• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged USAID: is it really a bunch of crazy leftists? / Trump Was Absolutely Right to Shut Down USAID

That's beside the point. What you posted before about "subtraction" was about deleting unproductive steps from a process. Canceling an unfinished clinical trial is something completely different.
Even if you want to deem a clinical trail a "process," stopping the clinical trial would not be analogous to deleting an unproductive step from the process. It would be canceling the whole process.
That is pretty much the point.

Elon Musk and other MAGAbots are the ones cancelling the whole process with the idea that they can then be reinstated if they are found out to be useful after all. In many cases this will be too late because the trials will be completely compromised.
 
That's beside the point. What you posted before about "subtraction" was about deleting unproductive steps from a process. Canceling an unfinished clinical trial is something completely different. Even if you want to deem a clinical trail a "process," stopping the clinical trial would not be analogous to deleting an unproductive step from the process. It would be canceling the whole process.
It looks to me as if Mr. Musk is applying subtraction to various governmental programs without giving any thought to how they are different from a business such as Twitter. With respect to the clinical trials that were stopped, do you agree or disagree with the proposition that this was a bad idea?
 
Clinical trials were stopped partway through, as one of my previous links discussed in depth.
Two questions...

First - who stopped the trials? Did the US demand that the trial be halted, or did the US withdraw funding? Those are quite different things.

Second - is the US the only country funding this research? If so, why is it on the US to support the entire planet? Why aren't other countries who will benefit footing part of the bill as well?
 
Two questions...

First - who stopped the trials? Did the US demand that the trial be halted, or did the US withdraw funding? Those are quite different things.

First, read the article. Weren't you just talking about how its on the person to find the information? Here it's provided for you. Now if you're attempting some kind of "gotcha" then just get to the point.

Also, there is no difference. No funding is halting a trial. You might have some weird ass, semantic nitpick but we both know it'll end up making no difference.
Second - is the US the only country funding this research?

Who cares?
If so, why is it on the US to support the entire planet?

Researching diseases is "supporting the entire planet"? That's an odd way to look at it, but it's definitely how right-wingers have been prone to looking at it.
Why aren't other countries who will benefit footing part of the bill as well?

Did you read the article? Do you know if others have been helping foot the bill?
 
First, read the article. Weren't you just talking about how its on the person to find the information? Here it's provided for you. Now if you're attempting some kind of "gotcha" then just get to the point.
Which article, and where is it? The immediate chain of posts doesn't contain a link to an article.
Also, there is no difference. No funding is halting a trial. You might have some weird ass, semantic nitpick but we both know it'll end up making no difference.
There is a difference. If you lose your job, that doesn't actually cancel your water service. At no point has your employer directed the water company to stop providing water to you. Those are distinctly different things.

Now, if you lose your job and you have no other source of income and you have no savings of any sort and you don't have friends or family willing to help out, then it may result in you having to cancel your water service.

There is a meaningful difference between the US cancelling funding for a trial, and the US cancelling the trial itself. Particularly if the trial is funded by multiple different sources, or is able to obtain funding from an alternate source.

It's rather like "You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here".
Who cares?
People who value truth and accuracy? Evaluation of the material impact involved, whether it's reasonable to seek alternative funding, whether it's a joint effort or solo, etc.
Researching diseases is "supporting the entire planet"? That's an odd way to look at it, but it's definitely how right-wingers have been prone to looking at it.
This is a very weird, very twisted way to look at it. These are illnesses that affect everyone on the planet. Are you somehow of the opinion that only the US is going to benefit from the trials? Of course the research supports the whole planet, as it benefits all humans.
Did you read the article? Do you know if others have been helping foot the bill?
If I knew, I wouldn't have asked the question. Duh.
 
It looks to me as if Mr. Musk is applying subtraction to various governmental programs without giving any thought to how they are different from a business such as Twitter. With respect to the clinical trials that were stopped, do you agree or disagree with the proposition that this was a bad idea?
I don't have reliable information on what clinical trials were stopped or why they were stopped. Clearly, net harm could be done by stopping a clinical trial. On the other hand, if a trial should never have been started in the first place, then stopping it would likely be better than letting it run to completion.
 
Which article, and where is it? The immediate chain of posts doesn't contain a link to an article.

In the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ post you quoted. It's right there in blue.
There is a difference. If you lose your job, that doesn't actually cancel your water service. At no point has your employer directed the water company to stop providing water to you. Those are distinctly different things.

Now, if you lose your job and you have no other source of income and you have no savings of any sort and you don't have friends or family willing to help out, then it may result in you having to cancel your water service.

There is a meaningful difference between the US cancelling funding for a trial, and the US cancelling the trial itself. Particularly if the trial is funded by multiple different sources, or is able to obtain funding from an alternate source.

It's rather like "You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here".

