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

[thaiboxerken]

Also for MAGA if foreigners (particularly those who have too much melanin) happen to die of AIDS, that's acceptable. (If not actively desirable.)

Not just foreigners. They believe anyone with HIV is gross and should just die.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Surely it's only white people they want more of?

No. They want more white people as powered, demographic. However, white supremacists have long wanted people of color to have babies to populate slavery. Today, they want more people of color to have babies to incarcerate and fuel the for-profit prison industry, which is modern day slavery.

 

[arthwollipot]

Indiscriminate, Cruel, and Wasteful: Abandoning USAID clinical trials

The chaos and cruelty of its abrupt deconstruction are self-evident and already demonstrable

sciencebasedmedicine.org

 

[The Don]

Indiscriminate, Cruel, and Wasteful: Abandoning USAID clinical trials

The chaos and cruelty of its abrupt deconstruction are self-evident and already demonstrable

sciencebasedmedicine.org

Feature, not bug.....

 

[dann]

Busted: DOGE humiliated by brutal fact-checking, walks back bogus savings claims (MSNBC on YouTube, Feb 26, 2025)
Elon Musk's DOGE team removed key items from its "wall of receipts" after journalists fact-checked their boasts of billions in savings from cuts to federal programs and exposed sloppy errors and outright falsehoods. Rachel Maddow reports on the walk back taking place shortly after a withering rebuke from a federal judge for not complying with an order to allow funding to continue, all amid the embarrassment of having to un-fire federal workers recklessly let go without consideration for the necessity of their role.

Federal District Court Judge Amir Ali in Washington today telling the Trump administration, 'You shut down foreign aid and funds, and it appears at first glance that you were not legally allowed to do that. I ordered you to immediately restart those funds, and you have not done so. You now have until tomorrow to do it, or you have some excuse that makes you think you still ought not to do it. I want the relevant officials in my courtroom and under oath, telling me why they are not doing it. The motion to enforce is granted. Get those funds out the door by midnight tomorrow night. This nonsense is over.

It still remains to be seen if this will have any consequences for Trump and Musk, if the court orders are actually enforceable.
DOGE Quietly Deletes the 5 Biggest Spending Cuts It Celebrated Last Week (NYT, Feb 25, 2025)

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Just as Republicans are pissed to find so few DEI hires, they are outraged to find so little waste and corruption in the government bureaucracy.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Indiscriminate, Cruel, and Wasteful: Abandoning USAID clinical trials

The chaos and cruelty of its abrupt deconstruction are self-evident and already demonstrable

sciencebasedmedicine.org

Meh. Some clinical trials make sense to support, some probably don't. It's also worth noting that the US subsidizing foreign clinical trials is one of the several ways in which the US subsidizes the health care costs of the rest of the world - this leads to other countries having lower costs for health care, then turning around and criticizing the US for having higher health care costs than them. So... yeah, how about we stop letting the rest of the world have lower costs so we can get our own house in order?

With respect to some of the clinical trials called out...

Here is a sample of the interrupted study interventions:

• A device to prevent HIV transmission and pregnancy
• HIV vaccines
• Long-acting HIV prevention
• Malaria treatment in young children
• A malaria vaccine
• Treatment for cholera
• A screen and treat method for cervical cancer
• Multiple tuberculosis treatments

• We already have a fantastically effective device to prevent HIV and pregnancy - it's called a condom, and they're cheap and widely available.
• We already have a long-acting HIV prevention drug, it's called PREP, and it's been added to the list of drugs that insurers are required to provide at little to no cost.
• We already have treatments for malaria in children
• We already have a few malaria vaccines, which are widely available in the parts of the world where malaria is prevalent
• We already have treatments for cholera, predominantly staying well hydrated which has a 99% recovery rate; clean water is the most effective preventive for cholera
• We already have screening and treatment procedures for cervical cancer, we even have a vaccine that can prevent the most common types of cervical cancer
• We already have multiple different treatments for tuberculosis

So about the only thing in there that we don't already have something for is an HIV vaccine... but given that we have 1) treatments that will keep it untransmittable, preventive drugs that will keep a person from acquiring it, and extremely effective devices that prevent transmission (condoms), it really seems like that's covered well enough. Realistically if people would just stop having unprotected sex and using dirty needles, it would pretty much go away all by itself.

