Police Removed Prominent Scientists from the ADA Meeting. Researchers Respond

handoflixue

Fascinating claim that the scientists were removed for being "Partisan" in distributing information that disagreed with their opening speaker, but of course the opening speaker was somehow completely non-partisan in disagreeing with the banned scientists. I don't really see how you can possibly have it both ways.

bradleyy

As a Type 1 Diabetic, I just want to say: the diabetes industry is a racket. I have to repeatedly go to a doctor to get prescription refills for a drug that I have to self-manage. The doctor provides no input day-to-day, where a mis-dose is a death sentence (the first time I nearly put myself into a coma, doc was like "oh yeah that can happen: I can give you glucagon shots as a scrip". Thanks for the heads up!). But cool, to get the drugs that keep me alive, I have to talk to a doctor that will look at my Dexcom charts and mumble some things. So no surprise that the ADA is a fully industry-captured organization, even though I'm certain that there are good people doing good work for the right reasons.

ChrisArchitect

News from early June OP; Some discussion then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48433410

zem

surprised no one else walked out when that happened

blueflow

> Ryder added that he and his colleagues were never told what part of the code of conduct that they violated, adding that the meeting organizers did not communicate with them directly before or during the incident. Probably the average CoC enforcement.

arjie

Unsurprising that the development of the "CoC Violation" tool as a non-contestable device to shut down discussion turned out to be a brazen bull. It reminds me of the fact that sex crimes auto-convict people as far as the public is concerned. These make them effective devices to alter opinion in the public sphere.