Bioelectromagnetics

It occurs to me that Mrs Blair might well have worn her 'protection' pendant in place of a Crucifix -- another talisman for warding off evil spirits.

So, the dilemma for the religious politician is:

WIFE: I'm wearing this pendant to protect me from radiation and bad vibes.

HUSBAND: Oh, you didn't go wasting money on that psuedo-science rubbish, did you?

WIFE: Mrs Caplin (sp?) says it works if one has FAITH darling. Don't be bringing those bad vibes of yours near our bedroom tonight, OK! You'll be telling me you don't believe in miracles, or heaven and hell, or the resurrection, or the Eucharist . . . or God, next. Are you becoming a heathen?

HUSBAND: No dear. Sorry dear. And will you be wearing that red basque tonight and those fishnets . . . you know I like that . . .'

WIFE: Well . . . IF you are a REALLY good boy . . .'

HUSBAND: You know, I really like that pendant. Do they do 'shielded ties' for men?"
 
T'ai Chi said:


Hey I'm a good sport, I agree. :)

I must've just saw the statistical claims in there and went on those without looking at the post closer.

But hey, my points are still valid. :)
Click to expand...
They certainly are! And they still pertain to Roger Coghill, because although somewhat exaggerated, the satire does not say anything different from him.

Hans ;).
 
T'ai Chi, please look at Roger's statistical claims properly.

He counted only ten haemocytometer squares, then claimed that he had n=10 in his study which gives it "sufficient statistical power". The fact that it's still all only one sample is completely ignored. In fact you'd normally count five haemocytometer squares and average the figure to get ONE data point. He's done little more than that and calls it ten data points. (In fact, at one point he boasted that this was "hundreds if not thousands of cells!". But you have to count hundreds of cells to get ONE result.)

Then when people started complaining that n=1 wasn't statistics, he countered by saying that it was OK to do each measurement as a singleton if your method was sufficiently precise. Yes, this is partly a non-sequitur and partly a flat contradiction of his earlier claim about having measured the same thing multiple times, but he seemed to think it was a sufficient answer.

T'ai Chi, these "ad homs" you object to are a result of people completely losing patience with Roger, and saying openly that they will no longer be polite to him. This happens when people spout as much nonsense as Roger has been spouting, but you won't realise just how much unless you read the whole thread. And maybe you missed the insults Roger has been hurling around wholesale? His tirade the moment he (rather belatedly) realised I was a vet?

This isn't just nasty horrible Bill being rude to poor innocent Roger by any means.

The Blessed Virgin Mary. (And you might like to scan back to find out what I'm signing posts in this thread like that, too!)
 
Oh, time for a repeat.

Roger, the dysmenorrhoea study, that is just about to be published.

Name of the journal, please?

The Blessed Virgin Mary.
 
Rolfe said:
T'ai Chi, please look at Roger's statistical claims properly.
Click to expand...


I did.


T'ai Chi, these "ad homs" you object to are a result of people completely losing patience with Roger, and saying openly that they will no longer be polite to him.
Click to expand...


Excuses.
 
Rolfe said:
OK, how about criticising him for the abuse he heaped on me, for the crime of being discovered to be a vet.

The Blessed Virgin Mary.
Click to expand...

Rolfe, skeptics are criticized more heavily because they should be more familiar with logical fallacies, the 'rules' of debate, etc.

I probably overlooked nasty comments he said to you since I was focused on addressing the statistical issues. If he did say them because of you being a vet, he should get criticized for that. If you give me a link to the post(s) I will examine it(them).
 
T'ai Chi said:
If he did say them because of you being a vet, he should get criticized for that. If you give me a link to the post(s) I will examine it(them).
Click to expand...
T'ai Chi, this thread is 60+ pages long in my browser. There are several instances of Roger letting fly at the entire veterinary profession in general and me in particular. If I happen to find any of them again I'll let you know, but I'm certainly not going searching and handing you a link on a plate.

By the way, the "Rolfe is a complete BVM" comment was finally deciphered as his schoolboy humour transforming my first degree, BVMS, as BUMs (as in, Rolfe is a bum). And that was probably the mildest of it.

The Blessed Virgin Mary.
 
Yahweh said:
I just thought I'd stop by and say "Hello" to everyone in the thead.


Hello!
Click to expand...

Hello, Yahweh. We're all waiting for Godot here. But, you know, Godot never comes. And even when he's been here, he never really arrives, if you catch my drift.

I've been hanging around trying to see if Dodger ever gets to an understanding of the hilarity of his compass comment or ever tells us the journal that is soon to publish his "paper" that, so far, has only been "released" for advertising.

Great stuff. Kind of a scientific Monty Python.
 
vlix said:


Here's where Cogreslab finally realized Rolfe is a vet:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870472719

Read on from that post for more.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Vlix. That was a good one.

Of course, when I commented that as I run a pathology laboratory I get precisely zero percent of my income from drug sales (and it's nothing to me what therapeuthic methods my colleagues choose to adopt), this resulted in more abuse.

He has absolutely no idea of the drug licensing system, and why it costs more to get specifically veterinary drugs licensed. Or of the obvious welfare reasons for not allowing untrained amateurs to perform surgery. I meant to ask him how he would like to be castrated without benefit of anaesthetic, by an untrained farmer using a rusty penknife, but I think I missed that trick.

