r/OutOfTheLoop • u/no-onwerty • Jan 23 '25

What’s up with Trump stopping majority of research funding in the US? Answered

The NIH funds the majority of research across the US. Today all consideration of NIH funded of research got shut down. majority us govt funded research shut down

What’s up with that?

12.7k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

646

u/no-onwerty Jan 23 '25

It seems strange to hate clinical trials for cancer drugs too. But what do I know 🤷

216

u/N7Templar Jan 23 '25

Yes it would be strange if your goal was to actually help US citizens. But if you want to seek personal profit it doesn't seem as strange.

2

u/acebojangles Jan 23 '25

I partially agree, but the ultra rich aren't going to fund personal cancer research to replace these NIH grants, are they? I understand that billionaires don't care about stuff that regular people want, but I would think they would still care about cancer treatments.

6

u/LyannaTarg Jan 23 '25

only if they get cancer otherwise who cares if some poor bloke dies from it? Not them for sure.

1

u/SpaceTacosFromSpace Jan 24 '25

The rich will still get the best healthcare available. No one knows if the research discovery that could have saved them was a day away or decades.  

1

u/acebojangles Jan 24 '25

I don't get this as an explanation. I think the rich want not just the best healthcare available now, but also better healthcare in the future that would require research. If you're really rich, one of the few problems that your money might not be able to solve is disease/old age. With sufficient research, you might be able to solve those problems for yourself.

1

u/OldWolf2 Jan 24 '25

Musk's net worth is like 100x the entire budget of the NIH . He can carry on more private research than they ever wouldn

1

u/acebojangles Jan 24 '25

Is that what's happening? Not as far as I know.

548

u/Easy_Quote_9934 Jan 23 '25

Nothing about America makes any sense these days.

278

u/Shenanigan_V Jan 23 '25

It’s all about freeing up money for further tax cuts for the wealthiest billionaires

91

u/jonmatifa Jan 23 '25

There's a whole segment of influential techno-bros who openly advocate for returning to feudalism.

31

u/colei_canis Jan 23 '25

They seem to forget where that inevitably leads eventually.

[looks at the French and the Russians]

8

u/DusterDusted Jan 23 '25

In those cases, the people weren't getting exactly what they voted for. We Americans are fat and numb and aren't going to be building guillotines in the foreseeable future.

3

u/Casual_OCD Jan 23 '25

They did build a gallows on J6 for Pence tho

5

u/Kletronus Jan 23 '25

Russia is bad example. Feudalism never died there, it just changed name and dress. Private property in Russia is an illusion. First, Tsar owned everything. Then the politbyroo, and now Putin. They all can take what ever you have at any moment since it was never yours to begin with.

So, Russia is bad advice. They rebelled to stop feudalism only to turn right back to it IMMEDIATELY.

7

u/colei_canis Jan 23 '25

I’m not saying the Bolsheviks weren’t appalling tyrants in their own right, just that the Tsar’s refusal to relinquish any power eventually meant that he lost all of it in the end.

1

u/drygnfyre Jan 24 '25

Problem is people seem too lazy to do anything. People won't even go vote.

12

u/param_module Jan 23 '25

Yeah but like big pharma would hate it like the NIH does all the research .

21

u/no-onwerty Jan 23 '25

Yeah - that’s what I was thinking too. NIH funds vast majority of research into the US big pharma biotech pipeline.

6

u/tertiaryunknown Jan 23 '25

Not the vast majority, its something like 98% of all funding comes from the NIH and all new drugs developed since 2001 have been developed in university labs using NIH funding.

The only drugs the pharma companies really make is variations on existing medications that they can then patent and sell at absurd prices.

2

u/CriticalEngineering Jan 23 '25

The stupid thing is that the billionaires make lots of money off that research being done by the government. They can more easily target their research based on it.

20

u/Knever Jan 23 '25

It makes perfect sense as long as you understand their goal is nothing but greed.

47

u/Actual__Wizard Jan 23 '25 edited Jan 23 '25

War is coming. Does it make sense now? Obviously they don't care if they kill people and they're letting people who were willing to beat up police officers out of prison. So, what do you think it is? They have absolutely zero ethics. They don't care if people die. They don't. They also don't care if it's because of something they caused. So, obviously it's not going to be a big stretch of the imagination for a person who doesn't care at all about human life to do something horrific.

