BMA

[TerryJ]

Another reps meeting coming up in which they will be asked to refer
the matter of helmets to the board of science.
No doubt the usual BS will be issued and swallowed by some.
I wonder if the melon in a helmet be there again, and 85%.

TerryJ

 

[Peter Clinch]

TerryJ wrote:
> Another reps meeting coming up in which they will be asked to refer
> the matter of helmets to the board of science.
> No doubt the usual BS will be issued and swallowed by some.
> I wonder if the melon in a helmet be there again, and 85%.

Can the Board of Science be referred to the Board of Science, or better
still someone else's BoS that can actually do science? ;-/

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[TerryJ]

On 4 Jun, 13:24, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> TerryJ wrote:
> > Another reps meeting coming up in which they will be asked to refer
> > the matter of helmets to the board of science.
> > No doubt the usual BS will be issued and swallowed by some.
> > I wonder if the melon in a helmet be there again, and 85%.
>
> Can the Board of Science be referred to the Board of Science, or better
> still someone else's BoS that can actually do science? ;-/
>

I do not know what is meant by Board of Science.If it's a BMA thing
then it will be susceptible to the usual hijacking by axe-grinders and
people who have a strangely large amount of spare time , and we could
go back to square one.I cannot remember which committee it was that
started the helmet rot.It's low level politics, not really science.I
do not understand how the votes of a lot of people that know nothing
about what they are voting for could be worth counting.
If the BoS is a real scientists' organisation then there may be some
point .
I also object to the idea that people pontificate about laws to force
things on a minority group when they would not dream of trying it on
the majority; hence the lack of calls for laws on walking and driving
helmets and hip protectors .
TerryJ

 

[Peter Clinch]

TerryJ wrote:

> I do not know what is meant by Board of Science.If it's a BMA thing
> then it will be susceptible to the usual hijacking by axe-grinders and
> people who have a strangely large amount of spare time , and we could
> go back to square one.

The BoS here is indeed the BMA's BoS, and is, AFAICT, the bunch of not
actually very good at science numpties that managed to overturn a fairly
wide ranging review and replace it with a narrow, ill informed piece of
fluff that appeared to have been written for them by BHIT.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:52:43 +0100 someone who may be Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>The BoS here is indeed the BMA's BoS, and is, AFAICT, the bunch of not
>actually very good at science numpties that managed to overturn a fairly
>wide ranging review and replace it with a narrow, ill informed piece of
>fluff that appeared to have been written for them by BHIT.

As I understand it one of the BMA's functions is to represent
quacks.

Quacks are not scientists, but rather are fairly poor engineers.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Peter Clinch]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:52:43 +0100 someone who may be Peter Clinch
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>> The BoS here is indeed the BMA's BoS, and is, AFAICT, the bunch of not
>> actually very good at science numpties that managed to overturn a fairly
>> wide ranging review and replace it with a narrow, ill informed piece of
>> fluff that appeared to have been written for them by BHIT.
>
> As I understand it one of the BMA's functions is to represent
> quacks.
>
> Quacks are not scientists, but rather are fairly poor engineers.

A simplification. /Some/ doctors are exceptionally good scientists.

However, as a science professional working in the NHS I think I can
safely say that that cannot be assumed as a general case, and absolutely
certainly not a universal one.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Tony B]

TerryJ wrote:

> I do not understand how the votes of a lot of people that know nothing
> about what they are voting for could be worth counting.

Cikey, that has serious implications but IKWYM


T

 

[Martin Dann]

Tony B wrote:
> TerryJ wrote:
>
>> I do not understand how the votes of a lot of people that know nothing
>> about what they are voting for could be worth counting.
>
> Cikey, that has serious implications but IKWYM

Those people who want power are usually the ones who should not have
least power.

 

[burt]

"TerryJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Another reps meeting coming up in which they will be asked to refer
> the matter of helmets to the board of science.
> No doubt the usual BS will be issued and swallowed by some.
> I wonder if the melon in a helmet be there again, and 85%.


That would be "bored of science" would it?

 

[TerryJ]

> > I do not understand how the votes of a lot of people that know nothing
> > about what they are voting for could be worth counting.
>
> Cikey, that has serious implications but IKWYM
>
> T

Yes, but they are supposed to be recommending a strategy to the
government from a position of knowledge and expertise.
nuff said
TerryJ

 

[Nigel Randell]

TerryJ wrote:
>>> I do not understand how the votes of a lot of people that know
>>> nothing about what they are voting for could be worth counting.
>>
>> Cikey, that has serious implications but IKWYM
>>
>> T
>
> Yes, but they are supposed to be recommending a strategy to the
> government from a position of knowledge and expertise.
> nuff said
> TerryJ

In that case they should have medical and engineering expertise available,
preferably from experienced cyclists ;-)

--

Nigel

 

[TerryJ]

> In that case they should have medical and engineering expertise available,
> preferably from experienced cyclists ;-)
> Nigel


Are you volunteering , nigel?
I can think of more entertaining ways to spend a weekend.


TerryJ

 

[Nigel Randell]

TerryJ wrote:
>> In that case they should have medical and engineering expertise
>> available, preferably from experienced cyclists ;-)
>> Nigel
>
>
> Are you volunteering , nigel?
> I can think of more entertaining ways to spend a weekend.
>
>
> TerryJ

Funnily enough, so can I.

I really ought to do a bit of a write-up on the Tramway.

--

Nigel

 

[Mark McNeill]

Response to Peter Clinch:
> > I do not know what is meant by Board of Science.If it's a BMA thing
> > then it will be susceptible to the usual hijacking by axe-grinders and
> > people who have a strangely large amount of spare time , and we could
> > go back to square one.
>
> The BoS here is indeed the BMA's BoS, and is, AFAICT, the bunch of not
> actually very good at science numpties that managed to overturn a fairly
> wide ranging review and replace it with a narrow, ill informed piece of
> fluff that appeared to have been written for them by BHIT.


I'm probably not the only one who thought of it, but I emailed Ben
Goldacre of the Guardian's "Bad Science" column about this; his columns
need a topical hook, and if the BMA can again manage something as dumb
as a comparison of a head with a watermelon, it's possible he might go
for it.

He replied that he was watching: I find myself perversely hoping the BMA
will make a collective utter **** of themselves.


--
Mark, UK
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always
so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."

 

[Peter Amey]

Mark McNeill wrote:
[snip]
>
> I'm probably not the only one who thought of it, but I emailed Ben
> Goldacre of the Guardian's "Bad Science" column about this; his columns
> need a topical hook, and if the BMA can again manage something as dumb
> as a comparison of a head with a watermelon, it's possible he might go
> for it.
>
> He replied that he was watching: I find myself perversely hoping the BMA
> will make a collective utter **** of themselves.
>
>

I have been in contact with Ben on this topic for a while. He spotted
the BMA/BOS angle immediately. He is also very well informed one the
real helmet issues. Fingers crossed for a suitable write up.

Peter

--
www.amey.org.uk