Right, so a semantic, nonsense nitpick. You could have just said, "Yeah, you're spot on" right at the beginning and saved us both the hassle.

In either ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ case the water is shut off. This is a dumb as ◊◊◊◊ analogy anyway. It's not even relatively comparable to the way clinic trials work. Why do we have to use some stupid analogy rather than the literal event that's taking place in front of us? The trials were stopped. They were stopped because there was no funding. The issue is that there's no ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ funding. You making up excuses and carrying water for the right doesn't change that. Your mental gymnastics to rationalize a stupid move on behalf of this administration is absolutely ridiculous. You know how I know? Because you never ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ once talked about these trials and how they had to be stopped before. They weren't even on your radar but now they're waste?
People who value truth and accuracy?

lol pull the other one, its got bells on it.
Evaluation of the material impact involved, whether it's reasonable to seek alternative funding, whether it's a joint effort or solo, etc.

What difference does it make? How does it affect the outcome? It doesn't. It's a "JAQ" session for no purpose. It was being funded, now it's not.
This is a very weird, very twisted way to look at it.

Lol the irony, it burns us. The person defending the termination of funding for a program that's essentially a drop in the bucket is talking about a twisted way of looking at things. Do you know what would provide the funding for this program? Taxing businesses and billionaires the same way we did 50 years ago. Yet here you are, again, carrying water for Trump and the right.
These are illnesses that affect everyone on the planet. Are you somehow of the opinion that only the US is going to benefit from the trials? Of course the research supports the whole planet, as it benefits all humans.

This might blow your ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ mind, Emily's Cat, but other countries are doing research on diseases too. Diseases the affect the whole world and the US has zero investment in them. Several companies around the world do tons of research on drugs that affect the whole world without a single penny from the US. The US also benefits from that research.
If I knew, I wouldn't have asked the question. Duh.
All it takes is a little research, amiright? Don't count on other people to do it for you, EC!
 
Last edited:
The article doesn't address any of the questions I asked.


Plague, do you ever consider actually reading my posts without bias and without this deep-seated assumption of malice that you seem to be working from?

I never said the article would actually answer any of your questions, did I? I asked if you read it. You hadn't, and yet you were asking questions for someone else to answer because you didn't want to read it.

You keep on accusing me of malice and being uncivil and all that ◊◊◊◊, but somehow fail to notice that I'm consistent in every reply.

So let me make it clear for you again, the ignore feature here works. Use it.
 
I never said the article would actually answer any of your questions, did I? I asked if you read it. You hadn't, and yet you were asking questions for someone else to answer because you didn't want to read it.
I read it, it does not address a single one of the questions I asked. It's entirely irrelevant to the questions I asked.
You keep on accusing me of malice and being uncivil and all that ◊◊◊◊, but somehow fail to notice that I'm consistent in every reply.
Oh, I've noticed that you're entirely consistent about being completely uncivil.
 
I read it, it does not address a single one of the questions I asked. It's entirely irrelevant to the questions I asked.

Hence why I spent more time picking apart your wired little analogy and speaking more to why your questions were useless and irrelevant.
Oh, I've noticed that you're entirely consistent about being completely uncivil.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.
 
Hence why I spent more time picking apart your wired little analogy and speaking more to why your questions were useless and irrelevant.
Stellar logic. Great thinkiness.

Me: Is the US the only source of funding for the clinical trial?
You: Go read the article [expletives and insinuated personal attacks kindly ignored]!11!eleventyone!!
Me: It's not in that article, that article has nothing to do with the clinical trial.
You: Then don't ask stupid questions!!111!!111!1111oneoneoneone!
 
That is pretty much the point.

Elon Musk and other MAGAbots are the ones cancelling the whole process with the idea that they can then be reinstated if they are found out to be useful after all. In many cases this will be too late because the trials will be completely compromised.
Surely it is considerably more expensive to delete everything and reinstate the useful bits than it is to just delete a few things?
 
They're not trying to implement efficiencies, they're not trying to save money, they're just breaking things so they can't be fixed. They're ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

Edited by Agatha: 
Edited to remove breach of rule 10. Do not mask or mis-space swear words in the public sections of the forum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
On 16 February Ruth Faden and Nancy Kass for STATnews wrote, "While the fate of USAID remains murky, one thing absolutely is clear. The abrupt termination of critical USAID-funded clinical trials, with insufficient time to safeguard the welfare of people who are participating, is profoundly unethical and utterly inexcusable. Such actions threaten the health and lives of thousands of patients. The stop-work orders affect research designed to answer important questions about HIV or TB treatments, where immediate withdrawal of drugs not only takes away what may be lifesaving treatments but also risks exacerbating or creating drug-resistant strains, leaving participants potentially worse off than if they had never joined the study and creating additional, unacceptable risks for others in the community...Telling a medical researcher they must abruptly abandon study participants is akin to telling a surgeon they cannot treat a patient who has a post-operative infection that resulted from a surgery they performed the week before. All medical ethics codes forbid this." (bolding mine)

