5 ms·

This might be reading too much in to minor drama at a diabetes conference. The gentleman in question could have gone to protest outside (and probably did). The

by roenxi 4mo ago

This might be reading too much in to minor drama at a diabetes conference. The gentleman in question could have gone to protest outside (and probably did). The article linked doesn't even say what exactly they were protesting (beyond a rather vague "attacks on scientific research" which could mean a lot of things).

embedding-shape 4mo ago
> This might be reading too much in to minor drama at a diabetes conference. Indeed, my view and perspective is built by a culmination of recent events, not based on a single event. The widespread self-censorship Americans currently engage in (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48434091 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48434091) is also a large part of it. I don't have any "index of events" handy that could explain why I think the slope is so evident currently, but based on the ongoing journalistic suppression, individual self-censorship, centralization of control and power in governments and society together with lots of other smaller incidents like this one and others, makes it pretty clear to me at least.
adrian_b 4mo ago
Their so-called "protest" was just distributing an article already published in the journal of the medical association to which this conference is attached, which probably discussed matters of interest for the attendance, like the future of research financing in this domain. I can hardly think of a more peaceful form of protest, which only intended to make aware the participants about the content of the article. Those who were not interested presumably refused to take the article copy or did not read it. Even on HN you can still see claims that USA is a "free" country where anyone can say anything about the government, without consequences. This example shows clearly that this claim is false.
- roenxi 4mo ago
  I'm no doctor, but I suspect the conference organisers wanted the conference to focus on diabetes. Rather than exploring whether the USA is a "free" country where anyone can say anything about the government, without consequences.
  - JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
    > suspect the conference organisers wanted the conference to focus on diabetes The article they were distributing is pretty clearly about diabetes. If the actions it describes continues, significant efforts towards treating and even curing diabetes will be lost.
    - ciupicri 4mo ago
      > Just a year ago, in these very pages, we highlighted the many threats the current U.S. administration posed to the health of our nation (1). Since then, there have been actions by the administration that have caused grave health consequences, and their current approach will continue to do so. It sounds to me like criticism of the government.
      - JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
        > sounds to me like criticism of the government The article is not a long read [1]. It describes how current policy is dismantling and destroying the research infrastructure for diabetes, infrastructure which has started or has already borne significant fruit. It encapsulates a criticism of the administration, and it’s definitely scathing, but it’s far from a partisan rant. For example: “This CD3-directed monoclonal antibody has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to prevent type 1 diabetes in people aged 8 years and older with stage 2 type 1 diabetes. As a result, we are a major step closer to a cure for type 1 diabetes. With the potential to prevent the disease, screening programs for type 1 diabetes are being initiated worldwide. … Two examples are the Human Islet Research Network (HIRN) and the Integrated Islet Distribution Program (IIDP). HIRN aims to advance our understanding of how β-cells are lost in human type 1 diabetes and to find inventive strategies to protect or replace β-cells in people with the disease.” The funding for that research is being cut. If you have a loved one with or at risk of getting diabetes, this could be the difference between vastly different levels of quality of life and years of life versus death. [1] https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/49/6/901/164764/Misguided-Brushes-of-a-Pen-Continue-to-Dismantle https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/49/6/901/164764/Mi...
- zdragnar 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - noelsusman 4mo ago
    They removed him due to fear of reprisal from the federal government. How could that have nothing to do with free speech?
  - JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
    > This has nothing to do whatsoever with free speech Freedom of speech is a philosophical concept broader than the First Amendment. The conference organizers broke their own code of conduct to censor this article’s distribution. That violates principles of free speech. If they did it at the behest of a government official, that would be a First Amendment issue. We don’t have any evidence of that right now, but it isn’t a question which has been seriously investigated yet.
- 866-RON-0-FEZ 4mo ago
  > Even on HN you can still see claims that USA is a "free" country where anyone can say anything about the government, without consequences. The first amendment applies to public spaces. Not private conferences which are invite-only. You're on an anti-U.S. tear in this discussion but lack understanding of the basics. For the same reason I can't show up at your office and start handing out religious materials and/or pornography (take your pick) to everyone showing up for work and claim it's a free speech issue and my right to do so. As someone else pointed out below, this exact argument was used to ban apps lacking "correct" moderation from the app stores a few years ago.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
st-keller 4mo ago
“When Fascism came into power, most people were unprepared, both theoretically and practically. They were unable to believe that man could exhibit such propensities for evil, such lust for power, such disregard for the rights of the weak, or such yearning for submission. Only a few had been aware of the rumbling of the volcano preceding the outbreak.” — Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom
joemazerino 4mo ago
It would be wonderful if conference attendees to ADA would stick to the ToS.
- tapoxi 4mo ago
  It's not clear how that was violated, since they're handing out an article from the ADA's own journal.
- throwaway173738 4mo ago
  Minitrue remake goodthink fullwise.
3eb7988a1663 4mo ago
Conferences have dozens of people distributing pamphlets, papers, ads, and all manner of literature. To share a publication from an authoritative body with peers is a common action.
Hizonner 4mo ago
The conference invited Jay Bhattacharya (the NIH director), who I guarantee was not going to give a technical speech, since beyond an 30-year-old, never-professionally-used generic medical degree, he knows approximately dick about diabetes or anything relevant. These guys were handing out copies of an article outside that room. He didn't show and sent a substitute, who was surely going to sing the same song. By letting NIH political operatives in, the ADA made the conference itself a political event. > The article linked doesn't even say what exactly they were protesting (beyond a rather vague "attacks on scientific research" which could mean a lot of things). It does mean a lot of things, and the Trump administration is doing roughly all of them. Sorry about your lack of basic knowledge of current events.

