The rotters! It is out and out misogyny. But it is abortion and birth control they target, is it not? They could argue that they are acting to increase population?
Do not mistake me for in any way supporting these evil people. But being pedantic I wish to criticise them accurately
Are they criminalising some other aspect of maternity care?
You're also not going to increase the population by discouraging IVF while the economic treadmill keeps on pushing people to put off kids.
As far as what they might argue? They will certainly argue anything, but it's never in good faith. Any lofty values they invoke to defend one policy will immediately vanish when they're asked to apply them to a contradictory policy. And like the import taxes, or the spectacle deportations, or the cries about the debt, we certainly could have a group of well reasoned national policies that would encourage having kids. But one or two policies seemingly picked for their mechanics of hurting people is most certainly not that kind of constructive approach.
2021 - saved millions of lives
2023 - won a Nobel Prize
2025 - cancelled by an anti-vaxxer
1960's - discovered
1970's - delivered into cells
1987 - protein development
1990's - more development
2013 - potential vaccine for rabiesWhat's really crazy is that this is the same (?, 2.0) administration that championed the Project Warpspeed that led to this sequence of events. You'd think they'd be talking up how great they did and all the potential mRNA has to MAHA, yet here we are...
Not really, the virus mutating into less aggressive strains did. Reducing counter-productive treatments (like ventilators) helped greatly too.
Yes, really
Imagine believing that in a world of billions, that the vaccine didn't save at least 2M lives through reductions in symptoms and spread. The same is true for virus mutations
Which is borne out through the higher death rate in Republicans who didn't get vaccinated, compared to Democrats who did.
And we had situations like Hong Kong which got absolutely hammered by Omicron, even though that strain was supposedly "less severe", because of the low levels of prior infection and vaccination when Omicron hit there.
Everyone can calm down now.
I am sure China will thank us some day. How stupid can Trump and his people be, every day they do something even more stupid than the day before.
Project Next-Gen is highly data-driven, and the most promising candidates are rising to the top as some are already near Phase 3.
Redirecting funding toward these options isn’t as drastic as it may seem. In fact, it makes sense if we want the best outcomes.
This was this kind of crazy hype from back in 2021/2022 that has helped fuel the backlash against MRNA vaccines. There has been nothing happening on the common cold virus with MRNA vaccines. In retrospect, it seems like CEOs pumping the stock price with wild promises.
So not true. There are numerous candidates for pan-flu and pan-coronavirus vaccines. mRNA and other vehicles.
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/clinical-trial...
There is a big problem
Just like carbon nanotubes were all the rage until it was discovered they are as toxic as asbestos.
If there are indeed better candidates why not compare the results of those candidates in field? Backing a hope versus a working solution with all your chips means that even if these end up being better the decision was still deeply wrong and we got lucky. Just abysmal risk mismangement.
Oral vaccines, nasal sprays, multi-antigen, multi-receptor approaches, these aren’t just buzzwords. They aim at mucosal immunity, they aim at T-cells, they aim at the places our current tools often miss. And when you learn that SARS-CoV-2 can persist in the body long after the sniffles are gone(i.e. Long COVID/MIS-C), you realize we need more than just antibodies.
Yes, it is. And in favor of just wishful thinking, but outright quackery.
That shift is happening regardless of what RFK Jr. says or doesn’t say. Let’s separate the messenger from the actual science for a moment.
It’s absurd this administration can now just say “we used science” and not be held accountable for the bald faced lies.
how often is there an HN post linking to a paper about some great new battery technology?
When the in-group fails to police itself sufficiently, it is inevitable that the out-group will do so coarsely.
The two use cases of the words are not the same:
1. belief: a world view that exists without needing external validation (i.e., "faith")
2. belief: an understanding of some kind, based on some collection of evidence
Though I'd actually use a different definition still:
3. belief: an idea upon which you have the confidence to actInstead, I'll offer some general questions that can be answered without experiments, only research.
