Mission Statement - De-Spinning the Pro-Taser Propaganda

Yeah right, 'Excited Delirium' my ass...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The primary purpose of this blog is to provide an outlet for my observations and analysis about tasers, taser "associated" deaths, and the behaviour exhibited by the management, employees and minions of Taser International. In general, everything is linked back to external sources, often via previous posts on the same topic, so that readers can fact-check to their heart's content. This blog was started in late-2007 when Canadians were enraged by the taser death of Robert Dziekanski and four others in a short three month period. The cocky attitude exhibited by the Taser International spokespuppet, and his preposterous proposal that Mr. Dziekanski coincidentally died of "excited delirium" at the time of his taser-death, led me to choose the blog name I did and provides my motivation. I have zero financial ties to this issue.

Thursday, May 8, 2008

Hands up Mr. "80%"

Canadian House of Commons SECU Taser Study meeting 30 January 2008:

...
Mr. Serge Ménard: I see that you have brought a lot of studies with you. What percentage of those studies have you contributed to?

Mr. Tom Smith: In the studies, when you look at our research, we actually highlight that this was a study that was funded by Taser International. I would estimate today that it's about 20% of the research. The 80%, for example, the Canadian research, the United Kingdom research, the Australian research, the U.S. Air Force research, was all done independently of our organization.
...

[LINK]

See what happened? The MP Ménard was asking about Taser contributing to studies (in any way, his question was not limited to funding). Smith answered a slightly different question.

So allow me to rephrase the question.

How many (and which) taser studies were COMPLETELY independent of Taser influence? By independent I'm not limiting my meaning to just 'funding'. What I mean is: no Taser employees involved, no Taser board members involved, no Taser in-house advisers involved, no Taser friends involved, no pro-Taser police research organizations involved, no one with any vested interest, no one with any TASR stocks or stock options, and no unethical non-disclosures.

So, how's the "80%" holding up?

Someone should have a close look at the 120 taser studies submitted to SECU and see if there are really 96 (120 times 80%) that would actually remain in the really-independent category after a critical and skeptical review of the authors list.

Based on the trend of non-disclosure and ineptitude, I'd be willing to bet on the results of such a review.

No comments: