BMA

On 30 Jun 2005 06:39:14 -0700 someone who may be [email hidden]
wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

The implication is that all BMA
pronouncements are similarly valueless.

That is my view.

It is for those involved with the BMA to fight against this
nonsense.

--
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.

Transcript from BikeBiz

http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=5728

DAVID SINCLAIR, Fife division, FOR THE MOTION

"I have to declare a competing interest, I sit on the Board of
Science.

"I was thinking of dropping this, it's a water melon, on the floor, to
show how effective a helmet is but health and safety suggested that if
the melon does splatter I've got problems...

"My division was divided on this motion and I've been told by my
division to propose this motion in as neutral way as possible. [Laugh
from audience].

"Cycling helmets, we all know, are effective cheap devices that save
lives and cycling accidents.

"This is incontrovertible.

"The motion recognises we need to move along the road to compulsion
some time in the future.

"This debate is about the rights and responsibilities of our society
versus the rights and responsibilities of the cyclist in our society.

"It includes the loss of the cyclists' freedom if he is forced to wear
a helmet versus the real risk of death or permanent brain injury if he
doesn't.

"And the effect on friends and family and, indeed, doctors and
healthcare workers who come face to face with the aftermath.

"I hope in the debate we do not get many nanny-state jibes from
well-intentioned Lycra-clad freedom fighters.

"Remember, remember, the compulsory use of seatbelts was made law in
1981. As part of a caring profession you wouldn't want that law
repealed.

"I also hope we're not told by jobbing career politician [doctors] of
the surveys around the world showing accident reduction [sic] after
helmets were introduced.

"Believe me, after the time this motion went in, I've been scouring
the net and all the surveys are flawed in some way or another, mainly
by confounding factors.

"In my summing up I will tell you how I am going to vote, for the
adults for I am truly undecided on this point, but in all honesty I
cannot remain neutral in the case of children, so, sorry, Fife.

"I firmly believe we have a duty, in the public interest, to try to
ensure the safe arrival of our cycling children into normal adulthood.

"Our society accepts children are unable to give informed consent so
we legislate for them in various ways. For example, we force them to
go to school, we force them not to have sex, we force them not to have
the vote. I shall vote for the compulsion of helmets for children
because they have not the power or informed reason and because of
their soft, developing brains and squashy skull."

RICHARD KEATINGE, North West Wales division, AGAINST

"Compared to the huge health benefits of cycling this motion may seem
trivial, After all there are relatively few deaths or injuries to
cyclists. It may seem harmless, after all how much harm one centimetre
of expanded polystyrene actually do? It may seem a useful protection,
it's been described as uncontroversial.

"None of these things is true.

"Cycling is the best buy in health. Cyclists have a death rate about
40 percent lower than non cyclists. Obese cyclists are rare.

"Helmet laws - wear a lid or get off your bike - powerfully discourage
cycling, especially amoing teenagers.

"Every enforced helmet law has been followed by a steep drop, of about
30 percent, in cycling.

"Helmet laws are a grave threat to health.

"Danger? Well, it's real. The hourly rate of injury is about the same
for cycling as pedestrians and motorists. That's about one serious
injury per 3000 years of cycljng. Serious injuries are not that common
and the majority of them are due to motor vehicles.

"One centimetre of polystyrene won't do you much good if you get hit
by an HGV.

"No helmet law has shown any effect on the proportion of head injuries
to cyclists.

"Helmets laws actually don't work.

"After all, we're talking about one centimetre of polystyrene intended
to be crushed and absorb the energy of a one metre fall. This is
hardly relevant to most serious injuries.

"I've been shown broken helmets with the comment, 'This helmet has
saved a life.' In most cases the foam wasn't even crushed. Helmets are
far more fragile than even children's heads. Most broken helmets have
simply failed.

"To repeat, helmet laws don't work, for either adults or children.

"This motion calls for an intervention which fails to reduce head
injuries, which gravely harms health by reducing cycling and which
even strangles a few children on their own helmet straps.

"We have not had a thorough review of the evidence. Until we do, we as
a scientific association, I suggest, have no business passing this
motion.

"If we do pass it, we will be faced with loud and well reasoned
opposition from organisations which should be our friends.

ANDREW WEST, no constituency listed, FOR

"I've been working in emergency medicine for 20 years. I've lost count
of the amount of times I've had to repair head and forehead
lacerations and abrasions.

"I think two or three times I'd had to refer the patient to the
plastic surgeons to find some way of covering the exposed bone. These
are all patients who have come off their bikes one way or the other.

"I feel that, I take that, I accept that injury to the brain, depends
how you define head injuries but injuries to the brain not affected a
great deal by helmets but helmets do protect the shredding of the
scalp. I feel that we should support this motion as it protects the
scalp even if it doesn't protect much else.

