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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
....
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 .... And there we have it: You don't believe the 'state', and you don't believe 'researchers'. Only a "researcher" as you call it, could collect anything more than anecdotal evidence, which is much the way you do, and you end up entirely wrong. But you know that don't you? You would rather believe other ignorants than to know the truth, so you can conintue into the oblivion you are destined for. Reading and reporting unqualified, unsubstantiated, underifiable information from unreliable sources does not make one a researcher. Sometimes your posts make me wonder just what level of society you have managed to obtain. Other than living off others, I mean. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
I had no idea what you were talking about until Kane clarified. Why did
you neglect to include the article, or at least a reference to the article? LaVonne 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." |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
bobb wrote: 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. bobber, you are wrong. The state have EVERY business making these kinds of decisions. This was the cutting edge of proven Tx Rx already tested on adults. And more children lived as a result. Would you want children, simply because they were wards of the state, denied the latest in treatment afforded other children? Many MORE other children, in fact 90% of the children in the study, and denied the nearly doubled chance to live? You have to remember, that if these children weren't in state care, what might be the desire of their parents? Are you aware that a great many children with AIDS in state custody are there because their parents are either incapacitated, dying, dead, and or put the child in state care in hopes the child would get better care...and a chance at life? You are shallow and small minded, bobber. Very. Read the article again, slowly. The children got to live at a greater rate than had happened before the treatment. Would you have preferred they NOT be allowed to participate in the study? bobb 0:-/ |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Are you addressing that to me? Looks like it from the thread postion. I
didn't originate that, whatever it was. Maybe read parts of the thread make it look this way. Pop "Carlson LaVonne" wrote in message ... I had no idea what you were talking about until Kane clarified. Why did you neglect to include the article, or at least a reference to the article? LaVonne 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." |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Pop wrote: Are you addressing that to me? Looks like it from the thread postion. I didn't originate that, whatever it was. Maybe read parts of the thread make it look this way. Naw, she's addressing one of our friendly resident loonyboys, greegor the low rent gigolo, or bobber the swift. Couldnchatell? 0:- If there's an effort to confuse, dodge, mislead, or otherwise demonstrate a thoroughgoing rejection of responsibiliy, by the artifice of non attribution, or otherwise playing the unethical immoral fool, count on it, tis one er t'other. Y'll find me, as LaVonne points out in this post below, picking up after these fools rather often. Their passive agressives of the worst sort, and I'm naive because I am a sucker for facts and the truth. Makes me their patsy. Cute, eh? But then decent people are always at the mercy of these types of social misfits. So, tell us, what gotcha into foster care, anyways? R R R R ....naw, don't bite. Just kiddin'. Pop Meself. "Carlson LaVonne" wrote in message ... I had no idea what you were talking about until Kane clarified. Why did you neglect to include the article, or at least a reference to the article? LaVonne 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." |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Pop" wrote in message ... ... 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 ... And there we have it: You don't believe the 'state', and you don't believe 'researchers'. Only a "researcher" as you call it, could collect anything more than anecdotal evidence, which is much the way you do, and you end up entirely wrong. But you know that don't you? You would rather believe other ignorants than to know the truth, so you can conintue into the oblivion you are destined for. Reading and reporting unqualified, unsubstantiated, underifiable information from unreliable sources does not make one a researcher. Sometimes your posts make me wonder just what level of society you have managed to obtain. Other than living off others, I mean. Gee, pop.... don't you read or listen research data? Alcohol was not good for you... neither was marijuana. Eggs, coffee and butter were foods items to be avoided. .00007 people get skin cancer... soooo stay out of the sun or slosch yourself with expensive sun screen lest you end up a statistic. Don't smoke either... but just today it was announced woman of smoking mothers almost never suffer breast cancer. Look at all those great pain drugs .... that cause heart attacks in adult.... or those behavior drugs that induce suicide in children.... all fully supported by years of testing by the government. Homosexuality was a mental disease, and masturbation probibited for much the same reason. Keep beleiving the government...and research, pop. :-) bobb |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ups.com... bobb wrote: 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. bobber, you are wrong. The state have EVERY business making these kinds of decisions. This was the cutting edge of proven Tx Rx already tested on adults. Cutting edge? Hahahah.. unproven RX to be trialed on children of the state. Hey, if it works... we'll give to bio families. If not... we'll look around and do more testing. And more children lived as a result. ... and die. Would you want children, simply because they were wards of the state, denied the latest in treatment afforded other children? Many MORE other children, in fact 90% of the children in the study, and denied the nearly doubled chance to live? You have to remember, that if these children weren't in state care, what might be the desire of their parents? Seems to be parent were objecting.. but the all knowing, powerful state, wasn't listening. Are you aware that a great many children with AIDS in state custody are there because their parents are either incapacitated, dying, dead, and or put the child in state care in hopes the child would get better care...and a chance at life? And, there are children in the system that have been wrongly removed who have no chance at a better life... or in this case... no life at all. You are shallow and small minded, bobber. Very. Read the article again, slowly. The children got to live at a greater rate than had happened before the treatment. Would you have preferred they NOT be allowed to participate in the study? The weren't being 'allowed'... they were being 'forced'. There is a difference. bobb bobb 0:-/ |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
....
