If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   A Bush appointee must now give permission before government scientists are allowed to work with the World Health Organization   (msnbc.msn.com) divider line 270
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

7636 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jun 2004 at 6:13 AM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



270 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-06-26 08:02:51 AM
MisterSym You are correct, much money will go through USAID, a US gov run operation, and also the largest operation in the field. Also many private relief NGO's, be it religious/humanist/whatever will get monies. There is an intersting idea being run by Bill Gates, where corruption is minimized, the country where the aid goes to must pony up some %, and hard targets for ROI are necessary for continued funding after a trial period. Free market philanthropy. The early and few indications show Bush's team will adopt this approach. This concept is unacceptable to the dictators and NGO's who are riding the funding train right now.
 
2004-06-26 08:05:11 AM
Spooky red_beard... if I spelt appointee correctly we would have been tied....
 
2004-06-26 08:06:34 AM
I hope everyone realizes that the scientific community in the US (and many other countries) has checks and balances to keep bias and lies from science, and that there is a good non-partisan way to measure a scientist's success (which builds on credibility): publications and grants. Most scientists, and definately the WHO, would look at this stuff before listening to a scientist to determine the scientist's credibility. The WHO does NOT need a government filtering scientists before they go to the WHO.
 
2004-06-26 08:13:02 AM
RamblingKey,

That's some nice soapboxing there son - real nice.

Can you back up that "infomercial" with a link to a credible source?

I especially like the part about the sugar industry successfully fighting off the WHO as far as establishing whether or not the industry we are subsidizing might be contributing to the escalation of diabetes in our teenage population.

So to you I say, document your tirade or go away and make something more believable up.

SouthernFriedYankee,

You know, you just have to admire someone so full of himself that he thinks being able to only speak one language is a sign of intelligence. Facts and data don't get in the way of you making a decision, do they? Could this be why you feel such a kinship with the President?

I will honestly tell you that those of us that aren't sure about everything secretly admire all of you that have simplified the world down to a fictitious lie. Life must be some much simpler for you. All you need to do is make sure your explanation agrees with your thinking, completely disregard the facts since they don't agree with your world and everything is okay.

It must be beautiful to live in your little world. What color is the sky there anyway?
 
2004-06-26 08:13:49 AM
Bush: "Then why is it so heavy?"

Scientist: "Because it's a rock."

Had to be said.
 
2004-06-26 08:14:36 AM
RamblingKey

Let me add two further things. First if Kerry is elected, he WON'T change this directive, and this will be used as a bludgeon against industries that don't support the Democrat line.

Oh, you know this as a fact? If the government imposed any restrictions on science, no matter what political direction it tried to push scientists, they would complain. Under Clinton, I didn't hear the scientists complaining.

the WHO has stepped on many toes, and hasn't backed down or shown deference to Bush's core constituency, but still, expect the apointee to be a hands-off administrator, this is all for show.

Are you talking about toes of corporations that don't want to accept the facts about what they are doing and act responsibly? If a scientific organization takes a stand, I should hope it doesn't back down unless more evidence on the matter is found and contradicts its current stand. If this post is all for show, wouldn't it be better off not existing?

red_beard_neo

Out of curiosity, has the WHO acknowledged the research on acquiring stem cells without using embryos when freaking out about funding cuts for their embryo-based stem cell research? The WHO is already politicized, don't kid yourselves. It's just a matter of whose agenda they follow.

Why should the WHO mention alternate sources of stem cells when they can be obtained easily from embryos?
 
2004-06-26 08:17:03 AM
red_beard_neo

Out of curiosity, has the WHO acknowledged the research on acquiring stem cells without using embryos when freaking out about funding cuts for their embryo-based stem cell research? The WHO is already politicized, don't kid yourselves. It's just a matter of whose agenda they follow.

I have one more thing to say. Could you explain what makes the WHO politicized? Is it that it wants to use embryotic stem cells? We wouldn't want them scientists to make progress, now would we.
 
2004-06-26 08:20:05 AM
dooder0001: Why should the WHO mention alternate sources of stem cells when they can be obtained easily from embryos?

