| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JOHN
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:46 pm Post subject: [ MenZB vaccine NZ] Medical License Breached |
 |
|
[back] MeNZB vaccine (meningococcal)
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/medical_license_breached.html
Medical License Breached
Monday, 28 July 2008, 11:45 am
Press Release: Ron Law
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE0807/S00141.htm
Medical License Breached
Media Release
Ron Law
Risk & Policy Analyst
"The Minister of Health needs to explain to the public why the Ministry of
Health deliberately withheld information from parents that was a condition
of the license of the experimental drug, MeNZB," says risk & policy analyst
Ron Law.
Documents received under the Official Information Act show that on August 3
2004, the Ministry of Health>s Director of the MeNZB campaign was advised,
in writing, (see attachment) that a condition of the MeNZB license required
the consent form to be amended to include the fact that the Minister>s own
expert advisory committee was so concerned about the lack of efficacy
information relating the the experimental drug, MeNZB, that a condition of
the license to use MeZNB was that parents were advised of that concern.
Can the Minister please explain to the parents of New Zealand children why
Dr O>Hallahan ignored that important condition of the license?
Can the Minister also explain upon what basis one of Chiron>s own
researchers, Dr Stewart Reid, writing in his capacity as a GP and an
"Advisor to the Meningococcal Vaccine Strategy," wrote a document (see
attachment) that was contrary to the findings of the Minister>s own
committee (which he took part in) when he reassured health professionals,
"Key Message: The MeNZB vaccine targets the epidemic strain of meningococcal
disease in New Zealand and offers a high level of protection against the
epidemic strain that is expected to last for several years."... and "In
summary - The MeNZB vaccine targets the epidemic strain of meningococcal
disease in New Zealand and offers a high level of protection against the
epidemic strain that is expected to last for several years.?"
Attached:
Medsafe_Instruction_to_MOH_re_efficacy___3_Aug_2004.pdf |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Peter Parry
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:42 pm Post subject: Re: [ MenZB vaccine NZ] Medical License Breached |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:46:07 +0100, "JOHN" <john@nospam.com> wrote:
[quote]Ron Law
Risk & Policy Analyst
[/quote]
Would this self appointed "Risk & Policy Analyst" of "Juderon
Associates" and "Beyond Alternative Solutions" be the same Ron Law, a
food supplement lobbyist, business management lecturer, and
ex-Director of the NZ "Nutritional Foods Association" who is also an
anti-vaccination campaigner and is railing against his "supplements"
being subject to quality control and proven efficacy standards?
(What is a non-nutritional food - McDonalds?) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mike
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:56 am Post subject: Re: [ MenZB vaccine NZ] Medical License Breached |
|
|
Peter Parry wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:46:07 +0100, "JOHN" <john@nospam.com> wrote:
Ron Law
Risk & Policy Analyst
Would this self appointed "Risk & Policy Analyst" of "Juderon
Associates" and "Beyond Alternative Solutions" be the same Ron Law, a
food supplement lobbyist, business management lecturer, and
ex-Director of the NZ "Nutritional Foods Association" who is also an
anti-vaccination campaigner and is railing against his "supplements"
being subject to quality control and proven efficacy standards?
(What is a non-nutritional food - McDonalds?)
[/quote]
Is it the best argument you can make - to divert attention from
the message to the messenger and attack the messenger?
He could be a child rapist but the referenced document indeed shows
that there was a concern about vaccine efficacy, and that one of the
conditions for the vaccine approval was:
"Informed consent forms be provided to person about to be vaccinated
(or parent/guardian in the case of children under the age of 15 years).
These forms clearly identify concerns about efficacy."
http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/0807/Medsafe_Instruction_to_MOH_re_efficacy___3_Aug_2004.pdf |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
JOHN
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 12:55 pm Post subject: Re: [ MenZB vaccine NZ] Medical License Breached |
|
|
"Mike" <Mike@xyz.xxx> wrote in message news:4Nujk.276$iM5.107@trnddc07...
[quote]Peter Parry wrote:
Is it the best argument you can make - to divert attention from
the message to the messenger and attack the messenger?
[/quote]
All these quackpopts have in the way of argument, Parry seems to specialise
in it |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter Parry
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 3:56 pm Post subject: Re: [ MenZB vaccine NZ] Medical License Breached |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 01:56:16 GMT, Mike <Mike@xyz.xxx> wrote:
[quote]Peter Parry wrote:
Is it the best argument you can make - to divert attention from
the message to the messenger and attack the messenger?
[/quote]
By the messenger I presume you mean Ron Law rather than John? John
has a habit of trying to imply his quotations are made by people with
rather better qualifications than they actually posses and Law is
somewhat more than an unbiased messenger as the two references made
by John simply refer to articles written by Ron Law. Laws claims
also appear to be misleading if not completely false.
[quote]He could be a child rapist but the referenced document indeed shows
that there was a concern about vaccine efficacy, and that one of the
conditions for the vaccine approval was:
[/quote]
That letter does not impose a condition and appears to have been taken
out of context. The VSC met on the 5th Apr 2004
http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/hot/papersreports/menzb/vscminutes05apr2004.htm
Those minutes record:-
"That the application for Meningococcal B (MeNZB) vaccine be
approved... approval is subject to the following [extract]:
That a patient information sheet is to be reviewed by the VSC, as the
information should indicate that this vaccine cannot guarantee
protection as it is not effective against all serotypes of
Meningococcus.
Apr 06.2004
After email discussion among the VSC members it was decided that
Medsafe should not be involved in deciding what is or is not required
for informed consent, as this is outside the VSC jurisdiction and it
is more appropriate for the ethics committees.
However, it was recommend that the VSC should flag that in their
opinion informed consent should be obtained and leave the detail for
an ethics committee who would consider the consent form for
vaccination in schools."
A consent form was subsequently produced.
Their report was considered by the Medicines Assessment Advisory
Committee Meeting on the 6th Apr 2004
http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/hot/papersreports/menzb/MAACMinutes06July2004.htm
Their minutes record :-
"The Chairman advised the Committee that the object was to decide if
there was sufficient evidence to confirm the Vaccine Sub-Committee
recommendation for approval under Section 23 of the Medicines Act
1981.
