TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- For the Conspiracy Theorist - I know this is old news but: Dead Microbiologist
Pages (2): « 1 [2]
If these guys were working with virulent strains of microbes and succumbed to them, then we have something there. If they all died by a single gunshot to the head, then we have something else. Otherwise, WTF?
[[[smoke]]]
I know somewhere in one of these threads there's someone who can tell us the odds of people dying in a group unrelated to health problems.
Ummm yes, I believe I commented on thread starter's "statistics" when she insinuated a statistically significant alternative hypothesis in her bush biographers thread . I believe the same argument is still applicable:
| quote: |
Hmmm ok so if I look at UNC, which had 6 suicides recently, or NYU, which had 6 suicides in the past year alone: http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVArti...=20695&pid=1189 I can perform similar statistical analyses to determine that the probability of this happening through random chance alone is the 6th power of 17/100000 which is 2.4 x 10 ^ -23? Therefore, I can assume that UNC and NYU (or maybe the CIA) are secretely, yet actively assassinating their students? Why � it�s so simple! No wait, it�s needlessly complicated. First off, the statistics are completely incorrect. Completely. If you want to compare a sample group against a population mean to determine statistical significant difference you do a t-test. Second of all, there are so many statistical causality errors that you can�t even do a proper t-test with the sample you have. It�s as if I were to test for microbial life of a rock sample from Mars and my petri dish is an eviscerated cow. For example, Webb wasn�t even a Bush biographer, he reported on CIA collusion with Contras in 1996. Some of the others died before Bush even took office. Furthermore, even if it was found that this sample group was statistically different from the population mean, the statistics would not infer a conclusion of "it was the government" that�s analogous to concluding that �God is the explanation� for every scientific hypothesis that is rejected. |
So you're saying that nothing but coincidence rather than statistics is to account for this?
Not very scientific is it?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ogvh5150 So you're saying that nothing but coincidence rather than statistics is to account for this? Not very scientific is it? |
| quote: |
| SAN FRANCISCO Doctor stabbed to death Police hope killer left DNA at scene - Jaxon Van Derbeken and Sabin Russell, Chronicle Staff Writers Friday, May 20, 2005 Click to View A prominent physician at San Francisco General Hospital who once headed the San Francisco Medical Society was found stabbed to death inside the doorway of his Diamond Heights home Thursday, police said. Dr. Robert J. Lull, 64, was discovered on the floor in the entryway of his hilltop home on Gold Mine Drive at Jade Place shortly after noon. Hospital officials, concerned when he did not show up for the clinic he ran in nuclear medicine, alerted his personal assistant, Elsie Garce, who found the body, authorities said. Lull was last seen at an appointment with his doctor at 3:40 p.m. Wednesday, according to police. Neighbors reported nothing unusual at the residence either Wednesday night or Thursday morning. "At this point, we can't say what the circumstances were, but we know he was the victim of a homicide,'' said San Francisco police Inspector Holly Pera. "We're piecing together evidence at the scene.'' Lull was well liked by his neighbors and respected by his colleagues, Pera said. "He had a real love for medicine,'' she said. Police say they have no sign of forced entry into the four-bedroom, two-story home, but one unusual clue was plainly visible out front. Cherry pits -- marked by yellow evidence tags -- were found scattered in front of the walkway leading from the street to the door as well as inside the home. "Our fondest hope is that we can find DNA from the pits,'' Pera said. Another clue police are focusing on is a tan or gray car that they say Lull was known to drive, a car that once belonged to one of his sons. Two other cars, a Mercedes Benz and a Lexus, were in the garage. But the third car "appears to be gone,'' Pera said. "It's usually at the home when he is home. That is the most recent car he has been driving.'' Lee Lull said her ex-husband was a devoted doctor and father but did not seem to be too worried about his security, sometimes leaving his door unlocked in the upscale neighborhood. "This is so unreal,'' she said of the slaying, saying she kept in contact with him regularly, and the couple remained close. She discounted that the cherry pits would have been left by her ex-husband. "I really doubt he would go around spitting cherry seeds around -- he took care of his house," she said. "He would have parties for everybody at the clinic. "He was a really good man. There aren't a lot of them.'' She said she could not fathom why someone would attack him. "I don't think he has any enemies as far as I know of,'' she said. Lull had been chief of nuclear medicine at the hospital since 1990 and served as a radiology professor at UC San Francisco. He had served as president for both the American College of Nuclear Physicians and the San Francisco Medical Society, which he headed in 2002, and served as editor of its journal, San Francisco Medicine, from 1997 to 1999. Colleagues, friends and neighbors described Lull, a father of two adult sons, as a dedicated doctor who was also friendly and sociable and loved to sail and play tennis. "He was absolutely adored by the staff,'' said San Francisco Medical Society Executive Director Dr. Mary Lou Licwinko. "I am just in shock." "He was quite a guy,'' said neighbor Barry Kinney. "He was very much a hail-fellow-well-met person.'' He would jog through the neighborhood or be seen driving the small car, as well as his prized bright red Mercedes and his black Lexus. Kinney said Lull was committed to his work and research. He once joked: "A little radiation is good for you -- now and then.'' Lull focused on improvements in diagnosis and treatment of thyroid cancer. Last year, Lull lectured in San Francisco about the threat of nuclear terrorism. At San Francisco General Hospital, word of the popular doctor's death swept through on a day that was supposed to be reserved for a morale boosting ice cream social amid budget cuts. "He was a great guy -- talkative, friendly, dependable,'' said hospital chief executive Gene O'Connell. "He's going to be missed by everyone here. He's not somebody who can be replaced.'' "It's been a tremendous shock to all of us at the General,'' said Dr. Valerie Ng, hospital chief of staff. Ng said Lull was a highly revered expert in the field of nuclear medicine, a specialty that performs diagnostic screens such as bone scans for cancer patients. Lull was already renowned in the field when he was recruited to work at San Francisco General in 1990, following the closure of Letterman Army Medical