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.

Saturday, May 7, 2011

Tainted Taser Studies

UCSF Cardiologists Find Taser Studies Tainted - Research funded by the stun-gun maker significantly more likely to conclude the weapon is safe [LINK]

A new study by two UCSF cardiologists suggests that many of the studies attesting to the safety of Tasers are funded by the stun gun's manufacturer or authored by researchers affiliated with it.

Dr. Peyman N. Azadani and Dr. Byron K. Lee looked at every study of Taser safety that they could find -- some 50 of them -- and found that 23 of the studies were funded by Taser International or written by an author affiliated with the company.

The researchers found that studies either funded by Taser or written by authors who were affiliated with the company were significantly more likely to conclude the devices were safe than studies that were funded independently.

Some 96 percent of studies supported by Taser concluded that the devices were “not harmful” or “unlikely harmful.” By comparison, only 55 percent of the independent studies found the devices to be “not harmful” or “unlikely harmful.” ...

Possible explanations:
1. Coincidence (odds 0.00%)
2. Corruption (bingo!)
3. Conniving (bingo!)
4. Cash (bingo!)

No comments: