[voyageur]

Link
Once again, the Bush administration is muzzling certain scientists. The Dept. of Health and Human Services has prevented some American scientists and doctors from attending and presenting their findings at the International AIDS conference in Bangkok this week. Included are government-employed scientists from the Centers for Disease Control.

The editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) had this to say:

"It is an incredible example of political pettiness. It is anti-intellectual and it is interfering with scientists and the scientific process and means American government-employed scientists are not allowed to be here to share their knowledge."

[dcolton]

Originally posted by voyageur:
Link
Once again, the Bush administration is muzzling certain scientists. The Dept. of Health and Human Services has prevented some American scientists and doctors from attending and presenting their findings at the International AIDS conference in Bangkok this week. Included are government-employed scientists from the Centers for Disease Control.

The editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) had this to say:

"It is an incredible example of political pettiness. It is anti-intellectual and it is interfering with scientists and the scientific process and means American government-employed scientists are not allowed to be here to share their knowledge."

Can you post the entire article. There is one thing missing...WHY.

[Logic]

Clicky

[voyageur]

Yes, why is the question. The article doesn't reveal why, only speculates that it has to do with the Bush administration's support of abstinence-only programs over condom-education and similar programs.

The Salon article:

July 12, 2004 _|_ BANGKOK -- The US government came under scathing attack from senior members of the medical establishment yesterday for blocking scientists from attending the International AIDS conference which opened in Bangkok.

The biennial conference, with 17,000 delegates, is more political rally than scientific meeting and bears huge significance for those involved in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

The US government has sent only a fraction of its usual contingent of scientists, pleading cost � 50 instead of the 236 who attended the last event in Barcelona in 2002.

The Department of Health and Human Services, headed by the health secretary, Tommy Thompson, was yesterday accused of actively preventing certain US scientists and doctors who had a contribution to make from travelling to Bangkok.

Many suspect that behind the action lies a rift between the US and AIDS activists who oppose America's approach to the global pandemic.

Joep Lange, president of the Sweden-based International AIDS Society, which organises the conference, said it had been forced to retract papers that had been accepted for conference sessions after the US scientist authors had been refused permission to come. Many meetings, some to train developing world researchers, have had to be cancelled.

"I really think it is shameful that they restricted the US government participation, particularly when you think they are putting so much money into the fight and people in the field who have to do the job are directly prevented from coming here," said Dr Lange.

Earlier, the editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (Jama) had also unexpectedly spoken out. Catherine DeAngelis said that Marc Bulterys, the co-author of a Jama paper who worked for the government's Atlanta-based Centres for Disease Control (CDC), had not been allowed to accept an invitation to fly to Bangkok to talk about it.

"It stymies the ability of scientists to discuss and learn from each other," said Dr DeAngelis. "It is wrong."

She pointed out that the trip would have been paid for by the American Medical Association, not the US government. "It is an incredible example of political pettiness. It is anti-intellectual and it is interfering with scientists and the scientific process and means American government-employed scientists are not allowed to be here to share their knowledge," she said.

Behind the fracas lies the gulf between the US policies on tackling HIV/AIDS in the developing world and those of AIDS activists who tend to dominate the big international event. Two years ago, Mr Thompson tried to give a speech at the conference in Barcelona but was rendered inaudible by noisy protests. This year the organisers have asked activists to be more civil and allow those with whom they disagree to be heard.

Although the US has put more money into the fight against HIV/AIDS than the rest of the world put together, including $15bn (�8.5bn) pledged by President Bush in January last year, activists are unhappy with the way the money is to be spent. Most of it will go to American-instigated programmes in 15 selected countries which stress the so-called ABC philosophy � abstinence, be faithful and condoms "where appropriate".

Peter Piot, executive director of UNAIDS, said last week that abstinence, particularly for women in southern Africa, was often not an option.

Randall Tobias, the former head of the pharmaceutical firm Eli Lilly, who runs the president's plan for AIDS relief, heads the US team in Bangkok. Yesterday he said he had "a very large delegation" with him.

The CDC had offered another scientist instead of Dr Bulterys, he said. "It is true that the person who was the author was not part of the delegation but we offered another scientist and they declined," he said.

The significance of the conference was emphasised at the opening ceremony by Joep Lange, president of the International AIDS Society. The Bangkok event is the first in the AIDS-hit developing world since the conference in Durban, South Africa, in 2000.

"Durban was a watershed event that catalysed many developments," he said. Prices of AIDS drugs came down, fundraising was stepped up and there are now plans to put millions on treatment.

