A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.parenting » Spanking
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

wDnnSCPS



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 5th 05, 01:55 PM
mountain bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default wDnnSCPS

"Several studies that enlisted foster children reported that patients
suffered side effects such as rashes, vomiting and sharp drops in
infection-fighting blood cells, and one reported a "disturbing" higher death
rate among children who took higher doses of a drug, records show."




  #2  
Old May 5th 05, 05:27 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


mountain bill wrote:
"Several studies that enlisted foster children reported that patients
suffered side effects such as rashes, vomiting and sharp drops in
infection-fighting blood cells, and one reported a "disturbing"

higher death
rate among children who took higher doses of a drug, records show."


I find it fascinating that you avoided posting the source, or a link to
it.

Too lazy, or are you, as usual, a laying twit that attempts to deceive?


http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-aids05.html

Here are a few other things the article mentions for a more balanced
view.

Notice I don't avoid showing both sides of the issue, as you twits do:

"The research funded by the National Institutes of Health spanned the
country. It was most widespread in the 1990s as foster care agencies
sought treatments for their HIV-infected children that weren't yet
available in the marketplace.

The practice ensured that foster children-- mostly poor or minority--
received care from world-class researchers at government expense,
slowing their rate of death and extending their lives. But it also
exposed a vulnerable population to the risks of medical research and
drugs that were known to have serious side effects in adults and for
which the safety for children was unknown."

And;

"The government provided special protections for young wards in 1983.
They required researchers and their oversight boards to appoint
independent advocates for any foster child enrolled in a narrow class
of studies that involved greater than minimal risk and lacked the
promise of direct benefit. Some foster agencies required the protection
regardless of risks and benefits."

And;

"Officials estimated that 5 percent to 10 percent of the 13,878
children enrolled in pediatric AIDS studies funded by NIH since the
late 1980s were in foster care. More than two dozen Illinois foster
children remain in studies today."

And;

"Researchers typically secured permission to enroll foster children
through city or state agencies. And they frequently exempted themselves
from appointing advocates by concluding the research carried minimal
risk and the child would directly benefit because the drugs had already
been tried in adults."

And;

"Those who made the decisions say the research gave foster kids access
to drugs they otherwise couldn't get. And they say they protected the
children's interest by carefully explaining risks and benefits to state
guardians, foster parents and the children themselves."

And, here's a big "oh!" for yah;

"Illinois officials directly credit the decision to enroll HIV-positive
foster kids with bringing about a decline in deaths-- from 40 between
1989 and 1995 to only 19 since."

0:-

  #3  
Old May 5th 05, 06:01 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


mountain bill wrote:
"Several studies that enlisted foster children reported that patients
suffered side effects such as rashes, vomiting and sharp drops in
infection-fighting blood cells, and one reported a "disturbing"

higher death
rate among children who took higher doses of a drug, records show."


"To say as a group that foster children should be excluded from
clinical trials would have meant excluding these children from the best
available therapies at the time," he said. "From an ethical
perspective, I never thought that was a stand I could take."

  #4  
Old May 5th 05, 09:27 PM
Pop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message
ups.com...

mountain bill wrote:
"Several studies that enlisted foster children reported that patients
suffered side effects such as rashes, vomiting and sharp drops in
infection-fighting blood cells, and one reported a "disturbing"

higher death
rate among children who took higher doses of a drug, records show."


"To say as a group that foster children should be excluded from
clinical trials would have meant excluding these children from the best
available therapies at the time," he said. "From an ethical
perspective, I never thought that was a stand I could take."


It obviously doesn't matter to those who have no compassion, empathy and
sympathy. It's just another attempt on their part to find a weak,
defenseless opponent.

Pop


  #5  
Old May 5th 05, 09:51 PM
Greegor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Trying to put a happy face on this one is
like painting a smiley face on the nosecone
of an atomic bomb.

It's like the "Arbeit Macht Frei" sign welded into
the gateways of several Nazi death camps.
(Work brings freedom or work makes freedom)

The courts have already gotten involved, and
a FOSTER Mom who refused to knuckle under
to the pressure and threats from the agencies
got the ball rolling. The rotten agencies thought
they could steamroller this one and it WILL
backfire severely.

The failures that basically enabled the Foster
kids to be used almost sadistically as Guinea
Pigs for AIDS drugs were and are systemic evils.

Did you think that the requirement that
ADVOCATES be appointed to look out for the
interests of each individual kid were a mere technicality?

  #6  
Old May 6th 05, 01:02 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Greegor wrote:
Trying to put a happy face on this one is
like painting a smiley face on the nosecone
of an atomic bomb.


A "happy face" on AIDs treatment? Hardly, greegor. Your inability to
connect with the needs of the children amply demonstrates your lack of
compassion..your incapacity to feel empathy.

