BMA again

Rich said:

The duplicity of the BMA in its
recent report about cycle helmets is a hundred times greater, and much more
serious, as it is the people we rely on to give us unbiased advice about
health lieing to us. The BBC hasn't reported it: why not?

Frankly the more it is ignored the greater the chance of persuading them
to drop the stupid thing.

Any of the hippocratic persuasion planning to write to Dr Tiplady, the
BMJ or whatever, I think the call to action is clear:

- the report is factually inaccurate, incomplete, biased, ignores much
of the evidence (including evidence reviewed in previous BMA reports),
and accepts at face value claims which have been subject of published
criticism and rebuttal; it should be withdrawn immediately before
further damage is done to the BMA's reputation

- the issue is complex and clearly requires input from experts in the
field, for example, a major source of the problems in the previous
report is its failure to include data not available through standard
medical sources in Medline - the BMA should either resurrect its
previous paper, which was based on a wide-ranging review and
consultation, or should commission a new and comrehensive review

- in the mean time the policy change, which is based solely on a report
which is factually inaccurate, should be suspended.

The more people who ask for this - withdraw, review, and in the mean
time suspend the policy change - the better.

That's my $0.02 anyway.

--
Guy

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:13:27 +0000 someone who may be
[email hidden] (Just zis Guy, you know?) wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

- the issue is complex and clearly requires input from experts in the
field, for example, a major source of the problems in the previous
report is its failure to include data not available through standard
medical sources in Medline

Unfortunately this comes up against the arrogance of much of the
medical mob. They are trained in the repair of injuries, but have a
tendency to think that this gives them an insight into the causes of
crashes. This arrogance is a difficult thing to counter in a polite
way.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

David Hansen said:

Unfortunately this comes up against the arrogance of much of the
medical mob. They are trained in the repair of injuries, but have a
tendency to think that this gives them an insight into the causes of
crashes. This arrogance is a difficult thing to counter in a polite
way.

Ask them if panel beaters should design roundabouts?

"David Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately this comes up against the arrogance of much of the
medical mob. They are trained in the repair of injuries, but have a
tendency to think that this gives them an insight into the causes of
crashes. This arrogance is a difficult thing to counter in a polite
way.

David, the problem with this sort of comment is that it appears far less
related to the latest helmet debate and far more related to some sort of
longstanding problem you seem to have with doctors. A quick google search
(david hansen medical doctor) of your posts on uk rec cycling confirms this.

Although this particular committee are wrong on this issue, doctors clearly
do have a duty to speak out about matters of public health - that is why the
BMA, (and individual doctors) has frequently spoken out in favour of cycling
(and until now, against helmet compulsion). It is also why they speak out
about passive smoking, torture, poverty, war, aid to less developed
countries etc.

The new BMA position on this needs to be countered by rational arguement not
jibes against the whole of the profession - whatever those jibes may be
motivated by.

Paul

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:04:58 -0000 someone who may be "Paul"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

David, the problem with this sort of comment is that it appears far less
related to the latest helmet debate and far more related to some sort of
longstanding problem you seem to have with doctors. A quick google search
(david hansen medical doctor) of your posts on uk rec cycling confirms this.

Ah, another mind reader. Don't give up your day job for a career in
mind reading.

It is a fact that doctors are not trained in the causes of road
crashes. They can speak out on this subject as much as they like and
others can decide how much attention they wish to pay to these
pontifications. I call their behaviour arrogant, but if someone can
convince me otherwise I will change my tune.

Doctors were also largely responsible for seat belts, which caused a
40% increase in cyclist fatalities in two years above what would
have been the case had existing trends continued. In general these
bods appear proud of seat belts, I don't want them to be equally
proud of cycle helmets.

Of course it is not just doctors. The broader medical mob is equally
blind to the realities of preventing road crashes. Note that it is a
nurse that has conned tax payer's money out of government (as well
as conning money out of the Nationwide Building Society) to fund her
patronising cycle helmet campaign. If only pro-choice people could
get the same funding.

Obviously the medical mob is not homogeneous. I know members of this
mob who understand the issues, that is why the BMA used to have a
reasonably sensible policy. However, they are so few and far between
that generalisations are highly accurate.

As for rational argument, that had precisely no effect in the case
of seat belts. The Isles Report was suppressed because it came up
with the "wrong" answers. The road "safety" lobby simply didn't want
to hear anything that upset their cosy world and this appears to be
the case now with cycle helmets.

The truth may hurt and some may call the truth a jibe, but it
remains the truth.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

David Hansen said:

Unfortunately this comes up against the arrogance of much of the
medical mob. They are trained in the repair of injuries, but have a
tendency to think that this gives them an insight into the causes of
crashes. This arrogance is a difficult thing to counter in a polite
way.

It may help to think of them as ex-medical students instead...

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

"David Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:04:58 -0000 someone who may be "Paul"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Doctors were also largely responsible for seat belts, which caused a
40% increase in cyclist fatalities in two years above what would
have been the case had existing trends continued. In general these
bods appear proud of seat belts, I don't want them to be equally
proud of cycle helmets.

Just had a rather interesting thought: is A Lee et al responsible for more
deaths from obesity, heart attacks etc, than a certain Dr Shipman? The
answer would appear to be yes, by a factor of tens if not hundreds, with the
future figures being in thousands. So why is she honoured by the medical
profession and Dr Shipman reviled?

Quoted message said:

Of course it is not just doctors. The broader medical mob is equally
blind to the realities of preventing road crashes. Note that it is a
nurse that has conned tax payer's money out of government (as well
as conning money out of the Nationwide Building Society) to fund her
patronising cycle helmet campaign. If only pro-choice people could
get the same funding.

Another thought: have the BMA considered how much this farce will affect
their credibility? The public are already suspicious of scientists and
doctors telling us what to eat, how to live, and now they appear to be going
back on the mantra that exercise is good for you, using the flimsiest of
excuses and extremely unsound science. Is the director of science and
morals at the BMA investigating this case on the grounds that it ain't
science and it ain't moral? And it will seriously damage the reputation of
the BMA?

Rich said:

Another thought: have the BMA considered how much this farce will affect
their credibility?

Doubt it. Was at a ceilidh last night and chatted to a couple of doctor
friends about the BMA. One had left, saying they were "useless", and
the other bemoaned their inability to look at Actual Evidence when
thinking about matters medical.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:44:41 GMT someone who may be "Rich"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Another thought: have the BMA considered how much this farce will affect
their credibility? The public are already suspicious of scientists and
doctors telling us what to eat, how to live, and now they appear to be going
back on the mantra that exercise is good for you, using the flimsiest of
excuses and extremely unsound science.

Sadly cycle helmets are a minority interest. Those who are not
interested see them as "a good thing". In terms of the mass media
they will enhance their credibility.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.