DAVID DEAN, medical students committee, AGAINST
"I always wear a helmet but wear it correctly. Most children and
adults I see wearing helmets, wear them like this [helmet is pushed
back off Dean's head]. This motion should be addressing educating
people how to wear a helmet so that those who choose to wear a helmet
wear it correctly.

"Focus on benefits of cycling not forcing punitive measures on
cyclists which will discourage cycling and which don't address the
real issue and that's that car drivers need to be more considerate of
cyclists.

SIMON MINCOFF, JVC, FOR

"Cycling can be dangerous. Personally, I want to protect the contents
of my bonce and that's why I wear a helmet and I wear it properly,
over my forehead. I don't want to be an organ donor.

"I know I look like a wally with my cycle helmet on, we all do, but as
I say I'm cycling for my health and I want to look after myself.
Please support this motion."

PETER WARD, Gateshead, AGAINST

"Most people in this room will not be regular cyclists. The Transport
Research Laboratory's research has found that cycle helmets are much
more highly regarded amongst motorists than cyclists. And only 22
percent of cyclists wear them regularly.

"Every single vulnerable road user lobbying group, including RoSPA,
every single cycling group in Britain, and in Europe, oppose a cycle
[helmet] law. If the BMA would like to project an image of being
anti-cycling, go ahead and pass this.

"Cycle helmets are designed to absorb impacts similar to a fall from
one metre at 13mph. They are not designed to protect against collision
with vehicles.

"The biggest contribution the BMA could do with this is to support
cycling, join with cyclist's lobbying groups and help us increase
cycling.

"The BMA's own position on this should be 'if a helmet gets you
cycling, wear one. If a helmet puts you off, don't wear one.' Here's
for a pro-choice BMA."

PROFESSOR SIR CHARLES GEORGE, chairman of the committee, FOR

"Er, the first point is 2002, 594 children and 1801 adults were killed
in road related traffic accidents. The second point is that actually
there are controled-trial studies that were reviewed by the Cochrane
Colloboration and they reckoned the reduction in brain injury was by
65 to 88 percent.

"Of course, the Board of Science continues to lobby for other ways of
protecting children and adults from injury by safer cycling
environments and so on."

[EDITORIAL NOTE: Why did Sir Charles list ALL deaths from all traffic
cause and not just the small number of deaths from cycle accidents?
Here's what anti-compulsion campaigner Guy Chapman has to say about
the 88 percent stat: "I suggest the following litmus test: any
submission which advances an efficacy figure of 85% or 88% should be
discounted. These figures come from a single study and were revised
downwards in 1996. Continued use of the higher figure indicates either
insufficient research or a deliberate attempt to mislead."]

SAM EVERINGTON, Deputy Chair of Council, FOR

"Two things I want to add. We've had an enormous amount of letters
about serious injuries caused by not using helmets.

"The second thing I wanted to add, to mention, was the parallel to the
boxing ban. The thing that really put the issue of brain damage caused
by boxing on the agenda was a call for us to ban boxing. That has
enormous power in terms of generating interest in the whole issue of
these sort of injuries. So the point I would like to make, keep in
mind the strength of calling for some sort of compulsory use of
helmets on the impact that will have of bringing the whole issue of
cycling and cycling safety to the public. I would possibly suggest to
you that it wasn't until we generated this debate that this hit the
headlines."

VOTE
Cards waved in air. Looks too close to call but both motions carried
with statement from platform there had been a "reasonable majority."
At this there's murmuring from the floor. "Yes, it is carried," said
disembodied voice from platform. Earlier in the day, motions with
close votes had been put to an electronic vote, not so for helmet
compulsion.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 20:41:50 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=5728

DAVID SINCLAIR, Fife division, FOR THE MOTION

Quoted message said:

"Cycling helmets, we all know, are effective cheap devices that save
lives and cycling accidents.

"This is incontrovertible.

Anyone know which part of Fife this liar operates in?

Quoted message said:

RICHARD KEATINGE, North West Wales division, AGAINST

An excellent speech.

Quoted message said:

VOTE
Cards waved in air. Looks too close to call but both motions carried
with statement from platform there had been a "reasonable majority."
At this there's murmuring from the floor. "Yes, it is carried," said
disembodied voice from platform. Earlier in the day, motions with
close votes had been put to an electronic vote, not so for helmet
compulsion.

Sounds like something that should be taken up and publicised.

--
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.

In article <[email hidden]>, David Hansen

Quoted message said:

Earlier in the day, motions with

Quoted message said:

close votes had been put to an electronic vote, not so for helmet
compulsion.

Quoted message said:

Sounds like something that should be taken up and publicised.

When I was young the message from the dominie(sp), the minister and
the doctor carried some weight. It is a long time since I was young.