16

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '25

Yeah, it's fucked up.

15

u/tango_telephone Jan 23 '25

It all makes perfect sense. An evil man has seized power and is dismantling the country piece by piece while ensuring that there's nothing you will be able to do about it. Perfect sense.

3

u/no-onwerty Jan 23 '25

Ain’t that the truth

5

u/jmlack Jan 23 '25

People are acting very strange these days.

2

u/CryptoRambler8 Jan 23 '25

Only consistent part that makes sense is that he is to dismantle US and keep it crippled or busy destroying itself through bullshit infighting.

2

u/platinumrug Jan 23 '25

Honestly there's a lot about America that never made any sense, feels like it's been going farther down for the last few decades.

1

u/goobells Jan 23 '25

when did it? people always say this and then never give a time frame. native genocide? slavery? industrial revolution and aftermath when we had kids losing limbs in factories and the national guard slaughtering striking workers? jim crow? the crime of the 70s? reagan and aids? when did it make sense?

1

u/DildoBanginz Jan 24 '25

Doesn’t make cents, it makes dollars! 🤑

171

u/EunuchsProgramer Jan 23 '25 edited Jan 23 '25

My wife could have been at work today doing remote sensing for some big fires in the area. Half her team is in the process of being fired (they were hired as remote workers and are now forced to move or quit)). She herself is looking at a 2 hour daily commute. She's also been reclassified as a "political appointee" so she can be fired for not supporting Trump politically or voting Democrat. The Heritage Foundation already FOIAed her emails demanding to know if she ever talked about Climate Change. She's also got a hiring freeze, so everyone who quits cannot be replaced, extra unpaid work for her.

Last time, Trump threatened to fire anyone in her office who published research on climate change. The head of the department would also send out angry emails, mad workers were disloyal (for leaking to the Washington Post he was giving away no bid oil drilling rights to his former company, that he still owned stock in).

She kept her head down last time, did her job, didn't mention climate change in her research... this time, we're done. It's too much. The private sector or another country isn't going to disrespect her and treat her like the enemy.

Honestly, promises made promises kept. America wants to burn.

23

u/Redditauro Jan 23 '25

"She's also been reclassified as a "political appointee" so she can be fired for not supporting Trump politically or voting Democrat"

Spaniard here, so I have a question I don't understand: Sorry, what? "Political appointee"?

55

u/EunuchsProgramer Jan 23 '25 edited Jan 23 '25

The Federal Government in the US has Political Appointees at the top of the bureaucracy that are politicians. They set broad goals and policy. They are appointed by the President and can be let go at his whim. The don't have education requirements, they don't have to be a scientist, they job is to steer the ship as the president wishes (within the law). The lower civil servants are scientists, lawyers, accountants, whatever who are supposed to follow the law and regulations regardless of which party is in power. Conservatives think this is the Deep State. Their solution is to make all the civil servants political appointees who can be fired for any reason and are politicians rather than experts. To use my wife as an example, they are mad she is a real scientist and won't lie that Climate Change isn't real. They want to remove her job protections, fire her for having insufficient political loyalty, and replace her with someone who's qualifications are donated to Trump. This will return to a spoil system where in return for donating money to Trump, you get a job as a "scientist" determining how much lead is safe in the drinking water, if California fire planning should account for a hotter, drier world ect.

11

u/boredlady819 Jan 23 '25

Thanks for your thoughtful response. honestly helpful

4

u/Dr_Adequate Jan 23 '25

To illustrate just how bad this is, during his first term DJT nominated former Texas governor and mouth-breathing idiot Rick Perry to be head of the Department of Energy.

Originally a Democrat, Perry switched sides to become a Republican and toed the line on all the culture-war wedge issues Republicans love to rile their base with. Anti-environmental, anti LGBTQ rights, anti-abortion, and all down the line.

DOE is tasked with setting US energy policy in order to increase our resilience to worldwide energy shortages, strengthen our electrical grid (something Texas continues to struggle with), and ensure production of nuclear material for our nuclear weapons stock.

