Something to think about.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images....

Quote:

Of particular concern is a provision of the
Senate-passed Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act,11 which needs only to be approved
by the House of Representatives before
it receives President Obama’s signature. In a
section creating a new Patient-Centered Outcomes
Research Institute to conduct comparative-
effectiveness research, the bill allows the
withholding of funding to any institution
where a researcher publishes findings not
“within the bounds of and entirely consistent
with the evidence,”12 a vague authorization
that creates a tremendous tool that can be
used to ensure self-censorship and conformity
with bureaucratic preferences. This appears to
be an effort in part to bypass the court order in
Stanford v. Sullivan, a case involving federal contractual
requirements that would have banned
researchers from any discussion of their work
without pre-approval by the Department of
Health and Human Services. The order held
that such blanket bans are “overly broad” and
constitute “illegal prior restraint” on speech.13
The language in the Senate bill attempts to
overcome this hurdle by eliminating prior restraint,
but using the threat of post hoc punishment
as an incentive for self-censorship. As
AcademyHealth notes, “Such language to restrict
scientific freedom is unprecedented and
likely unconstitutional.”14 Given the higher
propensity of government agencies to try to
control the dissemination of scientific information,
this is an alarming threat to the scientific
process and to the utility of scientific research
to inform good policymaking.

Wait, they told me only the Bush administration was anti-science !

Betcha this didn't make the MSM:

http://iowaindependent.com/39442/white-h....

Quote:

A white paper issued this month by the Obama administration is calling for an end to state laws — including Iowa’s — that make transmission of HIV a crime.

“In many instances, the continued existence and enforcement of these types of laws run counter to scientific evidence about routes of HIV transmission and may undermine the public health goals of promoting HIV screening and treatment,” notes the report, which is copied in full below.

“CDC data and other studies, however, tell us that intentional HIV transmission is atypical and uncommon. A recent research study also found that HIV-specific laws do not influence the behavior of people living with HIV in those states where these laws exist.”

Damage control
http://www.omsj.org/corruption/omsj-prom....

Been going on for years under the table. It's why I don't have a Ph.D. in physics. Look into what the National Science Foundation actually does.

Quote:

intentional HIV transmission is atypical and uncommon

Really ? What's the actual methodology of such a study - they ask the person whether they "meant" to transmit HIV/AIDS ? Of is it based on once you know you have it you can't have sex ever again and if you do it's considered intentional ?

Like this one, which made waves in the horse community http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/sports....

Notice how the NY Times tiptoes around the issue:

Quote:

As the science and treatment of H.I.V. and AIDS have changed considerably in the ensuing decades, fear of infection has subsided.

They know.

By the way, defense attorneys have gotten smart and are being successful in having these sorts of charges dismissed by simply pointing out the proven worthlessness of HIV tests. Chiacchia should prevail if he has a competent lawyer.

http://www.cwbpi.com/AIDS/reports/HIVtes....

Meh... To each their own.

Not on my dime.

Quote:

Some workers in the HIV community report that a number of younger men seek infection as a way to receive benefits, a "free ride," because they would qualify to receive Section 8, Social Security and other benefits from getting infected with HIV.

They should be prosecuted for fraud.