Last month The NYT reported, "The Declaration of Helsinki, a decades-old set of ethical principles for medical research that American institutions and others throughout the world have endorsed, lays out ethical guidelines under which medical research should be conducted, requiring that researchers care for participants throughout a trial, and report the results of their findings to the communities where trials were conducted....The Times identified more than 30 frozen studies that had volunteers already in the care of researchers...With the study suspended, she [Dr. Sharon Hillier] and her colleagues cannot process biological samples, analyze the data they have already collected, or communicate findings to either participants or the partnering government agencies in countries where the trials were conducted. These are requirements under the Helsinki agreement."

The Guardian reported, "A flagship programme to create malaria vaccines has been halted by the Trump administration, in just one example of a rippling disruption to health research around the globe since the new US president took power...Some products, such as injectable HIV prevention drugs, are not yet available outside research settings, he said, leaving participants with no alternative source to continue treatment. If the level of drugs in a participant’s body falls to nonprotective levels, it not only puts them at risk of infection, but means their infection is more likely to develop drug resistance. That makes their treatment more complicated, and if they then infect someone else, the resistance will spread."

Pharma's almanac wrote, "The disruption of USAID-funded clinical trials also has significant consequences for the global pharmaceutical industry. Many biopharmaceutical companies rely on public-private partnerships to conduct trials in low- and middle-income countries, where diseases like malaria and tuberculosis are most prevalent. Without these studies, companies lose critical data necessary for advancing drug development and securing regulatory approval. The long-term economic ramifications include a slowdown in research pipelines, reduced pharmaceutical exports to affected regions, and increased costs for developing new treatments. Furthermore, clinical trials that depend on USAID-supported healthcare infrastructure — such as hospitals, laboratories, and supply chains — are now at risk, even if they were not directly funded by the agency."

Devex wrote, "Arbuthnot was part of a group of researchers from eight African countries working to advance new HIV vaccine candidates, known as the BRILLIANT consortium — an initiative funded entirely by a $45 million grant from USAID, which has now been terminated. As well as the mRNA vaccine, which was at the preclinical stage and was showing early promise, a protein-based vaccine, which was due to start clinical trials, has also been put on hold...Ultimately, the reduction in funding may end up costing more to the U.S. in the long run, [Claudia] Martínez [director of research at the Access to Medicine Foundation] said. “Investments that go into diseases that could potentially affect the world at large, they matter. They will be impacting the U.S. and the world more broadly,” she said. “If you don't have a healthy population, you cannot have a healthy economy.”"
 
Science wrote, "Among scientists’ top concerns are participants already enrolled in studies. Halting a trial can mean volunteers miss out on medical care or safety monitoring, says bioethicist Nicholas Evans of the University of Massachusetts Lowell. “We have an obligation as researchers to ensure that we uphold those duties of care.” “When a funder simply suspends a study out of the blue, that is a huge, huge ethics violation and probably illegal,” adds Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine...Indeed, unless the United States lifts the restrictions, most of the paused research may not restart at all, Feinberg suspects: “I think it’s very unlikely that a significant proportion of the really amazingly generous and visionary investments that the U.S. government has made in global health will be picked up by other [funders].”"
 
They're not trying to implement efficiencies, they're not trying to save money, they're just breaking things so they can't be fixed. They're ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.
They're not breaking the government just because they're ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, they're breaking it specifically so that they can consolidate power in the Executive Branch. It's a precursor to becoming a dictator.

Edited by Agatha: 
Edited rule 10 in quote
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't have reliable information on what clinical trials were stopped or why they were stopped. Clearly, net harm could be done by stopping a clinical trial. On the other hand,
ifa trial should never have been started in the first place, then stopping it would likely be better than letting it run to completion.
Yeah, "if", but I very much doubt that is the case here.

Two that I have brought up are PrEP rings for contraception and reducing HIV transmission in Africa. The reasons for this are that condom use and oral contraceptives are not favoured by a lot of men, who are also promiscuous. Given that HIV/AIDS is the biggest killer of young women in Africa, trials that involve insertion of these rings being stopped likely means a lot of women are vulnerable to getting HIV and AIDS.

Another one I brought up is an intervention in Bangladesh to prevent the spread of cholera. Again, ending or even pausing this trial is likely to lead to people getting cholera who otherwise wouldn't, likely family relations.

********************************

In addition, I also posted a podcast episode in which Atul Gawande talks about how hundreds of thousands will die if the paused USAID programs are not resumed and how, even then, there is likely to be attrition from those who were in the programs.

I think it is worth a listen.
 

Back
Top Bottom