Few days ago I was going through old advertisements from the heydays of marketing when, apparently, nobody bothered to check the alleged studies and experts’ opinions that were supposed to back up claims of the advertiser. Or use common sense for that matter. A 12-year old boy was beaming with pride and praise to his dad who got him a winchester rifle for Christmas. A soda giant advertised its caffeine and sugar-rich drink as good for the kids and babies telling mums across the US of A that the earlier they start pouring the beverage down their kids’ tiny little throats the better; for the kids and mums alike. Nowadays, the technique is called “pushing” and what’s grown up from the decaffeinated kids is called a “stereotyped American”. OK, a caricature of the concept. I also learned that, in the 1950s, more doctors smoked a particular brand of cigarettes.
Building on that great tradition of industry backed expert’s opinions, Taser International sponsored studies showed that their stun guns are safe from medical point of view. That would be normal, in a very specific way. What’s not normal by any stretch of imagination is that after several hundred Taser related death and independent expert opinionsns law enforcement agencies still refer to Taser International’s studies in defence of the controversial stun guns use.
Public opinion was teased again this week when an cardiology expert who happens to be on the Taser International’s payroll testified in the Braidwood inquiry into the death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski. Predictably, Dr. Charles Swerdlow said he didn’t think Dziekanski’s death was at all related to the use of a taser. It’s not necessary to go into medical details, that’s for the experts to decide. On the other hand, to base the opinion on the testimony alleging that Dziekanski had a pulse after being tasered 5 times, appears to be a little suspicious because A) it’s a matter of minutes and B) people in coma have a pulse too.
The issue here is that the taser was deployed in a way that contradicted RCMP’s own guidelines and, in an indirect way, to the Taser International lab tests since these involved neither a multiple use nor an police officer kneeling on the tasered person in a way that restrained breathing.
Swerdlow has an obvious conflict of interests but his testimony should stand. It is a great evidence of reluctance on part of both the manufacturer and the RCMP to provide independent tests’ results and to accept independent experts. I just wonder what Dr. Swerdlow smokes.