Medical License Breached
in [Immunology]
|
From: Peter Parry on 3 Aug 2008 08:29 On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 00:21:42 -0700 (PDT), juderon(a)gmail.com wrote: >On Aug 3, 5:07�am, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote: >>Risk analysis should be about accuracy and dispassionate assessment of the >>data. You must be led by the data - not massage it and whitewash it >>until it fits your preconceptions. You are defending propaganda not >>science. >Again, you have obviously not seen the data so are commenting blind... No I am not commenting blind. I am commenting upon your documents, the ones you suggested I read and which I have. I am commenting upon your blatant misrepresentation of information. As I said, whether or not your basic premise is correct is impossible to independently determine as the information is not visible, you have chosen not to reveal it. However, what is visible and verifiable has quite obviously been hideously distorted to fit your theory. It is therefore only reasonable to assume that you have adopted the same execrable standard throughout. Had the document been written solely by your fellow author, someone more at home wibbling about soya latte and lipstick, many of the crass errors could be attributed to airheaded ignorance. That isn't the case though. You put your name to the documents and you represent yourself as a risk analyst yet you are making crude misrepresentations of data which you should be ashamed of. You are destroying your own credibility _and that of your case_ by this blatant distortion. >I got involved in challenging the Menzb fraud AFTER looking at the >evidence.. You appear to have started in 2003, before you received any evidence, indeed before much you later quote was written. What first caused you to get interested? > if you had seen the drawers full of documents I have >obtained mostly under the official information act or parliamentary >questions and analysed them with an open mind you would have become >passionate as well. I'm passionate about honesty, especially in those who claim credentials which give them a greater responsibility than normal to be accurate and take care with information and how it is presented. Your paper wasn't honest. It was propaganda. > you haven't, so you are simply defending the faith. Why should I want to defend New Zealand bureaucracy? I am not defending anything, I am criticising your dreadful papers. >your comments are almost identical to 4pc and others I've >encountered.. That's hardly surprising. I should think any intelligent observer would see your disingenuous presentation and crude data manipulation quite quickly. I would expect that you would have the same comments from many people when the errors are so simple to see. > look at the evidence fort yourself... then you'll be in a position to make an informed comment... My comment is on your document. >What in the MGR series did you find inaccurate. Read the previous messages and the examples therein. The documents are replete with inaccuracy and dishonesty in the way information is presented. "Inaccurate" is too mild a word, they are nothing but propaganda. The only thing I don't understand is whether the misrepresentation is as a result of the document being written by two authors, one of whom has no scientific or analytic training or experience and the other apparently little, who have misunderstood the data and lack the ability to properly analyse it or whether the deception is deliberate. > the references are all there. Of course they are not you silly creature. Many are only in your possession and you haven't bothered to update the links to others as they have changed over time. If your case is so good why do you need to constantly resort to cheap tricks?
From: juderon on 4 Aug 2008 03:05 On Aug 4, 12:29 am, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote: > >I got involved in challenging the Menzb fraud AFTER looking at the > >evidence.. > > You appear to have started in 2003, before you received any evidence, > indeed before much you later quote was written. What first caused you > to get interested? Lots of laughs... where did you dredge 2003 up? I got interested after I'd analysed a raft of causes of death and relative risks in NZ when on the MOH expert working group related to medical injury in the health system. Meningococcal disease simply didn't register as a significant cause of death... then I looked at the evidence and found what was being said was fear mongering and simply not true... so I spoke up... simple as that... I got some parliamentary questions asked which confirmed the ministry and minister were fibbing... so I spoke up more... Your arguments are not supported by the facts... Ron Law Risk & Policy Analyst
From: Peter Parry on 4 Aug 2008 06:01 On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 00:05:28 -0700 (PDT), juderon(a)gmail.com wrote: >On Aug 4, 12:29�am, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote: > >> >I got involved in challenging the Menzb fraud AFTER looking at the >> >evidence.. >> >> You appear to have started in 2003, before you received any evidence, >> indeed before much you later quote was written. �What first caused you >> to get interested? > >Lots of laughs... where did you dredge 2003 up? I got interested after >I'd analysed a raft of causes of death and relative risks in NZ when >on the MOH expert working group related to medical injury in the >health system. The Sentinel Events project, on which you were employed while a lecturer in management and employment relations, (and at the same time apparently also Executive Director of the National Nutritional Foods Association of New Zealand which you had been working for since 1998, and proprietor of "Beyond Alternative Solutions") finished in 2001. However, 2003 is incorrect and my apologies. It seems it was 2002 when you started complaining about meningitis vaccine in "Healthy Options" magazine.
