Re: Four in a row"
- From: Mike Clark <mrc7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 20:15:24 +0100
In message <0gpje2hm0ritems7fgifvejlhfadgmf5gc@xxxxxxx>
amacmil304@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:28:12 +0100, Mike Clark <mrc7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In message <ed8je2p1h84sthtkor91qh6745kvnb7kqd@xxxxxxx>
amacmil304@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 11:59:07 +0100, Mike Clark <mrc7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In message <760ce21ha2cvnrm0jp6m4csdj5rvmqgtkp@xxxxxxx>
amacmil304@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:04:40 +0100, Mike Clark <mrc7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>[snip]
wrote:
In message <r7s9e2tai8i5htb2njt20umeqrof9hj2o6@xxxxxxx>
amacmil304@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 18:10:33 +0100, Mike Clark <mrc7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>[snip]
wrote:
In message <0u69e25aaf3vkmi77848g6si6antv76nvm@xxxxxxx>
amacmil304@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:52:24 +0100, Mike Clark <mrc7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In message <1155762200.417865.44240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
"Skyewalk" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
amacmil304@xxxxxxx wrote:
All the more reason for safety provisions.
Why and at what cost?
To reduce death and injury. Cost shouldn't come into it.
How do you cost the life of a small child?
That's a remark that is fairly easy to make as a cheap statement but
difficult to turn into a definitive application.
What price do you cost the life of a small child at Angus?
How much of your income do you directly put into saving human life?
How much do you spend on health and welfare of other individuals?
What percentage of tax of your income and assets are you prepared to see
used in terms of human health and welfare?
What do you do for a living?
You're very good at throwing criticism at others about what they should
be doing. But give us some examples of how you practice what you preach.
I see, when you run out of legitimate argument you start attacking the
individual.
You asked me how I costed the life of a small child. I asked you what
your answer to that question was. Not as an abstract argument but
evidenced by the real currency value you placed on human life through
your own actions.
You have refused to answer.
You can't put a cost on it. You should know that.
I know it very well since a judgement in my own specialty was announced
on the news today. You might have seen or read about it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5271032.stm
"How the NHS places a value on life"
"What is an extra year of life worth?"
This is an issue that I've been campaigning and working on for very many
years. 27 years ago I studied for my PhD under the guidance of Cesar
Milstein who discovered monoclonal antibodies and who was awarded the
Nobel prize for that discovery. Monoclonal antibodies have always had a
great potential to cure diseases and save lives. But a big barrier is
the ability to cover the research and development costs of the drugs.
If you ask silly questions then you should expect no reply.
I kind of gather from certain comments you've made and other postings
that you may be reasonably well off financially?
Given that many of these new treatments based on monoclonal antibodies
are considered too expensive by NICE it would be really great if
individuals with financial means were able to assist in the treatment of
patients by offering to fund research or the subsidy of life saving
drugs.
Where do you stand on these issues? You make statements about costs but
are you in a position to do something to help? I could give you details
of where to donate funds if you like.
So let me do the same.
I am quite happy answer such questions since I am not ashamed of my
personal actions.
Let me quote from a well known medical journal, 'The Lancet' Volume 354,
page 1395 (1999)
'But what distinguishes Mike Clark's site and what saves it from having
a "textbook" feel, is his ability to mingle his personal information,
interests, opinions and creativity with the highly detailed molecular
material.'
That doesn't make it any better than that of your contemporaries
???
Do you only post and access websites in your employer's time when
you could perhaps be researching for cancer cures?
I don't have any defined working hours or specified working location. I
am just as likely to come up with the idea for the next scientific
breakthrough whilst going for a walk in the Scottish Hills, taking a
shower at home, or sitting in an office behind my computer.
Sure, anyone can come up with ideas outside working hours but when
you're at work you should not be using your employer's machines and
energy for personal use.
Universities are about research, scholarship and education. All too
often academics get criticised for having an "ivory tower" existence and
for not engaging with the real world.
You now seem to be taking the opposite tack because I am attempting some
real world engagement. You present ideas and viewpoints that are
misleading and highly subjective, based on limited information. You
seems to object when your ideas are challenged and the basis for your
views are challenged.
Ideas are what I carry in my head based on 30 years of research in
my field. However solving complex problems isn't simply a matter of
time and effort. If you double the amount of time, or double the
number of scientists, you don't necessarily double the productive
output.
Agreed but not quite the issue. You could be doing something to
benefit the university rather than playing on the computer.
Explain to me how informing opinion on medical, social and ethical
issues is playing?
You want money spent on safety barriers on land that might potentially
save a few lives a year at most. I want money spent on medical research
and public health that will save many more lives.
Have you ever thought of donating money to assist in medical research or
paying for medical treatments of those that can't afford it?
You've made lots of statements about costs of human life and I could
provide you with the ideal opportunity to benefit society by donating
money to worthwhile medical research.
Currently the University is having a major fundraising appeal
http://www.foundation.cam.ac.uk/
Would people donate to cancer charities if they thought this was
happening?
They ought to base their judgement on results rather than their own
expectations of what they think is happening.
