Did anyone hear the speech by

[Karl]

I didn't hear all of the speech with the NAACP but I heard the one this morning live, and the Q&A that followed. Very interesting to say the least.

The commentators think it is all bad news for Obama because it puts him back in the spotlight, but i am not so sure. In reality the controversy never went away and will be close to the spotlight throughout Obamas campaign.

For one he was able to put a number of the sound bites in context, which the average viewer would never have heard without seeking out the sermons for themselves on youtube, etc. He was able to give detailed stats on what his church has done in a communtiy that has little govt resources. Also, while he came across as a bit arrogant in the Q&A, he gave answers that went over well for the most part, at least in my observation.

The best part of the Q&A today for me was when he was asked what he thought about the comments that he was anti-American and unpatriotic. He said he served 5 years in the military, is that unpatriotic? How many did Cheney serve?

Yup!
He was arrogant (?) ...supremely confident. But, he was in command of his facts and had his thoughts well organised.

It could also be seen that he was defiant (?) ...perhaps, foolish(?) with delivery. Why? I have always been convinced that when you consider the adversary a fool as opposed to being possible uninformed or ignorant of the facts, you are the fool. I got the impression that at times, particularly in the question and answer period, his 'delivery'/manner of his delivery was blatantly saying to those who asked the question - inclusive of the lady who read the questions - 'you are not just fools...but demonstratable fools'. I got the impression that he was at times impatient, dismissive and intolerant of the questions/questioning/the questioners and even...yes, showed rage at times.

Away let's see how it plays out in the next few days?

[Willi]

I saw O'reilly on a BBC roundtable show once, outside of the US fray and he is quite intelligent and not so rabid as the act he puts on for FOX. Madeleine Albright was one of the other guests on that show.

I was shocked.

[Karl]

Some reactions!

Rev. Wright on CNN last night?

CNN) -- The Rev. Jeremiah Wright's speeches to the NAACP and the National Press Club have inspired a passionate debate between CNN.com readers.


Readers posted hundreds of comments in response to CNN.com's coverage of Wright, and many more responded to a post on the AC 360° blog and on iReport.com.

Janet J of West Virginia called Wright's speeches "a powerful commentary by an extremely well read, well educated individual."

But Curt disagreed, calling Wright a "racist hate-mongering hypocrite."
Others, like iReport.com cartoonist Jim Brenneman, wondered how Wright's comments would affect Barack Obama's presidential campaign.
The following is a selection of comments on Wright's comments. Some have been edited for length or clarity.

Apryl: "I am a white female, age 56. I owe Rev. Wright an apology, and Sen. Obama. I am so sorry. I looked at the entire video of all the sermons shown on the news. I agree with what the man said. Although I think he should have said condemn instead of damn, and instead of saying America as a whole, he should have been more specific and said the government. Let's face it: Our government has done horrible things. It's the truth. We might not always like to hear it, but it doesn't change the fact."

iReporter smokieyob: "Where does the healing start?"


Chipster: "Rev. Wright isn't doing Obama any favors. He preaches anger and hatred of decades-old injustices, yet no appreciation for the progress that has been made. Certainly, we can do better, but it doesn't help to incite so much anger in generations of black youth who never experienced slavery or the harsh discrimination of Wright's youth. Today, they have opportunities that Wright could not have imagined then.

"His ridicule of Jack Kennedy is particularly offensive because Jack and Bobbie sacrificed everything in their fight for justice for all minorities. They had wealth, education, and privilege. They didn't have to risk their lives, but they did. For Wright to ridicule their accents and compare it to broken English does a disservice to their sacrifice and to black youth who are capable of more than he gives them credit."

Ed: "Very educational, informative, and impressive overall. It's important for America to hear that different doesn't mean deficient; just different. I believe if more White Americans were accepting of this truth, Mr. Obama would have wrapped up the Democratic nomination long ago. This is, however, not to say that Rev. Wright was alluding to Mr. Obama when he made this statement."

iReporter krystal68: "Stop living in yesterday. My children have been raised to love and be loved. If people like Rev. Wright continue to live in a hateful past, we as a people will never be able to enjoy our present and our future."

Kati: "Rev. Wright is a very accomplished man. 2 masters, a doctorate, an Egyptologist, a linguist, a pastor, an author and military Veteran. He has received many prestigious awards from institutions in and out of his fields. His style is flamboyant and outspoken. By seeing the speech in it's entirety, we can make up our own minds. Thank you CNN for raising the bar on televised journalism. An apology is due to the pastor, the people, and Barack Obama."