"Like Durban, Bangkok could be a watershed event," he said. "The conference is strategically located in Asia, the most populous continent in the world and home to a quarter of all new HIV infections. Asia still has the opportunity to prevent the epidemic from getting completely out of hand."

Kofi Annan, UN secretary general, called for leadership from all parts of governments, all the way to the top, which has not been seen in all Asian countries, just as African leaders took years to recognise the crisis and speak out against stigma. "AIDS is far more than a health crisis. It is a threat to development itself," he said.

Leadership was one of three priorities he defined. He also called for infrastructure to be scaled up in AIDS-hit countries to allow more people to be treated and he called for a better deal for women who are unable to defend themselves against unsafe sex because of poverty, abuse, violence and coercion by older men. "What is needed is the education of girls," he said.

(Emphasis added.)
You can also see that this week's JAMA is devoted to the results of AIDS studies, some of which show that programs that emphasize education and condoms effectively prevent AIDS. This is in conflict with the Bush administration's international efforts.

[macvillage.net]

THe international community as a whole estimates we are about 10 years behind in Cancer research because of US policy.

The US has a ton of funds for research, but the legality of the research is to limited. And you can't fund europe, and Asia where science and medical research is legal.

Yet another example of how $$$ means jack. It's how they are used. Quite a bit of the most promising research on AIDS is being done in Europe and Asia right now. Same with Cancer. Why? Because they are free to research without the feds breathing down their neck.

If the US wasn't so restrictive, perhaps we would have hit the 50% cancer survival rate a decade earlier... that translates into quite a few lives.


The real sad thing about AIDS is that we are at a point where almost nobody should die from it. While there is no cure, proper medical treatment early on is very effective when continued as perscribed with regular exams and adjustments. There's no reason the majority of AIDS patients can't live a normal productive life. The only problem is these drugs cost thousands. We can't cure it, but we can prevent it from killing in quite a majority of cases. And testing for it is simple.

[BlackGriffen]

This alone is reason enough to vote against Bush, IMHO. Even if Kerry only toes the party line for opportunism, it's better to do the right thing for the wrong reason than the wrong thing for the wrong reason.

BG

[UNTeMac]

Bush seems to operate on the ideal that he can change centuries-old foreign cultures by throwing rural american values at a problem.

[Spliffdaddy]

Liberals seems to operate on the ideal that they can change centuries-old foreign cultures by throwing rural american money at a problem.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Liberals seems to operate on the ideal that they can change centuries-old foreign cultures by throwing rural american money at a problem.

She pointed out that the trip would have been paid for by the American Medical Association, not the US government.

Come again?

[Spliffdaddy]

"Behind the fracas lies the gulf between the US policies on tackling HIV/AIDS in the developing world and those of AIDS activists who tend to dominate the big international event. Two years ago, Mr Thompson tried to give a speech at the conference in Barcelona but was rendered inaudible by noisy protests."


Besides, I wouldn't allow government scientists to fly to Bangkok to discuss anything.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
"Behind the fracas lies the gulf between the US policies on tackling HIV/AIDS in the developing world and those of AIDS activists who tend to dominate the big international event. Two years ago, Mr Thompson tried to give a speech at the conference in Barcelona but was rendered inaudible by noisy protests."

That doesn't explain how denying scientists the right to accept an invitation not paid for by the government is costing you your hard-earned rural tax dollars.

It just means that you happen to agree with your government's ideological stance which is a real international problem.

[Spliffdaddy]

Nobody is stopping them from flying to Bangkok and talking about ring-tailed marmosets or snail darters..

They're being excluded from pointlessly discussing the things they learned from using our tax dollars.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
They're being excluded from pointlessly discussing the things they learned from using our tax dollars.

Which could conceivably save quite a few lives around the globe somewhere down the line. I can see how this is "pointless" to a Tennessee redneck.

And this presents a financial burden to the US how?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
That doesn't explain how denying scientists the right to accept an invitation not paid for by the government is costing you your hard-earned rural tax dollars.

It just means that you happen to agree with your government's ideological stance which is a real international problem.

Spiff is under the impression AIDS is a hoax perpetrated by African Americans to steal his money.



(sadly, there are statistically quite a few Americans who do believe it's a hoax... thankfully that number is dropping, though unfortunate because the motivation is people dying).