From: juderon on 4 Aug 2008 22:57 On Aug 4, 10:01 pm, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote: > The Sentinel Events project, on which you were employed while a > lecturer in management and employment relations, (and at the same time > apparently also Executive Director of the National Nutritional Foods > Association of New Zealand which you had been working for since 1998, > and proprietor of "Beyond Alternative Solutions") finished in 2001. > > However, 2003 is incorrect and my apologies. It seems it was 2002 > when you started complaining about meningitis vaccine in "Healthy > Options" magazine. I love good conspiracy theories... yours is not good... Have you read one of my earlier pieces on the MeNZB vaccine? Go to here...http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE0411/S00053.htm can you critique it for me? I finished working for the NNFA as ED in 2002... "Beyond Alternative Solutions" was a branding exercise a few years back... it was a play on words highlighting that I despised the focus on right/wrong/black/white/winner/loser... over the years I'd developed the skill of working/thinking outside the square and solving problems in new ways. I never started complaining about meningitis in 2002... I commented about spending so much money on a trivial disease in the context of the 27,000 deaths that occured each year and the fact that the MOH wouldn't any significant amount of money to reducing the major risk of iatrogenic injury. You seem to be very good at trying to find much of which is blindingly obvious... have a dig into the above link and dismantle that objectively... Ron Law Risk & Policy Analyst
From: Peter Parry on 5 Aug 2008 10:50 On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 19:57:31 -0700 (PDT), juderon(a)gmail.com wrote: >On Aug 4, 10:01�pm, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote: >> However, 2003 is incorrect and my apologies. �It seems it was 2002 >> when you started complaining about meningitis vaccine in "Healthy >> Options" magazine. > >I love good conspiracy theories... yours is not good... What conspiracy do you think is taking place? >Have you read one of my earlier pieces on the MeNZB vaccine? Go to >here...http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE0411/S00053.htm can you >critique it for me? I don't have much time so this will be fairly brief. I find the way you write articles about yourself to be quite quaint. "...obfuscate the facts surrounding the meningococcal disease debate," says independent risk and policy analyst, Ron Law." [writes Ron Law]. I'm not quite sure what you are trying to achieve (other than put the self anointed "risk and policy analyst" in as often as possible) by this odd "quote yourself" style. "Dr Jane O'Hallahan stated in the Ministry's November 9 press release that, "Mr Law has been provided with a complete set of data about the meningococcal epidemic in New Zealand but he is not an epidemiologist with expertise interpreting and analysing such data." This is not only a naive statement coming from a government official, but again is totally false. I was only supplied with a portion of what was requested and promised. " The statements are not inconsistent. Dr O'Hallahan is stating you have been supplied with a complete set of data about the meningococcal epidemic. You are not denying this but saying you were not provided with everything you asked for. Given your misrepresentations and weasel wording in other papers its likely the information you asked for but didn't get was irrelevant and quite possibly immaterial. You may not have been given the data on the dustbin collection dates in Auckland, does it matter? "Regardless, one doesn't have to be a rocket scientist, nor have a PhD in epidemiology to either analyse or interpret epidemiological data. " It does help if you understand the subject and the maths needed though. I presume you are familiar with Dolls 1954 paper on mortality and smoking? It's style (following the Introduction, methods, results, discussion structure format) and clarity are both aspects you would do well to follow if you want to convince people you are right. "Sound bites" and overblown allegations detract from any point you may have "What have the meningococcal disease researchers and the Ministry of Health got to hide?" "Why isn't the Ministry of Health being honest" belong in the gutter with the journalists who worship them. Doll made his case clearly and compellingly. He understood statistics and his extensive knowledge of epidemiology and statistics made his paper unchallengeable despite the efforts of the tobacco industry and the huge resources they had. Perhaps a PhD in the subject does help when analysing and interpreting epidemiological data after all. More to the point you seem to have no training or qualification in such analysis. O'Hallahans statement that "he is not an epidemiologist with expertise interpreting and analysing such data." appears to be correct. You countered it with :- "Ron Law's training is in medical laboratory science, including 10 years as a clinical biochemistry lecturer to mainly 4 & 5th year students. .." As a medical laboratory scientist, in no matter which of the 8 sub-specialties, you would largely perform laboratory analyses and would have had little exposure to statistical methods or epidemiology. Your employment may have been worthwhile but does not of itself give you credibility in this area. "He has two degrees, ..." One of those was in theology so can be discounted straight away. Saying you have two degrees when one is utterly irrelevant is being disingenuous (again). "including a master's degree in business management that included research methods and research projects, and a post graduate diploma." A masters in business management would have a trivial statistical and nil epidemiological content. Why try to bolster your credibility with irrelevance? "He has lectured in management at university level for a number of years," Irrelevant. "including research methods, and is a member of both the New Zealand Risk Management Society, and the Royal Society of New Zealand." The latter two are merely "pay up and join" societies. "He has been an avid reader and analyser of medical literature for 35 years, " Now this is the one sentence which approaches the truth. You are an amateur. There is nothing wrong with this and many amateurs in specialised fields are experts in their subject. However, most know that being amateurs they must, at least initially, lay out their