British Heart Foundation Peak District Ride



P

publicenergy

Guest
Has anyone done this ride before? I did it for the first time last year
and found it challenging but then I'd only just got back in to cycling
at the time after many years. I remember lots of hills (well, it is the
Peak district I suppose!) but in particular climbing through a village
called Stanton In The Peak which was a killer. I recall people cheering
at the top when people made it over the brow of that one!

According to the info at www.bhf.org.uk (use event finder / bike
rides), the route is changing to one they used a few years ago. So
it'll be a little different when I try again next April. Hopefully,
much easier after a year of lots of cycling :)
Anyone else tried this and doing it again in '05 ?
 
publicenergy wrote:
> Has anyone done this ride before? I did it for the first time last year
> and found it challenging but then I'd only just got back in to cycling
> at the time after many years. I remember lots of hills (well, it is the
> Peak district I suppose!) but in particular climbing through a village
> called Stanton In The Peak which was a killer. I recall people cheering
> at the top when people made it over the brow of that one!
>
> According to the info at www.bhf.org.uk (use event finder / bike
> rides), the route is changing to one they used a few years ago. So
> it'll be a little different when I try again next April. Hopefully,
> much easier after a year of lots of cycling :)
> Anyone else tried this and doing it again in '05 ?
>


http://www.britishheartlessfoundation.com/

May have some useful info.
 
BHF wrote:
> publicenergy wrote:
>
>> Has anyone done this ride before? I did it for the first time last year
>> and found it challenging but then I'd only just got back in to cycling
>> at the time after many years. I remember lots of hills (well, it is the
>> Peak district I suppose!) but in particular climbing through a village
>> called Stanton In The Peak which was a killer. I recall people cheering
>> at the top when people made it over the brow of that one!

>
> http://www.britishheartlessfoundation.com/
>
> May have some useful info.


Well, I bet that's cheered everyone up.

--
[ A stairway to oblivion is better than no stairway at all ]
 
Jon Senior wrote:
> BHF wrote:
>
>> http://www.britishheartlessfoundation.com/
>>
>> May have some useful info.

>
>
> Or may be another page of outdated photos and misinformation. Get thee
> under thy bridge, pitiful troll!
>
> Jon


And I'm sure you know why the photographs don't represent work the BHF
conduct, and what is inaccurate about the information.
..
..
..


Not.
 
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.

As for the accuracy of the information, it's hard to tell. There are no
citations for the studies that are described that would allow the reader
to confirm or deny what was claimed, nor is there any explanation of why
the BHF choose to fund experiments which if the website is to be
believed are completely pointless. Perhaps you believe that they just
like hurting cute animals.

No-one has yet successfully argued against animal testing using anything
other than emotive language. So to reverse the trend... my father has
angina. It's entirely probable that work sponsored by the BHF was
helpful in the production of the drugs that may save his life in an
emergency. If it came down to your parents, how strongly would you
support your cause? N.B. One of the leading anti-vivisection protesters
is currently on a course of (animal tested) chemotherapy to try and save
her life. Two-faced? Apparently so.

Jon
 
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.


> As for the accuracy of the information, it's hard to tell. There are no
> citations for the studies that are described that would allow the reader
> to confirm or deny what was claimed, nor is there any explanation of why
> the BHF choose to fund experiments which if the website is to be
> believed are completely pointless. Perhaps you believe that they just
> like hurting cute animals.


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

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

>
> No-one has yet successfully argued against animal testing using anything
> other than emotive language.


Try the library. I can recommend some books.


So to reverse the trend... my father has
> angina. It's entirely probable that work sponsored by the BHF was
> helpful in the production of the drugs that may save his life in an
> emergency. If it came down to your parents, how strongly would you
> support your cause?


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.

You or I can't change history.


N.B. One of the leading anti-vivisection protesters
> is currently on a course of (animal tested) chemotherapy to try and save
> her life. Two-faced? Apparently so.


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

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.


Charity does not always equal good.



>
> Jon
 
BHF wrote:

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


Are you really this stupid? Is anyone?
 
Simonb wrote:
> BHF wrote:
>
>
>>I don't see it as two faced. The use of the drug won't do anything to
>>undo past wrongs.

>
>
> Are you really this stupid? Is anyone?
>
>


What will it do to the past then?

Do you have access to a time machine, or are you stupid?
 
BHF wrote:
>
> I don't see it as two faced. The use of the drug won't do anything to
> undo past wrongs.
>


Yes but it financially rewards the drug company for past wrongs and
gives them money to fund future wrongs. Time to forgo all non-generic
drugs I'm afraid or lose your integrity.

Of course if you had the courage of your convictions you wouldn't switch
to posting under a totally anonymous name just for this topic. Now I
wonder which of the urc members uses PlusNet and Thunderbird v0.8
(Windows/20040913)?

Tony
 
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.

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

>
> Yes but it financially rewards the drug company for past wrongs and
> gives them money to fund future wrongs.



People can change the policies of these companies by increasing public
awareness, etc.


>Time to forgo all non-generic
> drugs I'm afraid or lose your integrity.


No.


>
> Of course if you had the courage of your convictions you wouldn't switch
> to posting under a totally anonymous name just for this topic. Now I
> wonder which of the urc members uses PlusNet and Thunderbird v0.8
> (Windows/20040913)?


Ad hominem. I can and will post with what ever name / ISP / software I
want. You can guess when I've used them, if it keeps you amused.


>
> Tony
 
BHF2 wrote:

>
> People can change the policies of these companies by increasing public
> awareness, etc.
>
>
>> Time to forgo all non-generic
>> drugs I'm afraid or lose your integrity.

>
>
> No.
>


So you won't object then if we support the BHF research while you
support the drug companies' research by using their drugs

>
> Ad hominem. I can and will post with what ever name / ISP / software I
> want. You can guess when I've used them, if it keeps you amused.
>


Feel free to hide behind whatever masks you wish

Tony
 
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 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.

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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Not Responding <[email protected]> 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
 
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/uploaded/bhf_annual_report_04.pdf
http://www.bhf.org.uk/about/uploaded/bhf_annual_accounts_04.pdf

Tony
 

Similar threads