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.
Or because republicans never took the threat seriously and didn't took effective preventive measures like reducing social contact, increasing their exposure risk.
> 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.
Hong Kong focused all its efforts in preventing the virus to even get there. Once it broke through they were unprepared to deal with it, hence the bad outcome.
Everyone got exposed eventually. Republicans who didn't vaccinate died at a higher rate when they got exposed.
> Hong Kong focused all its efforts in preventing the virus to even get there.
Yes, that's why it produced a good example of an immunologically naive population, late in the pandemic.
> Once it broke through they were unprepared to deal with it, hence the bad outcome.
Which was Omicron, and it turned out to be just as deadly. Which completely falsifies your argument that mutation led to less deadly strains.
We can see in Hong Kong that it was just as deadly.
In the United States it wasn't, and the difference is due to immunity from vaccination and natural infection.
Again, due to differences in risk behavior not limited to anti-covid measures.
> Which was Omicron, and it turned out to be just as deadly. Which completely falsifies your argument that mutation led to less deadly strains.
Not really since there's no mention of the treatment or lack thereof used there. You assume the outcome is due to lack of previous exposure when it can just be poor management.
But hey, at least is nice to see people who admit natural infection confers protection. That wasn't the case during the pandemic.
That is incorrect. Nobody with a passing familiarity of the human immune system would claim that natural infection didn't confer immunity. It just also carries a substantially higher risk of death and disability compared to vaccination.
Everyone can calm down now.
This didn't happen. There was no selection pressure on the virus to mutate to a "less aggressive" form. To think there was is to fundamentally misunderstand the science here.
The incubation period was plenty long enough for the virus to spread before incapacitating the host. All the selection pressure was for the virus to become more virulent - and that is precisely what happened. We saw multiple strains appear which were harder to deal with.
> Reducing counter-productive treatments (like ventilators) helped greatly too.
This had a negligible impact. Patients were only put on ventilation when they were already very sick and at a high chance of death. Worldwide only a tiny proportion of deaths came about in this way. Even rich countries only had ventilators in the tens of thousands. Compare that to the billions who received vaccinations.
Is Omicron equally as deadly as Delta? No.
> This had a negligible impact. Patients were only put on ventilation when they were already very sick and at a high chance of death. Worldwide only a tiny proportion of deaths came about in this way. Even rich countries only had ventilators in the tens of thousands. Compare that to the billions who received vaccinations.
That's just one example. Not using effective antivirals is another one. With time, treatments improved and so did the outcomes, regardless of vaccination status.
It depends how you look at it. Omicron had a lower CFR, but higher transmissibility, so arguably worse.
There is no inherent selection pressure on viruses to mutate towards being less aggressive. Omicron had a transmission advantage that coincided with being a bit less lethal, but often being more transmissible correlates with being more lethal (e.g. delta variant).
We could have easily had a more lethal omicron variant emerge if it wasn't for vaccination effectively halting the pandemic.
Far more people were saved by vaccination than any luck on random mutation in the virus.
> With time, treatments improved
They did. Like the use of dextramethasone. Still a small improvement compared to the dramatic success of the vaccines.
> and so did the outcomes, regardless of vaccination status.
No. Vaccinated individuals were better off in pretty much every measurable statistic. By any reasonable measurement vaccination saved millions of lives.
Vaccination didn't even prevent transmission.
Of course the main benefit of the vaccines was a dramatic reduction in severe disease, hospital admissions and deaths.
The idea that vaccines didn't reduce severe illness is laughable. Multiple robust tudies across many nations and institutions have been carried out, showing that several different vaccines were highly effective.
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.
You can fund research in those other areas without cutting mRNA. Sure it'll cost more $ but there's plenty of that - ffs we're spending $150 billion _more_ on "border security".
This is specifically about COVID-19 and flu. Which after 5 years we have better science supporting how to combat them long term.
I think a lot of people miss that nuance because of who the message is coming from.
bird flu, not sure; but as for covid no other method has anywhere near the large scale data supporting it since mRNA was the only one deployed to millions. Do I don't really agree that we have "better science" that shows other methods are more effective.
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 topics you are alluding to are usually novel, complex, changing, and subject to healthy debate. They are quite different.
I agree there is an aspect of belief amongst lay persons that they both share which i feel is the more subtle but valid aspect of your argument, but separating it from the initial part of my comment i feel invalidates its usefulness.
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?Let me try to clarify: I believe in lots of things, but I'm ready to change that belief when presented with compelling evidence. A person of faith believe things and that belief is not going to change despite plenty of evidence.
See, I used the same word but it meant something else. This whole exchange is about the false equivocation of science and religion; (good) science embraces the notion of falsification, because it wants to "believe" in whatever truth presents itself.
This distinction is paramount, because religious fundamentalists believe that their faith trumps science. And yes, there's a bitter irony in the wording I just used.
"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
Though the main impact I suspect won't be the lack of global vaccine development and availability ( the US is important - but not the whole world ), but rather in the diminishing of the US science and industry base.
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•6mo ago
650REDHAIR•6mo ago
j3th9n•6mo ago
yakz•6mo 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•6mo 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•6mo 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•6mo ago
quadhome•6mo ago
text0404•6mo 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?
infamouscow•6mo ago
To address your query on long-term planning for the species versus short-term gains, consider the role of tax dollars allocated through NSF grants to universities. These grants primarily support basic research and graduate education in fields like chemistry and biotechnology, which inherently trains the next generation of skilled workers for industry. For instance, the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP) provides stipends and tuition support to outstanding graduate students pursuing research-based master's and doctoral degrees in STEM.