The Chairman noted that the quality and manufacturing data (Module 3,
with Module 2 summaries) relating to the Meningococcal B vaccine
(MeNZB) produced by Chiron S.r.L. have been assessed by the Medicines
and Healthcare Products Regulatory Authority (MHRA) and discussed with
the National Institute of Biological Standards and Control UK (NIBSC).
Clinical data have been discussed by the VSC on 5 April 2004 and a
recommendation made that the data supported provisional consent
subject to satisfactory manufacturing and quality data."
"The Committee discussed the current levels of disease in the Auckland
region and noted that the benefits of the vaccine appear to be clear
when viewed in this context."
"The Committee raised the question of informed consent and the
Chairman confirmed that this is not a regulatory issue."
So it appears that the claim Law is making is not true, no such
condition as he claims was attached to the licence and the licence
was not breached.
"The committee recommended section 23 approval for the Meningococcal B
Vaccine and agreed that the benefits out weighed the risks. " One
would have thought a "Risk and Policy Analyst" would understand
risk/benefit calculations.
The full timeline for approval is on the Medsafe website at
http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/hot/papersreports/menzb/menzb.asp
the Medsafe data sheet for MeNZB is at
http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/Profs/Datasheet/m/MeNZBvac.htm |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:20 pm Post subject: Re: Medical License Breached |
|
|
On Jul 29, 10:56 pm, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 01:56:16 GMT, Mike <M...@xyz.xxx> wrote:
Peter Parry wrote:
Is it the best argument you can make - to divert attention from
the message to the messenger and attack the messenger?
By the messenger I presume you mean Ron Law rather than John? John
has a habit of trying to imply his quotations are made by people with
rather better qualifications than they actually posses and Law is
somewhat more than an unbiased messenger as the two references made
by John simply refer to articles written by Ron Law. Laws claims
also appear to be misleading if not completely false.
He could be a child rapist but the referenced document indeed shows
that there was a concern about vaccine efficacy, and that one of the
conditions for the vaccine approval was:
That letter does not impose a condition and appears to have been taken
out of context. The VSC met on the 5th Apr 2004
http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/hot/papersreports/menzb/vscminutes05apr200...
Those minutes record:-
"That the application forMeningococcalB (MeNZB) vaccine be
approved... approval is subject to the following [extract]:
That a patient information sheet is to be reviewed by the VSC, as the
information should indicate that this vaccine cannot guarantee
protection as it is not effective against all serotypes of
Meningococcus.
Apr 06.2004
After email discussion among the VSC members it was decided that
Medsafe should not be involved in deciding what is or is not required
for informed consent, as this is outside the VSC jurisdiction and it
is more appropriate for the ethics committees.
However, it was recommend that the VSC should flag that in their
opinion informed consent should be obtained and leave the detail for
an ethics committee who would consider the consent form for
vaccination in schools."
A consent form was subsequently produced.
Their report was considered by the Medicines Assessment Advisory
Committee Meeting on the 6th Apr 2004http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/hot/papersreports/menzb/MAACMinutes06July2...
Their minutes record :-
"The Chairman advised the Committee that the object was to decide if
there was sufficient evidence to confirm the Vaccine Sub-Committee
recommendation for approval under Section 23 of the Medicines Act
1981.
The Chairman noted that the quality and manufacturing data (Module 3,
with Module 2 summaries) relating to theMeningococcalB vaccine
(MeNZB) produced by Chiron S.r.L. have been assessed by the Medicines
and Healthcare Products Regulatory Authority (MHRA) and discussed with
the National Institute of Biological Standards and Control UK (NIBSC).
Clinical data have been discussed by the VSC on 5 April 2004 and a
recommendation made that the data supported provisional consent
subject to satisfactory manufacturing and quality data."
"The Committee discussed the current levels of disease in the Auckland
region and noted that the benefits of the vaccine appear to be clear
when viewed in this context."
"The Committee raised the question of informed consent and the
Chairman confirmed that this is not a regulatory issue."
So it appears that the claim Law is making is not true, no such
condition as he claims was attached to the licence and the licence
was not breached.
"The committee recommended section 23 approval for theMeningococcalB
Vaccine and agreed that the benefits out weighed the risks. " One
would have thought a "Risk and Policy Analyst" would understand
risk/benefit calculations.
The full timeline for approval is on the Medsafe website athttp://www.medsafe.govt.nz/hot/papersreports/menzb/menzb.asp
the Medsafe data sheet for MeNZB is athttp://www.medsafe.govt.nz/Profs/Datasheet/m/MeNZBvac.htm
[/quote]
Well, Peter, you have obviously been in touch with the defenders of
the faith... Can you explain why, if I am so unqualified to speak out
on the MeNZB scientific fraud, why the Director General of Health
herself appointed me to an expert risk management working group to
advise the government on how to report and manage medical injury in
the health system? see
http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/238fd5fb4fd051844c256669006aed57/008deb2fa836ba68cc256ad000804456/$FILE/ClinicalExcellence-WorkingPartyReport.pdf
for the report.
If Medsafe was so transparent, why did it take an official information
act request to get the relevant documents, and even then only after
intervention by the ombudsman.
Also, did you read the attachments to the press release about which
you have attacked the messenger? If all the relevant documents are on
Medsafe>s website, then why is this one missing... and why did they
write it on August 3rd 2004????
http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/0807/Medsafe_Instruction_to_MOH_re_efficacy___3_Aug_2004.pdf
As I emailed you privately, I have been a risk and policy analyst
since 2002... I have never promoted the use of dietary supplements
other than multi vitamins/minerals, especially relating to folic acid
use for women intending to become pregnant, and have strongly
advocated risk proportionate regulations that include quality
manufacturing standards, a central register of products and
ingredients and consistant enforcement.
As I recall, I have ever consulted a so-called alternative
practitioner once... I took up an advertised offer of a free
consultation by a chiropracter who told me what I already new... I
have a curved spine. I never accepted their offer of manipulation...
go figure!
I have never been anti-vaccination... just pro good science. I have
spoken out publicly about MeNZB simply because when I was on the
medical injury working group I started to undertake an extensive
review of causes of death and meningococcal disease did not
particularly register as a significant cause of death. When I saw the
fear mongering adverts/news stories when MeNZB was launched I
revisited by analysis and found that what the Ministry of Health and
the Minister was saying was a pack of lies. I stood up publicly and
have been vilified by people who ignore the evidence ever since.
Have you read the Meningococcal Gold Rush Series?
Ron Law
Risk & Policy Analyst |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter Parry
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 3:58 am Post subject: Re: Medical License Breached |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:20:29 -0700 (PDT), juderon@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Jul 29, 10:56 pm, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 01:56:16 GMT, Mike <M...@xyz.xxx> wrote:
The full timeline for approval is on the Medsafe website athttp://www.medsafe.govt.nz/hot/papersreports/menzb/menzb.asp
the Medsafe data sheet for MeNZB is athttp://www.medsafe.govt.nz/Profs/Datasheet/m/MeNZBvac.htm
Well, Peter, you have obviously been in touch with the defenders of
the faith...
[/quote]
Ah, you are one of those religious types? That would explain your
theology degree.
[quote]Can you explain why, if I am so unqualified to speak out
on the MeNZB scientific fraud, why the Director General of Health
herself appointed me to an expert risk management working group to
advise the government on how to report and manage medical injury in
the health system?
[/quote]
It seems you were a Lecturer in Management and Employment Relations at
the time and have degrees in theology and business studies so I>m not
sure why you were included but possibly it was to speak on employment
related aspects? It does not appear to be because of your scientific
knowledge.
[quote]Also, did you read the attachments to the press release about which
you have attacked the messenger? If all the relevant documents are on
Medsafe>s website, then why is this one missing... and why did they
write it on August 3rd 2004????
[/quote]
Probably because in any bureaucracy there is plethora of paperwork
and in some cases people overstep their authority or make mistakes.
Obviously to conspiracy theorists there are no mistakes - only "cover
ups" .
[quote]As I emailed you privately, I have been a risk and policy analyst
since 2002...
[/quote]
A self appointed one. I>ve been a Cosmologist since 7PM, I suspect
our qualifications for either claim are broadly similar.
[quote]I have never promoted the use of dietary supplements
[/quote]
You must have been a remarkably ineffective Executive Director of the
Nutritional Foods Association. What incidentally is a non-nutritional
food?
[quote]other than multi vitamins/minerals, especially relating to folic acid
use for women intending to become pregnant, and have strongly
advocated risk proportionate regulations that include quality
manufacturing standards, a central register of products and
ingredients and consistant enforcement.
[/quote]
Would that be why you opposed regulation of "healthcare products"
unless the regulation was self controlled by the sellers of the
nostrums themselves?
"Administrative oversight of the Act and Regulations would be through
a Board whose members would have knowledge and understanding
Complementary Healthcare Products and the Complementary Healthcare
Product industry."
"NNFA rejects all four models of Trans-Tasman Harmonisation proposed
as they are inappropriate for Complementary Healthcare Products."
[quote]I have never been anti-vaccination...
[/quote]
"New Zealand is currently undergoing an epidemic of whooping cough. At
the same time that the medical profession>s key advocate is telling
mothers they are paranoic about not getting their kids vaccinated,
mothers who have bothered now have their children not only suffering
from whooping cough, but their children are being mis diagnosed as
having asthma, simply because the medical profession fails to accept
that vaccination is not the panacea once thought. "
"How many tens, if not hundreds of millions of citizens exposed
themselves to the risks associated with vaccines for no demonstrable
benefit? Except to the pharmaceutical companies and prescribing
doctors bottom line."
(Writing on behalf of "Beyond Alternative Solutions" whatever that may
be)
[quote]just pro good science.
[/quote]
Would that be the same good science you used as analyst for “the
Social Tonics Association.” AKA “the party pills industry” to show
that interesting "herbal" concoctions containing the artificial
psychoactive drug benzylpiperazine (which mimics the effects of
methamphetamines and ecstasy are "safe"?
[quote]Have you read the Meningococcal Gold Rush Series?
[/quote]
No, life is too short. If I wanted to learn about car engines I
wouldn>t go to a ferret trainer to find out about them.
If I want to know about vaccines I wouldn>t usually consider an ex
cinema manageress and scientifically illiterate freelance journalist
who writes for the Air New Zealand In-flight magazine and the Readers
Digest and is a self described "eclectic short-term obsessive with a
penchant for double strength, lite soy latte" and an ex director of a
complimentary medicine association and management lecturer to be
particularly credible authors.
It may be that by doing so I am missing out on some vital piece of
incisive analysis, but that is a risk I may have to take. As a self
made "risk analyst" you should understand that below certain
probabilities the chances of finding anything useful are quite small. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:41 am Post subject: Re: Medical License Breached |
|
|
On Jul 30, 10:58 am, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:20:29 -0700 (PDT), jude...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 29, 10:56 pm, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 01:56:16 GMT, Mike <M...@xyz.xxx> wrote:
The full timeline for approval is on the Medsafe website athttp://www.medsafe.govt.nz/hot/papersreports/menzb/menzb.asp
the Medsafe data sheet forMeNZBis athttp://www.medsafe.govt.nz/Profs/Datasheet/m/MeNZBvac.htm
Well, Peter, you have obviously been in touch with the defenders of
the faith...
Ah, you are one of those religious types? That would explain your
theology degree.
Can you explain why, if I am so unqualified to speak out
on theMeNZBscientific fraud, why the Director General of Health
herself appointed me to an expert risk management working group to
advise the government on how to report and manage medical injury in
the health system?
It seems you were a Lecturer in Management and Employment Relations at
the time and have degrees in theology and business studies so I>m not
sure why you were included but possibly it was to speak on employment
related aspects? It does not appear to be because of your scientific
knowledge.