It's like the "Arbeit Macht Frei" sign welded into
the gateways of several Nazi death camps.
(Work brings freedom or work makes freedom)


The Jews and others targetted by the Nazis had a fatal illness?

The courts have already gotten involved, and
a FOSTER Mom who refused to knuckle under
to the pressure and threats from the agencies
got the ball rolling. The rotten agencies thought
they could steamroller this one and it WILL
backfire severely.


My take from the article is that both camps have some credibility here,
but you of course can see only one. Your usual.

Those instances where the child's rights are not protected are of
course the questionable issue being addressed. They problem though is
this...as stated: do we have the right to deny child AIDS victims the
latest medical help from the top health professionals in the field?

Or did not you notice what a small percentage are actually foster
children?

The failures that basically enabled the Foster
kids to be used almost sadistically as Guinea
Pigs for AIDS drugs were and are systemic evils.


Not unless that was the case. Why do you assume it was sadistic use,
and that they were Guinea Pigs? And what is it about AIDS drugs that
are inherently bad? They had been used on adults prior to being used on
children.

And the death rate dropped after the trials began.

Did you think that the requirement that
ADVOCATES be appointed to look out for the
interests of each individual kid were a mere technicality?


No, nor should anyone in the system. It's the only intelligent thing
you've said so far, you sick little puke.

It's rather obvious this at first got picked up by the less honest ...
mmm ...shall we say, sensationalistic media, who ran with the gore, and
distorted, and now we are seeing more thoughtful consideration of the
children's risks, and their rights.

Do you think those parents that submitted their children to the study
using the latest in Tx drugs for AIDS were part of a sadistic attempt
to have their own children used as guinea pigs?

About 90% or so of the children involved where not foster children.

Or didn't you notice?

Why not write a letter to the editor and give them your opinion. It
will be fun to see you make a public fool of yourself........again.

0:-

  #7  
Old May 6th 05, 12:32 PM
bobb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Greegor" wrote in message
oups.com...
Trying to put a happy face on this one is
like painting a smiley face on the nosecone
of an atomic bomb.

It's like the "Arbeit Macht Frei" sign welded into
the gateways of several Nazi death camps.
(Work brings freedom or work makes freedom)

The courts have already gotten involved, and
a FOSTER Mom who refused to knuckle under
to the pressure and threats from the agencies
got the ball rolling. The rotten agencies thought
they could steamroller this one and it WILL
backfire severely.

The failures that basically enabled the Foster
kids to be used almost sadistically as Guinea
Pigs for AIDS drugs were and are systemic evils.

Did you think that the requirement that
ADVOCATES be appointed to look out for the
interests of each individual kid were a mere technicality?


There been more than just a single article exposing this problem. The
problem, of course, is and was the state.
Hey, as I already mentioned the state got the kids and who really cares what
they do with them. Hey, need a Guinea
Pigs for research? Yeh. we got lots. Mostly poor and minority.

Whose 'best interests' are being served?

bobb






  #8  
Old May 6th 05, 02:45 PM
Pop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"bobb" bob@somewhere wrote in message
...

"Greegor" wrote in message
oups.com...
Trying to put a happy face on this one is
like painting a smiley face on the nosecone
of an atomic bomb.

It's like the "Arbeit Macht Frei" sign welded into
the gateways of several Nazi death camps.
(Work brings freedom or work makes freedom)

The courts have already gotten involved, and
a FOSTER Mom who refused to knuckle under
to the pressure and threats from the agencies
got the ball rolling. The rotten agencies thought
they could steamroller this one and it WILL
backfire severely.

The failures that basically enabled the Foster
kids to be used almost sadistically as Guinea
Pigs for AIDS drugs were and are systemic evils.

Did you think that the requirement that
ADVOCATES be appointed to look out for the
interests of each individual kid were a mere technicality?


There been more than just a single article exposing this problem. The
problem, of course, is and was the state.
Hey, as I already mentioned the state got the kids and who really cares
what they do with them. Hey, need a Guinea
Pigs for research? Yeh. we got lots. Mostly poor and minority.

Whose 'best interests' are being served?

bobb


Apparently, yours. Your reading comprehension and communications abilities
are surpassed only by your lack of intelligence.


  #9  
Old May 6th 05, 06:33 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


bobb wrote:
"Greegor" wrote in message
oups.com...
Trying to put a happy face on this one is
like painting a smiley face on the nosecone
of an atomic bomb.

It's like the "Arbeit Macht Frei" sign welded into
the gateways of several Nazi death camps.
(Work brings freedom or work makes freedom)

The courts have already gotten involved, and
a FOSTER Mom who refused to knuckle under
to the pressure and threats from the agencies
got the ball rolling. The rotten agencies thought
they could steamroller this one and it WILL
backfire severely.

