[ RadSafe ] Re: Benefit/Harm from U.S. Army in Afghanistan

[Steven Dapra]

Oct. 28

I will find all of this much more convincing when the United States invades 
Communist China, North Korea, and Cuba to liberate the citizens of those 
countries from the terrible oppression that has been imposed upon them for 
so many years.

Steven Dapra


At 05:12 PM 10/28/08 +0000, HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net wrote:
>Yesterday, 2 Afghani patients reminded me of their terrible oppression 
>before the USA led coalition lberated them into
>education for girls, freedom to work, dress and own without Taliban 
>socialism.
>
>I am also reminded of the fact we have not had the sarin, anthrax or A 
>bomb attacks expected after 9/11.
>
>So,
>"It sounds more like the Department of Defense is trying to stamp out 
>anything that might cause the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to be called into 
>question; or that might serve to embarrass the war mongers."?
>The losses of any war should be balanced by anyone knowledgable in risk 
>management against the gains. The Iraq and Afghan wars have very great net 
>gain.
>
>I am very critical of bureacracies generally, as in "Government-Education 
>Complex Hides Risk" Journal Assoc. Phys. and Surgeons, V13,#2, Summer 2008.
>
>Howard Long
>
>-------------- Original message --------------
>From: Steven Dapra <sjd at swcp.com>
>
> > Oct. 27
> >
> > This censorship escapade probably can not serving serve its
> > purported purpose ("to deny Iraqi and Afghan insurgents sensitive data 
> such
> > as combat injury and death rates"). I'm sure the insurgents are capable of
> > paying enough attention to their activities to be able to tell how many
> > soldiers and Marines they are killing and injuring. It sounds to me like
> > another episode of the post Sept. 11 paranoia that is very close to
> > becoming ubiquitous.
> >
> > The threat of disciplinary action is more of the paranoia. How
> > can any rational person construe lamenting adequate resources as revealing
> > death and injury statistics? This is so stupid it defies description. It
> > sounds more like! the De partment of Defense is trying to stamp out 
> anything
> > that might cause the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to be called into question;
> > or that might serve to embarrass the war mongers.
> >
> > Steven Dapra
> >
> >
> > At 12:28 AM 10/27/08 -0600, Maury Siskel wrote:
> > >Seems appropriate that the List should be at least aware of this practice
> > >or possibility.
> > >Best,
> > >Maury&Dog (Maury Siskel maurysis at peoplepc.com)
> > >==============
> > >
> > >"U.S. Army delays, alters medical studies under little-known scientific
> > >censorship program" by Bryant Furlow, October 21.
> > >
> > >Since 2006 U.S. Army censors have scrutinized hundreds of medical 
> studies,
> > >scientific posters, abstracts and Powerpoint presentations authored by
> > >doctors and scientists at Walter Reed and other Army medical research
> > >centers—part of a! little -known prepublication review process called
> > >"Actionable Medical Information Review."
> > >
> > >More than 300 scientific documents have been reviewed by Army censors to
> > >date. Fewer than half of them have been cleared for public disclosure in
> > >their original form.
> > >
> > >The program is intended to deny Iraqi and Afghan insurgents sensitive 
> data
> > >such as combat injury and death rates. But dozens of studies reviewed
> > >under the program did not involve research directly related to combat
> > >operations. Instead, they described controversial topics like the effects
> > >of war on soldiers' children, hospital-acquired infections,
> > >post-deployment adjustment issues, refugees, suicide, alcoholism,
> > >vaccines, cancer among veterans and problems with military health care
> > >databases.
> > >
> > >An Army epidemiologist has be! en thre atened with disciplinary action 
> for
> > >allegedly violating the policy after sending a letter to Stars & Stripes
> > >lamenting the Pentagon's inadequate resources for tracking and studying
> > >diseases—as Congress requires.