Here's a fun one.

The BBC says that HIV positive kids in the foster system in NYC are being enrolled in clincial trials for experimental, sometimes painful and lethal, HIV drugs. They really don't have a choice.

Article on the BBC documentary called Guinea Pig Kids, which aired on Monday.

I'd love to see the IRB documentation on these trials. One hopes that someone at OHRP took note of the documentary.

Acronym-wise, I was with you right up until that paragraph.

Warm and Fuzzy Holiday Moment #1
 

Give him a break, he eats shoots and leaves.

Warm and Fuzzy Holiday Moment #1
 

It would be better if he ate chutes, and left.

ETA I think that the subjunctive requires the tense I used. Hank could get a t-shirt that said "Eats chutes, and leaves" if he reformed and wanted a commemorative t-shirt.

IRB=Institutional Review Board (a review board that approves research on human subjects before they can be conducted).

OHRP=Office of Human Research Protections (the office at DHHS that oversees IRBs all over the country). It's possible that no federal government money was used in any of these clinical trials, but I can't imagine that the IRB for the Foster System in New York doesn't review some federally funded research, which would put it under the perview of OHRP.

On a historical note, foster kids, espeically foster kids that won't be going back to their parents and are unlikely to be adopted have been great research subjects, because they are generally in controlled conditions, so it's easy to compare and contrast.

Warm and Fuzzy Holiday Moment #1
 

I THINK this is a warm family moment. Though I can't say for sure.
http://smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpictur...camel-01,0.jpg

Those of you -- you know who you are -- who assumed that Scottish MP George Galloway was guilty of being in the pay of Saddam Hussein, based on the stories about him back during the war, owe him an apology. He just won a 150,000 Pound judgment for libel against the Daily Telegraph for the stories.

[Also posted this in a closed thread, sorry.]

I hadn't heard that. You know, there are few emptier feelings than the realization of missed opportunities for scorn, ridicule and hatred. Think of all the golf and whiskey we could've banned!

Question
 

If Iraq is a sovereign country, why is Bush the one to decide if Iraqi elections will happen in late January? Isn't he showing tremendous disrespect for Allawi by doing this? Doesn't it hurt our efforts to win the war to have the President making public statements indicating that Allawi is a puppet?

Question
 

No. Allawi is for January elections as well.

Question
 

Oh. So when Bush said, "Well, first of all, the elections should not be postponed. It's time for the Iraqi citizens to go to the polls, and that's why we are very firm on the January 30th date," what he was really just trying to express support for whatever Allawi decides.

Question
 

As a sovereign nation, we can pull our troops out when we begin to think a nation is sticking it to us.

Question
 

god, you are so hot today.

Plus no one quite cares enough to complain.

Seriously -- I know nothing about medical research beyond that it involved nude mice (heh-heh). Is this sort of thing -- testing drugs on children without them knowing about it -- normal? Who consents on behalf of a foster child?

I am reminded of the Tuskegee syphillis experiments. Is that wrong?

If I were fringey, I'd be miffed that you picked that moment to mention it.

What moment?

Since the state is their legal guardian, I believe the state would consent, yes?

Whoever is the guardian consents on behalf of the children. My guess is that it's generally a foster-parent, who has competing interests (especially if there is a chance of an accusation of child-abuse for withholding consent). I haven't seen the documentary, so I'm not sure if consent is given by individuals or a system.

The thing is, clinical trial research should never be presented to anyone as beneficial to the subject. If I am testing out a new anti-depressant, I should go into the study aware that I'm not taking the drug to be treated for depression. I'm merely testing the drug. It may work, it may not work; and I shouldn't rely on my being part of the clincial trial for my treatment (though I may have to alter my treatment in order to test out the drug). If I suffer adverse effects from testing, I should be discontinued from the study and then treated for depression in another way. Meaningful consent has not been given if the subject thinks that they will benefit from participating in the study.

Some human subject research on foster-children is probably a good idea, especially public health and education research (all of that would generally have to go through an IRB for approval first). So if some researcher wanted to look into, say, the exercise habits of foster children or their relative general health, I'd have no problem with the study going forward. It's also possible that this particular population is the only population that can test pediatric HIV drugs. I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if kids with HIV are more likely to be the offspring of IV drug users who ultimately lose custody. (Though my guess is that the demographics of HIV positive people has changed dramatically in the last five to eight years. My public health announcement of the day: use a condom. HIV infections are on the rise in the straight population in the US.) If there's no other population to test potentially beneficial drugs on, then it makes sense to go ahead with clincial trials, under very controlled circumstances. If I were sitting on an IRB approving this type of trial, I'd be looking for all sorts of protections on the kids. The BBC synopsis made it sound like adverse events were not being reported as such, which is just bad research.

Do the kids in question have foster parents? I would think it might be more difficult to find a foster parent for an HIV-positive kid.

Anyway, sounds like good times!

On Mom and Dad board Fringe admitted that she was a subject in the studies that would eventually prove electro-shock shouldn't be employed on the pubescent. She wasn't a foster child though.