The failures that basically enabled the Foster
kids to be used almost sadistically as Guinea
Pigs for AIDS drugs were and are systemic evils.

Did you think that the requirement that
ADVOCATES be appointed to look out for the
interests of each individual kid were a mere technicality?


There been more than just a single article exposing this problem.


I pointed out that the early article was a piece of yellow journalism.
It did not provide depth but instead focused on the sensational by
mainly addressing the story of one foster parent advocate for the child
in her care.

While it's a great hook, it's not the whole story, as this article
shows with more balance.

The
problem, of course, is and was the state.


As the first article tried to paint the picture, in limited sensational
terms, yes. But that's now the media does things. Some media.

Hey, as I already mentioned the state got the kids and who really

cares what
they do with them.


You apparently didn't read this article. Both the reseachers and the
state went to considerable pains to protect the children, and to make
available to them the same advanced skill and medicines that other
non-foster children were being offerred.

Hey, need a Guinea
Pigs for research? Yeh. we got lots. Mostly poor and minority.


You think the 90% of the children entered into the program by their own
legal parents were mostly poor and minority?

Whose 'best interests' are being served?


Those children who lived rather than died.

I know of few medical Tx that do not have some discomfort, up to and
including considerable pain, but the patient more often lives. In these
cases, as the state being surveyed noted, the death rate of AIDS
victims dropped considerably. As I recall from 40 to 19.

So we could say that 21 children's "best interests" were very well
served, don't you think?

You seem up to your usual level of intelligent contribution today,
bobber. You did your mandatory fifteen headbutts on the edge of the
toilet I presume.

bobb


Read the article again, bobber, and just for the fun of it, comment on
each point made in it. You cherry pick, and ignore what differs with
your sick biases, just as you do with queers, blacks, women, mexicans,
etc.

The only good people in your book, apparently, are those that ****
children and get too heavy a sentence.

0:-\

  #10  
Old May 7th 05, 07:41 AM
bobb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
oups.com...

bobb wrote:
"Greegor" wrote in message
oups.com...
Trying to put a happy face on this one is
like painting a smiley face on the nosecone
of an atomic bomb.

It's like the "Arbeit Macht Frei" sign welded into
the gateways of several Nazi death camps.
(Work brings freedom or work makes freedom)

The courts have already gotten involved, and
a FOSTER Mom who refused to knuckle under
to the pressure and threats from the agencies
got the ball rolling. The rotten agencies thought
they could steamroller this one and it WILL
backfire severely.

The failures that basically enabled the Foster
kids to be used almost sadistically as Guinea
Pigs for AIDS drugs were and are systemic evils.

Did you think that the requirement that
ADVOCATES be appointed to look out for the
interests of each individual kid were a mere technicality?


There been more than just a single article exposing this problem.


I pointed out that the early article was a piece of yellow journalism.
It did not provide depth but instead focused on the sensational by
mainly addressing the story of one foster parent advocate for the child
in her care.

While it's a great hook, it's not the whole story, as this article
shows with more balance.

The
problem, of course, is and was the state.


As the first article tried to paint the picture, in limited sensational
terms, yes. But that's now the media does things. Some media.

Hey, as I already mentioned the state got the kids and who really

cares what
they do with them.


You apparently didn't read this article. Both the reseachers and the
state went to considerable pains to protect the children, and to make
available to them the same advanced skill and medicines that other
non-foster children were being offerred.


Only if you beleive the state and the researchers. I don't. There are a
great many adults to do 'testing' on while at the same time the best medical
care could, and should, be offered foster children. These kids should not
be used as test tubes. The state has no business making these kinds of
decisions.

bobb


Hey, need a Guinea
Pigs for research? Yeh. we got lots. Mostly poor and minority.


You think the 90% of the children entered into the program by their own
legal parents were mostly poor and minority?

Whose 'best interests' are being served?


Those children who lived rather than died.

I know of few medical Tx that do not have some discomfort, up to and
including considerable pain, but the patient more often lives. In these
cases, as the state being surveyed noted, the death rate of AIDS
victims dropped considerably. As I recall from 40 to 19.

So we could say that 21 children's "best interests" were very well
served, don't you think?

You seem up to your usual level of intelligent contribution today,
bobber. You did your mandatory fifteen headbutts on the edge of the
toilet I presume.

bobb


Read the article again, bobber, and just for the fun of it, comment on
each point made in it. You cherry pick, and ignore what differs with
your sick biases, just as you do with queers, blacks, women, mexicans,
etc.

The only good people in your book, apparently, are those that ****
children and get too heavy a sentence.

0:-\



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.