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
  #12  
Old May 7th 05, 02:32 PM
Pop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

....

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  
Old May 7th 05, 11:04 PM
Carlson LaVonne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old May 8th 05, 01:22 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old May 8th 05, 02:42 AM
Pop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old May 8th 05, 04:01 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old May 8th 05, 05:05 AM
bobb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old May 8th 05, 05:11 AM
bobb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old May 8th 05, 01:41 PM
Pop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

....

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  
Old May 8th 05, 07:14 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

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 01:57 PM.


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.