Feds Admit to Infecting Innocents with STDs

[RichardR]

Some people apparently don't know what a confession and apology mean.

But that's okay.

Some people agreed with Josef Mengele, too.

A.) The researchers themselves are probably all dead by now so they can't defend themselves or their research or confirm/deny these accusations.

B.) There was no investigation to determine the validity of this woman's claims prior to the formal issuance of the confession & apology from the Obama administration.

C.) Josef Mengele? really? you are really going to go there?

 

[88GT]

I like your posts Kirk.

But drawing any kind of parrallel between an irresponsible cop that will be less than served any form of justice, and a government that treated (or treats) people in a vile and inhumane manner are too far spread apart on the spectrum of tyranny.
No doubt about it conspiracy has existed and continues to exist in those entrusted to do right by people that keep their egos afloat.

But there is a lot human garbage between the two.
If it makes anyone feel any better, Bisard is going through hell - maybe he should - not for me to say. The scientists and government officials that did the STD crap most likely slept well enough.

I would just like to point out that a cover-up is a cover up. It doesn't matter if it happens at an international level or a good-ole-boy ring at the local 7-11. The winners write history. Ignorant believe it.

The problem is that no matter what level the cover-up happens, once exposed, start wondering what else that person covered up. Start wondering what those above THEM have covered up. Money talks.

I was going to say the same thing, but SE beat me to it. It's not stealing if the local bank teller palms a few $20s instead of doctoring the books to the tune of tens of thousands? The point is that the character of a man that can do it on the small level is the character of a man that can do it on any level.

According to the article you posted there were no "forced sterilizations" of Puerto Rican women, the article clearly states that the women agreed to have their tubes tied while already at the hospital after giving birth, but then the author of the article goes on to argue that they were "duped" into it because they were "too dumb" to ask for non-permanent birth control measures instead.

This is not about semantics, dude. Full disclosure is nothing short of all the information. Performing procedures or administering treatment without giving the patient full disclosure (which necessarily includes alternative options) holds the full weight of coercion and force.

 

[RichardR]

This is not about semantics, dude. Full disclosure is nothing short of all the information. Performing procedures or administering treatment without giving the patient full disclosure (which necessarily includes alternative options) holds the full weight of coercion and force.

I am not the one playing semantic games.

All of those women "voluntarily elected" to have their tubes tied, they did not have the procedure "forced" upon them against their will.

 

[jbombelli]

A.) The researchers themselves are probably all dead by now so they can't defend themselves or their research or confirm/deny these accusations.

B.) There was no investigation to determine the validity of this woman's claims prior to the formal issuance of the confession & apology from the Obama administration.

C.) Josef Mengele? really? you are really going to go there?

A) so what. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

B). I didn't know the government cleared their investigations with YOU. How do you know they couldn't verify the accuracy of the report with one phone call? Not everything takes two years to figure out you know. Especially when the allegations are true.
What takes a long time is figuring out who to charge and with what, amidst all the finger-pointing and buck-passing.

C). Damned right I'm going there.

 

[RichardR]

A) so what. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

No one who is probably still alive knows for certain that it did, or at least knows for certain that it happened as this woman claims it happened.

B). I didn't know the government cleared their investigations with YOU. How do you know they couldn't verify the accuracy of the report with one phone call? Not everything takes two years to figure out you know. Especially when the allegations are true.

40 year old research documentation would take more than a single phone call to sort through & the Obama administration should have investigated the matter thoroughly to validate if the claims were true, prior to issuing an admission of wrong doing & an apology on behalf of the American people.

What takes a long time is figuring out who to charge and with what, amidst all the finger-pointing and buck-passing.

Nope, what takes a long time is having investigators dig through a small mountain of paper work (all of the archived scientific research on this particular project) to find out whether or not the events actually occurred the way the woman claims they did.

C). Damned right I'm going there.

Gross exaggerations & outrageous comparisons are really sort of counter-productive to intelligent discussions.

 

[jbombelli]

You're assuming this story actually came as a surprise to them. You're assuming they didn't know about it before it became public. You're assuming nobody could verify the legitimacy of the released documents by spending 5 minutes in front of a microfiche reader. You're simply making a lot of assumptions, DESPITE all evidence thus far presented to the contrary.

But hey... Like I said, Josef Mengele had his supporters too.

 

[RichardR]

You're assuming this story actually came as a surprise to them. You're assuming they didn't know about it before it became public. You're assuming nobody could verify the legitimacy of the released documents by spending 5 minutes in front of a microfiche reader. You're simply making a lot of assumptions, DESPITE all evidence thus far presented to the contrary.

There hasn't been any investigation to produce the evidence of wrong doing to be presented thus far, that's the problem I have with the claims & subsequent admission of guilt & apology.

But hey... Like I said, Josef Mengele had his supporters too.

You keep implying that I am some sort of a Nazi or Nazi supporter, why is that?

Is it because I am skeptical of a super-secret "OMG! look at how evil America is!" research project that some leftist political activist claims she uncovered? Or is it because I am disagreeing with you?

 

[jbombelli]

Again, not everything requires a long, drawn out investigation.

And the Holocaust has its deniers, too.

 

[RichardR]

Again, not everything requires a long, drawn out investigation.

And the Holocaust has its deniers, too.

Gross exaggerations & outrageous comparisons are really sort of counter-productive to intelligent discussions.

