Good post Welsh.......
Printable View
Good post Welsh.......
[QUOTE=welsh;1022604]Well, you have two problems there.
"The first is that, as anyone who has done interviews can tell you, you may talk to a reporter for half an hour and only three sentences will be quoted. And the reporter will quote the things that support his slant. So trying to build arguments off those quotes is a fool's game. The study says what the study says, and quotes in the media don't change that."
Are we to then believe that statements that were purported to be made by a certain Doctor was not in fact made and its fake news?
Austin said there is a pervasive belief that Canada doesn't have a problem with firearms, primarily because the level of gun deaths in the United States is so "spectacular" in comparison.
"It's like being shorter than (NBA star) Wilt Chamberlain," she said of measuring Canada's firearm death rate against that of its southern neighbor.
This was reported to have been said by Dr Katherine Austin, Sick Kids to CTV News.
No. I didn't say that, I didn't imply that, and that is not in any way a reasonable interpretation of what I wrote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
What I suggested is that (a) those statements can't be taken to represent the entirety of the doctor's beliefs, and (b) those statements can't be used to infer motivations that in turn are used to discredit the study by poisoning the well (i.e., arguing ad hominem by reference to those supposed motivations).
And by the way, Dr. Katherine Austin is (a) not one of the study authors, and (b) not working at Sick Kids. She works at the Morris Heights Health Center in New York City. ( https://www.linkedin.com/in/katherin...d-mph-29651b64 )
[QUOTE=welsh;1022604
This was a study of non-fatal injuries.[/QUOTE]
Glad to have some common ground on this, Welsh. But the Ottawa Citizen was one of the few media outlets that offered somewhat of a breakdown of the numbers. And that included numbers pertaining to fatalities.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/...509/story.html
Obtained from a policy position published by the Canadian Paediatric Society, not from the study published in the CMAJ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Larson
Go read the study.
Maybe you need better reading glasses because that link clearly states Hospital for Sick Children. I an pretty sure she was the one who spoke on CBC on the morning of the report being out and was introduced as working at the same hospital.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
She also co wrote the Canadian Paediatric Society DOCUMENT.
Uh....Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Katherine Austin, MD, MPH
Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine
Morris Heights Health Center Brown University
She worked at Sick Kids over 20 years ago. Since August 2013, she has been Medical Director, Community Based Health Services at the Morris Heights Health Center in New York. This is her current employment, according to her ... I think that may be more reliable than what you are "pretty sure" you remember.
Yes, she did write the CPS position statement. This is how I know I have the right Katherine Austin: she lists that among her publications.
But the CPS position statement is not the same document as the study published in the CMAJ. She is not one of the study authors.
No problem with my reading glasses. Perhaps a problem with your ability to read and comprehend a CV.
Would you like me to fill you in on how she is connected to the study authors?
That's a great comeback! I like it . :D :thumbup:Quote:
No problem with my reading glasses. Perhaps a problem with your ability to read and comprehend a CV.
Would you like me to fill you in on how she is connected to the study authors?
Really Welsh.
You should know better but if you insist.
1) Please don't lecture on the media twisting words, quoting people out of context. You are brutal for that. Highly ironic for someone insulting people just because they disagree with god. Perhaps you should pay closer attention? And perhaps be a little more astute with respect to your own renowned ability to take things out of context, (insert "insult" about failing memory) misquote, and flat out accuse people of saying things they haven't said.
Toys, these are god damn toys. And reminds us please just how many incidents spanning the period?Quote:
"Death is clearly a devastating outcome, but near-misses are also a devastatingly significant issue," said Saunders, noting the study looks at both gun deaths and injuries, which in some cases can lead to severe disabilities."It is our hope that understanding the numbers will contribute to efforts that are already being made to reduce the number of victims of both unintentional firearm injuries in Canadian-born children and youth, as well as firearm assault in subgroups of immigrant children and youth."
"get a grip"
Now I did say authors, (what were you saying about journalistic hacks that will take one sentence and........) at that point, is a catch all, for them and the CMAJ to whom much has been attributed, including the very basic understanding of how to conduct "scientific research", about the importance of data, (garbage in=garbage out) the need for it to be bullit proof.But I suppose if one has an agenda, taking the time to parse those numbers from the get go......which obviously, very obviously was easy given how fast they did it retroactively , when the proverbial hit the fan.....all that needs to be said.
and when to publish and when not to, etc.
Quote:
The numbers are really high, so it’s definitely a problem that we have to take seriously,” said Astrid Gutmann, one of the study’s authors
Quote:
Dr. Natasha Saunders, the study’s lead author and a paediatrician and associate scientist at the Hospital for Sick Children, said the findings are astonishing.
Theres more, by the CPS and CMAJ.Quote:
A child or youth injured by a gun each day in this province is staggering,” Saunders said
Perhaps its you thats having trouble coming to terms with reality.
Don't do it Welsh, take your very minor lumps and let it go. Now, before it starts
And just incase, in an attempt to stop it cold.
This Neurologist, who wrote the to the CMAJ, "get its". Unlike them and apparently you. Has a better grip on reality and scientific research, than them as well. There is utterly no excuse, He, makes pretty much the same argument I have from the beginning, its dirty bath water and more.
http://www.cmaj.ca/letters/#733042
In your response to a previous question on this forum, and not reported in your original paper, it now appears that 55.1% of unintentional firearm injuries came from BB guns and airguns. By comparison only 5.6% came from long guns, and 2.5% from handguns. Of the 36% Not Specified, we have no way of knowing whether they represented a similar breakdown, but if they did, then extrapolating to the full group it would mean that perhaps 86% of the unintentional injuries came from BB guns and airguns.
While you correctly quoted the definition of a firearm as "a barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, and includes any frame or receiver of such a barrelled weapon and anything that can be adapted for use as a firearm", a perusal of these same regulations will also show that the Firearms Act states (section 84.3.d) that devices that do not produce projectiles with "a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.4 m per second or at a muzzle energy exceeding 5.7 Joules" are "deemed not to be firearms", and this impacts tremendously on the laws regarding purchase, storage, transportation and use of the devices.
The importance of the distinction is that devices in the latter group (which I will call pseudo-firearms) do not require licensing or registration, have no storage regulations, and in general are purchased as a toy, not as a firearm in the sense that the public generally understands this word to imply.
Do you feel that it is reasonable to take data that overwhelmingly reported injuries by pseudo-firearms and use it to draw conclusions about and suggest national public policy on "real" firearms, when completely different laws regarding purchase, licensing, storage, and transportation govern these two different classes of items.
Furthermore, from the paper, the rate of unintentional injury in individuals <15 years of age was roughly 25% of that in individuals 15- 25 years. Given this, and given that pseudo-firearms represented the large majority of the unintentional injuries in this study, do you still feel that naming this paper "Risk of firearm injuries among children and youth of immigrant families" truly represents the nature of what this report measured and documented? Do you feel that the media in Canada used your paper in a manner that reflected the data you gathered with headlines that typically stated "one child is accidentally injured every day in Canada by gun violence " (Global News, March 27).
Conflict of Interest:
I am a member of the OMA. I am a sports shooter and member of the CSSA (Canadian Shooting Sports Association) and CCFR (Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights).
Submit response
Published April 7, 2017
Re:Author reply
Dave Benn, Retired Millwright
Re: "Risk of firearm injuries among children and youth of immigrant families" Saunders, et al., 189:E452-E458doi:10.1503/cmaj.160850
I too have been puzzled by this report and wondered why there is such a large number under "unknowns". Why was this even used if you know nothing about it? Thank you, Dave