What's ironic is that the US AIDS population is grossly underestimated. In most other countries researchers have done random tests, and research to estimate how many have it (especially in Africa). Here in the US, it's suspected that only 1 in 200 AIDS patients even know they have it. The CDC only reports confirmed cases (which is also underestimated because if your rich, you go to a doctor who will keep it under wraps). Meaning our nations .0001% is really much higher. The US just doesn't like the idea of an epidemic within our own borders.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
They're being excluded from pointlessly discussing the things they learned from using our tax dollars.

"pointlessly discussing"? WTF?????

that is one of the most IGNORANT things i have heared in a long time. i would hardly call trying to find a cure for a very REAL disease a "pointless discussion".

hey, if i were an american scientist, i'd just get on plane and fly down to bangkok anyway. fu<k duya and his circus of a$$clowns. while there, apply for a thai citizenship. the way things are looking, the us of a is going down the drain anyway...

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
"pointlessly discussing"? WTF?????

that is one of the most IGNORANT things i have heared in a long time. i would hardly call trying to find a cure for a very REAL disease a "pointless discussion".

Well, it's just furriners doin' the dying...right?

riiiight.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
They're being excluded from pointlessly discussing the things they learned from using our tax dollars.

You don't have an effing clue how science works, do you? The name of the game is basically discussing things, spreading information, trying to hash out ideas with as many people as possible in the hopes that somebody will figure something out. Things like finding a flaw in a theory, pointing, "Oh, we've done that work," or saying, "Have you thought of this?"

BlackGriffen

[voyageur]

More on this today:

The absence of American researchers at the International AIDS Conference here this week has left many pondering why the decision was made to limit US attendance, and by whom.

"It came from above [Secretary of Health and Human Services] Tommy Thompson," said one US researcher who was told not to present her paper and had to find funding from other sources to attend. Although her work was cofunded by her university, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) component meant she was forbidden to present or talk to the media, she told The Scientist. "So I'm not going to give you my name."

Spliffdaddy, medical research has a long and fruitful history of being funded by taxpayer dollars. It's what helped make our healthcare and medical research the envy of the world. We are at risk of seeing it go down the drain because some politicians want to censor the results to fit their agendas. A year ago we saw the Bush administration remove key parts of a major EPA report because it conflicted with their stance on global warming. And now this. It's a disgrace.

[Spliffdaddy]

It's an effort to limit "bad press" for America.

Seems no matter where we go or what we do, there's a segment of the world that has a major problem with where we are or what we're doing.

At a conference with a history of hecklers and protestors and anti-American sentiment - it's downright amazing to me that anyone would even *think* Americans would willfully subject their country to it AGAIN. Besides, it's kinda dumb to sit there and not be able to discuss anything because of the drone of screaming protesters.

Just like the Dubya/NAACP issue. They talk crap about him continuously, then invite him over for a chat. When he declines, they scream "told you he was racist" - and start an effort to prevent his re-election.

Liberals are the same worldwide.

I rest my case.

[Spliffdaddy]

supporting evidence:

full text> http://www-tech.mit.edu/V122/N29/WN_long_4_29.29w.html

THE WASHINGTON POST -- BARCELONA, Spain Wednesday, July 10, 2002

Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson’s address at the 14th International AIDS Conference was drowned out Tuesday by activists who were angry that the Bush administration had not pledged more money to fight the global pandemic.

The protesters began blowing whistles and shouting “Shame! Shame!” and “No more lies!” as Thompson came to the podium. They continued until he finished his address, making his speech virtually unintelligible to the audience. There was no violence or attempt to stop the demonstration, and there were no arrests.

For part of the half-hour event, about 30 people stood on the stage holding signs accusing Thompson and President Bush of “murder and neglect” of people with AIDS, and demanding that the United States contribute more to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. A dozen plainclothes security guards and Secret Service agents stood silent and motionless between Thompson and the protesters.

Later, the protesters retreated to the aisles but continued to chant. The demonstration ended soon after Thompson finished his speech, took a drink of water, removed his glasses and walked backstage between parted curtains.

One of the two co-chairmen of the conference, Jose Gatell, an infectious diseases physician from a medical school in Barcelona, sat quietly in the front row of the auditorium during the protest, talking once with the head of security.

“Well, it happens,” Gatell said, declining to comment further.

Neither of the speakers who followed Thompson -- Richard Feachem, who will become the first executive director of the Global Fund next week, or Gro Harlem Brundtland, the leader of the World Health Organization -- made any reference to the protest in their addresses. There was no public criticism of the protesters, who later held a news conference in the conference’s Media Center.