I agree but most would think people doing research would be beavering
away. And it's not just about "ideas" it's carrying these forward
that takes time.
I'm glad you appreciate the time element. I first started work on
CAMPATH in 1981 and it wasn't until 2001, 20 years later, that it gained
FDA and MCA approval for treatment of CLL. Currently it's also in
clinical trials for treatment of Multiple Sclerosis and it has also been
investigated for treatment of other diseases such as Rheumatoid
Arthritis.
During the 25 year history of that antibody I've been involved in
endless processes, not just laboratory based research, but also
fund raising campaigning, marketing discussions with companies, working
with patient groups, involvement with legal disputes, patent trials.
I've been there, done it and got the T-shirt. CAMPATH is just one of
many therapies that I've worked on and am actively involved with.
Hopefully new treatments will emerge shortly for other diseases.
Currently I'm quite hopeful for another antibody that is showing promise
in the treatment of early onset Type-I diabetes. My laboratories other
research project is based on finding a treatment for newborn babies
suffering from fetomaternal alloimmune thrombocytopenia (FAITP).
Such cases are obviously a tragedy for those families
that are involved but we shouldn't let reports of such
personal tragedies distort our perspective as a society.
So deaths don't matter provided the society's perspective is upheld.
So what it its perspective?
In the grand scheme of things we are born, we live and interact with
each other and the world, and then we die. Society is about balancing
the expectations of each individual against those of all others. It
isn't perfect, it isn't utopian.
Never said it was. But measures should be taken to reduce accidents.
Measures are taken to reduce accidents and if you look at the National
Statistics available at
http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/overall/fatl0506.pdf
you'll see that accident rates are in general on the decrease.
[snip]
Didn't help the four children.
Many more newborn children are born each year with FAITP and I'd like to
see a cure developed for them. More money given to medical research
could benefit those newborn babies.
From your postings you clearly have a definition of safe
that means the result should be zero death or injury.
Handrails of safe pathways could most probably have prevented the
deaths
"could", "most" and "probably". Not very definitive statements
coming from someone who seems to place definitive standards on others.
Handrails are proven safety measures at many places where heights are
involved.
Yes but it isn't clear that height was an issue in every case you have
cited. Equally if someone is going to deliberately jump from a height
the hand rail is not going to be effective.
Falling from heights is a well recognised accident in the outdoors.
I notice from the HSE statistics I quoted above that nearly as many
members of the public die from "Low Fall" as from "High Fall" and that
many more die as a result of a "Slip or trip".
Sure but that doesn't mean that heights should not be protected.
Should the rails be taken off Blackpool Tower just because someone
might slip on the pavement below?
Yes but if drugs exist that can definitely save lives and the only thing
that is preventing their use is money shouldn't we be trying to divert
financial resources to where they are really needed and can do the most
good?
That's what a cost benefit analysis is about. If you only have a limited
amount of money to spend where is it best spent to do the maximum good?
Would large numbers of railings put up all over mountain sides be a
better use of money or would we be better off diverting more resources
into healthcare and health issues?
On the other hand legal liability does not assume zero
risk.
No but it makes people accountable.
Yes it makes them accountable, but the test of accountability does not
assume they must create a situation of zero risk.
There can never be zero risk. I'm not implying that. The fact you
bounce from extreme to extreme shows you have no argument.
Tell me Angus, you seem to follow the news reports quite a lot. How many
landowners have been successfully prosecuted recently for not taking
sufficient steps to ensure the safety of the public on their land?
None that I know of, but that's why changes are needed.
but it is objectively impossible to 'make them safe' in such a
way that there was no risk to individuals.
What has objectivity to do with it. It seems the only two words you
think of is objectivity and subjectivity. Grow up!
What is wrong with taking a scientific viewpoint and questioning
what is objective and what is subjective about the topic under
consideration?
Unlikely to achieve consensus.
Whoever said it was necessary to achieve a consensus?
If nobody agrees about anything there would be chaos.
Where have you been living for most of your life? Planet Utopia again?
Where is this world full of consensus and where there is no
disagreement?
Didn't you say you watched the 6pm News and read "The Mail"? They're
full of stories of consensus and agreement are they?
Are you saying there's no concensus?
[snip]
Are you now speaking in abstract terms or are you being specific to a
given incident?
What 'pathway,, what 'purpose' and what is 'fit for'?
Any pathway open to the public by organisations that promote outdoor
activities should be fit for use by the general public in terms of
safety.
Clearly then we have failed the test with regard to the national road
network.
Perhaps putting railings and crash-barriers down the sides of each lane
on all roads should be done, no matter what the cost? We could also
restrict all vehicles to a maximum speed of 20mph since this would
greatly reduce the severity of accidents.
What did I say about bouncing between extremes?
I don't know what did you say? You're the one who advocates fencing up
all the wilderness areas that have public access in case someone might
happen to trip, slip or fall.
I'm not bouncing between extremes.
You're the one who keeps going on about the value of a human life but
who doesn't yet say how much of your personal time and how much of your
personal income is diverted to saving of human life because you think it
is so valuable and worthwhile.