Because using a different source would alleviate much of the politicization from stem cell research, removing the roadblocks they cry foul over. Instead they'd rather butt heads and remain politicized.
 
2004-06-26 08:22:30 AM
dooder0001: Why should the WHO mention alternate sources of stem cells when they can be obtained easily from embryos?

I have one more thing to say. Could you explain how stem cell research using stem cells from alternate sources is not progress, but stem cell research using embryonic stem cells is?
 
2004-06-26 08:23:32 AM

Because using a different source would alleviate much of the politicization from stem cell research, removing the roadblocks they cry foul over. Instead they'd rather butt heads and remain politicized.


You're forgetting who put the roadblocks there in the first place, and who made this a political matter in the first place. The WHO needn't care about the US's internal hissyfit when every other country on earth except possibly Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia doesn't put religion in the way of science.

I still find it funny that some rich republican housewife's fertility treatments are ok, but trying to make use of the waste product from that treatment is bad bad bad.
 
2004-06-26 08:24:21 AM
red_beard_neo

dooder0001: Why should the WHO mention alternate sources of stem cells when they can be obtained easily from embryos?

Because using a different source would alleviate much of the politicization from stem cell research, removing the roadblocks they cry foul over. Instead they'd rather butt heads and remain politicized.


I see the fight against use of embryonic stem cells to be the source of politicization, not the scientists. I think most scientists would rather use embryonic stem cells, and that's because they are currently the easiest source of them.
 
2004-06-26 08:24:45 AM
Random Reality Check

I'm a researcher by profession, the Sugar Industry vs. WHO is reported here: http://www.sundayherald.com/40258 The political blogs picked it up at differnt intervals in the last several months. To find a Sugar industry sponsored "indepedent" opinion (lol), google World Sugar Research Organisation. Their shtick is that sugar is never bad, ever, ever, ever, even if you mainline it.

The current leader of the WHO, LEE Jong-wook, oversaw and was responsible for distributing vaccines which had abortion inducing contaminants in it, causing over 100 unwanted abortions in the Phillipines in the mid1990's. Anti-abortion/anti-UN/anti-pop. control advocates banded together to prevent his suscession to the WHO top spot. THey are Bushes core constituency, I think you'd agree.

The second hand smoke studies have been leaked, but tey are extensive, idon't know how to summarize, pretty much just as US pharma shiatcanned studies that showed anti-depressants didn't work, the WHO shiatcanned studies showing second hand smoke was definitely not harmful, possibly nuetral and slightly possibly beneficial( in creation of antibodies). The WHO still spends a huge amount of time money and effort on worldwide Tobacco controls. Committees, conferences, studies, propaganda, etc.

 
2004-06-26 08:26:13 AM
In my day, conservatives were against governmental intrusion. Sorry, I know, we had to wear the yellow onions, yada yada yada.
 
2004-06-26 08:29:43 AM
The only science the government really cares about is that which has military applications. They don't care about world hunger or curing disease. All they care about is blowing s*** up.
 
2004-06-26 08:30:28 AM
I don't disagree that politicians make decisions based on political calculations.

But come on: "I think most scientists... blah blah stem cells", you don't thin kthat, you feel it. The field is young, a rotation to different stem cell strains will release major pharma companies from the politics.
 
2004-06-26 08:31:27 AM
Bush is the best president this country has ever had.
 
2004-06-26 08:31:27 AM
"HHS experts made available also must advocate U.S. government policies"

Oh brother, now the rest of the world has to stand for things such as "abstinence only" or anti-stem-cell fundamentalism. Thanks a bunch, USians. When your uppence comes, I'll be sure not to be shedding tears as I did on 9/11; with your current adminstration, you deserve everything you get.
 
2004-06-26 08:32:48 AM
Absolutely disgusting. Each time you think the Bush Administration has hit bottom they find something else to sink deeper.
 
