Reply With Quote
Covid was trump not biden
You voted for a felon.
Covid was trump not biden
They'll tell you it was Fauci, not Trump.
Yeah mother er team 15 cases and dropping to zero was right about Covid. Team inject disinfectant and shine UV light through the skin was right on Covid.
What was actually on Hunter's laptop, Darrin?
abandoning basic scientific research will make us poorer and sicker
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/stor...s-donald-trumpA recent United for Medical Research report shows that in fiscal year 2024, research funded by the NIH generated $94.58 billion in economic activity nationwide, a 156% return on investment. Further, the report shows that NIH funding supported 407,782 jobs nationwide. According to the NIH’s own figures, patents derived from work it has funded produce 20% more economic value than other U.S. patents.
These economic returns — including a return on investment that would thrill any startup or stock investor — cannot begin to capture the impact on individuals, families and communities in terms of increased longevity and higher quality of life.
While it is hard to precisely quantify human health improvements resulting from NIH-funded research, there are proxy measures. As one example, astudy published in JAMA Health Forum found that NIH funding supported the development of 386 of 387 drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration from 2010-19. Many of the approved drugs address the most pressing human health concerns of our time, including cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, infectious diseases and neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s disease.
Many other NIH-funded advancements represent what is now considered common knowledge, such as the relationship between cholesterol and cardiovascular health, or standard practice, such as screening newborns for serious diseases that may be treatable with early medical intervention. But each of these fundamental aspects of contemporary medicine had to first be discovered, tested and proved. They represent what NIH funding can do — and the type of paradigm-shifting advancements in medicine that are now very much at risk.
Consider the biotechnology industry as one such paradigm shift. In the 1970s, Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer were the first scientists to clone DNA and to transplant genes from one living organism to another. This work launched the biotechnology industry.
Two decades later, the NIH and the Department of Energy began a 13-year effort to sequence the human genome, including through university-based research grants. In 2003, the consortium of researchers produced a sequence accounting for 92%of the human genome. In 2022, a group of researchers primarily funded by the NIH’s National Human Genome Research Ins ute produced a complete human genome sequence. This work paved the way for insights into inherited diseases, pharmacogenomics (how genetics affect the body’s response to medications) andprecision medicine.
NIH funding has also led to major breakthroughs in cancer treatments. In 1948, Sidney Farber demonstrated the first use of a chemotherapy drug, aminopterin, to induce remission in children with acute leukemia. Before Farber’s research, which was funded in part by the NIH, children with acute leukemia were unlikely to survive even five years.
Over the years that followed, other modes of cancer treatment such as immunotherapy emerged, first as novel areas of inquiry, followed by drug development and clinical trials. NIH funding supported, among others, the development of CAR T cell therapy, which genetically modifies a patients’ own T-cellsto fight cancer. CAR T cell therapy has improved outcomes for many patients withpersistent blood cancers, and clinical trials are ongoing to discover other cancers that might be treatable with CAR T cell therapies.
For decades, scientists knew that breast cancer could run in families and hypothesized a genetic role. In the 1990s, teams of scientists — supported at least in part by NIH funding — tracked down the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes responsible for inherited predispositions to breast and other cancers. Today, many people undergo testing for BRCA gene mutations to make informed decisions about prevention, screening and treatment.
These kinds of advancements, along with improvements in detection and screening, have meaningfully reduced cancer mortality rates. After hitting a smoking-related peak in 1991, U.S. mortality rates from all cancers dropped by 34% as of 2022, according to the American Cancer Society. For children with acute leukemias, who had effectively no long-term chance of survival just 75 years ago, the numbers are even more dramatic. The five-year survival rate is now approximately 90% for children with acute lymphocytic leukemia and between 65% and 70% for those with acute myelogenous leukemia.
These examples represent a fraction of the tremendous progress that has occurred through decades of compounding knowledge and research. Reductions in NIH funding now threaten similar breakthroughs that are the prerequisites to better care, better technology and better outcomes in the most common health concerns and diseases of our time.