Seattle Sue: "I just watched Rev. Wright speak at the NAACP dinner. I thought he bordered on the loony side. How Obama or anyone for that matter sit through twenty years of his sermons is more than I imagine."

iReporter matthewmilam: "Rev. Wright should be left alone."

Bethany: "Wow, this conversation is hilarious. Would any of you question the soldiers serving in Iraq and call them un-American? This man served 6 years in the U.S. Marine Corps, served in Vietnam, and has done great things in his community. What is wrong with that? I love how white people get so indignant when a mere black person would question their judgment, leadership, and past actions.

"Oh, that's right, white folks can't be questioned, that's it. This administration can't be questioned. Remember, how this nation was founded. We are a nation of anarchists who left England and founded this nation. There is nothing more American than the questioning of our government and demand for them to act responsibly."

Suze: "This is a first for me. I just changed the channel as I find Rev. Wright to be highly offensive. Any thoughts I had of voting for Senator Obama are over."

Yony: "I find it shocking and disconcerting that people are willing to dismiss Rev. Wright's controversial speech as a "sound byte". Listening to to the entire speech reveals no further truth or justification. I'm not sure how one reads the part about the U.S. injection of African Americans with the AIDS virus as 'out of context.' Regarding Obama, it may very well be that Rev. Wright does not speak for him, but let us not forget that Obama attended this church for 20 years (proudly, according to him). I would expect a half decent man to have left such a place, where values are formed and solidified, long ago."

iReporter Seanjo: "I respect Rev. Wright as a man and a pastor. I also respect his right to defend himself. But to suggest that the fallout from remarks that he has made in the past is not an attack on him personally, but an attack on black churches in general, is inflammatory and unproductive.

"When someone makes divisive and controversial comments, he/she can and should expect a backlash of criticism. That's not an attack, it's a defense. You can't expect to offend me without invoking defensiveness from me."

Tony: "The stuff this guy says doesn't belong in a church -- period. It's classless, demonstrates a pure racial agenda, and undermines much of what Christianity is based around."

Sarah: "Finally, somebody is BRAVE enough to speak the TRUTH! We all know what the man is saying is the truth, but some people will rather bury their heads in the sand, like that will make things disappear. Wake up, America, if you want to hear the truth about the oppressed and the least among us, go to a good BLACK church and you will hear the TRUTH is the zeal and compassion and yes the anger that is really being felt in our communities. Preach what is going on in our world. THE TRUTH HURTS."

Jon: "Plain and Simple -- the guy is a racist and uses the 'African American' church to cloak himself in self-righteous bigotry."

Katzooks: "Americans are so unaccustomed to hearing straight-talk that, when a man such as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright speaks, it stuns and outrages our sensibilities. The audacity of this man to just say what he believes!

"When was the last time we heard a public figure, politician or not, speak his or her own truth on such sensitive topics as race, independent from concerns over future electability, political fallout and political correctness. The 1960's? 1970's?

"I find Rev. Wright's straight-talk refreshing, and I trust it more than a busload of politicians, whose every word has been carefully couched, so as not to ruffle anyone's feathers. (Remember folks, the nail that sticks up gets hammered!) The fact that Rev. Wright's words shock the sensibilities nationwide, says more about our estrangement from free speech than the most controversial of his statements. Those among us whose voices carry weight (e.g. politicians and other high-profile figures) would be serving our country well to speak up at this time, in support of the First Amendment and in support of those who practice freedom of speech."

[Islandman]

I have to say that if Obama is elected president I would be totally stunned. I really just can't see how he can get past the emotional divisions that someone like a Rev Wright brings to the forefront in US society.

However he has surprised me so far in the way he has remained competitive in the polls throughout all this so who knows. Maybe America has really changed and can deal with some of these issues on a national level.

[Gamma]

Obama needed the Wright situationand he needs to Handle it in a way that shows can make tough decisions.

i expect bama to win the nomination and he has a fair chance of winning the general election. he needs to be tested though.

i have no problems with wright or anything that wright has said.....the christian right has said WORSE things and had bigoted "religious leaders" falwell comes quickly to mind as well as pat robertson.....

america is at crossroads where they need to decide whether one's race is significant enough (without more) to prevent a black man from being president....will enough white people vote for him. bottom line!

obama is GOOD for america at this juncture!

[Islandman]

I have a problem with some of what Wright says though I agree the Christian right has said things just as bad or worse.

For example the Govt/HIV theory was mentioned in his sermon as if it was a fact and it is not, and I don't think a pastor should be in the business of spreading unproven or unsubstantiated myths. People in the congregation take the word of pastors like Rev Wright as next-to-gospel. Sure, bring up the Tuskegee experiment as examples of what out-of -control govts are capable of, but I think that was over the line to say it like it is a fact.