2004-06-26 08:33:39 AM
fisherman62
you are really an idiot. I am sure I can say that most americans know that Moore's films are pure crap, unfactual, and merely conversations spliced together. To state that someone seeing the film means they are going to vote for Kerry proves you have the mentality of a gnat.
 
2004-06-26 08:34:32 AM
Seriously, where are the self-proclaimed libertarians on this thread? This reeks of unreasonable governmental intrusion in an area where the government clearly has no business poking its nose.
 
2004-06-26 08:36:13 AM
Folks, why do you even bother to argue politics on this board? If the jackasses who troll on this board havn't seen the damage that this administration is causing, do you think your mere words can persuade them? You should just let them wave their tiny American flags, and worship their great purple ju-ju in the sky, in peace. There is no reaching some people. There are still people who believe the earth is flat, and that the fossil record is a consipracy put in place by satan to fool believers. Only history can judge how trully crappy this administration is.
 
2004-06-26 08:39:42 AM
rutager

the mentality of a gnat.

...Don't leave us hanging! You stopped at the part where you explain what the mentality of a gnat is! Now I won't be able to sleep at night.
 
2004-06-26 08:41:08 AM
Maddogjew

Folks, why do you even bother to argue politics on this board? If the jackasses who troll on this board havn't seen the damage that this administration is causing, do you think your mere words can persuade them? You should just let them wave their tiny American flags, and worship their great purple ju-ju in the sky, in peace. There is no reaching some people. There are still people who believe the earth is flat, and that the fossil record is a consipracy put in place by satan to fool believers. Only history can judge how trully crappy this administration is.

Irony is, this is a troll. Points taken though.
 
2004-06-26 08:45:41 AM
There goes the science.
 
2004-06-26 08:46:45 AM
sombotty tell me why in the polls, bush is sometimes beating Kerry. i can't understand it. do We have that many religion-addled bedbugs in america? I need a comforting answer or I'm gonna die.
 
2004-06-26 08:48:38 AM
alan
if you want comfort, find god... otherwise the world can be a cold hard place...
 
2004-06-26 08:50:06 AM

sombotty tell me why in the polls, bush is sometimes beating Kerry. i can't understand it. do We have that many religion-addled bedbugs in america? I need a comforting answer or I'm gonna die.


Those polls don't matter, what matters is that Bush is getting clobbered in all but 2 of the states that were close in 2000.
 
2004-06-26 08:51:08 AM
Even if I don't vote "for" Bush, he'll get my vote as a way of voting against YOU

....

Way to make an ethnic slur out of nothing of the kind, dipshiat. You said I would be left behind by evolution--future tense; I observed that you already had been--past tense. But, way to be overly sensitive and see insults that weren't actually proffered. Good liberal!

seriously, shutup because when i said shutup i said it past tense which means; by NEWTONS universal theory of EPOLPEULATEION states that past tense is the square root of blah blah.

And those idiots here who think this is a set back for the open scientific community, well, who's going to fill the positions if Americans don't, and will the openess of the WHO change? No, America's scientific community will be givena setback, but the shakeout will remove the weak links in the system. The international scientific community will benefit greatly, the extra money from WHO consulting will go far in many countries, the researchers will be able to build resumes and learn how to handle the political ropes of international science.

I think the "idiots" point of view is that you now need another permission slip to do something openly thus adding more bullsh*t red tape to simple acts such as sharing all in the name of the motherland.
 
2004-06-26 08:52:49 AM
Sorry, alan holcome , there's a whole lot of folks out there who sincerely believe in the elevator man in the woods, and the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus and that a decent haircut is available for $6.00. Wish I could offer you more comfort.
 
2004-06-26 08:53:19 AM
Why would the WHO want Bush's corporate/creationist quacks anyway?
 
2004-06-26 08:55:52 AM
From the article:

Steigers Office of Global Health Affairs now will choose "an appropriate expert who can best serve both of our organizations"...HHS experts made available also must advocate U.S. government policies, Steiger said..."This is a policy to make sure the WHO has the very best the federal government has to offer when it comes to our experts."

