British Heart Foundation Peak District Ride

Not Responding

BHF2 wrote:
> Not Responding wrote:
>
>> BHF wrote:
>>
>>> Jon Senior wrote:
>>>
>>>> BHF wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And I'm sure you know why the photographs don't represent work the
>>>>> BHF conduct, and what is inaccurate about the information.
>>>>
>>>> Sure. Most of the photos come from very early work before current
>>>> regulations and best practice were put into place. They are also
>>>> carefully selected for their shocking effect. The equipment shown in
>>>> the photos is very old.
>>>
>>> The age of the equipment is irrelevant. The BHF conduct animal
>>> experiments then and now.
>>>
>> That's a good thing to most people, I'd have thought. And hardly a
>> suprise.
>
> I'm glad it's not a suprise to you. - Would it suprise you that the BHF
> funded a study of the link between leg length and the risk of cancer?

If this is part of the research to with that investigating the link
between leg length and heart disease, no. Even if it's not, I hardly see
the link between this research and your problem with animal tests.

Not that I could actually tie this research down to BHF; I've taken your
word for it. Can you cite a reference?

>> If you are trying to say that the BHF carries out *unnecessary* animal
>> experiments (ie they do it for fun), I think you'll need a lot more in
>> the way of proof than the rather sorry collection of dog-eared shock
>> pics on that site.
>
> I did not write the site, I posted the link to it to provoke people to
> think a bit more thought before they get sponsored and ultimately fund
> work that they may not be aware of.
>
> I don't need any proof, I'm just asking that you do your own research
> (beyond the charities own web site) before giving your cash to them.

I'd like to think anyone who gives money makes some effort to understand
what the money is used for.

> If you're happy in the knowledge that your money is going to fund animal
> experimentation, and you understand the limits / benifits of that
> experimentation, and fund studies like "leg length / cancer risk" then
> carry on.

But if we're talking awareness and honesty here, don't you think it's
much more than a little dishonest of the website creator to be using
archaic photos of unknown provenance to shock people away from donating?
There's certainly none of the limits/benefits discussion that you seem
so keen on; let alone any attempt at attributability and citation.

Tony Raven

BHF2 wrote:
>
> I'm glad it's not a suprise to you. - Would it suprise you that the BHF
> funded a study of the link between leg length and the risk of cancer?
>

Perhaps it is you that should do your research:

"Height is directly associated with mortality from cancer,[1] but the
explanation for this association is unclear. Whereas adult height is a
marker of nutrition and health throughout childhood, most growth before
puberty is due to increases in leg length. Leg length can therefore be
used as a marker for exposures that generate the association between
adult height and cancer. [1 2]"
Leg length and risk of cancer in the Boyd Orr cohort DJ Gunnell, G
Davey Smith, J M P Holly, S Frankel British Medical Journal, Nov 14,
1998

So if you are trying to find out whether it is the pre or post pubertal
exposures that are associated with cancer in later life it is an
eminently sensible thing to research. They are also funding research
into foetal origins of adult heart disease which has shown adult heart
disease associated with low birth size and accelerated post birth "catch
up" growth.

So please do your research so you know even just a little about the
subject you are objecting to.

Tony

Nick Kew

In article <41c57393$0$93922$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>,
BHF <bhf@noosppamm.com> writes:

> Charity does not always equal good.

You've lost the plot. Anything done in the name of the master race
is Good by definition. All else is irrelevant.

--
Nick Kew

Roos Eisma

Not Responding <nowhere@dev.null> writes:

>But if we're talking awareness and honesty here, don't you think it's
>much more than a little dishonest of the website creator to be using
>archaic photos of unknown provenance to shock people away from donating?
>There's certainly none of the limits/benefits discussion that you seem
>so keen on; let alone any attempt at attributability and citation.

Also a phrase like this doesn't work very well with me:

"The British Heart Foundation pour millions of pounds into animal
experiments. Out of a total income of £56 million in 1998, the charity
spent £34.9 million on research, with only £5.1 million going into
educational programmes."

I'm happy if a charity spends a large percentage of its income on
research into the causes and treatments of a disease. And though the above
sentence is suggestive, it doesn't actually say how much of the research
does involve animals, and what percentage of research involving animals
could be classed as unnecessary.