Also, did you read the attachments to the press release about which
you have attacked the messenger? If all the relevant documents are on
Medsafe>s website, then why is this one missing... and why did they
write it on August 3rd 2004????
Probably because in any bureaucracy there is plethora of paperwork
and in some cases people overstep their authority or make mistakes.
Obviously to conspiracy theorists there are no mistakes - only "cover
ups" .
As I emailed you privately, I have been a risk and policy analyst
since 2002...
A self appointed one. I>ve been a Cosmologist since 7PM, I suspect
our qualifications for either claim are broadly similar.
I have never promoted the use of dietary supplements
You must have been a remarkably ineffective Executive Director of the
Nutritional Foods Association. What incidentally is a non-nutritional
food?
other than multi vitamins/minerals, especially relating to folic acid
use for women intending to become pregnant, and have strongly
advocated risk proportionate regulations that include quality
manufacturing standards, a central register of products and
ingredients and consistant enforcement.
Would that be why you opposed regulation of "healthcare products"
unless the regulation was self controlled by the sellers of the
nostrums themselves?
"Administrative oversight of the Act and Regulations would be through
a Board whose members would have knowledge and understanding
Complementary Healthcare Products and the Complementary Healthcare
Product industry."
"NNFA rejects all four models of Trans-Tasman Harmonisation proposed
as they are inappropriate for Complementary Healthcare Products."
I have never been anti-vaccination...
"New Zealand is currently undergoing an epidemic of whooping cough. At
the same time that the medical profession>s key advocate is telling
mothers they are paranoic about not getting their kids vaccinated,
mothers who have bothered now have their children not only suffering
from whooping cough, but their children are being mis diagnosed as
having asthma, simply because the medical profession fails to accept
that vaccination is not the panacea once thought. "
"How many tens, if not hundreds of millions of citizens exposed
themselves to the risks associated with vaccines for no demonstrable
benefit? Except to the pharmaceutical companies and prescribing
doctors bottom line."
(Writing on behalf of "Beyond Alternative Solutions" whatever that may
be)
just pro good science.
Would that be the same good science you used as analyst for “the
Social Tonics Association.” AKA “the party pills industry” to show
that interesting "herbal" concoctions containing the artificial
psychoactive drug benzylpiperazine (which mimics the effects of
methamphetamines and ecstasy are "safe"?
Have you read the Meningococcal Gold Rush Series?
No, life is too short. If I wanted to learn about car engines I
wouldn>t go to a ferret trainer to find out about them.
If I want to know about vaccines I wouldn>t usually consider an ex
cinema manageress and scientifically illiterate freelance journalist
who writes for the Air New Zealand In-flight magazine and the Readers
Digest and is a self described "eclectic short-term obsessive with a
penchant for double strength, lite soy latte" and an ex director of a
complimentary medicine association and management lecturer to be
particularly credible authors.
It may be that by doing so I am missing out on some vital piece of
incisive analysis, but that is a risk I may have to take. As a self
made "risk analyst" you should understand that below certain
probabilities the chances of finding anything useful are quite small.
[/quote]
Peter, you haven>t offered a single rational argument... and you are
sooooo wrong about my 10 year involvement relating to natural and
traditional health products... I have NEVER advocated self-
regulation... it never works... I>ve NEVER referred to BZP as a
herbal, have NEVER consumed them and NEVER advocated their use...
I take it as a compliment when people attack the person... and not the
argument... especially when they profess never to have read extremely
well referenced critiques about which they are critical.
ik wish you well in your life>s journey.
Regards
Ron Law
Risk & Policy Analyst, (that>s what I do... risk & policy analysis)
MBS, BMin, DMLS, MRSNZ, NMNZSRM. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter Parry
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 6:21 pm Post subject: Re: Medical License Breached |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:41:27 -0700 (PDT), juderon@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Jul 30, 10:58 am, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
If I want to know about vaccines I wouldn>t usually consider an ex
cinema manageress and scientifically illiterate freelance journalist
who writes for the Air New Zealand In-flight magazine and the Readers
Digest and is a self described "eclectic short-term obsessive with a
penchant for double strength, lite soy latte" and an ex director of a
complimentary medicine association and management lecturer to be
particularly credible authors.
It may be that by doing so I am missing out on some vital piece of
incisive analysis, but that is a risk I may have to take. As a self
made "risk analyst" you should understand that below certain
probabilities the chances of finding anything useful are quite small.
Peter, you haven>t offered a single rational argument... and you are
sooooo wrong about my 10 year involvement relating to natural and
traditional health products... I have NEVER advocated self-
regulation...
[/quote]
"Administrative oversight of the Act and Regulations would be through
a Board whose members would have knowledge and understanding
Complementary Healthcare Products and the Complementary Healthcare
Product industry."
Executive Director, Ron Law
NNFA’s Regulations, Importers’ and Manufacturers’ Task Forces
Wednesday July 13 2000
Sounds awfully like self regulation.
[quote]it never works... I>ve NEVER referred to BZP as a
herbal, have NEVER consumed them and NEVER advocated their use...
[/quote]
You claimed (Dec 2005) that MeNZB vaccine was "23 times more hazardous
than party pills [recreational psychotropic drugs]. You are also
reported as having said "The risk of party pills was “infinitesimal”
if they were used in recommended doses, and not as harmful as
alcohol".
On the one hand you are criticizing what you perceive as the lack of
trial evidence of a vaccine and yet on the other you are proclaiming
the almost absolute "safety" of home made drugs for which no reliable
safety evidence exists. This seems a bit like double standards. For
a risk analyst to say so precisely that "vaccine is 23 times more
dangerous than party pills" when there is such a huge disparity of
recorded evidence between the two does not engender confidence in
either their competence or honesty.
[quote]I take it as a compliment when people attack the person... and not the
argument...
[/quote]
One problem with your argument is that is like fog. It has been
presented only in the popular press and various anti-vaccine web
sites. It has never been published (that I can find) in a scientific
paper where it would be peer reviewed. It>s all sound bite popularism
and out of context quotations.