There's your answer to why he didn't allow anyone to attend this year's conference. How easy was that? Some of you dolts sit around and ponder the answer to some mighty damn simple questions sometimes.


In 2000, at the IAC in Africa, hundreds of delegates simply walked out when they didn't like what was being said.

And look what happened just a year ago >

The European Union defended its record on funding a global scheme to fight AIDS as angry protesters heckled French President Jacques Chirac at an international conference on the disease on Wednesday.

http://www.hivandhepatitis.com/2003i...s/071803m.html

it isn't an AIDS conference, it's a thinly disguised anti-western-society protest rally.

[dcolton]

I am not certain I quite understand the issue here. Some here are in an uproar, and I still don't know WHY. I just see complaining. I don't understand how the absence of the USA from this conference has an effect on anyone. Pheonixboy mentioned that it has an effect because we can't share info...but aren't there quite a few ways of sharing research? Call me ignorant, but seriously, what is the issue? Is the US supposed to lead the world in aids/ cancer research as well. Are we supposed to finance every study?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Just like the Dubya/NAACP issue. They talk crap about him continuously, then invite him over for a chat. When he declines, they scream "told you he was racist" - and start an effort to prevent his re-election.

He's the first president to be at odds with them in over a generation.

It's not a cyclical thing like you make it sound. It's directed at his administrations policies, and his decision not to attend.

Every other president has talked, as they are always invited. It's tradition at this point.


This isn't even liberal vs. conservative. This is Bush vs. African Americans (part 3.02x10^23)

[voyageur]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I am not certain I quite understand the issue here. Some here are in an uproar, and I still don't know WHY. I just see complaining. I don't understand how the absence of the USA from this conference has an effect on anyone. Pheonixboy mentioned that it has an effect because we can't share info...but aren't there quite a few ways of sharing research? Call me ignorant, but seriously, what is the issue? Is the US supposed to lead the world in aids/ cancer research as well. Are we supposed to finance every study?

Sigh. Because it's an international conference where scientists from around the world can present their findings on AIDS. Because attending conferences is part of being a scientist. Because, to my knowledge, our government has never prevented certain scientists from attending conferences for political reasons. Because interfering in science for political reasons is deadly to science.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by voyageur:
Sigh. Because it's an international conference where scientists from around the world can present their findings on AIDS. Because attending conferences is part of being a scientist. Because, to my knowledge, our government has never prevented certain scientists from attending conferences for political reasons. Because interfering in science for political reasons is deadly to science.

Now will someone tell my WHY scientists are being blocked from going. Or is it just that the government won't sponsor a scientist?

This isn't even liberal vs. conservative. This is Bush vs. African Americans (part 3.02x10^23)

WHAT! Quit speaking for blacks.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Now will someone tell my WHY scientists are being blocked from going. Or is it just that the government won't sponsor a scientist?

from the article posted above:

"pleading cost"

Of course, that doesn't explain why scientists were forbidden to accept invitations that wouldn't have cost the government a penny, as I pointed out to Spliffy above.

And "WHY!?" is precisely the question nobody can find an answer for, because there is none that makes sense - other than political agenda.

-s*

[itai195]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Now will someone tell my WHY scientists are being blocked from going. Or is it just that the government won't sponsor a scientist?

Politics.

[Spliffdaddy]

past experience.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
past experience.

explain.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
explain.

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
supporting evidence:

full text> http://www-tech.mit.edu/V122/N29/WN_long_4_29.29w.html

THE WASHINGTON POST -- BARCELONA, Spain Wednesday, July 10, 2002

Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson’s address at the 14th International AIDS Conference was drowned out Tuesday by activists who were angry that the Bush administration had not pledged more money to fight the global pandemic.

The protesters began blowing whistles and shouting “Shame! Shame!” and “No more lies!” as Thompson came to the podium. They continued until he finished his address, making his speech virtually unintelligible to the audience. There was no violence or attempt to stop the demonstration, and there were no arrests.

For part of the half-hour event, about 30 people stood on the stage holding signs accusing Thompson and President Bush of “murder and neglect” of people with AIDS, and demanding that the United States contribute more to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. A dozen plainclothes security guards and Secret Service agents stood silent and motionless between Thompson and the protesters.

Later, the protesters retreated to the aisles but continued to chant. The demonstration ended soon after Thompson finished his speech, took a drink of water, removed his glasses and walked backstage between parted curtains.