I've given over most of my working life and expertise and a considerable
proportion of my income to these issues of human health and disease.
I've been carrying out medical research for 28 years, and teaching and
training medical students and young scientists for 16 years.
When I argued that it was sensible to conduct a cost benefit
analysis it was you that attacked me and my principles saying that I
obviously didn't value human life.
That's not bouncing between extremes. Your opposition to putting in
safety railings where people might fall certainly gives that
impression especially when it is based on aesthetics.
It's a question of sensible allocation of resources and looking at
realistic consequences.
People are dying of starvation and ill health and they don't have the
means to help themselves. By devoting resources to these issues we can
save and prolong lives and improve lifestyles for these people. If you
have money, you can help.
However there are other issues such as venturing into wilderness areas
where people do have choices, they can decide whether to take risks or
not. They should have the right to choose whether to take those risks.
Many of the sick and starving can't exercise choice.
On a similar basis, but with much harder evidence, we can
demonstrate that the public road network, to which the public are
encouraged to have access, is full of dangers that can be alleviated
with proper safety measures.
Sure, but there are railing in place which obviously reduce accidents.
That's all I'm suggesting for the countryside. If we can have them on
roads why not at dangerous places in the countryside?
Because statistically spending the money on safer roads would save more
lives. Just as spending money on better healthcare would save more
lives.
There are drugs that are known to save or prolong lives and the only
thing that is preventing their use is money.
There is a price put on human life and those with money and influence
could alter it.
Motorways have a much better safety record than dual carriageways,
which in turn have a better safety record than ordinary A roads and
B roads. Clearly by putting more investment into roads we could
upgrade them and make them safer. But how much do you think we
should spend? What value do you think we should put on human life?
We spend millions on road safety.
And we could choose to spend more, just as spending more money on
healthcare and medical research would save more lives.
[snip]
At this moment I'm trying to understand what it is that has motivated
you to behave the way you do? Have you had some personal traumatic
experience or suffered some personal abuse that has led you to behave in
the way you do?
All I do is expose the fakes in conservation and oppose the killing of
wildlife.
But what do you do personally to save human lives?
See above.
What seems to be apparent to me is that you put a higher value on
wildlife than human life.
Not necessarily.
How much money, time and effort have you devoted to campaigns against
what you refer to as "fake conservationists"?
Have you ever considered putting the same effort and resources into
human health and welfare?
Except that is where the human life is your family.
I have made my position clear on this point many times. If I or my
family were attacked I would put up every resistance to the attack
even if it meant the death of the attacker. Most people would, I
believe.
What about medical research to support your family? Do you allow your
family to have medical treatment? Do you use drugs and antibiotics?
If you or a close relative needed one of the drugs that was in the news
today and the NHS wouldn't pay for it, would you pay privately? Would
you campaign for its availability for others?
Do you gain some kind of personal satisfaction or pleasure
out of continually complaining about life and society? Is
there nothing else in your life that gives you a higher
motivation?
I don't complain about life and society. All I do is expose the fakes
in conservation and oppose the killing of wildlife.
But what do you do personally to save human lives?
Drive carefully.
That is a very reasonable contribution, thank you.
Good.
What about the other aspects of your philosophy of life?
Like what?
How much of your income do you directly put into saving human life?
My taxes contribute to that.
Would you be prepared to pay considerably higher taxes? NICE today
rejected two new treatments that would save lives, because they were
considered too expensive for the health service to pay for.
How much do you spend on health and welfare of other individuals?
My taxes contribute to that.
Would you be prepared to pay considerably higher taxes? NICE today
rejected two new treatments that would save lives, because they were
considered too expensive for the health service to pay for.
What percentage of tax of your income and assets are you prepared to
see used in terms of human health and welfare?
More than is presently used. I'd abolish all quangos and stop
assisting fake conservation organisations.
You could of course bypass the tax system and give the money directly to
healthcare and medical research. That way you'd probably get much more
bang for your buck.
That's what philanthropists in the USA frequently do. Most US
universities get considerably more of their income from wealthy donors
than we do in the UK. In the UK there isn't the same culture of giving
and most people rely on taxes and government support.
What do you do for a living?
Work for myself.
Are you successful? Do you have money you could afford to donate?
There are plenty of worthwhile medical research projects out their that
you could get involved with.
Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Four in a row"
- From: Roger
- Re: Four in a row"
- References:
- Re: Four in a row"
- From: Mike Clark
- Re: Four in a row"
- From: amacmil304
- Re: Four in a row"
- From: Mike Clark
- Re: Four in a row"
- From: amacmil304
- Re: Four in a row"
- From: Mike Clark
- Re: Four in a row"
- From: amacmil304
- Re: Four in a row"
- From: Mike Clark
- Re: Four in a row"
- From: Mike Clark
- Re: Four in a row"
- Prev by Date: Re: a walk in the hills with a difference...
- Next by Date: Re: a walk in the hills with a difference...
- Previous by thread: Re: Four in a row"
- Next by thread: Re: Four in a row"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