In other words, "the very best the federal government has to offer" are scientists who will push the Bush Administration's agenda, even if the Bush Administration's agenda isn't built on sound science. Furthermore, Oceana is at war with Eurasia. Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia.
 
2004-06-26 08:58:13 AM
Still, I can see that permission is important to Bush.

I mean, he waited for permission before leaving class.

Same has to apply to them cerebral-types.
 
2004-06-26 09:01:27 AM
Tried to see Fahrenheit 9/11 last night, multiple shows sold out in my town.

Somebody stop these clowns.
 
2004-06-26 09:03:27 AM
This is not surprising. Bush does not get along well with scientists.

In February Bush was denounced in a statement signed by 62 leading scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, 19 recipients of the National Medal of Science, and advisers to the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations....

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=2&articleID=0001E02A-A14A- 1084-983483414B7F0000
/Forgive the laziness. Bush ain't worth my html.
 
2004-06-26 09:04:07 AM
Science is for heretics. You're not a heretic, are you?
 
2004-06-26 09:05:43 AM
This just gets worse and worse.

The Bush administration want to make sure the good ol' yeehaw boys, Jeebus, and his oil buddies approve any of that newfangled scientific stuff.

The rest of the civilized world rolls they collective eyes and the ignorant, supersitious US.

If you vote for Bush, then you are an idiot. Plain and simple.
 
2004-06-26 09:07:30 AM
MaelOdur that was cruel. very cruel, but funny. you prick.
ummmm....unless you were serious
 
2004-06-26 09:11:41 AM
People, please RTFA before commenting.

Here are the cliff's notes (spel?) for those who are too lazy to RTFA before spouting off about Bush's tyranny:

- W.H.O. can no longer pick specific government experts to serve as consultants.

- The reason given: The practice, which has been in place during several administrations, has not always resulted in the most appropriate selections, Steiger said.

- Instead, Steigers Office of Global Health Affairs now will choose an appropriate expert who can best serve both of our organizations, he said. HHS experts made available also must advocate U.S. government policies, Steiger said.

(I don't agree with the italicized part. Sounds to me like they need to interview to find out where they stand on certain issues before they are deemed to be the best for the job.)

- Evidence that this is Bush trying to control every aspect of the country: 0. Speculation that this is Bush trying to control every aspect of the country: Count most of the posts here.

I also don't agree with Bush's administration "cracking down on groups that promote condom use to combat AIDS and favoring programs that advocate abstinence as the only way to prevent the disease." However, this issue isn't huge to me as one could technically argue that Bush's administration is backing the best horse. When trying to prevent AIDS, nothing beats not getting laid :)

Now to check out the boobies link.
 
2004-06-26 09:13:51 AM


I see the moore is strong in these farkers...
I know what movie they saw last night
 
2004-06-26 09:14:17 AM
"Openly" as you used it is a interesting use of words. There are a lot of statist replies, such as consulting for ANYONE while on the public's dime, say if the scientist is on the public payroll, should ethically be declared as a matter of public record. Depending on the scientists public job, it could be required by statute and/or law.

Or the good old, after the 12 years of higher education(subsidized by taxpayers), the US should at least have a sense as to the direction of the efforts of it's PhD level scientific research community. If Clinton proposed the same move, but wrapped it in "we're here to study and optimize the ability of the WHO to access the cream of the US scientific community, in such a way that not only will the scientific community be able to analyze the returns on their time and efforts involving the WHO, but also allow the WHO to coordinate efforts to locate the best available personnel through use of this new office of the NIH(or whatever), to save as many little babies as possible" you'd have no problem with it.

Of course, the fact that the WHO is getting pissy about bigPharma dumping mislabeled and defective/expired medicine on it for tax write offs during the entire Clinton administration, thanks to Bradley, Lautenberg and Finestein, won't be brought in to the convo.
 
2004-06-26 09:15:24 AM
curtins

I read the article. What does not frighten you about a government appointed bureaucrat deciding who is "the appropriate candidate?" That is just plain scary.
 
2004-06-26 09:18:18 AM
Just one more step in the overall plan from the republican leadership to prevent the truth from being told.