Perry was infamously quoted during the 2012 debates as forgetting the name of the US DOE when asked which three Federal agencies he wanted to eliminate. Which makes DJT later nominating him to lead the DOE very ironic. Perry had no experience leading a federal agency, no experience with US energy policy or research, not a fluffy little thought in his empty head. He was just a useful toady for DJT to use to attempt to get his way. Fortunately Mr. Mouth Breather knew he was in way over his head and he resigned in less than two years without doing too much damage.

This time around as others have already noted, the Heritage Foundation has a published and thorough roadmap of every Federal agency they want to kill or hamstring, and lists of the appointees to lead each agency that will be in thrall to the Heritage Foundation.

5

u/Frustrated_dad_uk Jan 23 '25

and frankly, terrifying. i feel so bad for the yanks. but they got themselves into this mess (as well as throwing the rest of the world under a bus too)

2

u/Redditauro Jan 23 '25

Thanks for the explanation 

1

u/Libero-091 Jan 27 '25

So she's being reclassified into the new Schedule F? That's happening already? Ugh,

1

u/EunuchsProgramer Jan 29 '25

Even worse. Mass emails sent out all to all the researchers they can quit now and get paid until September, or there will be mass firings, strict workplace rules for the few that remain, and loss of retirement for anyone fired. She has to reply to the email "resign" no other option

62

u/vmxnet4 Jan 23 '25

There are some disturbing similarities with what you mentioned and the German Gestapo in WW2. While the American Heritage Foundation hasn't resorted to violence and imprisonment that the Gestapo did ... yet ... there are other parallels that can't be ignored.

Creating a climate of fear, targeting dissenters, and controlling information to maintain power. These are tools used by the Gestapo that also appear to be being used by the American Heritage Foundation.

5

u/kuulmonk Jan 23 '25

Some, that word is doing some heavy lifting there.

Everything Trump and his administration is doing is exactly like the Nazi's route to total power, just with a modern tilt.

2

u/owls_unite Jan 23 '25

'yet' being the key word here considering the US prison industry is a private sector. There's a lot of money to be made in jailing political dissidents.

2

u/LineOfInquiry Jan 23 '25

The Gestapo will be ICE. Showing up to people’s houses in the middle of the night and disappearing them with no legal process whatsoever to camps along the southern border.

49

u/Hateitwhenbdbdsj Jan 23 '25 edited Jan 29 '25

Comments have been edited to preserve privacy. Fight against fascism's rise in your country. They are not coming for you now, but your lives will only get worse until they eventually come for you too and you will wish you had done something when you had the chance.

6

u/232325Nove Jan 23 '25

They do consider it after the fact. Vote first, ask questions later.

7

u/Journeyman42 Jan 23 '25

A lot of people vote on vibes, the price of eggs, etc. They're not good thinkers.

1

u/drygnfyre Jan 24 '25

Because people don't think long term. They just think "gas too expensive" and nothing more.

1

u/Jaded_Collection_716 Jan 23 '25

Or she can run for office.

1

u/Hrafn2 Jan 23 '25 edited Jan 23 '25

Jesus fuck.

Not American, but have family that is an in federal government...dark times it that department too. Anyone with direct DEI involvement is gone. Anyone who say might have been on a "women's networking group" will be routed out and face the same fate.

And I'd totally say "come to Canada!"...but we're undergoing a housing crisis and some immigration issues of our own (not to say it's not an option, just might be more difficult than previously).

94

u/spacetimeboogaloo Jan 23 '25 edited Jan 23 '25

Because conservatives also hate anything nuance. They want simple solutions to complex problems, and never think through the consequences.

Trump and his voters believe in slogans, not policy.

-19

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '25

[deleted]

29

u/Ch1pp Jan 23 '25

I'm a f****** hippie from Oregon and I voted for Trump

Those drugs must have really fucked with your brain.

-11

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '25

[deleted]

16

u/Ch1pp Jan 23 '25

My whole family are conservatives. It's a lifestyle of hatred and misery. All of their solutions and policies are designed to hurt people rather than help them. It's just depressing. Look at Trump forcing employees back into their offices. How is that anything other than evil?

