AnUser
#1
https://x.com/DrMakaryFDA/status/1925911239252701256#m
If there’s ZERO hits on “Rapamycin News” for Talc, it’s not outside the realm of possibility that the FDA, HHS, has been infiltrated by saboteurs. Please post terrible HHS decisions or priorities so we can adjust our probabilities on how much to trust these agencies.
1 Like
amuser
#2
2021-2024 HHS priorities in one picture
Oh sorry that’s two pictures. Oh sorry did you say 2025? Oh sorry.
Here’s a great short discussion of terrible NIH priorities in the Biden NIH:
https://x.com/sfmcguire79/status/1927502084980850952
1 Like
AnUser
#3
Trans people have higher average intelligence scores than cis people, so it’s not surprising to find them in positions of power.
1 Like
AnUser
#4
Get rid of “DEI”; get rid of smart people. Smart people are on average liberal and prefers “DEI”.
That’s how you get agencies prioritizing research of the impact of talc, possibly banning vaccines, seed oils, and other shenanigans. Good work? Most gerontologists are liberals…
Back on topic…?
AnUser
#5
Clowns in charge. Or Saboteurs.
May 28th, 2025.
US cancels more than $700 million funding for Moderna bird flu vaccine
An HHS spokesperson said that after a comprehensive internal review, the agency had determined that the project did not meet the scientific standards or safety expectations required for continued federal investment.
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-cancels-more-700-million-funding-moderna-bird-flu-vaccine-2025-05-28/
The ONLY redeeming quality of this health administration is Jim O’Neill and him maybe pushing anti-aging research. So sure, have your way to try and change this massive Rube Goldberg machine without the best science - argue about seed oils, talc, UPF’s, rather than pushing GLP-1 agonists and cholesterol lowering drugs to the masses.
It looks like they squandered the opportunity and no change will happen from changing SNAP benefits and giving dietary guidelines, no one takes these people seriously except the 0.1% on X who wants their delusions affirmed. In three years it will just be about saving face it seems “that change will take a long time”.
I will pay ZERO attention to the health USG anymore until competent people are in charge or they actually talk about anti-aging research. Fuck these guys and have at their talc research and cancelling bird flu programs.
(At the same time, it seems only bipartisan support for anti-aging research will make a difference, as otherwise ~4 yrs is too little time, and you can’t have the next admin come and cancel all of the progress. This admin is unique in breaking previous bipartisan support for e.g funding bird flu vaccine research. Good job, but now everyone should realize only bipartisan support for something matters, rest is noise)
AnUser
#6
The problem is, if you read that “MAHA report” document (attached)
WH-The-MAHA-Report-Assessment.pdf (7.4 MB) it’s about 95% reasonable. Obesity crisis, terrible food, everybody is sedentary, mental health crisis etc etc. All true, and the small number of proposed solutions are good too.
DEI aside, I totally agree about the apparent terrible priorities, which seem driven by ideology over more than anything else. If the administration went to war against Kraft Foods, Walmart, Coca Cola etc - I bet both the left and right wing would be quite happy with that.
But going after vaccines seems senseless, especially funding for vaccines useful in potential future pandemics. Imagine the damage if we’re caught with our pants down, again, while other countries learned their lessons and have plans in place. It’s foolish to pretend that infectious diseases have gone away.
And longer term, @AnUser is right. It gives nobody the faith to actually start big, meaningful projects if your funding is at the whims of the administration. It totally undermines US research, US soft power, and credibility. Before the pandemic, I would have considered the CDC, FDA flawed but at least reliable and trying to do their best. But since the pandemic (Fauci et al), and the response to it (Trump, RFK J et al), I now don’t know whether I could trust official information to even try and be truthful, or whether it’s just ideologically-driven BS. That’s a shame, and combined with leaving the WHO and WHA, the US is squandering their leadership in one of the areas they were strongest.
2 Likes
amuser
#8
This is terrible. Cutting the dicks off nine year olds is a human right. And raises iq by at least fifteen points!