It is not research alone that is threatened by NIH funding cuts. Researchers, too, face new uncertainties. We have heard firsthand the anxiety around building a research career in the current environment. Many young physician-scientists wonder whether it will be financially viable to build their own lab in the U.S., or to find jobs at research ins utions that must tighten their belts. Many medical residents, fellows and junior faculty are considering leaving the U.S. to train and build careers elsewhere. Losing early-career researchers to other fields or countries would be a blow to talent for biomedical research ins utions nationwide and weaken the country’s ability to compete globally in the biomedical sector.
The effects of decreased NIH funding might not be immediately visible to most Americans, but as grant cancellations and delays mount, there will be a price. NIH funding produces incredible results. Cuts will set scientific research back and result in losses in quality of life and longevity for generations of Americans in years to come.
Judge William Young puts Trumplandia on blast:
A federal judge in Boston on Monday said the termination of National Ins utes of Health grants for research on diversity-related topics by President Donald Trump's administration was "void and illegal," and accused the government of discriminating against racial minorities and LGBT people.
U.S. District Judge William Young during a non-jury trial said the NIH violated federal law by arbitrarily canceling more than $1 billion in research grants because of their perceived connection to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.https://www.reuters.com/business/hea...ts-2025-06-16/"This represents racial discrimination and discrimination against America's LGBTQ community," said Young, an appointee of Republican former President Ronald Reagan. "Any discrimination by our government is so wrong that it requires the court to enjoin it and at an appropriate time, I'm going to do it."
Referring to the termination of grants for research related to issues involving racial minorities, the judge said he had in four decades on the bench "never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable."
"You are bearing down on people of color because of their color," the judge said, referring to Trump's administration. "The Cons ution will not permit that."
(in passing, "DEI" isn't an "improper ideology," it encompasses a range of cons utionally protected political viewpoints -- Trump's various "anti-DEI" EOs are pure viewpoint discrimination)
Last edited by Winehole23; 06-16-2025 at 04:18 PM.
“I understand that the extirpation of affirmative action is today a valid government position. I understand that. Affirmative action had various invidious calculus based upon race. I understand that. That’s not a license to discriminate,” Young, an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan, said in the battle over President Donald Trump’s sweeping cuts to National Ins utes of Health research grants.
Young said he sees “no evidence” that DEI initiatives in question were supporting unlawful discrimination.
“Point me just anywhere in this record where it’s pointed out that any particular grant or group of grants is being used to support unlawful discrimination on the basis of race. From what I can see, it’s the reverse,” Young said.
in AI
Trump's brute force censorship of naughty words
www.dukechronicle.com/article/2025...Duke appears to have lost NIH grants because they used the prefix "trans" in reference to disease transmission, transgenic genetic material, translational studies, or signal transduction
you still think it came from bats, dumb ?
latest multi-year study says inconclusive
do you have your mind made up already?
What's your conspiracy theory here?
WW3 still gonna start under Trumps presidency and do you think all illegals arent criminals? You gonna finally answer a question, chump?
Prove that I said all of that.
You won't.
You're afraid to answer my question.
cward
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 06-30-2025 at 02:47 AM.
except where tarted up as a state felony, crossing a border without authorization is an administrative violation, not a criminal one
associating crossing a border with criminality is a generational propaganda effort -- using the word "illegals" means you swallowed it uncritically, BM
www.indystar.com/story/news/e...Indianapolis lost federal matching funds for replanting trees in the city because of the word “diversity” in biodiversity.
in our recently submitted grants we had to change “traumatic brain injury” to “concussive brain injury” and “male and female mice” to “male and non-male mice” because traumatic and female are now verboten words that can get our grants killed. It’s insanity.
yikes
"Numbers released in May by the National Science Foundation (NSF) indicate that if Congress approves the cuts to the agency proposed by the White House, the number of early-career researchers it supports could fall by 78%" (@science.org)
All illegals aren't felons. You simp for a felon.