Nothing new- shrub has been making sure that he has heard from only scientists that share his own views for 3 years now. The scientists on his payroll have been hand picked so that they (as dubya put it to the washington post a few months ago) "don't come to the wrong conclusion on issues.
Meaning, "they don't disagree with my personal fundie/corporate biatch agenda".

As Nov. 2 approaches, these asshats are only going to get worse as they get desperate and realize they are going to get totally Pwn3d.
 
2004-06-26 09:20:00 AM
RamblingKey

Or the good old, after the 12 years of higher education(subsidized by taxpayers), the US should at least have a sense as to the direction of the efforts of it's PhD level scientific research community. If Clinton proposed the same move, but wrapped it in "we're here to study and optimize the ability of the WHO to access the cream of the US scientific community, in such a way that not only will the scientific community be able to analyze the returns on their time and efforts involving the WHO, but also allow the WHO to coordinate efforts to locate the best available personnel through use of this new office of the NIH(or whatever), to save as many little babies as possible" you'd have no problem with it.

Um, yes, yes I would.
 
2004-06-26 09:23:15 AM
MorrisBird, I said that I disagree with them saying that the candidates must advocate government policies but the fact remains that the reason given is because the candidates selected weren't always the best choices.

Whether the reason they weren't the best choices was because they actually weren't the best in their particular field or they weren't the best because they didn't support Bush's administration's policies is pure speculation and backed up by nothing aside from your emotions.

It is just as likely to me that the administration made this decision because they want to make sure that the best doctors available are sent. I have no reason to suggest otherwise because nobody can ever supply evidence to go along with their emotionally driven, misinformed speculation.

I'm as reasonable as they come. Give me a link where someone says "Bush is trying to get the world to forget about science and switch to religion," and I'll give. There is one condition: That person has to be credible. Al Gore, Michael Moore and the like are not credible.
 
2004-06-26 09:26:11 AM
curtins

Certainly. I apologize for my lack of html skills.

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release.cfm?newsID=381
 
2004-06-26 09:30:45 AM
This is all rather silly. At the core of it, all political bashing aside, the Bush administratuin is adding a tool for the current government to influence the direction of a (supposedly) non-political scientific organization.

Republicans should think that this is bad because it increases national control over what should be an independent organization.

Democrats should be angry that this position could easily be used to dampen or negate scientific progress in favour of religious principles.

What the hell is this argument about then?
 
2004-06-26 09:31:32 AM
Why don't you want to save the babies? /kidding

Look, the WHO is a corrupt bureaucracy, we're paying for it, the quality of it output is questionable, and squeezing out entrenched corrupt and position protecting bureaucrats, as well as screening potentially collaborating hack researchers, seems like a reasonably constrained and worthy objective. I also see this as politics, no different then Gore pushing through falsified data analysis before the Kyoto convention. I don' think Gore or the political side knew it was false yet, but the researchers and scientists involved all knew, and dozens of them stayed quite, cause the ends justify the means, and damn it, they wanted to end greenhouse gas emissions. The WHO has attracted similar minded activist at heart researchers and scientists.
 
2004-06-26 09:32:15 AM
Quadriplegic

Exactly.
 
2004-06-26 09:32:25 AM
I suppose the screening process would go like this:

Thompson: So you want to work for WHO?
Scientist: Yes
Thompson: But you didn't say who you wanted to work for.
Scientist: Yes I want to work for WHO.
Thompson: WHO?
Scientist: Yes.
Thompson: What?
Scientist: No, WHO.
Thompson: Sorry we can't accept your application unless you come clean (aside: "Ashcroft bring in the boys...we got a live one here!").

/Abbot and Costello roll in their grave
 
2004-06-26 09:33:15 AM
"The California lawmaker also has complained the administration is subverting science to politics on a range of issues, including ... cracking down on groups that promote condom use to combat AIDS and favoring programs that advocate abstinence as the only way to prevent the disease."

Yeah, that's farking brilliant. I cannot wait until November.
 
Displayed 50 of 270 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report