We did go on to discuss the costs of equine anthelmintics, and the odd thing was that in spite of knowing that magnetised water is more effective than a licensed wormer, Roger seems to be still using the licensed wormers. Can't imagine why.

Anyway, T'ai Chi, that sample post should perhaps alert you to the reasons why some posters in this thread have decided that Roger is not a person one need take pains to be polite to.

Rolfe.
 
Roger is completely ticked off at vets because he isn't in on all that cash flow...appaently selling useless magnetic thingamabobs and living off donations and grants isn't nearly as lucrative. He is jealous of course.:D
 
Let's not be too hard on CogresLab, he's in Greece as a [waltermitty] keynote speaker on bioeletromagnetism to the WHO[/waltermitty]. I'm sure he will address our points when he returns

tapokketa----tapokketa----tapokketa
 
gmanontario said:
Roger is completely ticked off at vets because he isn't in on all that cash flow...appaently selling useless magnetic thingamabobs and living off donations and grants isn't nearly as lucrative. He is jealous of course.:D
Click to expand...
Trouble is, he has no idea at all of overheads, or of the cost of professional time. He equates a euthanasia consultation with the cost of the barbiturate, the syringe and the needle. He sees vets as just "selling" these things, not as professionals providing a professional service.

The fact is, vets provide a private medical service at a fraction of the cost of the same service in human medicine, delivered privately. They do all right by and large, though I do know of a few bankruptcies, and when I look at the rich ones I get the feeling that most of them benefited more from having bought a lot of property (to accommodate staff) in the days when houses were cheap, and saw its value go through the roof, than from their professional income. The profit margins aren't huge, it's quite a competitive field, and although there might well be a few dishonest shysters around (as there are in every profession), by and large vets get a reasonable income for doing a decent job they trained long and hard to qualify for.

Vets will happily adopt any new therapeutic method that actually benefits the patients. If magnets worked, they'd be using them. If magnets provided a very cheap therapeutic alternative, they'd be delighted, because they'd still be making their usual consultation fee, and they'd be able to help the animals without the cost being prohibitive for the client. Magnets would simply be incorporated into the therapeutic armoury like everything else. However, they don't work. Sorry, but that's it. There are a few vets around with the conscience of the Coghill who are prepared to peddle magnets for the novelty value, and the kudos it gives them with the more woo-woo clients, but thankfully they're in a very small minority.

I think Roger has such mercenary motives, and such a materialistic view of medicine, that he assumes everybody else is as bad as he is. Fortunately, he's wrong.

The Blessed Virgin Mary.
 
Prester John said:
That second one was really quite funny.
Click to expand...
Especially as it was Hans who was getting the stick for being a vet, when he isn't.

Did we get a follow-up rant about engineers, to compensate? I don't remember.

The Blessed Virgin Mary.
 
Rolfe said:
Especially as it was Hans who was getting the stick for being a vet, when he isn't.

Did we get a follow-up rant about engineers, to compensate? I don't remember.

The Blessed Virgin Mary.
Click to expand...

Can't remember, but "Pragmatist is a complete GC" (Garbage Collector) or "Hans is a complete EE" (Electronics Engineer) doesn't have quite the same ring to it somehow! :)
 
Rolfe said:
Trouble is, he has no idea at all of overheads, or of the cost of professional time. He equates a euthanasia consultation with the cost of the barbiturate, the syringe and the needle. He sees vets as just "selling" these things, not as professionals providing a professional service.

The fact is, vets provide a private medical service at a fraction of the cost of the same service in human medicine, delivered privately. They do all right by and large, though I do know of a few bankruptcies, and when I look at the rich ones I get the feeling that most of them benefited more from having bought a lot of property (to accommodate staff) in the days when houses were cheap, and saw its value go through the roof, than from their professional income. The profit margins aren't huge, it's quite a competitive field, and although there might well be a few dishonest shysters around (as there are in every profession), by and large vets get a reasonable income for doing a decent job they trained long and hard to qualify for.

Vets will happily adopt any new therapeutic method that actually benefits the patients. If magnets worked, they'd be using them. If magnets provided a very cheap therapeutic alternative, they'd be delighted, because they'd still be making their usual consultation fee, and they'd be able to help the animals without the cost being prohibitive for the client. Magnets would simply be incorporated into the therapeutic armoury like everything else. However, they don't work. Sorry, but that's it. There are a few vets around with the conscience of the Coghill who are prepared to peddle magnets for the novelty value, and the kudos it gives them with the more woo-woo clients, but thankfully they're in a very small minority.

I think Roger has such mercenary motives, and such a materialistic view of medicine, that he assumes everybody else is as bad as he is. Fortunately, he's wrong.

The Blessed Virgin Mary.
Click to expand...

I wasn't implying that vets are all rich or crooked or anything rolfe..it was just an observation of coghill.. I know how much a practice costs because my neighbor owns and runs a cat hospital. His expenses are totally unreal and he makes a good living, but hardly a 5 bedroom house and a garage full of Cadillacs.

ok back to lurking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom