231–240 of 245 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could have simply searched this versus posting, but he never completed a residency. To go into US medical school debt and not complete your training is strongly indicative of deep rooted problems.
Huh, are there credible suspicions around what went wrong?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you should consider: "what if everyone did that?" Literally every academic conference. > but was not accepted to the conference (so they had no formal chance to present it) One, source for it not being accepted to the conference? It was accepted to the conference organizer’s journal. Two, again, literally every academic conference. Folks handing out their papers, including preprints not published at the organizer’s…
They were not handing an Article, they were handing an opinion piece titled :Misguided Brushes of a Pen Continue to Dismantle and Destroy Biomedical Research in the United States: We Can No Longer Afford Complacency and Fear. We Must All Act Now! If they wanted to be political in a scientific conference, they could have done so by handing the opinion piece outside the venue at the entrance. Whoever wanted to get into…
They were handing out an editorial published in the flagship journal of the ADA. This is incredibly normal. It's increasingly abundantly clear that the conference organisers broke their own code of conduct and then later sent CYA e-mails.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If private enterprise want to fund marketing research, fine. It’s the social science academics living off the public purse I take issue with.
So what? I pay taxes too, and I want social scientists to be paid using tax dollars for the work they do, which I find valuable. There's plenty I take issue with my taxes being paid for but I just put up with it because we live in a society where my priorities aren't the only ones. Why can't you take that approach with social scientists?
Having said that, I appreciate the wide point you’re making.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using what words specifically? Besides HN, even people commenting on reddit tends to self-censor words like "r@pe" just because they've realized they get penalized if they talk about things too clearly, on other platforms. Same with general strikes, censorship and more, even on platforms where you don't get downranked automatically just because you used specific terms, people have now started self-censor in those way…
> "r@pe" Whenever you see something like this, it's because the platform has some kind of automoderation policy that is liable to delete/shadowban content containing the word. Typing that, then, is not self-censorship; it's the exact opposite, the defiance of external censorshop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were not handing an Article, they were handing an opinion piece titled :Misguided Brushes of a Pen Continue to Dismantle and Destroy Biomedical Research in the United States: We Can No Longer Afford Complacency and Fear. We Must All Act Now! If they wanted to be political in a scientific conference, they could have done so by handing the opinion piece outside the venue at the entrance. Whoever wanted to get into…
> They were not handing an Article, they were handing an opinion piece They were handing out an editorial published in the flagship journal of the ADA. This is incredibly normal. It's increasingly abundantly clear that the conference organisers broke their own code of conduct and then later sent CYA e-mails.
Never. And that's the norm in a scientific conference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They weren't handing a paper published in the journal (which implies some kind of scientific paper); they were handing an opinion piece titled :Misguided Brushes of a Pen Continue to Dismantle and Destroy Biomedical Research in the United States: We Can No Longer Afford Complacency and Fear. We Must All Act Now!
So you're concerned about my use of the word "paper." That's fair I guess. But the editorial in question was in fact published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Just so that we're all clear on the facts: - The editorial was published in Diabetes Care, Volume 49, Issue 6. [1] - Diabetes Care is a publication of the American Diabetes Association (ADA). It is a peer-reviewed scientific journal with an IF of 16. [2]…
"The opinions expressed in this editorial are the personal views of the authors (S.E. Kahn, C.A.M. Anderson, J.B. Buse, and E. Selvin) and do not represent those of the American Diabetes Association or the authors’ employers..."
So, the bottom of this seems to be that a journal was hijacked by editors who are interested in doing politics instead of research, used their power to publish political opinion pieces and have them show up with what is apparently the ADA stamp of approval (although the text has to state that's not really the case... but who reads the little text anyway?) and then, not being happy with all that, they still tried to hijack a research conference to do political stunts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the major union leaders in the US—I forget exactly who; it might've been the head of the Teamsters, but this was a while back, so I don't have the details—has, in fact, called for a general strike, as soon as it can be effectively organized. That's 2028. General strikes are not something you can just Make Happen. They're certainly not something you can reasonably scoff at an individual (one who's not the head…
General strikes are something you can make happen, as an individual, if you push others around you to follow you along. Sure, the US is lacking a lot in the department of having unions and a labor movement, but that doesn't mean it's somehow out of reach. The existing ones in other countries mostly started as grass-root movements, born out of a bunch of individuals going together and deciding they've had enough. Rely…
How, exactly, do you propose that someone with no connections, no authority, and no clout of any kind within major labor organisations of the country "can make happen" a general strike? And if you could, do you think you could make it happen in less than two years? Starting from nothing?
What, exactly, do you think "active action" is, if it doesn't have that kind of backing?
Where I'm from, we call that "crime", and it makes no ripples, it makes no difference, it only ends with you in jail.
We are facing systemic problems, perpetuated by systems that have been co-opted, at the highest levels, by fascists who are itching to kill everyone who doesn't bow to them. Attempting to fight them—like, actual violent fight—with individual solutions is suicide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was because the group made the mistake of inviting the federal appointee currently running NIH. This would probably have been fine if this administration was not comprised of individuals that cannot abide any sort of pushback. The protest would not have been needed without the official there - but their presence made the organizers so nervous that they tossed the editor in chief of their own journal. The problem i…
> problem is how deep the federal dollars go into these systems The problem is no state AG suing to stop OMB and HHS from illegally re-appropriating funds directed by the Congress for diabetes research. Like, the multi-year funding shenanigan called out in the article is literally accounting fuckery.
> “They physically grabbed us, forced us out of the conference center, and now are telling us we can no longer attend this meeting,” Kelly told MedPage Today, which first reported the incident. “They’re taking our lanyards. It really has come to this in America. Censorship is real. America needs to stand up. Scientists, stand up. Physicians, stand up.” It's become very evident from the outside that the best time to s…
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).
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you're concerned about my use of the word "paper." That's fair I guess. But the editorial in question was in fact published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Just so that we're all clear on the facts: - The editorial was published in Diabetes Care, Volume 49, Issue 6. [1] - Diabetes Care is a publication of the American Diabetes Association (ADA). It is a peer-reviewed scientific journal with an IF of 16. [2]…
And right at the top of that editorial piece, it says: "The opinions expressed in this editorial are the personal views of the authors (S.E. Kahn, C.A.M. Anderson, J.B. Buse, and E. Selvin) and do not represent those of the American Diabetes Association or the authors’ employers..." So, the bottom of this seems to be that a journal was hijacked by editors who are interested in doing politics instead of research, used…
In fact, the trigger to all of this was a scheduled talk by Jay Bhattacharya, Director of the NIH and a controversial political figure.
It seems silly to imply that politics are to be excluded from the conference at all costs when the ADA regularly invites political speakers to that same conference.
Do you believe that handing out copies of this editorial constituted inappropriate behavior? If so, why?
[1]: https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/49/1/5/163166/The-... [2]: https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/48/8/1309/162954/T... [3]: https://diabetesjournals.org/care/pages/2025_ada_diabetes_ca...