Unable to see the information or logical process necessary to assess
the objective strength of the case It is therefore _is_ necessary to
look at the credibility of the authors. If I read an article in the
popular press by Steven Hawking or Roger Penrose I can confidently
believe it will be well researched and accurate. The academic
background of both gives confidence to what they say.
If on the other hand I read something purporting to be an objective
study but written in a hectoring style by two people one of whom is a
freelance "lifestyle" journalist and the other apparently little
better qualified then I must start from a position of having no
confidence in it. It stands or falls purely by its content (a bit
like postings on Usenet). I>m not sure if the "Gold rush" series you
mentioned is a series of books or merely articles such as the one on
http://www.consumercide.com/blog/index.php?c=1&more=1&p=37&pb=1&tb=1
I would be surprised if it was just the latter as that is really
nothing more than a rambling diatribe "unraveled through analysis of
previously secret documents" (apparently) and neither terribly
credible or possible to analyse. It is simply an endless string of
unsupported statements and emotive interpretations with the odd duty
quote thrown in. It certainly bears the hallmark of populist shallow
journalism.
I can only assume you are referring to something a bit more structured
and more clearly argued when you talk about the "Goldrush" series as
being a critique but I haven>t found that series yet. Do you have a
link to it/them?
[quote]especially when they profess never to have read extremely
well referenced critiques about which they are critical.
[/quote]
Many documents are well referenced, and misleading. Some are well
referenced and dishonest. Polemic, unfounded claims of cover ups
"secret documents" and conspiracy theories are grist to the mill of
hack journalists with neither the time nor intellect to look beyond
the superficial. All such are also ultimately self destructive of a
cause because eventually people see the bias. On the rare occasion
there is something sound present it gets ignored because it is hidden
by the rhetoric.
It seems your long running campaign has gained little support from
scientists anywhere in the world, never mind New Zealand. If your
interpretation of the data had been correct this is surprising.
It is also surprising that you have apparently chosen not to present
your data in a scientific paper, where it would be reviewed and made
available worldwide, but relied only upon the popular press where it
can>t be challenged. None of this makes you a particularly credible
commentator. Your fellow author is irrelevant.
[quote]Ron Law
MBS
Master of Business Studies
BMin
Bachelor of Ministries
DMLS
Diploma in Medical Laboratory Science??
MRSNZ
Member of the Royal Society of New Zealand ($NZ120 per year)
MNZSRM.
Member of the New Zealand Society for Risk Management ($NZ81 per year)[/quote]
For a payment of $200 per year, I could join the latter two societies
and have the same post nominals. As a CV it isn>t particularly
impressive insofar as the subject matter of this discussion goes. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:03 pm Post subject: Re: Medical License Breached |
|
|
On Jul 31, 1:21 am, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
[quote]It may be that by doing so I am missing out on some vital piece of
incisive analysis, but that is a risk I may have to take. As a self
made "risk analyst" you should understand that below certain
probabilities the chances of finding anything useful are quite small.
[/quote]
Safety is defined by the relative absence of harm... you can>t find
safety... it is the presence/absence of harm that defines safety.
[quote]Peter, you haven>t offered a single rational argument... and you are
sooooo wrong about my 10 year involvement relating to natural and
traditional health products... I have NEVER advocated self-
regulation...
"Administrative oversight of the Act and Regulations would be through
a Board whose members would have knowledge and understanding
Complementary Healthcare Products and the Complementary Healthcare
Product industry."
Executive Director, Ron Law
NNFA’s Regulations, Importers’ and Manufacturers’ Task Forces
Wednesday July 13 2000
Sounds awfully like self regulation.
[/quote]
If that is your opinion then it proves you don>t understand the
heiarchy of legislation (determined by politicians) regulations
(determined by regulators) administrative oversite (keep and eye on
things) and self regulation (determined by self/industry.) I have
NEVER advocated industry self-regulation... in my experience it does
not work as there are always self interests within industry (either
cowboys who give the fingers to any 'rules' or big business who set
hurdles so high it cuts innovative/small players out of the markets.
[quote]
[/quote]
These are the seven points in that statement...
1. The meeting unanimously agreed that
a) NNFA is committed to industry being able to provide consumers safe
Complementary Healthcare Products of high quality and least cost.
b) NNFA is committed to consumers having freedom of choice of such
products.
c) NNFA is committed to consumers having access to truthful product
information as allowed under Fair Trading Law to enable them to make
informed health decisions.
2. NNFA endorses the concept of Trans-Tasman Harmonisation in
principle, but only so
long as it does not restrict consumers freedom of choice of product
and does not
impose extra costs on industry.
3. NNFA rejects all four models of Trans-Tasman Harmonisation proposed
as they are
inappropriate for Complementary Healthcare Products.
4. NNFA supports a separate Act and Regulations for Complementary
Healthcare
Products in order to progress Trans-Tasman Harmonisation.
5. NNFA agrees to a simplified notification system that is
commensurate with a small
business economy.
6. NNFA agrees with GMP appropriate to the manufacturing needs of
Complementary
Healthcare Products.
7. Administrative oversight of the Act and Regulations would be
through a Board whose
members would have knowledge and understanding Complementary
Healthcare
Products and the Complementary Healthcare Product industry.
4. NNFA supports a separate Act and Regulations for Complementary
Healthcare
Products in order to progress Trans-Tasman Harmonisation.
5. NNFA agrees to a simplified notification system that is
commensurate with a small
business economy.
6. NNFA agrees with GMP appropriate to the manufacturing needs of
Complementary
Healthcare Products.
These are all contraire to a position advocating self regulation which
is NOT even mentioned in the document. Your comments highlight a total
lack of understanding of what was being proposed... the New Zealand
parliament>s health select committee unanimously rejected what was
being proposed...
You also ascribe the statements to me as then exec director when the
document states quite clearly that the position was an industry (bar
one) wide statement.
[quote]it never works... I>ve NEVER referred to BZP as a
herbal, have NEVER consumed them and NEVER advocated their use...
You claimed (Dec 2005) that MeNZB vaccine was "23 times more hazardous
than party pills [recreational psychotropic drugs]. You are also
reported as having said "The risk of party pills was “infinitesimal”
if they were used in recommended doses, and not as harmful as
alcohol".