.

 

[jbombelli]

.

I'm sorry. I couldn't tell you were trying to have an intelligent conversation, when your entire position boils down to "lalalalala I don't believe it."

 

[dom1104]

I wish I had time to read this thread, but I have to go get my flu shot at Walgreens.

The government wants me to.

 

[antsi]

If they treated them they wouldn't had been able to have studied the diseases progression, which sort of defeated the purpose.

Besides the participants were:

A.) all volunteers
&
B.) all compensated for their participation.

And what guarantee is there that if they had been "cured" that they wouldn't have just gone out and immediately gotten themselves reinfected again?

It was not the researchers job to cure their STD's or to follow them around 24/7 in order to keep the participants &/or their sexual partners STD free.

The researchers job was to study a very common, very infectious, sexually transmitted disease's progression, nothing more, nothing less.

I'm a medical researcher. I've been through the institutional ethical review process with multiple studies at multiple academic medical centers. The research ethics (really, complete lack thereof) that you are advocating here would get you fired from any institution in the United States.

In the research setting we are still professionals with a duty to the public. Research subjects cannot "consent" to negligence or malpractice.

Your understanding of research and ethics is laughable.

But at least you have an ideology that insulates you from having to think, and I'm sure that's a great comfort to you.

 

[RichardR]

I'm a medical researcher. I've been through the institutional ethical review process with multiple studies at multiple academic medical centers. The research ethics (really, complete lack thereof) that you are advocating here would get you fired from any institution in the United States.

In the research setting we are still professionals with a duty to the public. Research subjects cannot "consent" to negligence or malpractice.

Your understanding of research and ethics is laughable.

But at least you have an ideology that insulates you from having to think, and I'm sure that's a great comfort to you.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that this took place 60 years ago, at a time in history when anti-biotics were just starting to be researched & developed.

Prior to that medical practices included things like leaches, blood letting, amputation, life-sentence quarantines, etc were the norm for their perspective historical periods, shall we all also condemn Galen's work because he used slaves/gladiators in his research? what about Jenner who purposely infected his gardeners 8 year old son with cowpox? which is directly responsible for vaccinations against smallpox? shall we crucify him upon the altar of modern ethics too?

Applying today's standards, practices & ethics to condemn historical research, research (which is directly responsible for the advancement our modern medical practices, standards & ethics) is a fallacious argument, one that is completely made outside of historical context.

 

[dross]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that this took place 60 years ago, at a time in history when anti-biotics were just starting to be researched & developed.

Prior to that medical practices included things like leaches, blood letting, amputation, life-sentence quarantines, etc were the norm for their perspective historical periods, shall we all also condemn Galen's work because he used slaves/gladiators in his research? what about Jenner who purposely infected his gardeners 8 year old son with cowpox? which is directly responsible for vaccinations against smallpox? shall we crucify him upon the altar of modern ethics too?

Applying today's standards, practices & ethics to condemn historical research, research (which is directly responsible for the advancement our modern medical practices, standards & ethics) is a fallacious argument, one that is completely made outside of historical context.

I guess we shouldn't apply modern medical ethics to Nazi experiments on Jews, since that happened even before this. Not to mention different cultural mores that demand our tolerance.

 

[RichardR]

I guess we shouldn't apply modern medical ethics to Nazi experiments on Jews, since that happened even before this. Not to mention different cultural mores that demand our tolerance.

Except even when viewed through the lens of "historical context" the Nazi experiments were still unethical.

 

[rambone]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that this took place 60 years ago, at a time in history when anti-biotics were just starting to be researched & developed.

What flavor do you like?

 

[RichardR]

What flavor do you like?

When a side of a debate is reduced to gross exaggerations, outrageous comparisons & the posting silly pictures in order to make their point, it is about that time in which I bid my part in the discussion adieu.

A quick summary & I am finished.

1.) the claims of wrong doing haven't been verified yet.
2.) historical perspective is important.
3.) in situational ethics, the ends can (sometimes) justify the means.

 

[rambone]

When a side of a debate is reduced to gross exaggerations, outrageous comparisons & the posting silly pictures in order to make their point, it is about that time in which I bid my part in the discussion adieu.

A quick summary & I am finished.

1.) the claims of wrong doing haven't been verified yet.
2.) historical perspective is important.
3.) in situational ethics, the ends can (sometimes) justify the means.

Before you go, could you justify Waco & Ruby Ridge? I have been waiting a long time to debate a government shill as devoted as yourself.

 

[jbombelli]

"Situational ethics" and "sometimes the ends justify the means."


It doesn't get more tyrannical than that. Some people can justify anything that way. Tyrants always mask what they're doing with those types of claims. It's always for the greater good.

I'm personally ashamed that any American would adopt such a philosophy, and the use it to justify borderline-Mengelesque medical experiments.

 

[Fargo]

When a side of a debate is reduced to gross exaggerations, outrageous comparisons & the posting silly pictures in order to make their point, it is about that time in which I bid my part in the discussion adieu.

A quick summary & I am finished.

1.) the claims of wrong doing haven't been verified yet.
2.) historical perspective is important.
3.) in situational ethics, the ends can (sometimes) justify the means.

Ah, so you deny objective right and wrong. There is no point arguing any sort of morality with a person who denies the principle of non-contradiction. Avicenna and Aquinas recognized that from the beginning.

Joe