research and methods in more detail and with greater clarity than others as they have no professional credibility other than that gained by their published works. You are not doing that but seem to be expecting your readers to attach great strength to irrelevant or trivial qualifications including the pompously self styled "Risk & Policy Analyst" non-qualification which now seems to be part of your name it gets trotted out so often. The statement "he is not an epidemiologist with expertise interpreting and analysing such data" remains perfectly correct. >I finished working for the NNFA as ED in 2002... >"Beyond Alternative Solutions" was a branding exercise Perhaps a bit more attention to the preparation and presentation of irrefutable and accurate facts and less about presentation and "branding" would serve you better. "What I am a critic of is the use of false or falsified data, by omission and/or commission, " This statement is quite staggering. Your previous works, as I and (you said) others have pointed out are replete with data falsified by omission and misrepresentation. It is your hallmark. I really don't see how you could have the gall to claim this unless you go in for self criticism like Chairman Mao on party pills. "The Ministry of Health recognised my experience and skill mix by appointing me to the expert group that advised the Director General of Health of the reporting and management of medical injury in the New Zealand health system. That appointment came immediately after their lack of risk analysis expertise had been exposed ..." Weasel words again. There is nothing to indicate that you were appointed to the Sentinel Events working party to advise on risk (as you appear to be hinting) but rather as a member of the Auckland University of Technology Management and Employment Relations group. The Working Party already seems to have had a number of better qualified and more experienced risk managers amongst its membership. "...scientifically indefensible," says Ron Law." [writes Ron Law] This odd third party again - you are writing a paper and quoting quotes from yourself inside it; most odd. "Figures of deaths due to the MeNZB(tm) strain of bacteria since 1997 provided by the Minister on Tuesday of this week are summarised in the attached [available on request] graph. "One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist, nor a trained epidemiologist, to see that there has been a major decline in the number of fatalities since the peak in 2001," says Ron Law." This is where the danger of amateur presentation to make "obvious" conclusions comes in especially when you start with the conclusion you want. If you take the data from 1990 onwards, such as the graph at Fig 2 in <http://www.moh.govt.nz/ epidemiologyofmeningococcaldisease2003.pdf> or the comparison with Norway in Fig 3 rather than cherry-pick the data then being a trained epidemiologist might prevent one from making unfounded observations because the pattern you claim isn't anything like as clear. "The facts, as provided by the Minister of Health this week, are that there have been 161 confirmed number of cases of meningococcal disease caused by epidemic strain of meningococcal bacterium so far this year. (PQ 16088 (2004) That is 53% of the total. Dr O'Hallohan states categorically that 75% of all cases are caused by the MeNZB(tm) strain of bacteria... at best that is a guess" Risk analysis is all about guesses (called estimates). To do as you are here and try to mislead by not mentioning probable cases but only those confirmed when you know full well not all were tested to be confirmed is dishonest. Neither your nor the Ministers figures are going to be accurate but I'd bet hers will be much closer to reality than yours. "The Minister claims that 4.1% of meningococcal disease patients died in 2003. This again is not the truth and is at odds with her own figures. In 2003 only 2.3% of all cases resulted in death," In fact the 4.1% was the overall fatality rate between 1991 and 2003 (5293 cases and 216 deaths). The Minister seems to have said 2003 rather than "up to 2003". Only a fool would get worked up over a simple slip like that. Moreover, as the 4.1% figure is from a larger sample and likely if anything to be more representative why do you mislead readers by concentrating on one atypical year? "The Ministry says that it welcomes open and well-informed debate and decision making about vaccination. That's good. I also agree with that statement; "However, debate and decisions must be based on facts and evidence and not on fear or flawed analysis," says Ron Law. Managing to mix the first and third person style in one sentence is quite an achievement but does nothing to help clarity, or are there two Ron Laws? One who wants well informed debate based upon facts and evidence rather than flawed analysis and another who's life work appears to be strangling facts and manipulating analysis? "The attached map [available on request] of location and overcrowding in Auckland does not require a PhD in epidemiology to interpret." Again. You obviously have a sensitive spot about your lack of knowledge of epidemiology and statistics. This doesn't lend credibility to your analysis. There are few if any noted amateur epidemiologists but history records several amateur statisticians who rose to fame such as Henry A. Wallace and Alfred Cowles of Iowa. <http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~iase/publications/9/103.pdf> is interesting, you might already be familiar with it. What I find puzzling about all your works is how you debase them with superficiality and patent dishonesty in the way you present data. There is no doubt the way this epidemic was handled is worthy of study. A number of people appear to be debating it in various NZ forums in a reasoned way although I note you are not usually amongst them. However, your hectoring style, hysterical accusations and dishonest presentation of data twisted to fit your pre-conceptions really does you no credit and is unlikely to encourage anyone with intelligence to take note of anything you say. I really can't understand why you collect all the information you claim you have, spend time (presumably) reading it and making notes and then throw away everything you have done by patently and crudely misrepresenting information and presenting it in a gutter-press style. It's nonsensical.
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: [ MenZB vaccine NZ] Medical License Breached Next: Martin Walker's latest article |