3 ms·

Maybe it also does not make sense for NIH to have a PhD in philosophy (not medical doctor) https://clinicalcenter.nih.gov/meet-our-doctors/cgrady.html https://

Maybe it also does not make sense for NIH to have a PhD in philosophy (not medical doctor) https://clinicalcenter.nih.gov/meet-our-doctors/cgrady.html https://clinicalcenter.nih.gov/meet-our-doctors/cgrady.html be the Chief of the Department of Bioethics approving questionable research such as sand flies eating live Beagles. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10130709/NIH-says-beagles-eaten-alive-sandflies-NOT-experiment-admits-cutting-vocal-chord.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10130709/NIH-says-b... 'The NIH said that they did do leishmaniasis research on dogs in a laboratory in 2016, and in an enclosed open space in Tunisia, but not the research pictured.'

dekhn 5y ago
The person you're referring to, Christine Grady, does indeed have a PhD in philosophy (which seems to make perfect sense for somebody who works in bioethics). But in addition to that, she is a trained nurse with an immense amount of experience. It's not clear to me that a doctor would make a better decision than a nurse here (or in the clinic, TBH). I think you have a different issue given your highly specific criticism of dog bioethics. THe NIH primarily concerns itself with human bioethics and permits some amount of very unpleasant research on model organisms.
- landemva 5y ago
  She is also the wife of medical Dr. Fauci of the NIH, which may raise claims of influence and bias.
  - dekhn 5y ago
    Yeah, sorry, don't really put much weight into that. Fauci is a dedicated civil servant and pretty much everything he does is seen by large numbers of people. Oh, look: https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-170254166936 https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-170254166936 If my goal was to cast fear, uncertainty and doubt into vaccines, I think I'd be able to weave a far more convincing web of lies that the folks worrying about a married NIH power couple. I guess the way I look at Fauci is that he already proved his value in the HIV/AIDS crisis and it would be crazy not to trust somebody with that level of knowledge, levelheadedness, and connections.
    - landemva 5y ago
      Connections for posing for pictures with Trump doesn't prove medical ability. During AIDS outbreak, Fauci pushed for FDA to approve the toxic and expensive drug known as AZT which was eventually discontinued. https://www.spin.com/2015/10/aids-and-the-azt-scandal-spin-1989-feature-sins-of-omission/ https://www.spin.com/2015/10/aids-and-the-azt-scandal-spin-1... Bactrim was cheap and not approved. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/whitewashing-aids-history_b_4762295 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/whitewashing-aids-history_b_4... 'Dr. Anthony Fauci is rewriting history. He is doing so to disguise his shameful role in delaying promotion of an AIDS treatment that would have prevented tens of thousands of deaths in the first years of the epidemic. In my book, Body Counts, A Memoir of Politics, Sex, AIDS, and Survival, I recount how slow the federal government was in publicizing the use of Bactrim and other sulfa drugs to prevent PCP (the pneumonia that was then the leading killer of people with AIDS) in addition to its long-time and well-known use to treat PCP.'
      - dekhn 5y ago
        I'm sorry exactly what are you saying is wrong with AZT? It wasn't discontinued, it's still in use and was the first drug that really started to turn around HIV. I know all about this because my research into pharmaceutical chemistry during my phd contained a lot about nucleoside analogs (I worked with a similarly toxic one, gemcitabine), and because I was working near the forefront of HIV antiviral research at the time. Bactrim addresses a symptom of AIDS (specifically, a side bacterial infecftion that many people infected with HIV are prone to getting) while AZT reduces viral infections. Two completely different things. The former is for people who are infected, the latter for people to not get infected. The fog of virus is like the fog of war: easy to criticize from the distance of time. I think you've said enough. It's clear what your opinion about Fauci is, and it's adding absolutely nothing to this discussion.
        landemva 5y ago
        It was the quick magic cure the public was demanding. With more testing it was shown to have significant side effects and is no longer used across the board. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/the-rise-and-fall-of-azt-it-was-the-drug-that-had-to-work-it-brought-hope-to-people-with-hiv-and-aids-and-millions-for-the-company-that-developed-it-it-had-to-work-there-was-nothing-else-but-for-many-who-used-2320491.html https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/the-rise-an... 'The AZT will work for you for a little while, for the maximum of one year, as it did for me, and afterwards the damage became visible.' I wonder if the current quick magic cure demanded by the public may also overlook harmful side effects. The current pressure to dose those in low risk groups may be short-sighted. Ignoring risks is the subject of the thread.