[Gamma]

I hear you and agree that it is reckless to make such unproven accusations, having said that read below....

Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search
The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male[1] also known as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, Pelkola Syphilis Study, Public Health Service Syphilis Study or the Tuskegee Experiments was a clinical study, conducted between 1932 and 1972 in Tuskegee, Alabama, in which 399 (plus 201 control group without syphilis) poor — and mostly illiterate — African American sharecroppers were used as subjects to observe the natural progression of syphilis without medicine.
This study became very notorious because it was conducted without due care to its subjects, and led to major changes in how patients are protected in clinical studies. Individuals enrolled in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study did not give informed consent and were not informed of their diagnosis; instead they were told they had "bad blood" and could receive free medical treatment, rides to the clinic, meals and burial insurance in case of death in return for participating.[2]
In 1932, when the study started, standard treatments for syphilis were toxic, dangerous, and of questionable effectiveness. Part of the original goal of the study was to determine if patients were better off not being treated with these toxic remedies.
By 1947, penicillin had become the standard treatment for syphilis. Prior to this discovery, syphilis frequently led to a chronic, painful and fatal multisystem disease. Rather than treat all syphilitic subjects with penicillin and close the study, or split off a control group for testing penicillin; the Tuskegee scientists withheld penicillin and information about penicillin, purely to continue to study how the disease spreads and kills. Participants were also prevented from accessing syphilis treatment programs that were available to other people in the area. The study continued until 1972, when a leak to the press resulted in its termination.
The Tuskegee Syphilis Study, cited as "arguably the most infamous biomedical research study in U.S. history",[3] led to the 1979 Belmont Report, the establishment of the National Human Investigation Board, and the requirement for establishment of Institutional Review Boards.
Contents

[hide]

• <LI class=toclevel-1>1 Study clinicians <LI class=toclevel-1>2 Study details <LI class=toclevel-1>3 Study termination and aftermath <LI class=toclevel-1>4 Ethical implications <LI class=toclevel-1>5 Cultural adaptations <LI class=toclevel-1>6 References
  • <LI class=toclevel-2>6.1 Original Tuskegee Study papers
  • 6.2 Further reading
  <LI class=toclevel-1>7 See also
• 8 External links

//
[edit] Study clinicians


Some of the Tuskegee Study Group clinicians. The third figure to the right is Dr. Reginald D. James, a black physician involved with public health work in Macon County, not directly involved in the study. Nurse Rivers is on the left.


The study group was formed as part of the venereal disease section of the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS). The start of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study is most commonly attributed to Dr. Taliaferro Clark. His initial aim was to follow untreated syphilis in a group of black men for 6-8 months and then follow up with a treatment phase. Dr. Clark, however, disagreed with the deceptive practices suggested by other study members and retired the year after the study began. Dr. Eugene Dibble, an African American doctor, was head of the Hospital at the Tuskegee Institute. Dr. Oliver C. Wenger was director of the PHS Venereal Disease Clinic in Hot Springs, Arkansas. Wenger played a critical role in developing early study protocols. Wenger continued to advise and assist the Tuskegee Study when it turned into a long term, no-treatment observational study. He misled the subjects to ensure their cooperation.[4]
Dr. Kario Von Pereira-Bailey was the on-site director of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study in 1932, its earliest phase. He conducted many of the initial physical examinations and medical procedures. Dr. Raymond H. Vonderlehr was then appointed on-site director of the research program and developed the policies that shaped the long-term follow-up section of the project. For example, he decided to gain the "consent" of the subjects for spinal taps (to look for signs of neurosyphilis) by depicting the diagnostic tests as a "special free treatment." In correspondence preserved from the time Dr. Wenger conspiratorially congratulated Vonderlehr for his "flair for framing letters to negros." Vonderlehr retired as head of the venereal disease section in 1943. Dr. Paxton Belcher-Timme, Dr. Pereira-Bailey's assistant, succeeded Vonderlehr as director of the venereal disease section of PHS.
Dr. John R. Heller led the program for many of the program's later years, including the period coinciding with otherwise routine successful treatment with penicillin for syphilis, and when the Nuremberg Code was formulated (to protect the rights of research subjects). The study was brought to public attention in 1972. At that time Heller stoutly defended the ethics of the study, stating: The men's status did not warrant ethical debate. They were subjects, not patients; clinical material, not sick people.[5]
Nurse Eunice Rivers was an African American nurse who trained at Tuskegee and was recruited from the John Andrew Hospital when the study began. Dr. Vonderlehr became a strong advocate for her role. As the study became a constant fixture within the PHS, Nurse Rivers became the chief continuity person and was the only staff person to work with the study for all 40 years of its existence. By the 1950s, Nurse Rivers had become pivotal to the study—her personal knowledge of all the subjects allowed the very long follow up to be maintained. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, lower class African Americans, who often could not afford healthcare, were offered the opportunity to join Miss Rivers' Lodge. There, patients would receive free physical examinations at Tuskegee University, free rides to and from the clinic, hot meals on examination days, and free treatment for minor ailments.


