): <http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=book&id=3761 > Daniele |