[/quote]
Given the fact that 400,000 used BZP and over 25 million doses had
been consumed, based on hospital/emergency records it is a simple fact
that BZP is safer than both MeNZB and certainly alcohol. You are the
very first person I>ve stumbled across who even questions the
statement in reference to alcohol.
[quote]On the one hand you are criticizing what you perceive as the lack of
trial evidence of a vaccine and yet on the other you are proclaiming
the almost absolute "safety" of home made drugs for which no reliable
safety evidence exists.
[/quote]
BZP sold in New Zealand was not home made... Nearly all of the pills
were at one stage made in licensed Good Manufacturing Practice
factories until the government blackmailed manufacturing plants to
stop them from making then... most pills were then imported from
overseas factories.
If you had spent as much time as myself researching the literature and
trawling through hospital-based data and analysing screeds of
information obtained under the official information act then you
wouldn>t be making such ill-informed statements.
This seems a bit like double standards. For
[quote]a risk analyst to say so precisely that "vaccine is 23 times more
dangerous than party pills" when there is such a huge disparity of
recorded evidence between the two does not engender confidence in
either their competence or honesty.
[/quote]
Again, clearly you have not seen the evidence so are not in a position
to comment objectively. Official research of doctors records revealed
that over 100,000 visits to GPs occurred as a result of an adverse
reaction following MeNZB.
[quote]
I take it as a compliment when people attack the person... and not the
argument...
One problem with your argument is that is like fog. It has been
presented only in the popular press and various anti-vaccine web
sites. It has never been published (that I can find) in a scientific
paper where it would be peer reviewed. It>s all sound bite popularism
and out of context quotations.
[/quote]
Sounds like your postings here...
[quote]
Unable to see the information or logical process necessary to assess
the objective strength of the case It is therefore _is_ necessary to
look at the credibility of the authors.
[/quote]
You have just shot yourself in the foot here as without having read
the meningococcal gold rush series you are commenting from a position
of ignorance... our main critiques were rish in references... over 50
of them in some articles.
If I read an article in the
[quote]popular press by Steven Hawking or Roger Penrose I can confidently
believe it will be well researched and accurate. The academic
background of both gives confidence to what they say.
[/quote]
Wouldn>t have a clue as to who either of them were. But what I do know
from nearly 40 years of reading/analysing medical literature, even in
peer reveiewed rags, is that they are in many cases not science or
even objective, but rather controlled and ghost written by pharma
companies.
[quote]
If on the other hand I read something purporting to be an objective
study but written in a hectoring style by two people one of whom is a
freelance "lifestyle" journalist and the other apparently little
better qualified then I must start from a position of having no
confidence in it.
[/quote]
Again, you have just discredited your whole argument... you are
mouthing off and claiming to speak with authority about something you
haven>t even read...
It stands or falls purely by its content (a bit
[quote]like postings on Usenet). I>m not sure if the "Gold rush" series you
mentioned is a series of books or merely articles such as the one onhttp://www.consumercide.com/blog/index.php?c=1&more=1&p=37&pb=1&tb=1
[/quote]
One thing I usually do before making is to go back to the original
source document... if you were genuine you would do the same before
commenting... one thing I do before accepting/rejecting what I read is
check out the references... in many cases I spend days checking the
references references... sometimes you discover that what is set in
medical concrete with a solid reference can eventually be traced back
to a newspaper report of what someone 'suggested' over a cup of coffee
or in an after dinner speack... but medicine works on the basis of
'get it in print three times and it becomes set in stone." hardly hi
science.
[quote]I would be surprised if it was just the latter as that is really
nothing more than a rambling diatribe "unraveled through analysis of
previously secret documents" (apparently) and neither terribly
credible or possible to analyse.
[/quote]
ya da yada
It is simply an endless string of
[quote]unsupported statements and emotive interpretations with the odd duty
quote thrown in. It certainly bears the hallmark of populist shallow
journalism.
[/quote]
52 references in that article (go to the source and look at the
refs... look at the graphs.) I guess popular press usually has 52
references...
[quote]
I can only assume you are referring to something a bit more structured
and more clearly argued when you talk about the "Goldrush" series as
being a critique but I haven>t found that series yet. Do you have a
link to it/them?
[/quote]
Again, you highlight the importance of making sure one>s brain is in
gear before negaging one>s mouth.... A switched on commentator would
easily find the series...
What do you make of this graph... does it highlight the 'dramatic
decline in meningococcal disease as a result of the MeNZB campaign?
http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0611/1e9afd438e1c8d7bdf21.jpeg
or this?
http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0611/a5450227b96789b7c2fa.jpeg
What about this?
http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0611/9b9951f8fb2ca3c7dc9c.jpeg
or this
http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0608/0648d61061895f4c9200.jpeg
Clearly those graphs (from data mostly obtained through parliamentary
questions and official information act requests, not volunteered by
officials) are the ramblings of a rabid person.
[quote]
especially when they profess never to have read extremely
well referenced critiques about which they are critical.
Many documents are well referenced, and misleading. Some are well
referenced and dishonest.
[/quote]
Totally agree... some are unreferenced and honest and some are
unreferenced and misleading.
Polemic, unfounded claims of cover ups
[quote]"secret documents" and conspiracy theories are grist to the mill of
hack journalists with neither the time nor intellect to look beyond
the superficial. All such are also ultimately self destructive of a
cause because eventually people see the bias. On the rare occasion
there is something sound present it gets ignored because it is hidden
by the rhetoric.
[/quote]
Agree... so compared these reports on two consecutive days...
http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagesmh/5042?Open
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0608/S00065.htm
listen to the audio so you can hear for yourself...
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE0608/S00026.htm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE0608/S00031.htm
http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagesmh/5055?Open
"At today>s press conference Dr Jane O>Hallahan stated that there was
no evidence that the meningococcal disease epidemic was waning
naturally in the Northern Region before the MeNZB vaccine was rolled
out. This statement defies belief and flies in the face of the
Ministry>s own data. [See Graphs 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5]."