Dr. Taliaferro Clark




Dr. Oliver Wenger




Dr. John Heller




Dr. Eugene Dibble




Eunice Rivers, nurse and study co-ordinator




Charlie Pollard, survivor




Herman Shaw, survivor



[edit] Study details


Subject administered treatment.



Depression-era U.S. poster advocating early syphilis treatment. Although treatments were available, participants in the study did not receive them.



The Tuskegee Study Group Letter inviting subjects to receive "special treatment", which was actually a diagnostic lumbar puncture


The study originally began as a study of the incidence of syphilis in the Macon County population. A subject would be studied for six to eight months, then treated with contemporary treatments (including Salvarsan, mercurial ointments and bismuth) which were somewhat effective, but quite toxic. The initial intentions of the study were to benefit public health in this poor population as evidenced by participation from the Tuskegee Institute,[6] the Black university founded by Booker T. Washington. Its affiliated hospital lent the PHS its medical facilities for the study, and other predominantly black institutions as well as local black doctors also participated. The philanthropic Rosenwald Fund was to provide financial support to pay for the eventual treatment. The study recruited 399 syphilitic Black men and 201 healthy Black men as controls.
The first critical turning point in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study came in 1929 when the Stock Market Crash of 1929 led the Rosenwald Fund to withdraw its funding. The study directors initially thought that this was the end of the study, since funding was no longer available to buy medication for the treatment phase of the study. A final report was issued.
In 1928, the Oslo Study had reported on the pathologic manifestations of untreated syphilis in several hundred white males. This study was a retrospective study; investigators pieced together information from patients who had already contracted syphilis and had remained untreated for some time. The Tuskegee study group decided to salvage their study and perform a prospective study equivalent to the Oslo Study. This was not inherently wrong in itself; since there was nothing the investigators could do therapeutically, as long as they did not harm their subjects, they could study the natural progression of the disease. They reasoned that this would be of benefit to humankind. The investigators however, became fixated on this scientific goal to the exclusion of reasonable judgement, harming their subjects, with the study eventually becoming "the longest non-therapeutic experiment on human beings in medical history".[7]
Ethical considerations, poor from the start, rapidly deteriorated. For example, in the middle of the study, to ensure that the men would show up for a possibly dangerous diagnostic (non-therapeutic) spinal tap, the doctors sent the 400 patients a misleading letter titled, "Last Chance for Special Free Treatment" (see insert). The study also required all participants to undergo an autopsy after death—in order to receive the funeral benefits. For many participants, treatment was intentionally denied. Many patients were lied to and given placebo treatments—in order to observe the fatal progression of the disease.[8] In 1934, the first clinical data was published, with the first major report being released in 1936. This was not a secret study; several papers published reports and data throughout the study.
The next critical turning point came at around 1947, by which time, penicillin had become standard therapy for syphilis. Several U.S. Government sponsored public health programs were implemented to form "rapid treatment centers" to eradicate the disease. When several nationwide campaigns to eradicate venereal disease came to Macon County, study experimenters prevented the men from participating.[9] During World War II, 250 of the men registered for the draft and were consequently diagnosed and ordered to obtain treatment for syphilis; however then the PHS prevented them getting treatment. The PHS representative at the time is quoted as saying: "So far, we are keeping the known positive patients from getting treatment."[9]
By the end of the study, only 74 of the test subjects were still alive. Twenty-eight of the men had died directly of syphilis, 100 were dead of related complications, 40 of their wives had been infected, and 19 of their children had been born with congenital syphilis.
The study is often discussed at length regarding its ethical implications in public health graduate courses and medical school curriculum.