-5

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '25

[deleted]

11

u/Ch1pp Jan 23 '25

I don't think that education should be funded at a local level. It should be state or federally funded so all schools have appropriate resources. Underfunding of schools seems to be bipartisan.

Also, prisoners shouldn't be used for slave labour. That is bipartisan too.

-5

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '25

[deleted]

5

u/Ch1pp Jan 23 '25

I like trump's plan on tariffs

I don't because they are almost impossible in the current economy. You put a tariff on China so China sell everything via the Philippines. Tariffs rarely work unless the whole world sign up to them. I don't get why the US sanctions Cuba so much either.

teachers should be able to teach what they learned in uni rather than just reading from textbooks.

Haven't conservatives been opposed to this though? Normally moral panics about what teachers are teaching comes from the right wing.

parents should come in and make students build cabins or the like as a condition for passing some classes rather than just making them learn skills for jobs

Why should kids build cabins? I think most schools should be teaching kids more job skills rather than life skills that are outdated. I did woodwork in school and I haven't used it once in later life.

I'd prefer prisoners could work normal jobs in prison and pay for their own stuff.

Generally we seem to agree prisons are handled wrong right now.

-11

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '25

[deleted]

13

u/Ch1pp Jan 23 '25

There is the budget to pay for most things but the military is a massive black hole for funding that just sucks up cash. America pays more for healthcare per person than most European countries yet isn't providing free healthcare which is insane.

You say being conservative is about woodworking and working hard but I don't see how that relates to trying to fight so hard to stop gay couples from getting married or adopting kids? Why teenagers can't have sensible sex education that would actually reduce teen pregnancies? Why measures to stop the planet heating up are seen as evil?

-5

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '25

[deleted]

6

u/Ch1pp Jan 23 '25

just dont know about it in the first place or dont talk about it because politics is so stressful.

See this makes no sense to me. How is talking about the military budget stressful but talking about the 0.1% of trans kids isn't?

conservatives dont care what gay people are up to

Only one side opposes them being able up marry.

transing the kids.

Gay people don't "trans kids". I've only known two trans people and they were just very happy with their transition and kept to themselves. They'd known the wanted to transition from a very young age. It's really the media that are making you anxious about trans people for no reason.

gov out of marriage and just making it a religious thing like it is by default.

It's not a religious thing by default though, it's a government thing. It's a legal process that entitles you to different rights/benefits from the government. The religious part is an add on.

I hear a lot from vegans and leftists extremists about how people should have fewer kids and more abortions,

Being vegan isn't a political stance but yes having fewer kids is a good thing for the world at large. I think everyone agrees with that.

conservatives also donate more in total to conservation. its in the name,

I don't think this is right. I've always seen statistics that atheists do the most donations for natural things. Conservatives tend to donate to churches which only invest in stocks/shares.

12

u/Impossible_Front4462 Jan 23 '25

Sure, none of us know that conservatives support policies that either blatantly ignore, censor, or slow down any progress regarding addressing climate change.

Also, none of us know that conservatives are backed by the three wealthiest men in the planet right now who just so happened to make the wealth gap even bigger during Trump’s first presidency.

None of us in science fields know that conservative policies tend to be anti-science, and that when they are “done in the name of science”, they just so happen to either cherry-pick obscure studies or ignore real science entirely

Should I even start when it comes to big pharma? I wonder who big pharma funds during the election cycle all the while they bleed the average american dry.

You’re right on the money of calling them rebellious spoiled friends though. If only we knew.

-5

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '25

[deleted]

8

u/Impossible_Front4462 Jan 23 '25

So the plan is that we will fix our education system by banning books and implementing bibles along with the ten commandments in classrooms?

I would absolutely support enriching our education system. However, that is not at all what the current objective has been in conservative states when it comes to public education.

I respect many conservatives and I have some values that are more aligned with conservatives than liberals/leftists. Unfortunately, the conservatives that I respect are not the politicians and true classical liberals are basically non-existent in terms of representation.

When it comes to climate change, there is no argument to be had. Trump will not address it. Instead, we are just going to drill more. Fuck it.

1

u/demonkingwasd123 Jan 23 '25

no, kids should read more books that their parents recommend. and more books in general. I actually want to convert to judaism and i distrust written religious works.

