Weganator

I repeatedly mentioned the US governments crimes (Guatamala crimes from article)in various posts. Others also helped find other US government examples (Tuskegee). I'm glad we agree that FDA practices should be constantly reevaluated.. some previous poster had used the argument 'the rules are in place for a reason' which is a lazy argument since we always gain new information to reevaluate our practices

I honestly don't know and would be curious to find out. But as opposed to lazily attempting to lump him in with the human rights violations of past governments, why not interview him and ask him that? (edit: not you personally, the writer of the article) The answer comes back to they have no desire to reevaluate the existing set of government regulations with an eye towards helping business and in turn like to take every opportunity to link Libertarians / free market people to fascists.

I think the question is more is the current FDA regulation set a comprehensive set of appropriate ethics or is there room to help increase innovation while protecting individual rights. The article tries to paint him as synonymous with acts of atrocity because some aspect of current FDA regulations didn't allow individuals like the one in the article to volunteer in the US. The trial appears to have been successful and there isn't patient outcry about a violation of rights. Are there any aspects of this case that could be used as a basis for reform so that future patients can also have the benefits of being in the jurisdiction of the US with additional legal protections?

Or you can create a system in the US that works to try and guarantee informed consent for patients while also protecting their human rights.

The problem is that its a blanket ban on all early stage human research without trying to reasonably discuss what the actual crimes were as opposed to saying 'all human experimentation outside of FDA guidelines is evil'. Its disingenuous to the victims who were deprived of their basic human rights to say that it was solely because of early stage human medical research. The role of government is to protect individual rights. While banning this research protects individuals from the possibility of being wronged by governments (Public Health Service in the case of Tuskeegee, Nazis, US Government research in Guatamala that Zenilman referenced in thedailybeast article) or corporations (possibly Mr Thiel's if informed consent wasn't ensured).. it eliminates the ability of an individual to leverage informed consent to pursue a cure (the pursuit of happiness). If you told the now cured Richard Mancuso that you wanted to lock up Peter Thiel and his researchers for curing him of herpes because of the Nazis and some atrocities of the US Government 50+ years ago I'd hope that he would laugh in your face. If his junk falls off next year as a result of this, he might change his mind, but if he is cured.. who is harmed?

Wow, I hadn't heard about that before, thanks for mentioning it. Seems like a real tragedy akin to Nazi experiments and the types mentioned in that article. https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm Reading about it, it seems like informed consent is still the fundamental sticking point. Whether or not we trust that an individual can ever possibly be informed enough to choose to do something like this in their own interest.

But I don't want to get too bogged down on defense and structuring of a potential human experimentation code. My bigger point was to draw clear delineations between the acts of the Nazis and this research. I would like to believe that if I was standing at Mr Thiel's mansions gate while the mob of TheDailyBeast commenters and ES users who reacted to this article approached with pitchforks (and tiki torches?) that I could rationalize this to the point where I could save him from exile / execution without trial... possibly by being sent to Mars if the means were available.

We also don't currently allow this early stage human testing in the United States. I would have to assume a change to allow it would consist of more than just 'go for it' Also, kidnapping and assault are criminal acts, not civil ones. Any added protections against lawsuits are irrelevant to your concerns. There would need to be a creation of a system of requiring informed consent, guaranteeing it occurs, enforcing it, and providing a means for restitution though, you are correct.

I can see where you are coming from on this, but the acts that made those experiments evil were the crimes committed against the individuals. The kidnapping, the assault (non voluntary injection of needle, non voluntary ingestion of chemicals), and any sort of deceptions against the subjects themselves. Informed people who choose to be a part of these experiments should be able to volunteer. I wholeheartedly agree about the "Outlaw" portion as well, its a shame it has resorted to this. I think the solution there is more common sense FDA regulations that allow people to volunteer for experiments while guaranteeing informed consent. If these experiments were conducted on US soil, our citizens would be protected from kidnapping, assault, and criminal fraud by the basis of being within our jurisdiction and would be able to take people to court if it is deemed that they were wronged. Edit: Speaking from the privilege of not having herpes, it seems silly to me to risk your life to suppress the symptoms. Especially if you have to do all of this outside of the United States where you will have no recourse. However, if I were to wake up with some life threatening disease tomorrow with no cure and you tried to get in the way of me pursuing a cure I'd be furious

This is pretty much the only thing holding me back from being entirely indifferent regarding this type of testing. The key is needing to guarantee informed consent, maybe some sort of 3rd party needing to be there to help clarify the risks. It would be pretty despicable if proven that people were being tricked / mislead into this. They had to get the Nazi jab in.... I think we can all agree that compulsory, coerced, or deceived human testing is wrong and a violation of basic human rights. Outside of the context for how the laws were initially created, this portion reeks of a hit piece. This person does not sound like he has been forced into this, none of us were at the meetings involving the discussions of these risks. Assuming we take them at face value and it doesn't later come to light that the risks were downplayed (the lack of a negative result doesn't preclude deception from being unethical) then this is a non issue.

You don't see McCain rushing over to the VA for treatment after saving government run healthcare.

We are in a lot of trouble if CNN and MSNBC 'says so' is the same standard of proving something as incriminating video evidence in a trial.

Careful with that 17 agency number. New York Times did one of those silent retractions on that a week or so ago. Here is the closest I could find in 30 seconds of googling. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/us/politics/trump-russia-intelligence-agencies-cia-fbi-nsa.amp.html&ved=0ahUKEwiFqvuAlPvUAhWIdz4KHZdGBqoQiJQBCB0wAA&usg=AFQjCNGESPyE7Xvp5c-T_HrJDhZZipUDHA

If there was no proof that the person was here illegally, I would be for stopping their deportation.

A person's labor is worth what they are worth on the open market, I'm not certain how wages would change in the fieldhand industry if there was no illegal labor in the US. My point was the people who look at all of the negatives of illegal immigration and come back with "they do jobs Americans won't do" haven't even considered how much money our government already gives away and how that could be appropriated more efficiently.

Is there a compelling reason why these crops can't be picked by able bodied welfare recipients? Has to be some way to take the money we throw into farm subsidies and welfare to prevent this kind of crop waste. Maybe you could help them get bank accounts if needed. Use some money saved to give the workers additional money on top of their benefits and waive limited asset requirements for welfare while doing this. Allow them to accumulate some money to help them have emergency savings, build some initial wealth, and see a path out of permanent poverty.

Edibles are nice, but I personally wouldn't suggest them as a first time. I have seen far too many lightweights puking on edibles because they ate a whole cookie instead of 1/4 because the delayed release gets you. You have to know a lot about the quality and quantity of that particular edible or you run the risk of feeling nothing or getting really sick. I would suggest a bong or vape, but avoid hash oils at first, save those for when you get a tolerance. That way you can not cough too much on your first times, control the dose and get a more immediate effect.

Venezuela? Might find one educated w/ the free college but dealing with the failed state famines.

It creates a false competition. It's not like the government can go out of business, taxes will always be collected under threat of imprisonment. These taxes are being collected from the business / individuals you intend to cannibalize in the name of fairness.

I'm ready for automation to take the jobs of NBA refs I bet the league wouldn't implement it because it 'slows the pace of the game' down when both teams have to play by the rules

Whatever move does get made, I hope it comes before Thursday. We have one easy (knock on wood) game against the 76ers before our schedule starts to pick up again. It would go a long way to have our acquisition hopefully get some good minutes with the bench on Friday.

I'm not too excited about the idea of trading for Lou Williams. Between him over performing, the cost, and the fact that he won't get nearly the same number of foul calls in the playoffs / him outside of a Lakers jersey it just reeks of a move we regret later.