Penis washing $823,200

"The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), a division of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), spent $823,200 of economic stimulus funds in 2009 on a study by a UCLA research team to teach uncircumcised African men how to wash their genitals after having sex.

The genitalia-washing program is part of a larger $12-million UCLA study examining how to better encourage Africans to undergo voluntary HIV testing and counseling – however, only the penis-washing study received money from the 2009 economic stimulus law. The washing portion of the study is set to end in 2011.

“NIH Announces the Availability of Recovery Act Funds for Competitive Revision Applications,” the grant abstract states. “We propose to evaluate the feasibility of a post-coital genital hygiene study among men unwilling to be circumcised in Orange Farm, South Africa.”

Because AIDS researchers have been unsuccessful in convincing most adult African men to undergo circumcision, the UCLA study proposes to determine whether researchers can develop an after-sex genitalia-washing regimen that they can then convince uncircumcised African men to follow.

“The aim of the proposed feasibility study is to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a post-coital male genital hygiene procedure, which participants will be asked to practice immediately post-coitus or at least 12 hours after,” reads the abstract.

Entitled “Community-Based HIV VCT: South Africa,” the name of the broader umbrella project, the program plans to test how well received the penis-washing regimen is among South African men.

If most of the men in the study wash their genitals after sex, are willing to do so after the study ends, and report that their partners accept the regimen, the researchers will develop another study to see if the “penile cleansing procedure” actually works to prevent HIV infections.

“If we find that men are able to practice consistent washing practices after sex, we will plan to test whether this might protect men from becoming HIV infected in a later study,” the grant says.

The study’s lead investigator Dr. Thomas J. Coates was the fourth highest-funded researcher in the country in 2002 and is currently conducting HIV research on three continents.

CNSNews.com asked both Coates and NIMH the following question: “The Census Bureau says the median household income in the United States is $52,000. How would you explain to the average American mom and dad -- who make $52,000 per year -- that taxing them to pay for this grant was justified?”

Coates, who was unavailable for comment, directed CNSNews.com to ask grant-related questions of his assistant, Darya Freedman, who did not respond.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75198

 

It would have been funnier if that part was left out.

Meanwhile bugscoe, couple of stimulus charts which I am sure you would like to pass around.

 

Sure looks like you're defending wasteful big government spending to me.

 

Just think, all those illegal immigrant who don't pay taxes, look what they are missing. I'm sure they don't feel the "pride" of what we get for our tax dollar.

Imagine becoming a citizen and writing the family back home. Dear mom, I'm a taxpaying citizen now, never guess what my tax dollars bought today. We are teaching Africans to wash their penis.

Note to self......not to get pissed about executive pay.

 

You should go out and tell UE people how a study about washing their dicks has put them to work.

Meanwhile the UE rate is higher than it was when the bill was passed and Goolsbee tells us we need to get used to high unemployment:

And even this from the site you use for your masturbation everyday, HuffPo 6/8/09:

A year latter and the Aug 10 the UE rate is at 9.6%-- so what is it about your charts are the UE suppose to be giddy about?

You better start the wash cycle over again as the spin cycle is over.

And since you're so fond of graphs:

 

And who decides whats wasteful and what's not? Economists, researchers or Republican candidates in an election year?

How does one explain this?



http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2010/02/assessing_the_s.html

 

Most of your posts lately have one thing in common.

Kindly go and get yourself laid.

 

Hey, we already had a debate about Bush unemployment numbers and you posted this.

Doesn't look too rosy like those average unemployment numbers.

Also, in case you missed - this was before Obama got into Office - In January 2009, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected the unemployment rate would climb to 8.3 percent in 2009 and peak at 9 percent in 2010. By February, the prediction was even higher — 9 percent in 2009 without the stimulus, and 7.7 to 8.5 percent with a stimulus.

And 8% was a projection, not a promise.

Read this one carefully - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...bama-said-stimulus-would-cap-unemployment-8-/

 

How about common fucking sense?

Are you defending the spending of 823 THOUSAND dollars to teach dumb asses how to wash their dicks after banging a crack ho?

I mean how many ways are there to wash a dirty dick hermit?

 

So the macroeconomic data becomes irrelevant because 800k was spent on AIDS research? Didn't see so much right wing concern when 9 billion dollars simply disappeared in Iraq a few years ago.