Hello,
I agree that ebm can not be considered in isolation from the wider
society in which we operate and the war is obviously formost in peoples' thoughts.
However, I think the imperative is on people concerned about the war to directly
link their postings to ebm. Democracy is undoubtably relevant to ebm but surely
certain versions of ebm can operate without democracy? I think it needs to be
debated what it is about democracy that enables better science, and how our own
democracies act as barriers/facilitators of good research and practice. Personally
I would be very interested to see more postings on issues like ebm and the
pharmaceutical industry, on the mispresentation of risk, on choosing the research
agenda, and the relationship between scientific method, ideology and political
ends. However, there are other health list serves that are probably more suitable
for postings directly on the war and health e.g. public health
([log in to unmask]), health equity network (UK inequalities,
[log in to unmask]), and the most tolerant list spirit of 1848
([log in to unmask]).
Best wishes,
James
Mark Newman wrote:
> I guess it will be up to the members of the list to decide what is
> relevant or not - so i am going to speak up for the opposite view to
> Roy -
>
> I think its valuable that list members put things on the list that
> affect us all as human beings - Seems to me that democracy is
> an important pre-requisite for EBHC - and the chomsky article
> pointed out quite clearly just how the main protatgonists in the war
> (USA) has gone about systematically subverting it around the
> world. Its is doing the same thing on the the home front (USA) (UK
> is doing it too) - There are numerous reports of pressure being put
> on the US media to stay 'on side' by the US govt and I yesterday
> received a petition calling the on the US govt to stop threatening
> action against US academic institutions whose academics speak
> out against american foreign policy.
>
> I accept thought that list is not perhaps the right place to put the
> whole chomsky speech. - but I think pointers of where to find such
> information are relevant.
>
> An here is one for anyone in the UK who wants to find out more
> about activities to stop the war
>
> http://www.stopwar.org.uk/
>
> mark
>
> On 31 Oct 01, at 9:48, Roy Poses wrote:
>
> > The value of the EBH list has been that it provides a forum for all manner
> > of facts and opinions related to evidence based health, which up to now has
> > been pretty free of irrelevant content.
> > Therefore, I am concerned about the recent set of long, one-side posts about
> > political matters not obviously related to EBH. These posts provide at best,
> > ongoing distraction, and at worst, risk turning the list into an organ of
> > propaganda.
> > I would suggest those who want to argue about politics take their argument
> > somewhere else.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > Roy M. Poses MD
> > Brown University Center for Primary Care and Prevention
> > Memorial Hospital of RI
> > 111 Brewster St.
> > Pawtucket, RI 02860
> > USA
> > 401 729-2383
> > fax: 401 729-2494
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
> > ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> > After reading O. Doctorow's comments - I wonder if we read the same Chomsky
> > article posted on the EMB list? Let's start with definitions. Certainly,
> > you've heard the adage, "One person's terrorist is another person's
> > liberation fighter." But we shouldn't be too glib about that. What does it
> > mean? It means that Osama bin Laden was a "freedom fighter" according to
> > the CIA and the Pentagon when he was our boy, on our payroll - as was Papa
> > Doc Duvalier, Suharto, Marcos, Mobutu, Trujillo, Somoza and a long, bloody
> > string of thugs.
> >
> > Of course, no one in the CIA or Pentagon is calling bin Laden a "freedom
> > fighter" any longer. But if we are true to a definition of terrorism as
> > someone or some group attempting to rule or gain control through fear and
> > force and the use of violence directed against non-combatants - then we must
> > consider quite a few U.S. actions are "terroristic" including the support of
> > ex-Cubans to down a Cuban plane killing over 100 civilians (shall we bomb
> > Florida for harboring these known terrorists?); or what about the U.S.
> > backed overthrow of democratically elected leaders in Guatemala and Chile
> > and the support of widespread and vicious thuggery in El Salvador, Southern
> > Africa and many other parts of the world.
> >
> > What Chomsky was pointing out was not that "Eastern behavior" is beyond
> > reproach (per O.D.'s suggestion) or that one must 'sit on the tiger' - he
> > was simply pointing a very positive (and not at all 'depressing')
> > viewpoint - that the U.S. has played a role in creating some of the very
> > problems now haunting us. The enormously positive aspect is, therefore,
> > that something can be done to reduce the violence. Of course from Chomsky's
> > viewpoint (and my own) that 'something' lies more in the myriad other ways
> > we can attempt to effect international change rather than a military
> > response which is about as responsible (and effective) as bombing Florida
> > because of the ex-Cubans or D.C. because of the President's horrific
> > policies of supporting dictators.
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Mark Newman
> ESRC Research Fellow
> School of Life-long Learning and Education (SLLE) &
> School of Health, Biological & Environmental Sciences (HeBES)
> Middlesex University,
> Furnival Building,
> The Archway Campus,
> 2-10 Highgate Hill,
> London,
> N19 5LW.
> Tel: 020 8411 6702
> Fax: 020 8411 6299
> E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