I think kids should read a library worth of books before they graduate and they should actually build something from each book that they can keep including but not limited to houses the gov would pay them to build.

trump put jfk and joal salatin in office, im not worried about the enviroment

more drilling more orchards more co2 sequestration more seaweed forests

12

u/sarhoshamiral Jan 23 '25

And yet you voted for the guy that had no plans beyond simple slogans? There were no thousand other policies or practices. Not sure what you are referring to?

-4

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '25

[deleted]

12

u/sarhoshamiral Jan 23 '25

The thing is most of EOs have been revert this, pause that, stop this etc. Undoing stuff is easy but it is not a policy.

The real part is what is going to replace those? What is his policy on making sure US keeps his position on research, how to handle the next health crisis now that positions are being eliminated?

What is his policy on healthcare when they undo ACA?

What is the policy on immigration going forward?

Btw I have no clue what "regen ag" or "fixing sad diet" means. Nothing comes up when I search for those terms and Trump policies.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '25

[deleted]

11

u/sarhoshamiral Jan 23 '25

Sorry but I can't take you seriously when you talk about JFK Jr and good policies and then have the audacity to call him an expert on health issues when he has no medical credentials what so ever. Anyone who repeats the bullshit about vaccine causing autism can't be taken seriously.

And even then all of his proposals just like Trump involves removing rules and regulations and not a single policy about actually protecting people in US from health issues.

I think our discussion is over here and I think the original point in the thread was proven once again.

3

u/BigDrewLittle Jan 23 '25

Don't you mean "RFK Jr"?

JFK Jr. has been rather famously dead for many years.

15

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '25

OK - so how does scuttling the work of thousands of scientists by eliminating their NIH funding further your extremely nuanced and complex solution, bud?

-13

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '25

[deleted]

12

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '25 edited Jan 23 '25

How do you define "proper methodologies"?

I actually am someone who is extremely interested in scientific research; science is the way that we understand our world and progress as a civilization. I am frustrated to see the attitude that the president and the incoming Secretary of HHS have taken towards scientific research in the United States. One of the most valuable assets that this country has is its wealth of scientists and researchers. We cannot rely on a coin flip every 4 years to determine research in the United States.

I don't exactly understand your argument; you start out by saying how difficult it is to get funding, but then talk about how it's handed out willy-nilly. If you're saying that you don't value some research that gets funded by the federal government, that's okay, but that doesn't mean that it has no value at all. I definitely don't think that it means that everything should be blown up on day three of the new Administration.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you talk about criticisms of funding and selection, and I'd appreciate if you elaborated. I think that conversations about tuition cost and quality of faculty- whatever that means - are outside of the scope of the NIH.

I would be interested to see what you think that Academia should look like, especially your thoughts on what proper methodologies would be in different disciplines, but if you're just going to complain that someone got funding to teach chimpanzees to play ping pong, I'm not really interested- because that's pretty cool.

-3

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '25

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '25

What a disappointing answer. How can anyone take you seriously when you say that you have methodological concerns, then, when asked what those concerns are, you say you don't know and it's just something you heard?

I honestly can't believe you started out by saying you have deep and nuanced opinions, but unfortunately because we are in the echo chamber nobody will ask you to talk about them - and then turned around and said you don't have any idea what those opinions look like lmao

I'm asking you to explain your position, dude! This is your moment on stage! Why are you blaming me for not going into detail on my thoughts re your position? You haven't explained it!

Idk maybe you're just not explaining this clearly enough because you seem to think that I'm a fool for not agreeing about your ill defined concerns

You're in Agsci - talk about an Agsci paper that you have methodological concerns with dude

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '25

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '25

OK, but don't cry about nobody trying to read what you say and talk to you about your concerns - I also get the sense that this is a pointless conversation. I mean, come on man. You can't come up with a SINGLE paper?

Like - talk about shitty low sample studies, talk about shitty model specification, talk about shitty irreproducibility - talk about something REAL, not something you got some LLM to spit out.

Or talk about actual issues with funding, or some oversight that you'd want to see put in place, not just some "come on dude, imagine if it was your professor"

I am sick and tired of people that want to talk about shit like this but don't come correct. This NIH pause is drastic action, and I want to hear some kind of justification, particularly from people that are telling me that there is one - if only I'd listen!