Similarly, the NSF Research Traineeship (NRT) program funds interdisciplinary training for graduate students, often in areas such as chemical ecology or bio-inspired technologies, equipping them with advanced skills through hands-on research and stipends of at least 12 months.
NSF accounts for approximately 25% of federal support for basic research at U.S. colleges and universities, much of which involves training students who subsequently enter the workforce.
Most of these NSF-supported graduates are hired by multinational corporations in pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, and chemical manufacturing—entities like Pfizer, Moderna, or Dow Chemical, which are among the largest in history.
Once in industry, these professionals conduct proprietary research behind closed doors to protect intellectual property and competitive advantages. The resulting products, novel drugs or biotechnological therapies, are frequently priced at astronomical levels, often rendering them unaffordable without insurance subsidies or government interventions. This raises serious questions about the equity of public investment: taxpayers fund the foundational training and basic discoveries, yet the downstream benefits accrue disproportionately to private shareholders through high-margin sales.
In essence, while scientific progress indeed demands years of dedication, the current system subsidizes corporate profits via public education of the workforce.
text0404•6mo ago
there may be ethical concerns, but (as i'm tired of explaining to people like you) the answer isn't "burn the entire system down". you're a "researcher" (who ostensibly engages in work requiring strong logical reasoning) so this comment is genuinely baffling. so you don't believe that scientific progress and the advancement of our species can occur because a percentage of NSF grantees go on to work for private companies? do you believe this system can be reformed, or are the ethical concerns enough for you to support defunding all scientific research? what do you think about your peers who publish articles like this [1]?
"This may be the most dangerous public health judgment that I've seen in my 50 years in this business," says Michael Osterholm, who runs the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. "It is baseless, and we will pay a tremendous price in terms of illnesses and deaths. I'm extremely worried about it."
personally, i think your concerns are totally valid and should be addressed. but how are you coming into a thread to defend the defunding of public scientific research in light of the quote above? do you believe that the loss of human life is worth it?
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/08/06/nx...
infamouscow•6mo ago
Second, on NSF funding: the NSF supports a broad spectrum of research, but not all areas yield equivalent advancements. It's inaccurate to conflate progress in one domain (e.g., math, computer science) with others, or to assume all funded work inherently advances humanity. Consider a hypothetical -- if an executive order allocated $10 million from the NSF for alchemy studies, chemistry departments nationwide would see professors submitting tailored grant proposals, positioning their expertise as ideal for such investigations. This reflects the grant-driven nature of academia, where tenure and career progression incentivize alignment with available funding, regardless of intrinsic merit. Academics, like any professionals, are not immune to societal pressures such as over-credentialing and the need to secure resources.
Third, on reform versus defunding: I am open to reforming the system to address ethical concerns, such as the subsidization of corporate profits through public training of industrial workers. However, the academic structure has insulated itself over decades through entrenched rules and policies, making meaningful change challenging. If you propose reform, could you outline the first three concrete steps grounded in existing mechanisms to initiate it? Vague aspirations often falter when confronted with reality, such as university governance and federal grant protocols.
Finally, on the value of NSF-funded research: your assumption that this funding directly prevents loss of life lacks empirical support. We should critically evaluate whether specific allocations are worthwhile. Are you open to the possibility that some are not? If so, what evidence would persuade you otherwise? Defunding ineffective or misaligned programs isn't about "burning the system down" but about prioritizing resources for genuine long-term societal benefit.
text0404•6mo ago
infamouscow•5mo ago
I've addressed your questions.
Since you rather argue in bad faith than peruse the truth, it's reasonable to conclude you do not have a rebuttal, nor answer to my question re: realistic steps for reform.
text0404•5mo ago
The defense falls apart on several fronts:
The ChatGPT Accusation Has Merit: The previous comment reads like AI output - overly formal structure ("First, regarding logical fallacies... Second, on NSF funding... Third, on reform..."), buzzword-heavy language, and the telltale pattern of systematically addressing each point with academic jargon. The Osterholm example is oddly specific yet potentially fabricated - claiming he said vaccines would take "years" on Joe Rogan in March 2020, when early pandemic expert predictions were more nuanced.
Bad Faith Projection: Accusing text0404 of "bad faith" while dodging the core issue. Text0404 raised a straightforward concern: defunding research during public health crises could cost lives. Infamouscow responded with academic theorizing about grant structures rather than addressing this practical concern.
False Burden Shifting: Demanding "three concrete reform steps" is a deflection tactic. The burden isn't on text0404 to solve systemic problems before questioning whether cutting health research funding is wise. This is like demanding someone propose complete healthcare reform before they can object to shutting down hospitals.
Missing the Forest: Infamouscow gets lost in academic critique while ignoring the immediate context - HHS winding down mRNA vaccine development amid ongoing health challenges. The philosophical points about NSF funding structures are irrelevant to whether this specific decision serves public health.
The accusation of AI use appears warranted based on writing patterns, and the defensive response confirms evasion of the substantive issue.
insane_dreamer•6mo ago
Citations please.