Prev: [ MenZB vaccine NZ] Medical License Breached
Next: Martin Walker's latest article
From: juderon on 6 Aug 2008 05:36
On Aug 6, 2:50 am, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:

>
> "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?
>

Peter, you don't have a clue what you are talking about... the simple
fact is that I was not supplied with a complete set of data about
anything... no one has been... not even the Principal researcher
Professor Lennon... Which is one reaqson even senior medics have
asked, "where is the data...?"

Alas, You are way out of your depth on this one... you are making wild
and unsubstantiated claims... similar to quacks...

Regards

Ron Law
Risk & Policy Analyst
From: Peter Parry on 6 Aug 2008 13:51
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 02:36:21 -0700 (PDT), juderon(a)gmail.com wrote:

>On Aug 6, 2:50�am, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:

>> 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?

>Peter, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
>fact is that I was not supplied with a complete set of data about
>anything.

You asked me to comment on your article. That is what I am commenting
on. You are missing the point. When you said you were not supplied
with a complete set of data my interpretation of that statement is
inevitably influenced by your dissembly in your previous articles.
Because you have previously freely used statements to mislead my
presumption is that this is just another misleading statement.

You may not have been given everything you asked for but there is no
indication that what you were not given was of any significance. From
what I have seen of your previous articles if you had asked for the
name of the Chief Researchers pet cat and it had not been supplied I
have every confidence you would be making exactly the same complaint
that you were not supplied with a complete set of data.

Of course I don't know whether or not you were supplied with a
complete set of data. I don't know what you consider to be a complete
set or what O'Hallahan considers to be a complete set and it is quite
likely those two definitions alone differ significantly. I don't know
whether or not the missing data is of any significance.

I do know I am wary when you say that you were not supplied with a
complete set. I believe there is a good chance your definition of
"complete" is so off the wall as to be meaningless or that although
you were supplied with adequate relevant information because
irrelevant material wasn't supplied you are complaining as if the data
was significant. I note you don't list what wasn't supplied.

I believe this quite simply because in all your articles you have, in
several significant areas I can easily verify, misused information to
mislead the reader You have drawn unwarranted conclusions and written
to deceive rather than educate. Once you have a reputation for
mendacity it sticks.

>no one has been... not even the Principal researcher Professor Lennon.

As I pointed out to you before, Professor Lennon co-authored a number
of papers on clinical trials results _after_ she wrote

"Publication of clinical trials results in a peer reviewed
journal requires the Principle Investigator [Prof Lennon] as guarantor
to certify the validity of the work, which would not be possible while
the analysis and hence interpretation of the data can not be verified"

One can only assume she has validated the work to her own
satisfaction. I suspect she understands the data and its relevance
somewhat better than you do and is better placed to decide if she has
sufficient relevant information.

>Which is one reaqson even senior medics have asked, "where is the data...?"

Which senior medics? When? Where?

>Alas, You are way out of your depth on this one... you are making wild
>and unsubstantiated claims..

You are the one making the claims, too many of which can easily be
seen to be false. I am merely commenting upon your blindingly obvious
misuse and misrepresentation of data. Your mendacity and your
duplicity means you can't be trusted. You have made yourself
untrustworthy all by yourself.

Remember I started this exchange knowing nothing at all about you.
When John posted the original link I was minded to check simply
because he frequently posts less than authoritative articles as
gospel. I have since reached the conclusion you can't be trusted in
anything you write _simply from the content of your own articles_,
nothing else.

I do not understand how you think you can expect to employ crass
deception yet expect to remain credible. If it was merely your
co-author I could understand it, attention span of a newt and
mathematical ability of a lettuce leaf. You on the other hand appear
to be educated and have been interested in the subject of health data
and health economics for decades. You have obviously committed much
time to it. You may have valuable points to make, I don't know. I do
know you sacrifice all credibility by hopelessly overstating your
case, making wild accusations and using data to deceive rather than
enlighten.

If you are right in what you claim you don't need to do this. You can
present _all_ the facts, not bits carefully edited to deceive, and let
them talk for you. Doll's famous paper is an excellent example of
this.

If you are wrong then dissembly is your only escape - you must show
white is black so use propaganda rather than objectivity.

The problem you have is that once you have been shown to misuse data
to your own ends and once the reader can see you are mendacious in
your treatment of _some_ facts you have lost any chance of influencing
them as quite rightly they won't believe _anything_ you say. I really
don't understand why you feel you must do this or what you expect to
achieve by it.
From: juderon on 6 Aug 2008 15:40
On Aug 7, 5:51 am, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>You may not have been given everything you asked for but there is no
indication that what you were not given was of any significance. From
what I have seen of your previous articles if you had asked for the
name of the Chief Researchers pet cat and it had not been supplied I
have every confidence you would be making exactly the same complaint
that you were not supplied with a complete set of data.

Now you highlight further that you don't have a clue and are simply
guessing... Why are senior doctors asking publicly, "Where is the
evidence?"

Peter, you can only defend the faith for so long... every post your
apology for bad science sounds more and more like those who claim that
diluted water cures cancer.

Ron Law
Risk & Policy Analyst

Ron Law
Risk & Policy Analyst
From: juderon on 6 Aug 2008 15:45
On Aug 7, 5:51 am, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
> As I pointed out to you before, Professor Lennon co-authored a number
of papers on clinical trials results _after_ she wrote

>"Publication of clinical trials results in a peer reviewed
journal requires the Principle Investigator [Prof Lennon] as guarantor
to certify the validity of the work, which would not be possible while
the analysis and hence interpretation of the data can not be verified"

>One can only assume she has validated the work to her own
satisfaction. I suspect she understands the data and its relevance
somewhat better than you do and is better placed to decide if she has
sufficient relevant information.

>Which is one reaqson even senior medics have asked, "where is the data...?"

>Which senior medics? When? Where?

1. Why was Lennon dumped as principal researcher as soon as she
challenged the Ministry of Health and Chiron?
2. Why was she dropped of authorship of subsequent papers?
3. Why did she write to a medical journal throwing doubt over the so-
called efficacy study?
4. If you don't know about the question, "where is the data?" being
asked then that further highlights the fact that you are not informed
and are an apologist for the faith... it is not possible to defend the
indefensible.

You should give up.

Ron Law
Risk & Policy Analyst


Ron Law
From: juderon on 6 Aug 2008 16:06


Peter Parry wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 02:36:21 -0700 (PDT), juderon(a)gmail.com wrote:

>
> >Which is one reaqson even senior medics have asked, "where is the data....?"
>
> Which senior medics? When? Where?
>

You quoted from a letter Diana Lennon wrote to the NZMJ but failed to
see the one immediately in front of it???? Now that is a sure sign of
an apologist blinded by their act of defending the faith... I emailed
Dr Mark Bolland... his response?...

From: "Mark Bolland" <m.bolland(a)auckland.ac.nz>
Date: 10 April 2008 8:59:58 AM
To: "Juderon" <juderon(a)gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Missing data

Thanks Ron,

I had read your work. It sounds as though the meningococcal programme
is going to be stopped in June, if the rumours are true. It will be
interesting to see whether an ‘official’ version of the data will ever
be offered for close scrutiny in NZ

Best wishes

Mark


Regards
Ron Law
Risk & Policy Analyst
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: [ MenZB vaccine NZ] Medical License Breached
Next: Martin Walker's latest article