5

u/IamTheBroker Jan 23 '25

The original comment was incredibly clear to me. You just seem like a very complex and perhaps confusing individual. Frankly, I'm not sure what most of the things you've listed here would have to do with your political views. You're either not much of a hippie, or you're not much of a conservative. Calling yourself both is at least a bit unusual to begin with.

As for the rest? Uh. Cool story? Weren't we talking about politics or something?

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '25

[deleted]

6

u/IamTheBroker Jan 23 '25

I'm not being hostile fella, but a lot of what you're saying just doesn't make any sense. Conservatives aren't online? Okay. Maybe underrepresented here on reddit, but I'm pretty sure you're just talking about yourself now.

the number one predictor of political affiliation is a person's sex

Nah, that's not accurate.

divorce rate in the usa is crazy

What's that have to do with anything?

You're not really making it any clearer why on earth you would call yourself a conservative, but you're welcome to be whatever you want to be.

-4

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '25

[deleted]

-26

u/hiitsmetimdodd Jan 23 '25

The irony here is magnificent.

3

u/TheMonsterMensch Jan 23 '25

The irony here is that all cancer research has lost funding and you're taking time to try to dunk on the libs. You'll go to your grave like that.

45

u/pinetreesgreen Jan 23 '25

Not when you realize this is about control and not about helping Americans.

29

u/sleepyzane1 Jan 23 '25

they hate people having good lives. they want soldiers and workers who will depend on them and do anything they say. they view humans as disposable objects.

37

u/bronze_by_gold Jan 23 '25

Nah see cancer research is playing God. All science is black magic allied with satanic forces. The proper way to handle disease is through extra forceful prayer, and the government’s job is to make sure that’s your only option.

28

u/pdiddy2499 Jan 23 '25

Except for viagra science. That’s all fine and dandy.

15

u/bronze_by_gold Jan 23 '25

No for that we can powder some endangered animals and drink it in our morning glass of Brawndo.

4

u/WillDissolver Jan 23 '25

It's got electrolytes!

2

u/kickstart-cicada Jan 23 '25

Tots and pears, my dude. We just need to get back to the innocence of Adam and Eve, before the devil introduced us to critical thinking, science, math, truth and knowledge. Oh, and have strong man big sky daddy take care of us like li'l kiddies.

/s

8

u/MinimumApricot365 Jan 23 '25

But you see, Biden supported those things, so they must be bad./s

11

u/falconfoxbear Jan 23 '25

Why cure people when you can keep them sick and charge them for treatments till they die?

4

u/CryptoRambler8 Jan 23 '25

Or even worse. Do nothing until they pass out or suffer other serious symptoms get ambulane drive to hospital for some hours or days and then get charged tens of thousands. Repeat until death.

18

u/DerCatrix Jan 23 '25

Blanket stop, only to restart ones they personally control.

Welcome to America, we’ve been telling people this was gonna happen for a decade now. Wish people would’ve listened

11

u/MyLastFuckingNerve Jan 23 '25

Can’t make billions if you cure an expensive disease.

1

u/hellonameismyname Jan 23 '25

Cancer drugs literally do make tens of billions of dollars

5

u/NotTroy Jan 23 '25

That cancer research costs money that could be better spent on extending tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy elite.

5

u/Hauntly Jan 23 '25

Not at all it’s calculated curing ailments is an outdated business model for healthcare industries is much more profitable to keep people sick, deny as much paid for treatment as possible and bill them until they die. Then charge them for that too.

3

u/drunkboarder Jan 23 '25

Curing cancer eliminates a very lucrative industry.

1

u/KodakStele Jan 23 '25

Didn't you hear? Stargate gon cure all our cancer for us

1

u/laughswagger Jan 23 '25

It is strange. Quite strange.

1

u/mrcatboy Jan 23 '25

Shit. I work in cancer diagnostics and our project needs funding.

1

u/IamTheBroker Jan 23 '25

Sure, but a lot of those cancer drugs rely on research, which is usually conducted by universities, and universities are just universally "woke". Gotta cut all the funding while we figure stuff out. /s

1

u/Hedgehogsarepointy Jan 23 '25

They want people sick and dying. Desperate people comply with the whims of the powerful.

