Posts by ross f
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
> They didn't record the socio-economic status of those who did get the disease but I remember wondering whether the root cause wasn't inadequate and crowded housing, and wondering whether that just wasn't too much of an admission for a Labour government to make. In other words, we don't have a meningitis epidemic, we have a housing crisis, with meningitis as its symptom.
That's basically correct. The MOH did some research a few years before the vaccine was rolled out and came to the same conclusions. Smoking was also a factor. But mysteriously this research was not mentioned at the time of roll out.
The MOH also exaggerated the risks and claimed than many chilkdren would lose limbs, etc. if they weren't vaxed. Apparently you've got a better chance of winning Lotto than losing a limb. In fact, the MOH showed an Aussie kid with a missing limb when it did a promo for the vaccine because there were so few NZ kids avaliable.
-
> There is also the fact that because it's a now issue, delaying it would miss the point of it.
But the so-called epidemic was already waning. Furthermore, half of the population could've been given the vaccine and the other not. So we'd have seen whether it worked or not. But that wasn't the case. The fact is, the death rate from meningococcal disease has skyrocketed since the introduction of the vaccine, and the MOH continues to mislead and decieve the public. Still, Chiron made a cool $140 million and one can only assume that some of the boffins associated with rollout of the vaccine here also made a tidy sum.
-
> We just don't understand these people.
Have you tried to understand them?
-
> They *and* the most recent jury may well have believed that Shipton et al were in the habit of using police batons for sexual penetration ... but in itself that's not a criminal offence (and nor should it be). It might, OTOH, represent a significant disciplinary breach.
Ordinarily, I would agree with you. But the allegations involving a baton were aimed primarily at Shipton and Schollum, who are no longer cops. To raise the issue of baton use in conjunction with Rickards' future with the police is, I believe, barking up the wrong tree - unless you think innuendo should be permitted in employment discussions. This might explain why it was recently claimed (oh, the timing) that Rickards had had sex on the bonnet of a police car. Hopefully, this claim will be treated with the contempt it deserves.
-
> but tell me rossy, if 'you cannot prove a negative', then how can you prove that statement, hmm?
If I knew what statement you were referring to, I might respond. Could you be more specific.
And Russell, you do yourself no favours by referring to me in the same post about misogyny. Just for the record, many rapes are susccessfully prosecuted each year, and rightly so. In no way at all am I am an apologist for rapists and I take great offence at the suggestion. As far as I'm concerned, rapists should have the book thrown at them. Glad we've got that cleared up.
-
> Also, the justice system operates on a innocent until proven guilty premise.
But there are some here who apparently believe, in sex cases, guilty until proven innocent. The fact remains: you cannot prove a negative.
> In this case, I'm not sure that anybody comes off particularly well.
I agree with you there.
-
> Uh, they didn't decide that it wasn't used. They decided that it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt.
But what caused this doubt? Remember this doubt was not among just one juror but ALL 36 jurors. However, Russell's opinion is that there is no doubt that a baton was used. How can you reconcile the two positions - well, the 36 jurors heard all the evidence and the rest of us didn't.
-
James,
The MeNZB vaccine has been the biggest health initiative ever. Are you saying that the govt is in the business of committing more than $200 million without knowing the likelihood of success? And, no, to find out if something works, you do trials before deciding if it's worth going ahead with spending such a vast sum.
-
> External? Like, other policemen? Or are they not credible witnesses?
Apparently when they're appearing for the prosecution, they're very credible, but as soon as they appear for the defence, they're not. Hmmm.
-
> If you can't honestly admit you were wrong, perhaps you could do the decent thing and give up and go away.
OK, I admit that I, like 36 jurors who - over three trials - heard all the evidence and who decided that a baton apparently wasn't involved, am wrong.