by roenxi 4mo ago

embedding-shape 4mo ago

> This might be reading too much in to minor drama at a diabetes conference. Indeed, my view and perspective is built by a culmination of recent events, not based on a single event. The widespread self-censorship Americans currently engage in (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48434091 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48434091) is also a large part of it. I don't have any "index of events" handy that could explain why I think the slope is so evident currently, but based on the ongoing journalistic suppression, individual self-censorship, centralization of control and power in governments and society together with lots of other smaller incidents like this one and others, makes it pretty clear to me at least.

adrian_b 4mo ago

Their so-called "protest" was just distributing an article already published in the journal of the medical association to which this conference is attached, which probably discussed matters of interest for the attendance, like the future of research financing in this domain. I can hardly think of a more peaceful form of protest, which only intended to make aware the participants about the content of the article. Those who were not interested presumably refused to take the article copy or did not read it. Even on HN you can still see claims that USA is a "free" country where anyone can say anything about the government, without consequences. This example shows clearly that this claim is false.

roenxi 4mo ago
I'm no doctor, but I suspect the conference organisers wanted the conference to focus on diabetes. Rather than exploring whether the USA is a "free" country where anyone can say anything about the government, without consequences.
- JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
  > suspect the conference organisers wanted the conference to focus on diabetes The article they were distributing is pretty clearly about diabetes. If the actions it describes continues, significant efforts towards treating and even curing diabetes will be lost.
  - ciupicri 4mo ago
    > Just a year ago, in these very pages, we highlighted the many threats the current U.S. administration posed to the health of our nation (1). Since then, there have been actions by the administration that have caused grave health consequences, and their current approach will continue to do so. It sounds to me like criticism of the government.
    - JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
      > sounds to me like criticism of the government The article is not a long read [1]. It describes how current policy is dismantling and destroying the research infrastructure for diabetes, infrastructure which has started or has already borne significant fruit. It encapsulates a criticism of the administration, and it’s definitely scathing, but it’s far from a partisan rant. For example: “This CD3-directed monoclonal antibody has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to prevent type 1 diabetes in people aged 8 years and older with stage 2 type 1 diabetes. As a result, we are a major step closer to a cure for type 1 diabetes. With the potential to prevent the disease, screening programs for type 1 diabetes are being initiated worldwide. … Two examples are the Human Islet Research Network (HIRN) and the Integrated Islet Distribution Program (IIDP). HIRN aims to advance our understanding of how β-cells are lost in human type 1 diabetes and to find inventive strategies to protect or replace β-cells in people with the disease.” The funding for that research is being cut. If you have a loved one with or at risk of getting diabetes, this could be the difference between vastly different levels of quality of life and years of life versus death. [1] https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/49/6/901/164764/Misguided-Brushes-of-a-Pen-Continue-to-Dismantle https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/49/6/901/164764/Mi...
zdragnar 4mo ago
[flagged]
- noelsusman 4mo ago
  They removed him due to fear of reprisal from the federal government. How could that have nothing to do with free speech?
- JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
  > This has nothing to do whatsoever with free speech Freedom of speech is a philosophical concept broader than the First Amendment. The conference organizers broke their own code of conduct to censor this article’s distribution. That violates principles of free speech. If they did it at the behest of a government official, that would be a First Amendment issue. We don’t have any evidence of that right now, but it isn’t a question which has been seriously investigated yet.
866-RON-0-FEZ 4mo ago
> Even on HN you can still see claims that USA is a "free" country where anyone can say anything about the government, without consequences. The first amendment applies to public spaces. Not private conferences which are invite-only. You're on an anti-U.S. tear in this discussion but lack understanding of the basics. For the same reason I can't show up at your office and start handing out religious materials and/or pornography (take your pick) to everyone showing up for work and claim it's a free speech issue and my right to do so. As someone else pointed out below, this exact argument was used to ban apps lacking "correct" moderation from the app stores a few years ago.

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

st-keller 4mo ago

“When Fascism came into power, most people were unprepared, both theoretically and practically. They were unable to believe that man could exhibit such propensities for evil, such lust for power, such disregard for the rights of the weak, or such yearning for submission. Only a few had been aware of the rumbling of the volcano preceding the outbreak.” — Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom

joemazerino 4mo ago

It would be wonderful if conference attendees to ADA would stick to the ToS.

tapoxi 4mo ago
It's not clear how that was violated, since they're handing out an article from the ADA's own journal.
throwaway173738 4mo ago
Minitrue remake goodthink fullwise.

3eb7988a1663 4mo ago

Conferences have dozens of people distributing pamphlets, papers, ads, and all manner of literature. To share a publication from an authoritative body with peers is a common action.

Hizonner 4mo ago

The conference invited Jay Bhattacharya (the NIH director), who I guarantee was not going to give a technical speech, since beyond an 30-year-old, never-professionally-used generic medical degree, he knows approximately dick about diabetes or anything relevant. These guys were handing out copies of an article outside that room. He didn't show and sent a substitute, who was surely going to sing the same song. By letting NIH political operatives in, the ADA made the conference itself a political event. > The article linked doesn't even say what exactly they were protesting (beyond a rather vague "attacks on scientific research" which could mean a lot of things). It does mean a lot of things, and the Trump administration is doing roughly all of them. Sorry about your lack of basic knowledge of current events.