> the concern here is what

ADA is violating its own code of conduct to suppress an article that calls out potentially-illegal misappropriation of diabetes-research funding by OMB and HHS, funding which falls in a results-oriented tradition and/or cuts off strong candidates for future therapies.

> Seems like a non-issue

Half of the front page usually is. You’re engaging with this content, so there is clearly something going on.

Personally, I flagged excerpts of the article to one of my Senator’s staffers. They weren’t aware of it, and will be surfacing the article to their boss, a doctor, tomorrow. If HHS is fucking around with Congressional appropriations on a healthcare issue germane to our state, they probably shouldn’t have gone out of their way to draw attention to it during an appropriation cycle.

▲

roenxi an hour ago | parent [-]

> ADA is violating its own code of conduct to suppress an article

They published the article. That is the opposite of suppressing it.

> Personally, I flagged excerpts of the article to one of my Senator’s staffers.

Sounds like this article is indeed quite politically charged then? We're dealing with a hot potato here that has little to do with the actual science of diabetes and is going to cause random United Statesmen on the internet to start emailing their Senator. If you can't connect the dots with how that might reasonably be seen as inappropriate fare for a diabetes conference then you're probably going to figure it out later after a little reflection. It is likely that the conference organisers want to encourage technical discussion in a polite low-politics environment.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 20 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> that has little to do with the actual science of diabetes Not the takeaway I got from the article. They describe specific research and specific dollar-drawdown amounts. The tools of science are just as relevant as the science per se to the process of science. I may be extrapolating from the astronomical circles I’m more familiar with. But folks debating telescopes and whatnot is commonplace, political, and absolutely germane. In many of those cases, simply handing out an editorial wasn’t the norm—you’d have straight-up advocacy going on. The idea that a conference organizer would eject someone for distributing a published paper would be absurd. > likely that the conference organisers want to encourage technical discussion in a polite low-politics environment They invited a political appointee to speak!
	▲	iamnothere 34 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		“When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.” This looks like the shoe-on-the-other-foot version of what we saw during Covid and BLM. I didn’t like it then, and I don’t like it now. Whatever happened to just ignoring the guy handing out contrarian leaflets? As long as he’s not yelling at or berating people it shouldn’t be a problem. The paper does seem relevant to conference attendees, even if it’s political in nature.