No I didn't. Grow up and learn to flirt directly -- stop with the pigtail pulling.

Mean response passed, because I am the grown up. nyah!

Bush's Efforts To Promote Democracy, Part LVIII
 

According to Newsday, via Bob:

• The U.S. government knew of an imminent plot to oust Venezuela's leftist president, Hugo Chávez, in the weeks prior to a 2002 military coup that briefly unseated him, newly released CIA documents show, despite White House claims to the contrary a week after the putsch.
  
  * * * * *
  
  Julia Sweig, deputy director of Latin American studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank in Washington, said: "The fact that we didn't call Chávez and say, 'This is brewing,' reflects the incredible antipathy toward Chávez at that time" on the part of the Bush administration.

At least the Administration had enough respect for the ideals of democracy to lie about it in the weeks after the coup.

I guess this answer my PM question:

From Sullivan

• Some things are worth reiterating. The libel verdict won by Saddam-supporter George Galloway does not depend on the notion that Galloway's ties to Saddam were disproven. They haven't been. Nor was this case decided by a jury. The case was won because, in the judge's view, the Telegraph had not given Galloway sufficient time or space to respond to the charges:
  
  
  Quote:

  Mr Justice Eady said Mr Galloway was not given sufficient opportunity to refute the claims in the Telegraph that he had received up to £375,000 a year from Saddam. The judge noted that Mr Galloway had a 35-minute conversation with Andrew Sparrow, the paper's Westminster correspondent, but was not sent the documents or told that the Telegraph was intending to publish a story. "Although Mr Galloway was interviewed by telephone on the afternoon of April 21, he was not given the opportunity of reading the Iraqi documents beforehand; nor were they read to him," said the judge. "He did not, therefore, have a fair or reasonable opportunity to make inquiries or meaningful comment upon them before they were published."

  Such a judgment wouldn't stand a chance in an American court - but then Britain's libel laws are far tougher than America's; and there's far less freedom of speech in the UK than in the U.S. Here's the Telegraph's official response. It's deeply depressing. The verdict stands regardless of whether the story is proven true or not.

Repeat. ENLIGHTENED_EUROPEANS

While the difference between English and U.S. libel law is considerable, I find iit hard to believe that an English judge awarded Galloway that much money absent some sense that the story was not accurate. But I don't know anything more about it.

If I was you, buddy, I'd be shopping for a new Barrister

Happy thoughts
 

I'm sure the letfties here now realize Bush's re-election was fortuitous. Consider, in the 30 days since election:

1-the economy has improved dramatically-

2- the UN has been proven to have been effectively working FOR Sadaam (anybody still like the global test?).

But now this!

http://www.nbc17.com/health/3963832/detail.html

Any of you want to try and craft an argument that the people coming out of high school or college won't lead better lives due to the Bush years?

TGIF
 

This post has no political content.

Whenever I see the current thread title, I realize that I am hungry. On behalf of sugar-enhanced artificially flavored, creme filled snack cake fans everywhere.... oh, forget it. There must be a vending machine in this building somewhere.

Hasn't Tom Cruise received multiple damages verdicts against British publications that asserted he was gay?

Happy thoughts
 

Hasn't the FDA under Bush refused to allow the next generation silicone implants to be used? Do you really think Clinton would have stood for that. All these women are stuck with inferior saline.

I'd like to buy a vowel
 

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1101960939722

if this gets anywhere, I'm sure Hollywood will stand right up!

Careful, you're talking about the Brits. They're the only ones who like us, sort of.

Or are you still all wigged out over the Dutch [supposedly] killing off retards?

Perhaps his real beef is over the need for UK tort reform.

True, conservatives may be temporarily disoriented with the new rationale, but on the positive side, over the last few years they've learned to be nimble.

I'd like to buy a "shel"
 

Dear Hank,

You're missing a "shel" between "ner" and "Chanukah" in your sign-off.

You're welcome.

Sincerely,

dtb

I'd like to buy a "shel"
 

Nice to see dtb deftly moving into turf formerly patrolled by Atticus.

I'd like to buy a "shel"
 

Hopefully, in a few weeks we'll see stuff like this annotated with a translation, together with a discussion of historical antecedents.

I miss that. [sniff]

I'd like to buy a "shel"
 

Well, as Atticus is my internet ex-boyfriend (don't tell him, but I've found myself a NEW internet boyfriend -- one who appreciates me, dammit!), I am familiar with his ways. However, don't get your hopes up too high for annotations and translations and shit (speaking of which, I should be able to fill the scatalogical-references shoes without too much difficulty).

I'd like to buy a "shel"
 

Who is your new bf?

I'd like to buy a "shel"
 

Not telling!!!

I'd like to buy a "shel"
 

I'm lost tribe...n' shit.

I'd like to buy a "shel"
 

Yep. I learned more stuff (much of it interesting and obscure) from AG than from any other two posters.

I must have missed the part where he parted from the Boards forever. What's the deal? They do have the Internet in Canada.

S_A_M