--
A T (Sandy) Morton
on the Bicycle Island
In the Global Village
http://www.millport.net

At Thu, 30 Jun 2005 22:58:22 +0100, message
<[email hidden]> was posted by David
Hansen <[email hidden]>, including some, all or none
of the following:

Quoted message said:

Sounds like something that should be taken up and publicised.

I suspect Carlton of editorialising a bit; Richard and Peter thought
it was less close than Carlton did.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:33:04 GMT, [email hidden] (Steven)

Quoted message said:

I feel better for reading that.

Apparently Kevin Mayne will be on GMTV tomorrow, head to head with a
BMA spokesdoctor.

Would someone record this and web the mp3 please?

| "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote:
|
| Transcript from BikeBiz
|
| http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=5728
|
| DAVID SINCLAIR, Fife division, FOR THE MOTION
|
| "I have to declare a competing interest, I sit on the Board of
| Science.
|
| "I was thinking of dropping this, it's a water melon, on the floor, to
| show how effective a helmet is but health and safety suggested that if
| the melon does splatter I've got problems...

Clearly he wasn't that confident even in his own irrelevant model...

| "My division was divided on this motion and I've been told by my
| division to propose this motion in as neutral way as possible. [Laugh
| from audience].
|
| "Cycling helmets, we all know, are effective cheap devices that save
| lives and cycling accidents.

How can a doctor lie so blatantly about other people's lives?

| "This is incontrovertible.

Is this guy deaf or stupid?

There's something odd here: I can see how the BMA can judge whether
helmets can have a medical benefit but I don't see why we should take
them seriously on what is a social & governmental matter.

ISTM this whole subject would make a good Panorama program - anyone have
connections with such meeja types?

--
Patrick Herring, http://www.anweald.co.uk/ph

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote:
|
| Transcript from BikeBiz
|
| http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=5728
|
| DAVID SINCLAIR, Fife division, FOR THE MOTION
|
| "I have to declare a competing interest, I sit on the Board of
| Science.
|
| "I was thinking of dropping this, it's a water melon, on the floor, to
| show how effective a helmet is but health and safety suggested that if
| the melon does splatter I've got problems...

Clearly he wasn't that confident even in his own irrelevant model...

| "My division was divided on this motion and I've been told by my
| division to propose this motion in as neutral way as possible. [Laugh
| from audience].
|
| "Cycling helmets, we all know, are effective cheap devices that save
| lives and cycling accidents.

How can a doctor lie so blatantly about other people's lives?

| "This is incontrovertible.

Is this guy deaf or stupid?

There's something odd here: I can see how the BMA can judge whether
helmets can have a medical benefit but I don't see why we should take
them seriously on what is a social & governmental matter.

ISTM this whole subject would make a good Panorama program - anyone have
connections with such meeja types?

--
Patrick Herring, http://www.anweald.co.uk/ph

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 00:35:59 +0100 someone who may be Patrick
Herring <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

| "Cycling helmets, we all know, are effective cheap devices that save
| lives and cycling accidents.

How can a doctor lie so blatantly about other people's lives?

If he knows he is lying then I assume he thinks he will get away
with it.

Quoted message said:

| "This is incontrovertible.

Is this guy deaf or stupid?

Quacks are trained to repair damage afterwards. However, some of
them seem to think this gives them useful insights into preventing
injuries. That is arrogant.

Quoted message said:

There's something odd here: I can see how the BMA can judge whether
helmets can have a medical benefit but I don't see why we should take
them seriously on what is a social & governmental matter.

It appears that the helmet lobby have infiltrated the BMA and then
made their move.

--
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.

Patrick Herring said:

How can a doctor lie so blatantly about other people's lives?

They have form as some recent court cases have shown.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 07:34:16 +0100 someone who may be Tony Raven
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Patrick Herring said:

How can a doctor lie so blatantly about other people's lives?

They have form as some recent court cases have shown.

According the editor of a publication for them, it is all the fault
of everyone else involved except the quack.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4639967.stm

The case of Mr Meadow is an example of why quacks should stick to
what they are trained to do, instead of trying to force their
personal opinions on others.

--
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.

David Hansen said:

On 30 Jun 2005 06:39:14 -0700 someone who may be [email hidden]
wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The implication is that all BMA
pronouncements are similarly valueless.

Quoted message said:

That is my view.

Quoted message said:

It is for those involved with the BMA to fight against this
nonsense.

What it clearly shows is that the BMA is not a professional body of
scientifically educated professionals who hold scientific truth in
high regard, but a trade union of politically motivated men as liable
to deals, lobbying, poltitical pressure, and corruption, as any other
trade union. In fact, given the way we train them, many doctors,
despite their apparently scientific education, have a pretty marginal
grasp of the scientific method. They're technicians rather than
scientists. That a highly respected pediatrician was able to get away
for years with claiming in public that cot death instances could be
treated as independent risks in the *same* *family* without any
authoritative medical body slapping him down for such an egregious and
elementary error in biological science in general, let alone medical
science, shows that quite clearly.