For each faith X:
0. Note that each line depends on previous lines.
1. Who and what defines X-ism?
2. How exactly do you determine if someone is an X-ist?
3. What immediate claims does X-ism make about you, me, X-ists, non-X-ists, people at large, the world in general, etc.
4. What are the greater (long-term, conceptual, metaphysical, etc.) implications of 3?
5. If X is true, what prior assumptions and values will I have to discard? Am I willing to do so?
6. What kind of signal-to-noise ratio can I expect due to uncertainties when calculating the above in practice?"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Asimov, 1980
I know of a professor at one university that had grants frozen due to being flagged as "woke" gender discourse. His lab researches...(wait for it)... immunotherapy treatments for breast cancer in women.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jun/29/nhs-health-p...
I dont think they have an endgame other than at the end they’ve accumulated all the wealth and power possible…nothing about making population healthy
I’m reminded of this quote from Carl Sagan’s Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, as we creep closer and closer to future he describes.
> We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.
“An ignorant people can never remain a free people. Democracy cannot survive too much ignorance.”
“I don’t believe there is any problem of American politics in American public life which is more significant today than the pervasive civic ignorance of the Constitution of the United States and the structure of government.”
I see it growing worse in my job where newer staff rarely can come up with new ideas and the older staff are having to hand hold them. They have trouble even stating the problem at times just “i dont know how to fix any of it”. Eventually the solution is either crazy convoluted (a factory for a class for a static function that returns a string of static json) or just crazy in general (let me put this json into an env variable so its now its available global)
Even then, you need history and philosophy of science classes to actually contextualize and contrast "scientific thinking" to actually get people to go engage with science as an ongoing endeavor rather than a series of concepts from a text book that must be memorized and mastered.
Some of those in power do understand science and technology, and have responsible stances.
Some … understand …, and have intentionally-irresponsible stances.
Some do NOT understand, and choose positions either based upon bad information or other priorities entirely.
And those of us not in power are routinely lied to by all four groups, making us question the reputation of literally everything.
I think the end state of this is sort of the dragon eating its tail—not only do those in power no longer understand science and technology (or use their understanding to manipulate others), but the disease then spreads to most everyone else.
It's infuriating that people who really should know better either remain willfully ignorant or simply view the loss to humanity as an acceptable price to pay for ending up with a lower marginal tax bracket.
Right it won't. My point however is that don't create an avenue, private or public, which has dedicated funds for such activities. It just ends up becoming an industry which tries to gain off those funds than doing any real research.
The "if we don't look at the research then it doesn't exist" mentality is why TSMC is 5 generations ahead of Intel's fabs.
If my money's going to go somewhere I'd rather it go to research universities/companies and get outputs that will save lives rather than destroy lives.
infamouscow•15h ago
650REDHAIR•15h ago
j3th9n•15h ago
yakz•15h ago
They know that their own public statements are not trustworthy (they are peddling weird bullshit for profit in their private lives, after all).
They got themselves elected and so now you don’t trust the government.
Mission accomplished.
genter•15h ago
It's a good thing Benjamin Franklin gave up on electricity, we would've never been able to contain it safely.
It's a good thing Watts gave up the steam engine, it never would've put out as much power as a horse.
wk_end•15h ago
Were Shockley, Franklin, or Watts funded by the US government? To the tune of half a billion dollars?
That's not a rhetorical question - I don't know to what extent their work received grants. But I think you need to connect those particular dots to effectively make the kind of comparison you're making.
The implication of your post (sort of) is that work on mRNA vaccination development either needs to be funded by the government or it'll be given up on. If it's the kind of breakthrough that it likely is (and already has been, really) I doubt that's really the case. It's just unfortunate for Americans and the world that the work will likely be done elsewhere, perhaps more slowly, and perhaps (?) with less public (rather than for-profit) interest.
coloneltcb•15h ago
text0404•15h ago
do you understand long-term survival and the necessity of planning for future generations, or are you just looking for the equivalent of this quarter's shareholder returns when it comes to advancing the species?