Cutting edge? Hahahah.. unproven RX to be trialed on children of the state. Hey, if it works... we'll give to bio families. If not... we'll look around and do more testing. === You don't know what cutting edge means, do you? Hhahah. === Maybe you could save the children by volunteering yourelf; I'm sure they wouldn't notice you're not a child! Hahahah .... |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
bobb wrote: wrote in message ups.com... bobb wrote: 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. bobber, you are wrong. The state have EVERY business making these kinds of decisions. This was the cutting edge of proven Tx Rx already tested on adults. Cutting edge? Hahahah.. unproven RX Where did you get the idea it was unproven Rx? to be trialed on children of the state. If my child were a victim of a 100% fatal disease I'd be seriously considering paying for putting them on the same Rx. These were drugs that were very thoroughly tested on adults and animal subjects. The usual routine. Hey, if it works... we'll give to bio families. If not... we'll look around and do more testing. Mmm..bobber, you didn't read the article...again. 90% of the children were referred for the "trials" by their own parents. I presume they were advised, and demanded, a thorough explanation of the risks and the prior studies in animal and adult trials. If not, then you have an argument, but it would be highly unusual. However, the article says: "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." That pencils out, if you can handle the advanced math, at 90 to 95% were referred by their own parents. And more children lived as a result. .. and die. Yes, bobber, some died. And yet no causal link was established between the drugs and the deaths. They did see a rise in deaths when dosages were increased. It did not say, as you fail to notice, that the outcomes were being tracked on the entire 13,000 children, not the 5 to 10% that were foster children. It might have been on foster children, but odds are it was not. 9 to 1 odds. You have such a rich fantasy life. Let's try again, bobber, shall we? http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-aids05.html Even this highly biased negative article has some clues for the aware and thinking. Take this statement, open with the pos...close with the neg: "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." Notice the admission it slowed rates of deaths and was life extending? Now, notice the paradox introduced, that you aren't really supposed to notice, and you won't if you are properly prepared with a "poor helpless child" lead-in. The word "vulnerable" is the one that takes your thinking away. And turns your emotional reactivity ON, they hope. The paradox I refer to? "Safety for children unknown." That's not true. First, how does one establish safety for children to the hundredth percent? It can never happen. So what's the usual proceedure, required by the FDA? Well, one uses infant animals, most surely done. Usually primates as the last in the animal test series. Then one OVERDOSES adult volunteers, usually from our prison population. Sometimes just regular folks that volunteer, who themselves have AIDS. Body weight proportions are established by raising and lowering the dosage between different subjects. One get's x mg per lb. of body mass, the other 10x, etc. Would you want children, simply because they were wards of the state, denied the latest in treatment afforded other children? Many MORE other children, in fact 90% of the children in the study, and denied the nearly doubled chance to live? You have to remember, that if these children weren't in state care, what might be the desire of their parents? Seems to be parent were objecting.. but the all knowing, powerful state, wasn't listening. Nowhere in the article does it say that. 90% of the children were there by their parents referral, and we do not know if the foster children did not also include a parental release. It HIDES that piece of information. But a parent with an AIDS infected child, even in the system, might well agree to entering their child in the tests. This all started with a heart-wrenching borderline yellow journalism shot that included a foster mom fighting the system because the child became ill from the treatments. I've been treated for illnesses, bobber, that required me to get considerably sicker to save my life. It wasn't AIDS, but it was life threatening. I've taken my own children for shots that hurt, and left a lot of discomfort for a few days. I've taken them for dentistry - oweee. And if a child of mine had AIDS I'd take them, no matter how bad things would be for months or weeks, for Rx. So, I hope, would you. Are you aware that a great many children with AIDS in state custody are there because their parents are either incapacitated, dying, dead, and or put the child in state care in hopes the child would get better care...and a chance at life? And, there are children in the system that have been wrongly removed who have no chance at a better life... or in this case... no life at all. The same old sad and pointless song. And very poorly presented this time just as in the past. There were no foster deaths directly attributed to the Rx, bobber. "Some foster children died during studies, but state or city agencies said they could find no records that any deaths were directly attributed to the treatments." Children with AIDS do die, bobber. That IS the point. To try and save as many as possible. You are shallow and small minded, bobber. Very. Read the article again, slowly. The children got to live at a greater rate than had happened before the treatment. Would you have preferred they NOT be allowed to participate in the study? The weren't being 'allowed'... they were being 'forced'. There is a difference. So let me see. 95% or so were being allowed, and the others forced. Mmm..hmmm. And we still don't know if parents signed off on the children in state care or not. I find such reporting...how shall I say, questionable? That there were possible abuses is obvious in the story. To assume that all instances were abusive of the child's rights is nonsense. To assume that the motive was not to save the child's life and assessing possible risks allow them access is a lie..on your part. What profit did the state derive by submitting foster children for these trials? If they did get a profit, then bobber, according to your thinking and that of some others here, nearly the entire population of foster children would been all of the 13,000 children. bobb ....spouting the same mindless crappola. If you want to criticize, try going after the few points that are debatable in this story. The claim that some of the children had no advocates monitoring them. That the medical researchers had made promises to gain access then had not followed through. And not, that is NOT the case for all the children. Your absolutist nonsense is not debate. It's just emotion laden babbling. Do you doubt that more children lived than would have had they not been allowed access to these medications? "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." bobb 0:-/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|