Republican Senators are starting to become aware of the damage their cons uencies will face because of Trump's NIH impoundment, and are starting to beg
Katie Britt's home state of Alabama gets nearly a third of its revenue from the federal government
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/0...funds-00476872Republican Sen. Katie Britt of Alabama is sounding the alarm about “the slow disbursement rate” of National Ins utes of Health funding included in the March spending bill signed by President Donald Trump.
Britt, who serves as chair of the Senate Appropriations homeland subcommittee, led a letter Friday with 13 of her GOP colleagues to White House Budget Chief Russ Vought, urging the Office of Management and Budget to “fully implement” the stopgap government funding package enacted earlier this year.
“Suspension of these appropriated funds — whether formally withheld or functionally delayed — could threaten Americans’ ability to access better treatments and limit our nation’s leadership in biomedical science,” Britt and her colleagues warned. “It also risks inadvertently severing ongoing NIH-funded research prior to actionable results.”
They also expressed their confidence in Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and NIH director Jay Bhattacharya, writing, “Our shared goal is to restore public trust in the NIH precisely because its work is focused on results, accountability, and real-world impact.”
But, they added, "Withholding or suspending these funds would jeopardize that trust and hinder progress on critical health challenges facing our nation. Ultimately, this is about finding cures and seeing them through to fruition.”
The NIH is the top funder of biomedical research in the country. The University of Alabama at Birmingham is also a major recipient of NIH funding and is the top employer in Britt’s home state.
with this one neat trick, US cancer research can be almost totally eliminated
https://donmoynihan.substack.com/p/a...inistration-isThat new policy is the 'multi-year funding' policy. In short, the Trump administration has required many research grants to be fully funded up-front, with funds from this fiscal year. In the past, these grants were typically funded year-by-year, spreading out the cost of, say, a five year grant over five years of NIH appropriations. Now such multi-year grants must be funded with funds from this year — fiscal year 2025 (FY25).
The new policy means that the number of grants that can be funded this year will drop dramatically. And that will decimate US biomedical science labs across the country, and set back medical research and cures for disease by years. Many more labs will be facing the equivalent of bankruptcy as a result of this policy.
The multi-year funding policy has been in discussion internally at NIH for months. It may have started with a good-faith effort by NIH civil servants trying to get money out the door to spend the budget, but it now appears to have been weaponized by the Trump administration, by requiring a large number of grants to be funded this way. The effects of this policy have now come out to the public clearly: on July 24th, the National Cancer Ins ute (NCI) published its funding strategy for the rest of this fiscal year.
Last year's percentage of funded grants was nearly 10%. Now, the NCI payline has gone down to 4%. That means out of 100 grant submissions, only four will receive funding. No scientist, no matter how good a writer and no matter how good their ideas and data, can reliably write a grant that will beat out 96% of other submitted grants.
If you are a Principal Investigator with a well-scored grant, just waiting for council review, and you think you are sure to receive an award, you should think again.The previous 10% payline was crushing; it meant only 1 out of every 10 grants submitted was chosen compe ively for funding. The new 4% payline, by comparison, is a nuclear bomb dropped on cancer funding. As one university scientist said, "A payline under 5% means it's not worth my time to apply. My lab will close down, and I'll stop doing research." And the problem is not just at NCI: other ins utes are similarly planning to fund many fewer grants this year.
vicious destruction of public goods
https://michaelrlowry.substack.com/p...ical-hurricaneAs I first reported on June 26th, the U.S. Department of Defense initially gave a five-day notice that the critical satellite data – regularly used by forecasters to assess and predict the location and intensity of hurricanes – would be shut off at the end of June. After swift pushback from other government agencies, including from NASA’s Earth Science Division Director, for what amounted to a no-notice announcement, the Navy postponed the decommission date until the end of July.
Navy officials say they are restricting data access to these three juggernaut weather satellites – some in operation since 2005 – to mitigate a significant cybersecurity risk to the their High-Performance Computing environment. The moratorium notice issued June 30th, however, did not explain how the urgent IT security issue would be resolved through July as critical data continued to flow to NOAA and other end users like the National Hurricane Center.
The loss of data from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder (SSMIS) instrument aboard each of the three defense satellites is significant and devastating to U.S. hurricane forecasters and to tropical cyclone forecast agencies around the globe.
