Targeted junkmail "from" your GP?

[David Hansen]

On 30 Jun 2008 at 16:24, Gerard Freriks wrote:

> The standards are there.
> The legal framework is there.
> What is missing?
> 
> Awareness with the other 'medical mob', industry and politicians?

I think it is a mixture of things, but which can be boiled down to one 
thing, arrogance. There is a mindset that what one is doing is the 
right thing to do. Even if there is some "minor bending of the law", 
history will prove that one was right and people will be grateful 
eventually. One of the best examples is Mr Liar over the illegal 
invasion he was involved in. He will no-doubt go to his grave believing 
this delusion.

The medical mob are particularly prone to this sort of delusion caused 
by arrogance. We know that cycle helmets are largely ineffective (if 
they actually wanted to reduce head injuries they would be promoting 
pedestrian and car helmets first, as these would have better results), 
yet the medical mob (as a group, there are individual exceptions) 
continue to promote the daft idea of bike helmets. Their zeal extends 
to belittling anyone who disagrees with their opinion and trying to 
exclude any alternative viewpoint (even to the extent that all 
photographs of cyclists have to show them wearing a helmet in a growing 
number of organisations).

Part of the problem is that the medical mob are poor to useless at 
research. This is a broader issue than cycle helmets, as is explained 
at

<http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1134>

"The study of cycle helmets is beset by conflicts between case-control 
studies, which infer large benefits from helmet use by comparing 
injuries of cyclists who chose to wear helmets with those who did not, 
and data from entire cyclist populations when substantial increases in 
cycle helmet use (sometimes as a result of legislation) show that the 
benefits, if any, fall far short of those predicted by case-control 
studies.

"Cycle helmet research is not the only area of research where such 
conflicts exist, as evidenced by an increasing number of papers in 
epidemiological journals drawing attention to this problem. There have 
been issues with studies of the effect of hormone replacement therapy 
on heart disease, vitamin supplements, antibiotics and the MMR triple 
vaccine. Findings that had appeared robust subsequently turned out to 
be unreliable or simply wrong."






-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents 
me   
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54