Take a look at some of the facts...
http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0608/90b36a21084b6e35e475.jpeg
http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0608/0648d61061895f4c9200.jpeg
On the 8th the MOH claim no deaths... even though they were aware of
one that had just occurred and was in the process of being buried...
[quote]It seems your long running campaign has gained little support from
scientists anywhere in the world, never mind NewZealand. If your
interpretation of the data had been correct this is surprising.
[/quote]
You are wrong there... I could send you emails of academics who have
told me they can>t say anything or else they would have Ministry of
Health and pharma funding cut off... look what happened to Professor
Lennon when she raised concerns about having to sign false
declarations regarding her work... look what happened when she
complained about being the principal researcher but not able to get
access to her own data so she could verify the drug company>s
analysis... analysis published in 'peer reviewed' medical journals...
[quote]
It is also surprising that you have apparently chosen not to present
your data in a scientific paper, where it would be reviewed and made
available worldwide, but relied only upon the popular press where it
can>t be challenged. None of this makes you a particularly credible
commentator. Your fellow author is irrelevant.
[/quote]
An interesting comment from someone who acknowleges they haven>t even
read our critiques... you haven>t got the point that we were
communicating extremel;y effectively with the public... if we had
waited the year or so to get a sanitised paper published it would have
been after the event...
[quote]
Ron Law
MBS
Master of Business Studies>BMin
Bachelor of Ministries>DMLS
Diploma in Medical Laboratory Science??> MRSNZ
Member of the Royal Society of NewZealand($NZ120 per year)>MNZSRM.
Member of the NewZealandSociety for Risk Management ($NZ81 per year)
For a payment of $200 per year, I could join the latter two societies
and have the same post nominals. As a CV it isn>t particularly
impressive insofar as the subject matter of this discussion goes.
[/quote]
Excellent... so why have you researched the trivia, but not the
substance? When you have researched the substance then you too will be
an informed and considered commentator... until then you are just
someone who disagrees with some from a point of principle who doesn>t
want the facts to get in the way of philosophy.
Ron |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter Parry
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:27 am Post subject: Re: Medical License Breached |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:03:13 -0700 (PDT), juderon@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Jul 31, 1:21 am, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
It may be that by doing so I am missing out on some vital piece of
incisive analysis, but that is a risk I may have to take. As a self
made "risk analyst" you should understand that below certain
probabilities the chances of finding anything useful are quite small.
Safety is defined by the relative absence of harm... you can>t find
safety... it is the presence/absence of harm that defines safety.
[/quote]
Who mentioned safety?
[quote]You also ascribe the statements to me as then exec director when the
document states quite clearly that the position was an industry (bar
one) wide statement.
[/quote]
I think it said it was a committee (bar one) statement. A Committee
you were on as Executive Director of the Nutritional Foods something
or other (I>m still waiting to be told what a non-nutritional food
is).
[quote]You claimed (Dec 2005) that MeNZB vaccine was "23 times more hazardous
than party pills [recreational psychotropic drugs]. You are also
reported as having said "The risk of party pills was “infinitesimal”
if they were used in recommended doses, and not as harmful as
alcohol".
Given the fact that 400,000 used BZP and over 25 million doses had
been consumed, based on hospital/emergency records it is a simple fact
that BZP is safer than both MeNZB and certainly alcohol. You are the
very first person I>ve stumbled across who even questions the
statement in reference to alcohol.
[/quote]
You lead a blinkered life. To base a risk assessment of party drug on
self reported A&E records only is blithering incompetence. You may
well be right - but your assessment is far too naive to prove it.
[quote]On the one hand you are criticizing what you perceive as the lack of
trial evidence of a vaccine and yet on the other you are proclaiming
the almost absolute "safety" of home made drugs for which no reliable
safety evidence exists.
BZP sold in New Zealand was not home made... Nearly all of the pills
were at one stage made in licensed Good Manufacturing Practice
factories until the government blackmailed manufacturing plants to
stop them from making then... most pills were then imported from
overseas factories.
[/quote]
Ah, blackmail as well as secret conspiracies. Seeing as New Zealand
in total is about the size (population wise) merely of Birmingham and
Manchester (roughly that of Chicago) it must be an absolute hotbed of
secret societies.
[quote]If you had spent as much time as myself researching the literature and
trawling through hospital-based data and analysing screeds of
information obtained under the official information act then you
wouldn>t be making such ill-informed statements.
[/quote]
You should spend a bit more time analysing data with an open mind and
a bit less seeking out conspiracy theories and making graphs to fit
them.
[quote]This seems a bit like double standards. For
a risk analyst to say so precisely that "vaccine is 23 times more
dangerous than party pills" when there is such a huge disparity of
recorded evidence between the two does not engender confidence in
either their competence or honesty.
Again, clearly you have not seen the evidence so are not in a position
to comment objectively.
[/quote]
Indeed, you don>t appear to have produced any. However the most
cursory examination will show that on the one hand there is a plethora
of data collected in a structured way and on the other hand nothing
but anecdote and self reporting. Moreover, you cannot consider risk
in isolation from benefit. Something which kills 10 but saves 100 is
"safer" than something which kills 5 but saves none. A risk analyst
who collects and selects and uses only data they like and which suits
their preconceptions is a very dangerous beast.
[quote]Official research of doctors records revealed
that over 100,000 visits to GPs occurred as a result of an adverse
reaction following MeNZB.
[/quote]
An interesting but on its own completely irrelevant factoid. As a
risk analyst" you should know that.
Product A led to 10,000 doctors visits
Product B led to 200
Which is the safer?
[quote]Unable to see the information or logical process necessary to assess
the objective strength of the case It is therefore _is_ necessary to
look at the credibility of the authors.
You have just shot yourself in the foot here as without having read
the meningococcal gold rush series you are commenting from a position
of ignorance...
[/quote]
I would read some of them if you would tell me where they are, all
I>ve found so far is the Readers Digest version I referenced earlier -
surely that isn>t it?
[quote]If I read an article in the
popular press by Steven Hawking or Roger Penrose I can confidently
believe it will be well researched and accurate. The academic
background of both gives confidence to what they say.
Wouldn>t have a clue as to who either of them were.
[/quote]
Now you really are admitting to general illiteracy, not merely your
scientific illiteracy.
[quote]But what I do know
from nearly 40 years of reading/analysing medical literature,
[/quote]
As a theologian and business studies student/lecturer?
[quote]If on the other hand I read something purporting to be an objective
study but written in a hectoring style by two people one of whom is a
freelance "lifestyle" journalist and the other apparently little
better qualified then I must start from a position of having no
confidence in it.
Again, you have just discredited your whole argument... you are
mouthing off and claiming to speak with authority about something you
haven>t even read...
[/quote]
I>ve asked you to tell me where they are and if you do I>ll have a
look. As I>ve said I>ve only found the "Sun" readers version
(www.thesun.co.uk/ if you are not familiar)
[quote]One thing I usually do before making is to go back to the original
source document... if you were genuine you would do the same before
commenting...
[/quote]
I would if you would tell me where it is. You appear to be talking
about something I haven>t seen so I can>t comment on it.
[quote]Again, you highlight the importance of making sure one>s brain is in
gear before negaging one>s mouth.... A switched on commentator would
easily find the series...
What do you make of this graph.
[/quote]
Nothing, I>ve seen too many pretty pictures produced by too many
fraudsters. I>d want to see the source data and also the data which
has been excluded for convenience before deciding anything. That>s
one reason peer reviewed papers are so much more useful than polemic.
[quote]does it highlight the 'dramatic
decline in meningococcal disease as a result of the MeNZB campaign?
[/quote]
It doesn>t highlight anything. As you should well know as a "risk
analyst" on its own it is meaningless. Given a copy of Excel and a
bit of imagination a graph by itself can be fiddled to meet any
preconception. Where is the data?
[quote]Clearly those graphs (from data mostly obtained through parliamentary
questions and official information act requests, not volunteered by
officials) are the ramblings of a rabid person.
[/quote]
More likely they are the work of a very imaginative one. Always a
problem when you have a researcher with little training and a
preconceived goal to achieve. Again that>s why peer review is so
important.
[quote]Polemic, unfounded claims of cover ups
"secret documents" and conspiracy theories are grist to the mill of
hack journalists with neither the time nor intellect to look beyond
the superficial. All such are also ultimately self destructive of a
cause because eventually people see the bias. On the rare occasion
there is something sound present it gets ignored because it is hidden
by the rhetoric.
Agree... so compared these reports on two consecutive days...
[/quote]
Oh wow, dead kiddywinkles. "We do know what train this child died
from, but that is irrelevant" Is that really your idea, as a "risk
analyst", of scientific study?
[quote]Take a look at some of the facts.
[/quote]
I might if you produced some.
[quote]It seems your long running campaign has gained little support from
scientists anywhere in the world, never mind NewZealand. If your
interpretation of the data had been correct this is surprising.
You are wrong there... I could send you emails of academics who have
told me they can>t say anything or else they would have Ministry of
Health and pharma funding cut off..
[/quote]
It>s quite a long time on Usenet since I heard the famous "I have my
hundreds of secret supporters by e-mail" claim. It never has been
credible. If your claims were correct it would Nobel Prize standard
work. The prize alone would make a very comfortable retirement fund
never mind the scientific kudos. I find it very difficult to believe
there isn>t a single scientist in the world who won>t take you
seriously because they all feel threatened.
[quote]It is also surprising that you have apparently chosen not to present
your data in a scientific paper, where it would be reviewed and made
available worldwide, but relied only upon the popular press where it
can>t be challenged. None of this makes you a particularly credible
commentator. Your fellow author is irrelevant.
An interesting comment from someone who acknowleges they haven>t even
read our critiques...
[/quote]
I might if you would tell me where to find them.
[quote]you haven>t got the point that we were communicating extremel;y effectively
with the public...
[/quote]
Propagandists communicate effectively with the public, they rarely
tell the truth. Some journalists communicate effectively with the
public, they are even more unlikely to tell the truth. Effective
communication of lies is easier than effective communication of the
truth because you can ignore all the inconvenient bits you don>t like
and divert attention from a baseless claims by bringing in a bit of
"secret papers" "threats from men in black suits" etc.
Communicating effectively with the public has nothing whatsoever to do
with the strength or otherwise of your case
[quote]if we had waited the year or so to get a sanitised paper published it would have
been after the event...
[/quote]
You have been banging on about this for how many, 6 or more years? In
all that time you couldn>t produce a reasoned paper?
It>s now after the event - will you now be publishing anything
professionally?
[quote]Member of the Royal Society of NewZealand($NZ120 per year)>MNZSRM.
Member of the NewZealandSociety for Risk Management ($NZ81 per year)
For a payment of $200 per year, I could join the latter two societies
and have the same post nominals. As a CV it isn>t particularly
impressive insofar as the subject matter of this discussion goes.
Excellent... so why have you researched the trivia, but not the
substance?
[/quote]
Firstly, they are one and the same. You are the one using alphabet
soup to appear to look more credible than you are. Secondly it didn>t
take more than a minute or so (except for DMLS - that doesn>t seem to
be in common use).
[quote]When you have researched the substance then you too will be
an informed and considered commentator.
[/quote]
I will if you will tell me where to find it. As I said I>ve only
found the Noddy and BIgears version so far.
[quote]until then you are just someone who disagrees with some from a point of principle who doesn>t
want the facts to get in the way of philosophy.
[/quote]
errrr...? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 6:51 am Post subject: Re: Medical License Breached |
|
|
On Jul 31, 11:27 am, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
[quote]An interesting comment from someone who acknowleges they haven>t even
read our critiques...
I might if you would tell me where to find ...
[/quote]
Peter, you have so much to say about something you have no clues
about. Someone who has bagged me without reading my articles is not
worth arguing with.
google "meningococcal gold rush" and look for articles/media releases
on www.scoop.co.nz ... that would at least enable you to argue from a
position of knowledge.
Ron Law
Risk & Policy Analyst |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
