WHY YOU SHOULD TRUST SCIENCEAnd then the reply that got me going:
In 1932, the government kindly offered free health care to 600 men in exchange for participation in a 6-month science experiment.
The experiment actually lasted 40 years.
These men had Syphilis, and the goal was to see how Syphilis progressed when untreated. This goal was hidden, and the doctors gave the men fake treatments. The fake treatments continued even after known effective treatments (penicillin) became widely available in 1947.
Various scientists brought up concerns, but they were dismissed. In 1966, the CDC reaffirmed the need to continue the study until completion; i.e., until all subjects had died and been autopsied. They received support for this statement from the American Medical Association and the National Medical Association.
In 1972 the experiment was stopped due to public outcry.
Anyways, here are the takeaways:
* Trust Science
* Trust Government
* The CDC, specifically, wants what's best for you
Sarah ChanaEmphasis mine.
Most physicians aren't members of the AMA.
Using the word "science" ambiguously to describe any group you're hating on right now because you don't understand what we do is idiotic. The FDA formed guidelines after these incidents to keep people safe. It's worked fairly well. The CDC has nothing to do with that--the combination of pharma working under FDA guidelines. Separating the private sector operating under FDA guidelines specifically designed to safeguard the safety of subjects and consumers from the CDC and organizations that don’t actually dictate what doctors (not necessarily research scientists, PhD or MD) even have to do is a first step in showing you have the most basic level of competency required to have a real conversation on /any/ topic related to pharmaceutical research.
The takeaway from these incidents was to create legislation that protected research subjects. It was one of the extremely rare incidents where more government actually saved millions of lives, because it was specifically done to safeguard the people without regard for what was easier or cheaper for either the government or private sector, with pure regard for subject and patient safety. Then, of course, you have ICH guidelines, which US pharmaceutical companies don’t have to utilize but typically do— and there's a lot of overlap with FDA guidelines. But hey, you could always keep listening to laymen instead of people who’ve run clinical trials and developed drugs for a living...
Just curious— next time you need surgery, are you going to have your plumber do it, or a doctor? Stop listening to morons who don’t have a clue how any of this works.
This was written by a fucking freelance author. I’m a drug development chemist who used to run trials. But yeah, keep listening to laymen run their traps about shit they don’t know the first thing about. Almost as if they know better than people who’ve dedicated their lives to extremely complex scientific and legal endeavors and bettering the state of humanity while they write cute little stories.
Do your basic background research from sources like myself (you know, scientists and drug dev professionals), not “freelance authors” and you might spew something one level above conspiracy drek.
This person spewed this diatribe in response to Sarah Hoyt pointing out that government carried out medical experiments on people without their knowledge, as a way of pointing out that we should not implicitly trust government always to do the right thing. This soi disant educated person missed that point and instead went off on a tangent about FDA guidelines and so forth, and then started calling everyone stupid and uneducated.
But it was that last line, about "basic background research" and "conspiracy drek", that led me to comment.
[Fungus] @Sarah ChanaThere has never, never, ever been a time in my life when I so thorougly owned someone in any kind of argument.
Do you deny the history, then? Because the bit was written by a "fucking freelance author" this experiment was never carried out, by government scientists, in America, and it was never approved by the AMA and CDC?
I'm sorry that I'm just a layman and not super-smart and super-educated, but that's how I read what you're saying. The situation you're calling "one level above conspiracy drek" actually happened. Which you might have learned, had you done a little "basic background research" yourself.
But here's a link for you to start with:
The experiments done on the Tusgkeegee Airmen is a famous example of government doing something horrible...and the government in question was one of the good ones! It was the United States that did this. Ms. Hoyt very wisely anonymized it, though, taking out all the racial aspect and any other identifying information, stripping the thing to its bare facts.
Presented with it, then, this Sarah Chana didn't recognize the source, didn't check on it, and simply denounced Ms. Hoyt as stupid. And then I pointed out what Ms. Hoyt had been referring to, and then Ms. Chana posted three long diatribes, mostly about how I was unqualified to evaluate these things and uneducated and stupid.
Comment one starts, "If you were halfway literate enough on the subject matter (or literate, generally)..."
You are not educated, experienced, or smart enough to have this conversation. You cannot simply read one article on the internet and gain the kind of knowledge and experience scientists and drug development experts have. You are not special.And comment three is basically more of the same.
When I want a laymen to help develop drugs or enforce FDA regs, I’ll call the dumbass on the internet.
So I replied:
Wow, three replies to one question! And none of them acknowledge that you called that story "conspiracy drek" because you didn't bother to look it up before commenting....and there was blissful silence thereafter.
I don't think you're qualified to comment on my intelligence or my education, but to be honest I really don't care what you think of either one. In just about every case, you've brandished yours as if it was some kind of talisman before which the people you think of as your intellectual inferiors will necessarily scatter.
Your credentials do not impress me. They do not frighten me. A person who invokes the appeal to authority often turns out to be a mid-wit who has received testimonials far in excess of their actual ability.
Ms Chana was blasting everyone in the thread who said "boo" to her as stupid, ignorant, foolish, and unqualified. That was fine, but when she started screeching about "conspiracy theories" I'd had enough.
Like I said, I need more self control...but still, slam-dunking that leftist bullshit was glorious.
* * *
Incidentally, she said, "I quite clearly did not deny the Tuskegee incident happened," and I want to speak to that point.
That much is true; she didn't deny that the Tuskeegee incident happened. Before she knew that the Tuskeegee incident was what Sarah Hoyt was talking about, though, she dismissed it as "conspiracy drek".
So, no: she didn't get up and say "the Tuskeegee incident never happened." What she did say, however, dismissed the story as "conspiracy drek" out of hand, because she didn't recognize it until someone actually said "Tuskeegee".
And everyone knows what happened there. WIN.
* * *
By the way? The word is spelled DRECK.