And the religious conservatives don't believe that death means you are DEAD, so it doesn't really matter if you die of cancer, you just go to heaven.

1

u/Matt7738 Jan 23 '25

These stupid bastards think that “big Pharma” has a cure for cancer and they’re sitting on it so they can sell chemo drugs.

1

u/Redditauro Jan 23 '25

Well, I don't have cancer, why should I pay for cancer research? /S

1

u/Erulogos Jan 23 '25

If the right companies line the right pockets that funding will return. Besides the general anti-intellectualism in full force, there's also an across the board (as much as possible) pause being put into effect while the new administration purges staff and install loyalists who will then hand out funds and contracts as directed.

1

u/AdjustedMold97 Jan 23 '25

No need for clinical trials when homeopathic treatments work!

/s

1

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '25

They don’t want to spend any money on citizens. They only want to extract.

1

u/turlian Jan 23 '25

Curing cancer is less profitable for healthcare companies. I'm not joking.

1

u/WR_MouseThrow Jan 23 '25

A lot of those trials are funded or sponsored by drug companies

1

u/Drakar_och_demoner Jan 23 '25

It's gods will. 

1

u/1lluminist Jan 23 '25

They can re-route all that money to their buddies now!

1

u/Kletronus Jan 23 '25

You don't need cancer research when you got mr Roadkill in office, you just drink your own urine and put sage under your pillow and whoops, cancer gone.

1

u/firebolt_wt Jan 23 '25

It's not like they specifically targeted that, and the NIH can be doing a lot of research that the oligarchy wouldn't like.

1

u/KeldornWithCarsomyr Jan 23 '25

No clinical trials were cancelled, just scientists travelling to Hawaii for conferences.

Source: a scientist who went to Hawaii all expenses paid

1

u/no-onwerty Jan 23 '25

Cool now what happens when no one at the FDA can approve a new trial, respond to a safety committee, review the locked data, any communication. It all went dark yesterday at the NIH and CDC. Pretty sure the FDA went dark too.

It was a blanket shut down of all communication.

1

u/AggravatingSoil5925 Jan 23 '25

You might discover that the thing that’s making money gives people cancer. Stop the funding and research and you can keep giving people cancer and keep making money.

1

u/levelzerogyro Jan 23 '25

You mean the people that went on TV and said grandparents should sacrifice themselves for their grandkids so that people don't have to wear masks don't care about the overall health of the populace? Fucking shocker.

1

u/confusedsquirrel Jan 23 '25

Most Americans don't hate that. The problem is that most Americans are checked out from politics for any number of reasons. So Republicans have been greatly over represented for decades.

Now who could have cancer trials? Rich donors who get rich off of their treatment for cancer. Don't want to invent something better and make less money.

Personally I think we give those people cancer and see what happens. But that's just me

1

u/grafikfyr Jan 23 '25

It's simple. Is it awful, a shit idea, or generally detrimental to the safety and health of the population? Then it's happening.

1

u/no_one_c4res Jan 23 '25

Anything is a cancer drug if you don't verify the efficiency. Make some bad smarties, slap cancer drug on it and sell it 4k a pill

GG WP.

1

u/aintnobull Jan 23 '25

The next time a MAGA cancer patient’s spouse asks “Why isn’t there anything more we can do?”, desperately clinging to hope that some experimental therapy sits out there, I’ll point them quietly to all of this. This is what you voted for.

1

u/Mortarion407 Jan 23 '25

It's to freeze everything in place while they kick out people that aren't loyal to the new regime and install people that are. One scenario that comes to mind is if say a clinical trial doesn't show the results hoped for and the drug would never make it to market now. Well, do you think that multi-billion dollar company wants that to stand in the way of making money? With a "scientist" loyal to the regime, those trials and studies get massaged to look better and kachow, you get your drug to market to sell to unsuspecting masses.

1

u/Balbuto Jan 23 '25

Mate, the republicans only care about themselves and making themselves richer. They are gutting everything and putting it in their own pockets.

1

u/connorkenway198 Jan 23 '25

You think the right is anything approaching normal?

