Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. #11

    Default Re: More Manipulation

    Quote Originally Posted by CorditeCrazy View Post
    What happened to the contact details? I was looking to reach out to them.
    Just Google the names and you'll find the contact details. I was concerned about potential legal ramifications.

  2. #12
    User
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    GP, but in my mind, hunting for Ivory in the 1930's
    Age
    43
    Posts
    6,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wanderin' Zero View Post
    Just Google the names and you'll find the contact details. I was concerned about potential legal ramifications.
    Ah copied that, no problem

  3. #13

    Default Re: More Manipulation

    Reminds me of Abrahams research. She compared mortuary data between 1999 and 2009 on alleged victims of intimate femicide. There was a difference in the numbers and fewer appeared to have been shot in 2009 than in 1999 (even though she admits some bodies were so badly decomposed no cause of death could be established). Without doing any other analysis, she credited the FCA with reducing intimate femicide deaths. However there is no logical link or data which could back up her statement. It appears out of nowhere.

    Not sure how the MRC peer-reviews but its not looking very credible to me.

  4. #14
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Age
    48
    Posts
    70

    Default Re: More Manipulation

    I would say that this little "discrepancy" should be brought to the attention of the American Journal of Public Health as they would probably wish to protect their "reputable" status. Publishing fraudulent research findings shows that their vetting and peer-review process needs serious attention.

  5. #15

    Default Re: More Manipulation

    I am given to understand that Dr Matzopoulos was asked about the issue at the beginning of this thread and advised that in his view the essence of the FCA is supply reduction and that it is "reasonably clear" that this was occurring before 2004. That seems to be the whole basis and underpin for the study...nothing more. Go figger.

  6. #16
    User Paul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    on the edge of the gene pool, playing with an open container of HTH
    Posts
    15,621

    Default Re: More Manipulation

    The Medical Research Council (they try really hard to make as if they have some kind of official standing) that employs Matzopouos is funded by George Soros and his Open Society Foundation. Follow the money.
    "Always remember to pillage before you burn"
    Unknown Barbarian

  7. #17
    User
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Strand
    Age
    38
    Posts
    10,408

    Default Re: More Manipulation

    I am reviving this necropost because it deserves to be read, re-read, and shared far and wide.

  8. #18
    User Paul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    on the edge of the gene pool, playing with an open container of HTH
    Posts
    15,621

    Default Re: More Manipulation

    The following is the text from a brief academic response to Matzopolous:

