4 ms·

I don't approve of using the term conspiracies as a way to denounce the questioning of true intentions or possible problem areas. Unless someone can prove that

I don't approve of using the term conspiracies as a way to denounce the questioning of true intentions or possible problem areas. Unless someone can prove that no one involved in the tuskegee "incident"[0] is no longer employed or influential at the CDC I will just resign myself to thinking that THEY are the conspiracy theorist, a conspiracy to seem infallible or at least incorruptible. Such a concept is of course ridiculous, don't turn off your brain with an appeal to authority. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study EDIT: spelling

darkerside 4y ago
Not denouncing, just answering a loaded question by putting my finger in the barrel. I think we can talk about our concerns in a realistic way without resorting to baseless speculation. It's fair to question whether the CDC should be using this data. The thing about Tuskegee is that it wasn't a conspiracy. It started in 1932, in a time when the majority of Americans probably would have supported it if they knew about it. That doesn't make it OK, but it does make it a poor example of a conspiracy. Systems and incentives are much better predictors of behavior.
- llanowarelves 4y ago
  Yes, we should talk about the system and incentives of the revolving-doors between massive corporations and government bodies meant to govern those corporations. With the cash/status/power incentives attached. You don't need an explicit intentional criminal conspiracy when a "conspiracy of common interests" can produce similar results.
- tepitoperrito 4y ago
  Acknowledged, I mostly don't want to talk past others who are hung up on conspiracies (pro or against). Much more fruitful is definitely the analysis of strategies and games and actors. Their power or influence and their motivations. Thanks for your thoughtful response.
- cgio 4y ago
  I don't believe conspiracy necessarily has to be for a goal that is against majority support. I.e. someone may conspire against a minority. Conspiracy is by virtue of not disclosing actions or their goals. I.e. the subjects of the study would definitely see it as a conspiracy against them. The relevant argument here would be the extent to which this approach to scientific experimentation was normal at that point in time and how it compares to current protocols. I.e. whether CDC aligns with scientific research protocols and therefore the focus would be on whether these protocols are strong enough to warrant broad access to data without consent.
slg 4y ago
>Unless someone can prove that no one involved in the tuskegee "incident"[0] is no longer employed or influential at the CDC I will just resign myself to thinking that THEY are the conspiracy theorist, The Tuskegee Experiment started 90 years ago and ended 50 years ago. I don't know what proof you need, but the simple facts of human biology basically guarantee that anyone who had any power during that timeframe is no longer working at the CDC.
- tepitoperrito 4y ago
  There are doctors, lawyers, administrators, and talking heads in their 80s who are well known and respected in their fields today. My knowledge of biology and arithmetic puts them at around 30 years old in the year 1972. That's the year the program ended. If not the CDC then maybe we should just question everyone's motives and I apologize for trying the sensationalist approach. EDIT. Maths. Unedit. Still maths
  - denkmoon 4y ago
    >maybe we should just question everyone's motives At some point, you have to have some level of trust in society and its institutions. Or become a paranoid nutter. Maybe the paranoid nutters are right (just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you), but that's still no way to live.
    - InitialLastName 4y ago
      The problem with paranoia is that it's one of those things that can be self-fulfilling the more common it is, as the paranoid nutters get into power and work together disable the conspiracies they perceive at everyone's expense, thus justifying and magnifying the beliefs of the paranoid nutjobs on the other side (and so on).
    - mistermann 4y ago
      > At some point, you have to have some level of trust in society and its institutions. Or become a paranoid nutter. I see this as a false dichotomy. It is possible to simply assume that everyone is doing their best, and that is "not necessarily great" due to poor system design and various other reasons, or it may be even worse due to some bad actors - but necessarily becoming a paranoid nutter is a false belief, and the commonality of such beliefs makes me suspicious that they are not entirely organic.
milkey_mouse 4y ago
The Tuskegee Experiment ended 50 years ago. One would have to have had a rather long career to have been employed at the CDC both then and now.
- jtc331 4y ago
  Anthony Fauci has been at NIH since 1968. That might be a rare example, but long careers do happen.
  - pempem 4y ago
    Tuskegee, fwiw, was in 1932 - 1972 The career is long certainly but I think we all believe we are evolving in our careers. No one here would want to be accused of working in the same way or having the same knowledge in year 1 of their career compared to today. The CDC has a lot to make up for - it also started in 1946, after tuskegee was started

darkerside 4y ago

Not denouncing, just answering a loaded question by putting my finger in the barrel. I think we can talk about our concerns in a realistic way without resorting to baseless speculation. It's fair to question whether the CDC should be using this data. The thing about Tuskegee is that it wasn't a conspiracy. It started in 1932, in a time when the majority of Americans probably would have supported it if they knew about it. That doesn't make it OK, but it does make it a poor example of a conspiracy. Systems and incentives are much better predictors of behavior.

llanowarelves 4y ago
Yes, we should talk about the system and incentives of the revolving-doors between massive corporations and government bodies meant to govern those corporations. With the cash/status/power incentives attached. You don't need an explicit intentional criminal conspiracy when a "conspiracy of common interests" can produce similar results.
tepitoperrito 4y ago
Acknowledged, I mostly don't want to talk past others who are hung up on conspiracies (pro or against). Much more fruitful is definitely the analysis of strategies and games and actors. Their power or influence and their motivations. Thanks for your thoughtful response.
cgio 4y ago
I don't believe conspiracy necessarily has to be for a goal that is against majority support. I.e. someone may conspire against a minority. Conspiracy is by virtue of not disclosing actions or their goals. I.e. the subjects of the study would definitely see it as a conspiracy against them. The relevant argument here would be the extent to which this approach to scientific experimentation was normal at that point in time and how it compares to current protocols. I.e. whether CDC aligns with scientific research protocols and therefore the focus would be on whether these protocols are strong enough to warrant broad access to data without consent.

slg 4y ago

>Unless someone can prove that no one involved in the tuskegee "incident"[0] is no longer employed or influential at the CDC I will just resign myself to thinking that THEY are the conspiracy theorist, The Tuskegee Experiment started 90 years ago and ended 50 years ago. I don't know what proof you need, but the simple facts of human biology basically guarantee that anyone who had any power during that timeframe is no longer working at the CDC.

tepitoperrito 4y ago
There are doctors, lawyers, administrators, and talking heads in their 80s who are well known and respected in their fields today. My knowledge of biology and arithmetic puts them at around 30 years old in the year 1972. That's the year the program ended. If not the CDC then maybe we should just question everyone's motives and I apologize for trying the sensationalist approach. EDIT. Maths. Unedit. Still maths
- denkmoon 4y ago
  >maybe we should just question everyone's motives At some point, you have to have some level of trust in society and its institutions. Or become a paranoid nutter. Maybe the paranoid nutters are right (just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you), but that's still no way to live.
  - InitialLastName 4y ago
    The problem with paranoia is that it's one of those things that can be self-fulfilling the more common it is, as the paranoid nutters get into power and work together disable the conspiracies they perceive at everyone's expense, thus justifying and magnifying the beliefs of the paranoid nutjobs on the other side (and so on).
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > At some point, you have to have some level of trust in society and its institutions. Or become a paranoid nutter. I see this as a false dichotomy. It is possible to simply assume that everyone is doing their best, and that is "not necessarily great" due to poor system design and various other reasons, or it may be even worse due to some bad actors - but necessarily becoming a paranoid nutter is a false belief, and the commonality of such beliefs makes me suspicious that they are not entirely organic.

milkey_mouse 4y ago

The Tuskegee Experiment ended 50 years ago. One would have to have had a rather long career to have been employed at the CDC both then and now.

jtc331 4y ago
Anthony Fauci has been at NIH since 1968. That might be a rare example, but long careers do happen.
- pempem 4y ago
  Tuskegee, fwiw, was in 1932 - 1972 The career is long certainly but I think we all believe we are evolving in our careers. No one here would want to be accused of working in the same way or having the same knowledge in year 1 of their career compared to today. The CDC has a lot to make up for - it also started in 1946, after tuskegee was started