dekhn 5y ago

The person you're referring to, Christine Grady, does indeed have a PhD in philosophy (which seems to make perfect sense for somebody who works in bioethics). But in addition to that, she is a trained nurse with an immense amount of experience. It's not clear to me that a doctor would make a better decision than a nurse here (or in the clinic, TBH). I think you have a different issue given your highly specific criticism of dog bioethics. THe NIH primarily concerns itself with human bioethics and permits some amount of very unpleasant research on model organisms.

landemva 5y ago
She is also the wife of medical Dr. Fauci of the NIH, which may raise claims of influence and bias.
- dekhn 5y ago
  Yeah, sorry, don't really put much weight into that. Fauci is a dedicated civil servant and pretty much everything he does is seen by large numbers of people. Oh, look: https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-170254166936 https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-170254166936 If my goal was to cast fear, uncertainty and doubt into vaccines, I think I'd be able to weave a far more convincing web of lies that the folks worrying about a married NIH power couple. I guess the way I look at Fauci is that he already proved his value in the HIV/AIDS crisis and it would be crazy not to trust somebody with that level of knowledge, levelheadedness, and connections.
  - landemva 5y ago
    Connections for posing for pictures with Trump doesn't prove medical ability. During AIDS outbreak, Fauci pushed for FDA to approve the toxic and expensive drug known as AZT which was eventually discontinued. https://www.spin.com/2015/10/aids-and-the-azt-scandal-spin-1989-feature-sins-of-omission/ https://www.spin.com/2015/10/aids-and-the-azt-scandal-spin-1... Bactrim was cheap and not approved. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/whitewashing-aids-history_b_4762295 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/whitewashing-aids-history_b_4... 'Dr. Anthony Fauci is rewriting history. He is doing so to disguise his shameful role in delaying promotion of an AIDS treatment that would have prevented tens of thousands of deaths in the first years of the epidemic. In my book, Body Counts, A Memoir of Politics, Sex, AIDS, and Survival, I recount how slow the federal government was in publicizing the use of Bactrim and other sulfa drugs to prevent PCP (the pneumonia that was then the leading killer of people with AIDS) in addition to its long-time and well-known use to treat PCP.'
    - dekhn 5y ago
      I'm sorry exactly what are you saying is wrong with AZT? It wasn't discontinued, it's still in use and was the first drug that really started to turn around HIV. I know all about this because my research into pharmaceutical chemistry during my phd contained a lot about nucleoside analogs (I worked with a similarly toxic one, gemcitabine), and because I was working near the forefront of HIV antiviral research at the time. Bactrim addresses a symptom of AIDS (specifically, a side bacterial infecftion that many people infected with HIV are prone to getting) while AZT reduces viral infections. Two completely different things. The former is for people who are infected, the latter for people to not get infected. The fog of virus is like the fog of war: easy to criticize from the distance of time. I think you've said enough. It's clear what your opinion about Fauci is, and it's adding absolutely nothing to this discussion.
      - landemva 5y ago
        It was the quick magic cure the public was demanding. With more testing it was shown to have significant side effects and is no longer used across the board. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/the-rise-and-fall-of-azt-it-was-the-drug-that-had-to-work-it-brought-hope-to-people-with-hiv-and-aids-and-millions-for-the-company-that-developed-it-it-had-to-work-there-was-nothing-else-but-for-many-who-used-2320491.html https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/the-rise-an... 'The AZT will work for you for a little while, for the maximum of one year, as it did for me, and afterwards the damage became visible.' I wonder if the current quick magic cure demanded by the public may also overlook harmful side effects. The current pressure to dose those in low risk groups may be short-sighted. Ignoring risks is the subject of the thread.