This recent helmet nonsense, *after* they had previously come to a
reasonable and scientifically justifidable conclusion, is so squalid
and disreputable I'm finding it difficult to find extreme enough
language to describe it. We now face the extraordinary possibility
that a bunch of scientifically illiterate politicians in Parliament
may actually come to more scientifically sensible view on this
question than the British Medical Association, for God's sake!

I'm disgusted. I regret that I'm not a doctor who is a member of the
BMA, because if I was, I would resign, and would write letters to
newspapers explaining why I was resigning. I would tear up my
membership! I would set light to the pieces and jump on them!

There are lots of doctors who despite the deficiencies in their
scientific education, are intelligent enough to have absorbed enough
science to know what science is and how the scientific method
works. They must be feeling so *very* ashamed!

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

m-gineering said:

That's a decision by the UCI, a political organisation in switserland,
famous for it's well thought out and balanced reasoning

Something must be seen to be done!
This is something...
So that is what we'll do!

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/

Chris Malcolm said:

In fact, given the way we train them, many doctors,
despite their apparently scientific education, have a pretty marginal
grasp of the scientific method.

Most doctors do not get trained in the methods of research. You need to
do the MD to get that training and that is what is lacking in many
doctors, hence what we see here.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 07:14:35 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden] (Chris

Malcolm) said:

What it clearly shows is that the BMA is not a professional body of
scientifically educated professionals who hold scientific truth in
high regard, but a trade union of politically motivated men as liable
to deals, lobbying, poltitical pressure, and corruption, as any other
trade union.

I think that's a bit harsh - but only a bit.

The coverage of the abortion issue highlights this even more
graphically, I think. [censored] baffles brains at every turn, even
when those involved are notionally some of the brightest and best
educated professionals in the country.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 08:46:34 +0100, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Most doctors do not get trained in the methods of research. You need to
do the MD to get that training and that is what is lacking in many
doctors, hence what we see here.

Have you considered a letter to the BMJ making this point, as one
formally trained in research?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 08:29:53 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

m-gineering said:

That's a decision by the UCI, a political organisation in switserland,
famous for it's well thought out and balanced reasoning

Something must be seen to be done!
This is something...
So that is what we'll do!

You should become a politician, Peter.

You've got their mindset off to a 'T' (even if it is in jest).

You might have to go on a course dealing with techniques of dissembling first,
though.

Just zis Guy said:

ANDREW WEST, no constituency listed, FOR

Quoted message said:

I accept that injury to the brain, depends
how you define head injuries but injuries to the brain not affected a
great deal by helmets but helmets do protect the shredding of the
scalp. I feel that we should support this motion as it protects the
scalp even if it doesn't protect much else.

What about arms, hands, knees etc? Why should the BMA care more about my
scalp, which is a pretty simple construction which is fairly easily
repaired (admittedly with significant cosmetic implications) than my
knees, which are complex and vulnerable, and critical to my continuing
mobility?

I believe Dr West is in Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital from a
quick Google, although I could be completely wrong.

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/

Mark Tranchant said:

What about arms, hands, knees etc? Why should the BMA care more about my
scalp, which is a pretty simple construction which is fairly easily
repaired (admittedly with significant cosmetic implications) than my
knees, which are complex and vulnerable, and critical to my continuing
mobility?

You are assuming that they are being rational. Actually the thought
process goes as follows:

BIKE DANGER! SCARY HEAD INJURIES! DROOLING VEGETABLES! HELMETS GOOD!

Actually I think even that might be overestimating the standard of
reasoning [FSVO] involved.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

"Mark Tranchant" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What about arms, hands, knees etc? Why should the BMA care more about my
scalp, which is a pretty simple construction which is fairly easily
repaired (admittedly with significant cosmetic implications) than my
knees, which are complex and vulnerable, and critical to my continuing
mobility?

I believe Dr West is in Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital from a
quick Google, although I could be completely wrong.

Ah yes, our fantastic flagship private finance initiative hospital in
Norwich.... The same hospital where a doc completely missed the correct
diagnosis of a broken rib when Vernon had to visit there following a fall
from his bike. The same hospital where said doc said there was nothing wrong
with Vernon but a bruise. The same one where despite continued pain for a
year after the fall, docs there refused to see Vernon for a follow-up on the
grounds "there is nothing wrong with him". The result of which was a cancer
scare... Vernon taken off to Papworth for a bone scan in case long-term pain
was due to cancer. The bone scan correctly diagnosed the broken rib
undergoing healing. I will not easily forgive the Norfolk & Norwich hospital
:-(

Lovely new building though...

Cheers, helen s