One of the two co-chairmen of the conference, Jose Gatell, an infectious diseases physician from a medical school in Barcelona, sat quietly in the front row of the auditorium during the protest, talking once with the head of security.

“Well, it happens,” Gatell said, declining to comment further.

Neither of the speakers who followed Thompson -- Richard Feachem, who will become the first executive director of the Global Fund next week, or Gro Harlem Brundtland, the leader of the World Health Organization -- made any reference to the protest in their addresses. There was no public criticism of the protesters, who later held a news conference in the conference’s Media Center.

There's your answer to why he didn't allow anyone to attend this year's conference. How easy was that? Some of you dolts sit around and ponder the answer to some mighty damn simple questions sometimes.


In 2000, at the IAC in Africa, hundreds of delegates simply walked out when they didn't like what was being said.

And look what happened just a year ago >

The European Union defended its record on funding a global scheme to fight AIDS as angry protesters heckled French President Jacques Chirac at an international conference on the disease on Wednesday.

http://www.hivandhepatitis.com/2003i...s/071803m.html

it isn't an AIDS conference, it's a thinly disguised anti-western-society protest rally.

[voyageur]

No, Spliffdaddy. The conference has several sections. A scientific, an economic and a political. The scientists are interested in presenting their findings at the scientific component, not the political. Because Tommy Thompson was heckled when he spoke at the political section is no reason to prevent scientists interested in attending the scientific portion.
And now, I really should get back to work.

[dcolton]

I thought the US wasn;t attending?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/condi...eut/index.html

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I thought the US wasn;t attending?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/condi...eut/index.html

Maybe the fact that you don't think so good comes from that you don't read so good:

originally posted by voyageur:
The US government has sent only a fraction of its usual contingent of scientists, pleading cost � 50 instead of the 236 who attended the last event in Barcelona in 2002.

Nobody said they weren't attending.

-s*

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Maybe the fact that you don't think so good comes from that you don't read so good:
Nobody said they weren't attending.

-s*

I am just haven't a difficult time understanding what the issue is here. Is everyone just trying to find another reason to bash bush?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I am just haven't a difficult time understanding what the issue is here.

Apparent.

See my previous post.

[tie]

Originally posted by voyageur:
Link
Once again, the Bush administration is muzzling certain scientists. The Dept. of Health and Human Services has prevented some American scientists and doctors from attending and presenting their findings at the International AIDS conference in Bangkok this week. Included are government-employed scientists from the Centers for Disease Control.

The editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) had this to say:

"It is an incredible example of political pettiness. It is anti-intellectual and it is interfering with scientists and the scientific process and means American government-employed scientists are not allowed to be here to share their knowledge."

Assuming this is accurate, it is an enormous mistake to try to shut down the scientists working on AIDS. In general, I think this an example of increasing micromanagement which is detrimental to science. The scientists had good reason for going to the conference. Get out of their way, and let them do their work.

[DeathToWindows]

I would love to see scientific publication and funding from the gov't be treated as wholly neutral; politics can stay the **** out of science - we're looking for proof, all that the politicos want is the bottom line (and the party line).

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I am just haven't a difficult time understanding what the issue is here. Is everyone just trying to find another reason to bash bush?

No, the problem is the US has been blocking quite a bit of AIDS research for years.


There's an international effort coordinating AIDS research worldwide.


And mostly working separate are some US companies, and the CDC.


The US has been refusing (despite researchers requests) to work with the rest of the world in cooperation to fight AIDS research.


The advantage for the US is that if a company finds a cure, it can sell it, and mantain all royalties... rather than an international coallition, where they would only make profit from manufacturing.

That's the reason the US is so against working together against AIDS. It would be a multi-billion dollar industry for the company that cures it... lots of trade and demand. The US can also subsidize it for countries that can't afford it's steep price, in return for some resources it has.


Now if it were made so many countries had the rights... it would be manufactured all over, and sold just slightly above cost... making it possible for all to get.


It's about $$$.

The Pharmaceutical Lobby is a very powerful group in our nation. It's billions and billions of dollars a year... one of the biggest industries in the US. And it grows exponentially. Having the cure to HIV be a US product would mean tons to this group. And they are in return very friendly to both Republicans and Democrats... to ensure nomatter who is in the whitehouse, they get their way.

[Y3a]

We should let the Africians continue to be the outspoken experts on AIDS, since they created the situation, and continue to prove how good there solutions to the problems are. We don't need to subject our scientists to harrassment by the "know-it-alls" who are conspiracy minded types who think it's a plot against them.