Roos

Tony Raven

Roos Eisma wrote:
>
> Also a phrase like this doesn't work very well with me:
>
> "The British Heart Foundation pour millions of pounds into animal
> experiments. Out of a total income of £56 million in 1998, the charity
> spent £34.9 million on research, with only £5.1 million going into
> educational programmes."
>

Its simply dishonest. Apart from getting the figures wrong - its £39.4m
on research and £8.7m on education and care - it juxtaposes two unlinked
sentences to imply an invalid link; that the £34.9m is spent on animal
research which it isn't.

The level of research that has gone into the site is negligible. It
took me less than 2 mins to find the correct figures above for 1998 and
the current figures which are £53.3m on research and £22.1m on education
and care.

http://www.bhf.org.uk/about/uploade...l_report_04.pdf
http://www.bhf.org.uk/about/uploade...accounts_04.pdf

Tony

BHS

Tony Raven wrote:
> BHF2 wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm glad it's not a suprise to you. - Would it suprise you that the
>> BHF funded a study of the link between leg length and the risk of cancer?
>>
>
> Perhaps it is you that should do your research:
>
> "Height is directly associated with mortality from cancer,[1] but the
> explanation for this association is unclear. Whereas adult height is a
> marker of nutrition and health throughout childhood, most growth before
> puberty is due to increases in leg length. Leg length can therefore be
> used as a marker for exposures that generate the association between
> adult height and cancer. [1 2]"
> Leg length and risk of cancer in the Boyd Orr cohort DJ Gunnell, G
> Davey Smith, J M P Holly, S Frankel British Medical Journal, Nov 14,
> 1998
>
> So if you are trying to find out whether it is the pre or post pubertal
> exposures that are associated with cancer in later life it is an
> eminently sensible thing to research. They are also funding research
> into foetal origins of adult heart disease which has shown adult heart
> disease associated with low birth size and accelerated post birth "catch
> up" growth.
>
> So please do your research so you know even just a little about the
> subject you are objecting to.
>
> Tony

I could have cut and pasted the research when I read it this morning,
but hey, if you want the brownie points you have them.

BHS

Not Responding wrote:
> BHF2 wrote:
>
>> Not Responding wrote:
>>
>>> BHF wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jon Senior wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> BHF wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> And I'm sure you know why the photographs don't represent work the
>>>>>> BHF conduct, and what is inaccurate about the information.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure. Most of the photos come from very early work before current
>>>>> regulations and best practice were put into place. They are also
>>>>> carefully selected for their shocking effect. The equipment shown
>>>>> in the photos is very old.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The age of the equipment is irrelevant. The BHF conduct animal
>>>> experiments then and now.
>>>>
>>> That's a good thing to most people, I'd have thought. And hardly a
>>> suprise.
>>
>>
>> I'm glad it's not a suprise to you. - Would it suprise you that the
>> BHF funded a study of the link between leg length and the risk of cancer?
>
>
> If this is part of the research to with that investigating the link
> between leg length and heart disease, no. Even if it's not, I hardly see
> the link between this research and your problem with animal tests.
>
> Not that I could actually tie this research down to BHF; I've taken your
> word for it. Can you cite a reference?

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ar...cgi?artid=28716

>
>>> If you are trying to say that the BHF carries out *unnecessary*
>>> animal experiments (ie they do it for fun), I think you'll need a lot
>>> more in the way of proof than the rather sorry collection of
>>> dog-eared shock pics on that site.
>>
>>
>> I did not write the site, I posted the link to it to provoke people to
>> think a bit more thought before they get sponsored and ultimately fund
>> work that they may not be aware of.
>
> >
>
>> I don't need any proof, I'm just asking that you do your own research
>> (beyond the charities own web site) before giving your cash to them.
>
>
> I'd like to think anyone who gives money makes some effort to understand
> what the money is used for.

I like to think that as well.

>
>> If you're happy in the knowledge that your money is going to fund
>> animal experimentation, and you understand the limits / benifits of
>> that experimentation, and fund studies like "leg length / cancer risk"
>> then carry on.
>
>
> But if we're talking awareness and honesty here, don't you think it's
> much more than a little dishonest of the website creator to be using
> archaic photos of unknown provenance to shock people away from donating?
> There's certainly none of the limits/benefits discussion that you seem
> so keen on; let alone any attempt at attributability and citation.

I agree, that's why I've stated it's a poor website.

BHS

Nick Kew wrote:
> In article <41c57393$0$93922$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>,
> BHF <bhf@noosppamm.com> writes:
>
>
>>Charity does not always equal good.
>
>
> You've lost the plot. Anything done in the name of the master race
> is Good by definition. All else is irrelevant.
>

(*)

Tony Raven

BHS wrote:
>
>
> I could have cut and pasted the research when I read it this morning,
> but hey, if you want the brownie points you have them.

If you did do the research this morning then one can only assume you
tried to intentionally mislead by disguising the valid rationale behind
the research in an amateurish attempt to make the BHF look silly.

Tony

Dave Kahn

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 12:27:08 +0000, BHF <bhf@noosppamm.com> wrote:

>Charity does not always equal good.

We know that all too well from having met BsHIT.

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain

Dave Kahn

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 18:18:04 +0000, BHS <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>I could have cut and pasted the research when I read it this morning,
>but hey, if you want the brownie points you have them.

Was it not your intention to imply that the subject of the research
was frivolous? Do you think the subject of the research was frivolous?

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain

Mark Thompson

> What will it do to the past then?
>
> Do you have access to a time machine, or are you stupid?

I think he was using the 'buying stolen goods means you can't hark on about
burglars' type logic.

Jon Senior

BHF wrote:
> The age of the equipment is irrelevant. The BHF conduct animal
> experiments then and now.

<pedant> The BHF fund animal experiments... </pedant>

Pedantry aside, the relevance of the age of the photos is that they hark
back to an era when animal welfare was not considered. They are
irrelevant to any discussion of modern vivisection and are thus simply
there for shock value. You have admitted as much in other postings. This
does make me wonder why you would provide a link to the website in the
first place when you know that it is wholly misleading.

> I have view based on various sources. There are many ignorant people
> paying money into charities, not knowing where the money goes.

And there are many ignorant people who decry animal research without
knowing the reality of it. I see people signing petitions for PETA and
others who probably have no concept of the nature of modern research. If
you accept any of the claims on that website without a complete
salt-lick, then I'd lump you amongst them!

> The site may lead people into doing some of their own research before
> blindly giving.

Alternatively, it may just pressurise people into not supporting a
charity for ethical reasons, when those reasons may not even be present.

> Try the library. I can recommend some books.

Please do. I would love to read about the viable alternatives to
vivisection. As would a great number of companies who would like cheaper
ways to test drugs for human consumption.

> Both dead. If they were alive they should get the best treatment
> possible. There would be no benefit to them or the animals that suffered
> in testing the drugs or procedures in not accepting it.

Indeed. The point is that while the suffering is regrettable, there is a
(greater) good at the end of it.

> I don't see it as two faced. The use of the drug won't do anything to
> undo past wrongs.

Except that it is a tacit acceptance of the research required to save
her life. By that same justification, it is OK to use cosmetics that
have been tested on animals, as the harm has already been done.

If her moral crusade was strong enough then she should have accepted the
consequences of her illness. Instead the value of her life proved to be
greater than that of the animals she supports. It is two-faced not to
expect others to place the same value on their own lives, or those of
their loved-ones.

> There needs to be more information about where these charities spend
> their money. I realize that the site I linked to biased ( I think it's a
> poor web site), but perhaps others should question the real BHF site and
> information in the same way.

One should question all charities (See threads passim ;-) ) before
donating. As you've probably noticed, I react badly to having photos of
outdated and outlawed research shoved in my face as a justification for
not supporting someone. Since it would appear that there are little / no
actual grounds for denying the BHF support the result of this discussion
should have been quite enlightening for you. Wouldn't you agree?

Jon

Jon Senior

BHS wrote:
> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ar...cgi?artid=28716

Shows that there is a direct correlation between height and cancer
mortality rates. Thus research into that area of should be undertaken.
The shock value of the supposedly pointless research disappears when you
actually bother to read the paper that you quote. If this is an
indicator of the relevance of the other points that you made regarding
the BHF then we can probably dismiss them too.

> I agree, that's why I've stated it's a poor website.

So. It's a poor website. It is in fact "another page of outdated photos
and misinformation". It's relevance is minimal to none. Perhaps you
should consider taking part in the ride in 2005 as penance for your
accusations here! ;-)

Jon