The Navy’s Office of Information confirmed the July 31st decommission date with me last Wednesday in the following statement:
“We can confirm that the Navy’s Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center will no longer contribute to processing and disseminating Defense Meteorological Satellite Program data on July 31, 2025, in accordance with Department of Defense policy. DMSP is a joint program owned by the U.S. Space Force and scheduled for discontinuation in September 2026. The Navy is discontinuing contributions to DMSP given the program no longer meets our information technology modernization requirements.”
When I asked officials to elaborate on what’s changed about their IT modernization requirements that would suddenly prevent data dissemination, the Navy’s spokesperson said they had nothing further to provide on the matter.
Trump 2.0 is disappearing and degrading US data
https://www.marketplace.org/story/20...ng-under-trumpGovernment data is at risk. Federal funding for the main statistical agencies — like the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Commerce Department — has been tight for years.
But since the Trump administration took office in January, threats to the availability and comprehensiveness of federal data have reached a new level, impacting everything from national health and crime statistics to key economic reports.
Last September, Drew DeSilver, an analyst at the Pew Research Center, clicked onto the Office of Personnel Management’s FedScope database to find out what percentage of the federal workforce was Black or Latino. (He published the findings earlier this year.)
After the Trump administration took office, he checked the database again and got a rude awakening.
“The diversity module, which included all the racial and ethnic breakdowns — that has disappeared,” DeSilver said. That, combined with the fact that the database hasn’t been updated since the administration took office (the latest data is for September 2024), makes it more difficult to figure out how massive federal job cuts initiated by DOGE are impacting Black and Latino workers.
OPM did not respond to questions about FedScope or about workers of color in the federal workforce by Marketplace’s deadline for this story.
Denice Ross, who served until December 2024 as U.S. Chief Data Scientist, said this is part of a broad pattern across federal statistical agencies: “The targeted, surgical removal of data sets, or elements of data sets, that are not aligned with the administration’s priorities.”
Ross is now at the Federation of American Scientists and has been tracking these changes. Her current projects to monitor and advocate for federal data under the Trump administration are America’s Data Index and America’s Essential Data.
She offered multiple examples of databases that have been altered or taken down entirely.
“The Office of Personnel Management: the race and ethnicity category has been removed in response to the president’s agenda to remove mentions of DEI.
NOAA’s billion-dollar disaster data set has been terminated, because it’s talking about climate. CDC’s National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System, removing questions related to sexual orientation and gender iden y. And that’ll make it harder to understand how diseases are impacting those populations.”
Steve Pierson, director of science policy at the American Statistical Association, cited another example in the same vein: “Sexual orientation or gender iden y answer options have been removed from the National Crime Victimization Survey, which comes out of the Bureau of Justice Statistics,” he said.
Ross and her colleagues have been do enting the trend.
“Since Jan. 20, we’ve identified over 400 changes to federal forms and surveys, specifically to comply with administration priorities, such as erasing gender iden y and DEI.”
There’s another way federal data is being undermined, said Steve Pierson: across-the-board job cuts initiated by DOGE starting at the beginning of the Trump administration, which Pierson estimates led to 15% to 40% staff attrition at some statistical agencies.
“The biggest impacts so far have been just the reductions of force, which are collateral damage,” said Pierson, leaving fewer trained statisticians to sample, survey, and analyze results for error, seasonal, or regional variation. (ASA is monitoring individual actions to change federal databases and data collection here.)
This, combined with funding cuts, is starting to impact core economic data, like the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ consumer price index, said Michael Strain at the American Enterprise Ins ute.
“We’ve seen the government do less field surveys to come up with the official measure of consumer price inflation, and that’s just because they don’t have adequate funding,” he said. “If the government slightly mismeasures consumer price inflation, that can mean spending hundreds of billions of dollars on Social Security payments that it shouldn’t be spending.”
Strain said maintaining the quality and integrity of federal economic data “is something that I am very concerned about. High-quality government data is extremely important to financial markets, business decisions, households’ decisions.”
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