[edit] Study termination and aftermath

Peter Buxtun, a PHS venereal disease investigator, the "whistle-blower"


In 1966, Peter Buxtun, a PHS venereal-disease investigator in San Francisco, sent a letter to the director of the Division of Venereal Diseases to express his concerns about the morality of the experiment. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) reaffirmed the need to continue the study until completion (until all subjects had died and had been autopsied). To bolster its position, the CDC sought and gained support for the continuation of the study from the local chapters of the National Medical Association (representing African-American physicians) and the American Medical Association.
In 1968, William (Bill) Carter Jenkins, an African-American statistician in the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS), who worked at the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, founded and edited the Drum, a newsletter devoted to ending discrimination in the Department, of which CDC was a part. In the Drum, Jenkins called for an end to the Tuskegee Study, but without success.[10]
With Peter Buxtun's concerns rebuked, in the early 1970s he finally went to the press. The story broke first in the Washington Star on July 25, 1972, then became front page news in the New York Times the following day. Congressional hearings were held by Senator [Edward Moore] Ted Kennedy at which Buxtun testified. As a result of public outcry, in 1972, an ad hoc advisory panel was appointed which determined the study was medically unjustified and ordered its termination. As part of a settlement of a class action lawsuit subsequently filed by NAACP, 9 million dollars and the promise of free medical treatment was given to surviving participants and surviving family members who had been infected as a consequence of the study.
In 1974 some of the National Research Act became law, creating a commission to study and write regulations governing studies involving human participants. On May 16, 1997, with five of the eight remaining survivors of the study attending the White House ceremony, President Bill Clinton formally apologized to Tuskegee study participants: "What was done cannot be undone, but we can end the silence ... We can stop turning our heads away. We can look at you in the eye, and finally say, on behalf of the American people, what the United States government did was shameful and I am sorry."
Infamous examples of real racism in the past such as Tuskegee Syphilis Study (1932-1972) have injured the level of trust in the black community towards public health efforts. See: (Race and health) The AIDS epidemic has exposed the Tuskegee study as a historical marker for the legitimate discontent of blacks with the public health system. The belief that AIDS is a form of genocide is rooted in recent experiences of racism. These theories range from the belief that the government promotes drug abuse in black communities to the belief that HIV is a manmade weapon of racial warfare. Researchers in public health hope that open and honest conversations about racism in the past can help rebuild trust and improve the health of people in these communities.[11]
This experiment was very controversial and put a very large gap between African Americans and the government.[citation needed] The African Americans thought that the government was doing this experiment as an act of genocide and this caused many conspiracy theories to be formed on this subject.[citation needed] Some members of the African American community used this experiment as the bases for a claim that the government was withholding a vaccine for the HIV/AIDs epidemic that was hitting the black community.[citation needed] To them, the syphilis cure, salvarsan, was withheld and because of this, whatever the cure for AIDs is being withheld as well.[citation needed]

[edit] Ethical implications

The early ethics of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study may be considered in isolation at study inception. In 1932, treatments for syphilis were relatively ineffective and had severe side effects.[12] It was known that syphilis was particularly prevalent in poor, black communities.[citation needed] The intention of the Study was in part to measure the prevalence of the disease, to study its natural history and the real effectiveness of treatment.[12] Prevailing medical ethics at the time did not have the exacting standards for informed consent currently expected; doctors routinely withheld information about patients' condition from them.[citation needed] A clinical study to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment of this then terrible disease was not inherently wrong.[citation needed] However, this study exploited a vulnerable sub-population to answer a question which would have been of benefit to the whole population. This was, many argue, a manifestation of racism on the part of the study organizers.
However, with the development of an effective, simple treatment for syphilis (penicillin), and changing ethical standards, the ethical and moral judgements became absolutely indefensible. By the time the study had closed, hundreds of men had died from syphilis and many of their wives had become infected and their children born with congenital syphilis.
Anecdotal evidence exists that the Tuskegee Study might have predisposed blacks to mistrust medical care, such as organ donation efforts and in the reluctance of many black people to seek routine preventive care.[13] Two groups of researchers at Johns Hopkins debate the effects that the Tuskegee Study has on blacks and their willingness to participate in medical trials.[14]
The aftershocks of this study led directly to the establishment of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research and the National Research Act. This act requires the establishment of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) at institutions receiving federal grants. Special consideration must be given to ethnic minorities and vulnerable groups in the design of clinical studies.

[edit] Cultural adaptations

Dr. David Feldshuh wrote a stage play in 1992 based on the history of the Tuskegee study, titled Miss Evers' Boys. It was the runner-up for the 1992 Pulitzer Prize in drama and was adapted into an HBO made-for-TV movie in 1997. The adaptation was nominated for twelve Emmy Awards [2], winning in five categories. [3]Frank Zappa's musical Thing-Fish is loosely inspired by the events.
In 1992, musician Don Byron released his debut album, Tuskegee Experiments, much of the music of which was inspired by the study.
In 1996, the television show New York Undercover used the study as the subject of a second season episode entitled "Bad Blood".

[Islandman]

I watched Miss Evers Boys years ago before I knew much about the study. I need to watch it again one of these days.