Center in the Presidio. He had been chief of nuclear medicine there since 1976. "This is a blow, not only to us, but to the field of nuclear medicine,'' said Ng. "He was an icon to us all. He trained generations of doctors in nuclear medicine.'' Ng said hospital staffers had become concerned when the reliable doctor did not show up for work in the morning. "Patients had had studies done, and Bob was needed to interpret them,'' she said. That triggered the discovery of the body. Dr. George Susens, who preceded Lull as president of the Medical Society, said Lull prided himself as the first academician from San Francisco General Hospital to be elected to the post. "He had an infectious smile,'' said Susens, a Kaiser internist. "He was fun to have around." Medical Society spokesman Steve Heilig said Lull was a thoughtful scientist with a long military background. He favored nuclear power as a solution to global warming, but he was so passionately opposed to the development of proposed "bunker buster" nuclear weapons that he co-sponsored a resolution at the California Medical Association House of Delegates opposing the technology. The resolution did not pass. "He was a rigorous scientist, but he had a real open mind," Heilig said. "He liked to learn stuff.'' Page B - 1 URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c...5/20/SFSLAY.TMP �2005 San Francisco Chronicle |
| quote: |
| Remedy for an insane policy -- Test all beef for mad cow - Robert Lull, Steve Heilig Friday, May 14, 2004 Mad cow disease remains a worrying mystery. Meat from infected animals can infect consumers with prions, which cause variant Creutzfeldt- Jakob disease, a progressive degeneration of the brain that is always fatal. Mad cow disease (the common term for bovine spongiform encephalopathy) is caused by prions, the infectious misshapen proteins discovered by University of California researcher Stanley Prusiner, who received a Nobel Prize in Medicine for his groundbreaking work. Prusiner has referred to BSE-related diseases as "new, strange and scary." Unfortunately, it seems that some governmental officials and agricultural leaders are not so worried about the threat that prion diseases such as BSE present -- not only to animals, but to humans as well. A human outbreak of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, caused by eating prion-contaminated beef from cattle with BSE, killed approximately 150 people in England in the 1990s. At that time, up to a third of British herds were found to be contaminated before the infection was controlled. The one cow found to test positive in the United States in December unleashed a flurry of concern here, with much confusion over how much of a threat that case might have posed. Equally disturbing were varying allegations that the beef industry and governmental regulators were not being entirely forthcoming about the details of this case and were trying to reassure the public without enough scientific evidence to do so. There admittedly is much scientific uncertainty about how much a threat BSE poses to humans. In recognition of that uncertainty, Japan has taken the BSE threat seriously and now routinely tests all slaughtered cattle and sheep for the presence of prion infection. The U.S. government persists in much more limited testing -- fewer than 1 percent of all cows are so tested -- arguing that scientific uncertainty makes universal testing too expensive. Yet Consumers Union has testified that such testing would add, at most, five cents a pound to the cost of beef. But Creekstone Farms in Kansas, seeking to certify its beef BSE-free and thus be able to sell it to Japan as well as concerned consumers here, have been threatened by the U.S. Department of Agriculture with legal action and severe fines to stop them from testing all their cattle for the BSE-causing prion. New tests can detect such prions in a short enough time to allow use on all animals at the time of slaughter. Why would USDA oppose such testing? If it is positive, that would be good for human safety (one of the USDA's missions); but it could also trigger public reaction bad for the beef industry's profits. Wouldn't USDA be happy that any infected animal was detected before infecting a human? What possible justification can they have for denying beef producers who want to test every cow, at their own cost, in order to sell safety-certified beef? At this time, testing all cows slaughtered for human consumption for the presence of BSE prions rather than late-stage full-blown neurological disease -- which is the only test now used by the USDA -- makes good sense as a public health precaution until more data are accumulated on the new rapid tests for BSE prions. This is why the San Francisco Medical Society supports this position -- as does Prusiner, the Nobel winner. While the details of the threat are being determined, it is time to err on the side of safety, rather than on assurances from beef industry spokesmen. If it does turn out that testing 100 percent of animals is not warranted, good -- the standards could then be relaxed, and we'd all be safe rather than sorry. Right now, though, despite all assurances from those in charge, we just don't know. Even if we cannot test all cattle, certainly there is no good reason to keep a ban on voluntary testing by responsible members of the cattle industry. This would provide consumers with a real choice regarding the safety of their beef products. It would also allow our cattle industry to reopen the markets now closed for beef sales in Japan and other countries that insist each slaughtered animal be certified negative for prions. Congress and the public need to send our agricultural regulators at the USDA a strong message about their obligation to public health -- and consumer choice. Leading scientists agree that eating prions is a bad idea. If your doctor told you an inexpensive test could reduce your risk of contracting something that would kill you, you'd ask for that test. Likewise, isn't it time we pay the extra nickel per pound to be sure the beef we eat is free of a fatal disease? Robert Lull, M.D., is professor of medicine at the University of California at San Francisco, chief of Nuclear Medicine at San Francisco General Hospital and a past president of the San Francisco Medical Society. Steve Heilig is co-editor of the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, director of Public Health and Education for the San Francisco Medical Society and co-director of the Collaborative on Health and the Environment. Page B - 11 URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c...EDG8Q6L1OH1.DTL �2005 San Francisco Chronicle |
Bird flu 'could kill 150m people' (TA thread)
on a similar note...
| quote: |
| ABZUG: In other words, this [1954 agreement] in your judgment gave authority to the CIA to make decisions, to give immunity to individuals who happened to work for the CIA for all kinds of crimes, including possible murder. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=23694 |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.