On that note, would love to hear/know how many and who should be blocked to make it "statistically significant". 

Cheers

Ambuj

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Shaneyfelt, Terry <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Logic escapes those who are proposing a boycott....so you are mad that a very small minority of people are "blocked" from coming here and thus the sharing of amazing discoveries by these people will forever be suppressed AND your response is to not come to scientific meetings to share information. Amazing.

The US has the right to determine who comes here. We are a sovereign nation. It's not a right but a privilege to come to the US (or any country).

The USA didn’t create radical Islam.

-----Original Message-----
From: Evidence based health (EBH) [mailto:EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Walker, John
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 3:52 AM
To: EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Boycott Conferences in the US

I also think it is not a debate that should be supressed. Even those who disagree with a boycott should be aware that it is almost certainly going to happen and if this spreads to reviewing US journals then we all need to know.

You cannot have a major power refuse access to academics, librarians and health practitioners from certain countries and expect the rest of the world to sit back and do nothing. It is the USA who have created this problem and we should not attack those who raise this issue (and it is no good complaining that politics should not be discussed on this list and then raise you own political points).
Regards, John Walker
Assistant Information Librarian, UK.

Date:    Tue, 7 Feb 2017 00:14:49 +0000
From:    Sachin Dave <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Boycott Conferences in the US

Please stop using Evidence Based Health for your personal political agenda. Period. Did you plan stopping presentations in the rest of the countries where Human Rights records are awful and shameful? Did you suggest you or your colleagues not go to present in China, Pakistan, Bangladesh ?
This type of propaganda does not belong here and is a big mud sling on the awesome academic community of USA wha have nothing to do with President Trump's policy.

    On Monday, February 6, 2017 5:01 PM, Juan Gérvas <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


 -thanks, Terry, Alan, Glen, Ami, Aicken, Norman and David -yes, the boycott is a highly political proposal, i know, but science (and EBM) so -i took my time to send the link because my concerns and in fact a beg your pardon in case i offended any of you (silent colleagues included) -i recognize that there are good reasons to join and to oppose the boycott proposal http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/scientists-urge-boycott-us-meetings
-but we cannot ignore "the world", we are not object but subject so we need to react in front of something that “...fundamentally disrupts the ability of universities and academics to contribute to research and education. It’s going back to an era (reminiscent of) World War Two.” http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/academics-boycott-us-conferences-over-trump-travel-ban/news-story/11b17a7bce9c223f9fafb4c1dc9b69a4
-as a Canadian colleague, "I see little difference between the U.S.A. today and apartheid South Africa in terms of ethics and morals.” https://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2017/01/31/canadian-academics-boycott-us-conferences-over-trump-ban.html
-by the way, the boycott could go futher, to stop reviewing scientific articles in US-based journalshttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-protest-trump-order-with-boycotts-of-journals-conferences/
-un saludo juan gérvas @JuanGrvas

2017-02-06 22:51 GMT+01:00 Birnbaum, David <[log in to unmask]>:

Catherine, Ami and others make very valid points about this issue impacting specific colleagues as well as hampering essential international collaborations among all healthcare and biomedical science researchers, professional societies and journals, and humanitarian aid agencies.  That establishes a pragmatic reason for this topic to be within scope for discussion in this forum.  However, I suggest there is another fundamental aspect, as yet unmentioned, which gives standing to an important community within this forum - public health.  According to the 1997 Jakarta Declaration on Leading Health Promotion into the 21st Century, “The prerequisites for health are peace, shelter, education, social security, social relations, food, income, the empowerment of women, a stable eco-system, sustainable resource use, social justice, respect for human rights, and equity. Above all, poverty is the greatest threat to health.”  IMHO, this obliges us to invite discussion on evidence-informed best actions related to the current situation. David------------------------------ -David Birnbaum, PhD, MPHAdjunct ProfessorSchool of Population and Public HealthUniversity of British ColumbiaPrincipalApplied EpidemiologyBritish Columbia, Canada

“Any opinion expressed in this e-mail or any attached files are those of the individual and not necessarily those of Herefordshire Council, Herefordshire Clinical Commissioning Group (HCCG), Wye Valley NHS Trust or 2gether NHS Foundation Trust. You should be aware that Herefordshire Council, Herefordshire Clinical Commissioning Group (HCCG), Wye Valley NHS Trust & 2gether NHS Foundation Trust monitors its email service. This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee. This communication may contain material protected by law from being passed on. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this e-mail in error, you are advised that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of it.”

--

Ambuj Kumar, MD, MPH
727-481-2787