AnUser
#10
We’ll see how well they do, like I’ve always said in one way or the other, whether this admin is great or not is contingent on O’Neill doing great bipartisan changes for life extension research.
I thought we were discussing whether Rachel Levine were competent for her position?
But sure, remove all the trans people from all positions of power, including from the intelligence services, and lose even more ground to the PRC.
1 Like
There is always a complex question as to how to regulate regulation.
I was on the UK regulatory reform committee for 10 years.
I am having some fun at the moment trying to make my citrate blend available on Amazon. It appears I cannot call it an intervention and explaing the biochemistry is potentially a criminal offence unless the description is authorised by a committee. Hence I am searching for a meaningless name.
3 Likes
Yes - I actually agree with a lot of the “big food” criticisms… the highly processed food-related issues seem to be likely to be significant factors in the shorter lifespans in the USA. Of course, the corporate lobbyists will have a lot to say about this, so I’m not super hopeful that much will happen to help people.
4 Likes
It’s the triecta of food → advertising/retail → pharma
Food pay the advertising agencies to promote the stuff. They invest actual R&D money figuring out how to make things more palatable, less satiating, and maximally addictive. Then they spend more money on advertising, placing it at the most tempting times and places, including advertising sugary artificial coloured nonsense to your children on daytime TV. People get fat, no surprise, but don’t fear because pharma has weight loss drugs that you need to take forever. They all profit, while the consumer suffers.
If any government had the guts to go after them, I reckon left and right could celebrate it.
I hope I don’t regret asking… but has that ever actually happened? A 9 year old enough, dick cut off as gender surgery?
I also assume this rule about genital mutilation applies to circumcision (both female and male). That’s the only time when people, often without medical licenses, routinely take scalpels to dicks and people don’t seem to care.
Anybody can say they are cutting red tape etc. The proof will be in the pudding - do you really think costs will be lower and service will be better in 2028? Personally, I predict that there will be greater amounts of negligence, less patient rights, and probably bigger profits for some.
1 Like
amuser
#14
Look at these lunatics. Who could say such a thing?
AnUser
#15
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said Tuesday that he may bar government scientists from publishing in the world’s leading medical journals, instead proposing the creation of “in-house” publications by his agency — the latest in the Trump administration’s attacks on scientific institutions.
“We’re probably going to stop publishing in the Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA and those other journals because they’re all corrupt,” Kennedy said during an appearance on the “Ultimate Human” podcast. He also described the journals as being under the control of pharmaceutical companies.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2025/05/28/rfk-jr-ban-journals-lancet-jama/
1 Like
This is definitely interesting, and I’m a bit split in my opinion on it. I can see “creation of in house publications” and being a total shit-show. However, I completely recognise that the current publication model is totally broken, that those journals, and many other “top” journals are an elite club, and they’re also profiting by charging massive publication fees which scientists pay out of grant money.
It’s also twisting things a bit to say they’re under control of pharmaceutical companies, because while many trials are funded by the companies, the data is typically analysed by a 3rd party, and many times the journals publish papers which show that a drug doesn’t work, or that it’s inferior, or has problems.
A better model, IMO, would be a simple pre-registration model. You register your trial, protocol, analysis plan etc. That should then undergo peer review, and the work should be provisionally accepted. Then, when you’ve done the experiments, you submit, and the only reviewer/editor job is to check that you followed the plan you promised to. That would massively cut all publication bias, institutional bias, all incentive for scientists to twist/manipulate/fabricate the numbers, and it would almost eliminate the games which peer reviewers can play. It would also speed up publication to the point where it would take a month, not a year, to get a study accepted.
1 Like
AnUser
#17
Isn’t pre-registration already common on clinicaltrials.gov? I thought it was required since long time ago at least for pharma drugs
Yes, but it isn’t enforced in any way when it comes to publication. For example, the recent “plaque begets plaque” nonsense, where the authors didn’t even publish the pre-registered primary outcome, and instead changed the outcomes, fudged the analysis and hid data just to publish a paper which agreed with their ideology. That sort of thing illustrates why the current model is broken.