    Bias-driven anti-firearm research present in GFSA advocacy.
    The popular press has been inundated of late with articles punting firearm control legislation, most recently those published by Dr Matzopoulos from Gun Free South Africa. The current discourse seems determined to create a broadly negative view towards legal and responsible firearm ownership. This negative narrative is being propounded by a specific flavour of academic research.
    The unlikely hypothesis that fire arm control legislation is effective should be supported by a significant increase in legal firearm licence holders being arrested and prosecuted for murder. This is obviously not the case.
    As it stands, there are various problems with Dr. Matzopoulos’ research indicate that a major anti-firearm bias is at play. Dr. Matzopoulos’ research data combines legal lawful interventions together with criminal drug related cases. Therefore legal firearm related interventions are equivocated with illegal uses which is a fallacy as the context between the two interventions differ greatly and legal firearm use is recognised by the South African legal system.
    The data used to support Mazopoulos’ views was from extracted from 2000 to 2005. The Firearms Control Act (FCA) no. 60 of 2000 was only promulgated in July 2004. An act cannot have a retroactive impact especially since no part of the act had been implemented prior to 2004 and any changes in firearm related incidents prior to this date cannot be related to the implementation of the Act.
    The research sample only considered one city (Johannesburg), in one ethnic group (African males), on one night of the week (a Saturday). This is obviously not representative of the South African population. Therefore the conclusions cannot be extrapolated beyond the narrow characteristics of the sample.
    The validity of these conclusions must be questioned due to flawed research design and their intended use as advocacy rather than academic enquiry. The main authors in these materials are Dr. Van As from the Children’s Red Cross hospital, Dr. Matzopoulos from the Medical Research Council (MRC), Mr. Lamb from the Safety and Violence Initiative (SaVI) and Mrs Kirsten from Gun Free South Africa. All have strong ties to the GFSA board and the success of their advocacy has implications for further funding.
    Dr. Van As has also published articles in academic journals in which he thanks Mrs. Kirsten and by referencing her book, “A Nation without guns?” as a major source of information on violence. Mrs Kirsten in turn uses Matzopoulos’ publications as her major source. It was a surprise for co-workers of Matzopoulos at the Medical Research Council (MRC), to learn that he is a dedicated and committed board member of GFSA. A clear conflict of interest exists in this case and is a source of bias. A further example of this bias is in the use of the term “denialists” in Matzopoulos’s article. Such terms do not have a place in serious academic literature.
    An invalid comparison is frequently drawn between the firearms control debate in the United States of America and South Africa. South Africa has had more stringent firearm control legislation for decades and this has been significantly more restrictive than the USA. The prevalence of firearm fatalities can also not be compared and the patterns of these fatalities differ materially too. These individuals have confused the roles of unbiased researchers with advocates of a particular view and imported it into a different context in South Africa.
    The approach of beginning a study with a conclusion inevitably leads to inflation of Type 1 errors that exaggerate conclusions based on uncontrolled biases. This is done when data is deliberately interpreted in such a way as to support the conclusions in the mind of the researcher. When passionate advocates meet objective research, does the honest broker stand a chance?
    Academic research has to be valid and follow the scientific process to be useful. The scientific process is based on the rules of (i) empirical evidence, (ii) objectivity, (iii) control, (iv) predictability, (v) hypotheses derived from theory and (vi) replication or falsifiability. It is clear that multiple rules of scientific research have been broken in this paper and the results cannot be valid and the conclusions drawn by the authors are not supported as a consequence.
    A further flaw in this research is that external variables are ignored. The researchers chose to ignore that the murder rate in South Africa has been in decline since the 1990’s. Other external factors must have been at play before the FCA was conceived and the researchers do not address this downward trend by confining themselves to a carefully chosen period of time. Furthermore, the murder rate increased around 2010 after a backlog of legal firearm licenses were issued. This shows the lack of correlation between gun control and crime and makes it clear that other factors really influence murder rates rather than legal gun ownership.
    The question remains, why do the researchers ignore any evidence that does not support their views? There are no alternative hypotheses possible in the minds of the researchers. A different team of researchers analysing the same data would quite probably come to different conclusions.
    In conclusion, the research presented by the anti-firearm advocacy groups supports a narrative that is not supported by scientifically robust research but by a political worldview. This is to the detriment of South Africa’s most law abiding sector of society – legal firearm owners. South African firearm owners have undergone stringent background checks and endured waiting periods of around 6 months and more before collecting their firearms.
    It is far easier to illegally acquire firearms than legally. The focus those truly concerned about the safety of the population, should be on illegal activities and the social causes of crime. Instead, anti-firearm advocacy groups continue to try to prevent law-abiding citizens from effectively protecting their loved ones and themselves. This is simply a wrongheaded approach. This is even extended to GFSA calling for the police to be disarmed of their most effective tools in the face of extremely violent criminals. There will only be one winner. And it will not be the peace loving citizens of South Africa.
    "Always remember to pillage before you burn"
    Unknown Barbarian

  9. #19
    User
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Wille wille Weste
    Age
    43
    Posts
    1,527

    Default Re: More Manipulation

    When one is consistently denied access to their source data it begs the question... what are they hiding?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. Bolt manipulation for left handers
    By Primo661 in forum Firearm and training Drills
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 28-08-2011, 18:32

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •