Michelle Obama and the Tuskegee Experiments

[corplinx]

We were nice when the "Swiftboat Veterans For Truth" who were not even THERE smeared Kerry. What did that get us?

You weren't nice. You were cowardly because you didn't know if it was true or not. All of a sudden you have all the vets talking down Kerry's medals and war records. Kerry goes quiet and won't discuss it. There just enough doubt how his silver star and cambodia story that all the lies and smears the swifties suddenly seemed plausible. Instead of fighting it, Kerry went numb.

You weren't "nice", you had nothing to combat it with and instead droned on about how we can't stick to the real issues. If Kerry's supporters had showed some spine it probably would have helped.

Not everyone had this sort of paralysis:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5612836/

The result is that the version of Kerry's war record that the public knows is highly incorrect. One whole blog got it right and everyone else got it wrong. The mass media has no interest in getting the story right now.

 

[Brainster]

You weren't nice. You were cowardly because you didn't know if it was true or not. All of a sudden you have all the vets talking down Kerry's medals and war records. Kerry goes quiet and won't discuss it. There just enough doubt how his silver star and cambodia story that all the lies and smears the swifties suddenly seemed plausible. Instead of fighting it, Kerry went numb.

I think more than anything else it was the patent absurdity of the Cambodia story, combined with the fact that it didn't involve arguments about medals, that made it hard for Kerry to shake. And who was the first person to notice that Tour of Duty, Douglas Brinkley's hagiography of Kerry, omitted mention of that oft-claimed Christmas in Cambodia?

Why, I do believe it was someone in this very forum. Scooped the world on that story.

 

[SezMe]

What sucks the worst is when one becomes emotional invested such that one ignores reality.

Gawd, JDG, I love your participation in these political threads. You sometimes have the ability to hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, you don't seem to know who the "nail" is. BTW, do you have a throbbing thumb?

 

[SezMe]

It is said that Nancy Reagan was very involved in RR's administration but it was not in public.

The fact that Nancy used astrology to set Ronnie's schedule was not public at the time excuses it? On a skeptics board? You really have to be kidding me.

 

[Brainster]

I mean honestly, is there any reason to defend this at all? I see Burch trying hard, but he is an actual member of the Democratic party. He doesn't just vote Democrat. His job is to astroturf forums like these.

I don't think this is fair. IIRC, Ben, like me, originally joined JREF because of the 9-11 conspiracy debunking going on in the Conspiracy Theory Subforum. I think Ben heard about the forum from Perry Logan. (Who was quite a trip before he got banned).

You don't hang out over there much, so I can see how you might not know this. I get the definite feel that like me, Ben came here for the debunking, but doesn't mind talking politics.

 

[Puppycow]

We were nice when the "Swiftboat Veterans For Truth" who were not even THERE smeared Kerry. What did that get us?

We were nice when they accused Al Gore of claiming to have invented the Internet. What did that get us?

OK, so we're gonna be nice when they try to claim that Senator Obama hates white people and Michelle Obama wants black teenagers to die of cancer.

What is that gonna get us?

Because there is more true dirt out there than anybody knows about, and I know we are sitting on it. And I know we're not gonna use it.

And you know it sucks to be right and yet lose to scoundrels.

There was a recent article by Michael Kinsley, one of my favorite pundits, called To Swift-Boat or Not. Here's an excerpt:

To swift-boat or not to swift-boat? What'll it be? Both candidates have publicly sworn off the practice, and McCain was admirably loud in denouncing the Swift Boat campaign in 2004. Of course, that was when he was still a maverick. I've been shocked by how many Democrats, in an informal poll, take the position that whatever it takes to win is justified. They say, first, that the Republicans will do anything to win, and it would be naive to attempt a higher standard. Second, they say, the stakes in this election are so high that an excess of scruples in trying to win it would be morality misplaced. Many Republicans agree at least with this second point. The belief of some Democrats that only scruples are stopping them from swift-boating as effectively as Republicans is almost touching.

If these junior Machiavellis are right, there is no hope for a civilized campaign. McCain will do what Republican candidates always do, and Obama will use skills developed over the long primary season. Or is there hope in the fact that decency is a big part of both candidates' "brands"? If so, swift-boating could backfire. But it never has before. And the most enthusiastic and skilled swift-boater so far--George Bush the Elder, who built his campaign against Michael Dukakis around the Pledge of Allegiance and a furloughed convict named Willie Horton--was also someone peddling decency as part of his official persona. History shows that any candidate who relies on the voters to punish a swift-boater is going to be disappointed. People tell pollsters they are sick of nasty politics, then they respond to it every time.

 

[whatthebutlersaw]

I would need more information...

...before making up my mind. Jumping in here with a couple of things I would need to know.

But first something that might be useful to know, and something that Mrs Obama definitely would be aware of given her role at the time:

Drugs first go through animal testes etc. We all know that.

What some people may not know is that once ready for testing on humans, a new drug is always tested on healthy, adult, volunteering men who must be given a full explanation of risks involved so they can make an informed decision - this is one of the laws that was the aftermath of the Tuskegee fiasco- for safety.

By the time a drug reaches the actual target group - in this case, young women - the drug has already been deemed safe for humans, and is now tested for efficacy.

Usually, the efficacy groups are not as big as the safety groups, and usually they are mixed in regards to age and race. The only reason I can see for wanting a study exclusively on a very homogenous group, given the way drug trials work, is if that group is underrepresented during the initial efficacy trials.

When it comes to drugs the different populations' bodies do interact differently with different compounds. It isn't always the case, but it must always be ruled out. I can't see many other reasons for recruiting exclusively young, black females, than wanting to make sure that the dose the previous groups have been given is efficacious on them as well. Otherwise there may be a situation where the dose simply isn't sufficient, or unnessecarily high, causing side effects like rashes on inoculation etc - for a certain population once the drug hits the market. The drug wouldn't by then be unsafe, but it would not be sufficiently tested on all groups.

I would need to know at what stage the trial in question was, before I make up my mind about this. Vaccines for public health and sexual health illnesses are often not placebo trials once the drug hits efficacy trials (which I would imagine this to be, since they wanted to recruit in the target group - young women.), since it is considered unethical to withold potentially life saving treatment. This, also due to Tuskegee-aftermath.

-total derail -
Can I also go off on a different tangent and ask that everyone take to hearth that Papilloma vaccine is not a question of whether the patient is sexually active, but whether they will _ever_ be. There is no such implication in inocculating against the virus, and it is fully possible to succumb to it despite being a 40-year old virgin.

That said, I don't think it's anyone's damn business who is or isn't sexually active. But for those out there who actually give a crap about that - the above is for you.

-end of derail-

Before I can tell whether this was pandering to paranoia, or a legitimate concern I would need the following facts.

1. What stage was the trial in?
2. Are there really only white MDs in the Chicago area? (I know nothing about chicago)
3. Has Mrs Obama got a history of irrational decisions based on paranoia or popular misconceptions? If she has, then it may be a pattern, if she hasn't it is probably either a genuine concern or the trial was for some reason a safety trial, with no previous trials done on any young women at all, in which case I can fully understand her concern.

We should never forget Tuskegee, but we also should not let it's shadow stop legitimate trials from reaching all groups. That would paradoxically shut some groups off from efficacious and well researched treatments, and in effect make Tuskegee self repeating, and no one (sane) wants that.

 

[BPSCG]

Actually, I wasn't thinking of you, I was thinking of the weasel who wrote the hit piece you sucked down lock, stock, and barrel.

You should read that "hit piece." First off, it's from the New York Times, whose editorial page is almost indistinguishable from the Democratic National Committee's website. Second, the article is almost embarrassingly flattering to Michelle Obama. The part about how she shut down the hospital's attempt to conduct the vaccine trials is written like it was something good.

If that's what you call a "hit piece," I have to wonder what you would call something that was genuinely critical.

 

[BPSCG]

What some people may not know is that once ready for testing on humans, a new drug is always tested on healthy, adult, volunteering men who must be given a full explanation of risks involved so they can make an informed decision - this is one of the laws that was the aftermath of the Tuskegee fiasco- for safety.

By the time a drug reaches the actual target group - in this case, young women - the drug has already been deemed safe for humans, and is now tested for efficacy.

Thanks. Some light amidst all the heat.

Usually, the efficacy groups are not as big as the safety groups, and usually they are mixed in regards to age and race. The only reason I can see for wanting a study exclusively on a very homogenous group, given the way drug trials work, is if that group is underrepresented during the initial efficacy trials.

There's nothing in the story that said the testing was going to be exclusively on black high-school girls in the Chicago area. Isn't it reasonable to assume that the study was being conducted in other places at the same time?

Another factor someone else brought up is that cervical cancer strikes black women in disproportionate numbers. So wouldn't it be reasonable to want to have a control group of black women?

 

[Upchurch]

There's nothing in the story that said the testing was going to be exclusively on black high-school girls in the Chicago area. Isn't it reasonable to assume that the study was being conducted in other places at the same time?

You've been making a lot of assumptions in this thread. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to find out a little more actual information about it before jumping to conclusions based on only a few lines from an article?

 

[GreyICE]

There's nothing in the story that said the testing was going to be exclusively on black high-school girls in the Chicago area. Isn't it reasonable to assume that the study was being conducted in other places at the same time?

That's a nice assumption. I'm skeptical that saying "isn't it reasonable to assume that..." somehow equals evidence. We're condemning a woman's medical judgment based on a whole lot of assumptions right now. I somehow doubt that Michelle Obama assumed the medication was safe and assumed that it was being tested elsewhere and assumed that there were no negative side effects.

Lacking supporting evidence that a decision was wrong, and lacking evidence that there was any professional repercussions, remands, or other feedback from various watchdogs (and every administrator in charge of determining whether tests proceed or don't has watchdogs) I will assume that a qualified specialist who was on the scene at the time and operating with more evidence than me has a better ability to make decisions than I do.

Another factor someone else brought up is that cervical cancer strikes black women in disproportionate numbers. So wouldn't it be reasonable to want to have a control group of black women?

Yes, it's reasonable. Doesn't make the drug safe.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Gawd, JDG, I love your participation in these political threads. You sometimes have the ability to hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, you don't seem to know who the "nail" is. BTW, do you have a throbbing thumb?

I have never become emotionally invested with a political candidate.

Now the Obamaniacs are another story.

 

[BenBurch]

...

By the time a drug reaches the actual target group - in this case, young women - the drug has already been deemed safe for humans, and is now tested for efficacy.

...

That worked SO well with Vioxx, didn't it?

The fact is that such trials DO find unexpected populations where drugs are harmful, and sometimes they result in deaths because such trials are in much more expanded populations.

And in the population we are discussing, even ONE would be seen as evidence of a willful attempt to harm, and there never would be any chance of public health outreach working in that community for at least a generation.

Anybody who thinks otherwise has never worked in or with that community. My wife was a social worker working with at-risk teens in that community, and she knows their attitudes very well and they are just as I have describe to you.

Michelle Obama made the right call here, and it is only politics that blinds you to that verifiable fact.

 

[Tricky]

Drugs first go through animal testes etc. We all know that.

Ewwwww!

 

[Upchurch]

Ewwwww!

Dammit, Tricky! I've got a headache. Laughing like that hurts.

 

[Matthew Best]

I have never become emotionally invested with a political candidate.

Now the Obamaniacs are another story.

I'm confused - I thought Jerome was an Obamaniac. Who has started more threads about the man than Jerome?

 

[Upchurch]

I'm confused - I thought Jerome was an Obamaniac. Who has started more threads about the man than Jerome?

Obamaphobe. But, yes, that makes him just as emotionally involved with Obama.

 

[Ysidro]

BTW yes democrats did and still do accuse Laura of murdering her boyfriend. At least stay consistent.

They must not be doing a very good job of it if this is the first I've heard of the thing!

 

[Upchurch]

They must not be doing a very good job of it if this is the first I've heard of the thing!

Her boyfriend died in a car accident where she was the driver. I never heard anyone accuse her of murder, though. I think Texas is spinning it a tad.

 

[WildCat]

Funny, in all of the previous Gardasil threads here no one mentioned the "new Tuskegee experiment" angle:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104450

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1217696

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58390

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30892

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73956

Lots of derision towards the the fundies and anti-vax types over their paranoia about it though.

In a related matter:

Historically, minorities were overly represented as research subjects because they could be easily exploited, and minority health was studied to improve the health of the majority population. African Americans were particularly and consistently exploited first as
slaves, and again when emancipation of slaves raised concerns about the spread of diseases to the white population. Research ethics has been described as “born in scandal and reared in protectionism.” In the 1970s, research ethics literature tended to characterize participation in clinical trials as a risky endeavor, with much focus on the protection of “vulnerable” populations, including racial and ethnic minorities. This philosophy of protection resulted in riskier research being done on middle-aged males with middle-class incomes. Where Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) addressed the issue of subject selection at all, the focus was on limiting the scope of subjects allowed to participate on the basis that certain populations were too vulnerable to be included.

By the 1980s, the public’s perception of the benefits of clinical research to individual subjects had radically changed, with patients clamoring for access to clinical trials and to experimental drugs, driven largely by AIDS activism. The focus of ethicists shifted from protecting potential subjects, or classes of subjects, to questioning the exclusion of patients from clinical trials.

By the early 1990s, IRBs were being required to justify the exclusion of groups from clinical trials based on the ethical principle of justice, i.e., the fair distribution of anticipated benefits to the subjects. The IRB Guidebook for 1993 even asked researchers to question whether the selection process overprotected subjects considered vulnerable. A further issue began to emerge in the 1990s: If the results of research are to be of maximum benefit to society, then subjects must be representative of the
population, with the ethical focus shifting to beneficence rather than justice. The regulatory response to this shift in thinking is evidenced by the 1994 National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines requiring the inclusion of women and minorities as subjects in clinical research for NIH-supported research.

So was Michelle Obama showing leadership in this case? I don't think so. And my opinion of it has nothig to do with the fact that her husband is a candidate for POTUS, and everything to do with her position in the hospital. How would any drugs get tested on blacks if all blacks in leadership positions shared her attitude? We can all agree this is an important issue, yes?