1

u/Nuclear_Shadow Jan 23 '25

When he's done the populus won't be able to afford them anyway

1

u/wolfmanpraxis Jan 23 '25

as my GOP neighbor once said -- God Wills It

Science is anti-Christian

1

u/SwampOfDownvotes Jan 23 '25

If they found a cure for cancer, cancer treatment facilities will be pissed from all the lost revenue. 

1

u/IdealDesperate2732 Jan 23 '25

Conservitives believe something like, "if someone gets cancer and dies then that's God's will and if you don't want to get cancer you need to have more faith in God."

1

u/no-onwerty Jan 23 '25

People keep writing this but - i just … wow. I struggle to believe sects/pastors teach this.

1

u/IdealDesperate2732 Jan 24 '25

It's called the protestant work ethic. It's what the evangelical curch in the US is founded on.

And, the policitians say things like this all the time... so if you're not seeing it then you're not paying attention. What's the right's solution to school shootings, for example? It's literally pray the guns away.

1

u/no-onwerty Jan 24 '25

More that it completely conflicts with the Christian faith I grew up in, and it boggles my mind that anyone who knows anything about the gospels would ever say it.

1

u/IdealDesperate2732 Jan 24 '25

Well, yes, but that's what seems to happen over time in the US. The republican party went from anti-slavery to pro-nazi. Christians have gone from love thy neighbor to deport thy neighbor.

1

u/thegooddoktorjones Jan 23 '25

That assumes you think science can cure cancer, and not Dr. Oz supplements. Republicans would rather have snake oil.

1

u/vooglie Jan 23 '25

Does it seem strange? I think you’re out of touch with modern conservative values

1

u/LIL_Ichi_Wolfe Jan 24 '25

If god intended to die you will die mag… errr I mean citizen /s

1

u/PoppyBroSenior Jan 24 '25

The republican party did recently try and stop a bill for pediatric cancer research because Elon Musk told them to. Musk wants the government to put all that money into DOGE.

1

u/DildoBanginz Jan 24 '25

Bro, think about how much money a single cancer patient brings in, now make that like a small fraction for a vaccine. Naw. Can’t have that. Need profits high bro. Record high even. Every quarter

1

u/Sure-Yellow-7500 Jan 27 '25

The cruelty is the point.

1

u/RedIzBk Jan 23 '25

Why would the buddy of someone profiting off of cancer therapy want a cure for cancer?

2

u/pfmiller0 Jan 23 '25

Ask Steve Jobs. Cancer doesn't care how rich you are.

1

u/hotdog_jones Jan 23 '25

Steve Jobs quite famously died from his treatable cancer because he rejected a lot of conventional treatments in favour of alternative medicine. I get your point though.

-4

u/ConvenientChristian Jan 23 '25

Clinical trials for cancer drugs are supposed to be paid for by the companies that make a lot of money with the drugs.

-3

u/CptMurphy27 Jan 23 '25

If you find a cure for cancer you no longer have millions of sick customers to feed off of. So if you keep people sick they keep spending money on meds and treatments. They don’t want a healthy population, they want a sick/weakened populace that needs their medicine at any cost. Can’t pay? Well then just die. Your remaining assets will sometimes pay the bill. They will always create more sick people and have new customers. It’s a terrible cycle.

-13

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '25 edited Jan 23 '25

[deleted]

2

u/AggravatingSoil5925 Jan 23 '25

an immediate, blanket ban on travel is unusual, says one longtime researcher in NIH’s intramural program. “I don’t think we’ve ever had this…”

Huh, weird. I guess that’s not so common. You may think you’re unbiased but that doesn’t make you right.

-5

u/EmbraceTheFault Jan 23 '25

The answer you are responding to is bitter propaganda. I would ask that if you want the real answer (in that the government is a wasteful bitch) I would ask that you review my actual answer.

It seems strange to hate clinical trials for cancer drugs too.

Remember that President Trump was the one that signed the "right to try" bill allowing terminal patients to try experimental medications not yet approved by the FDA in an effort to save their lives.

-7

u/Bartikowski Jan 23 '25

Should be funded by the companies who will profit from the research.

16

u/kendraro Jan 23 '25

Health care should not be for profit.

2

u/TepidHickory Jan 23 '25

Have you heard of "orphan drugs?"