So take a step back and think about this - the US is funding research that doesn't solve a problem the US has, or a problem that directly affects the US... but which does allow pharmaceutical and device companies to make a whole lot of money without having to do their own investments. It's wasteful, and it doesn't further the interests of the US - which is what USAID is supposed to be doing.

 

[johnny karate]

Meh. Some clinical trials make sense to support, some probably don't. It's also worth noting that the US subsidizing foreign clinical trials is one of the several ways in which the US subsidizes the health care costs of the rest of the world - this leads to other countries having lower costs for health care, then turning around and criticizing the US for having higher health care costs than them. So... yeah, how about we stop letting the rest of the world have lower costs so we can get our own house in order?

With respect to some of the clinical trials called out...

• We already have a fantastically effective device to prevent HIV and pregnancy - it's called a condom, and they're cheap and widely available.
• We already have a long-acting HIV prevention drug, it's called PREP, and it's been added to the list of drugs that insurers are required to provide at little to no cost.
• We already have treatments for malaria in children
• We already have a few malaria vaccines, which are widely available in the parts of the world where malaria is prevalent
• We already have treatments for cholera, predominantly staying well hydrated which has a 99% recovery rate; clean water is the most effective preventive for cholera
• We already have screening and treatment procedures for cervical cancer, we even have a vaccine that can prevent the most common types of cervical cancer
• We already have multiple different treatments for tuberculosis

So about the only thing in there that we don't already have something for is an HIV vaccine... but given that we have 1) treatments that will keep it untransmittable, preventive drugs that will keep a person from acquiring it, and extremely effective devices that prevent transmission (condoms), it really seems like that's covered well enough. Realistically if people would just stop having unprotected sex and using dirty needles, it would pretty much go away all by itself.

So take a step back and think about this - the US is funding research that doesn't solve a problem the US has, or a problem that directly affects the US... but which does allow pharmaceutical and device companies to make a whole lot of money without having to do their own investments. It's wasteful, and it doesn't further the interests of the US - which is what USAID is supposed to be doing.

Hard to know who to trust here: The medical professional or the random internet poster with a history of downplaying everything Trump does.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

At least the defunding will make sure that the US will always have a healthy crop of terrorists to fight.

 

[Armitage72]

Hard to know who to trust here: The medical professional or the random internet poster with a history of downplaying everything Trump does.

It reminds me of when I heard Sean Hannity complaining years ago on his radio show about the approval of medical marijuana.
"The side effects of chemotherapy can already be counteracted with a combination of three or four pills. Why do they need marijuana?"

 

[Emily's Cat]

It reminds me of when I heard Sean Hannity complaining years ago on his radio show about the approval of medical marijuana.
"The side effects of chemotherapy can already be counteracted with a combination of three or four pills. Why do they need marijuana?"

Not really a great example. There genuinely is no medical need for marijuana. And it really never was about medical use - medical use was the thin end of the wedge because an argument could be made that THC stimulates appetite which is a good thing for cancer patients. The goal was never medical use of marijuana, the goal was always legalization for recreational use, and the money to be made from that.

 

[plague311]

Not really a great example. There genuinely is no medical need for marijuana. And it really never was about medical use - medical use was the thin end of the wedge because an argument could be made that THC stimulates appetite which is a good thing for cancer patients. The goal was never medical use of marijuana, the goal was always legalization for recreational use, and the money to be made from that.

I'll tell my doctor you said that, you know, considering I'm prescribed it, and use it for many of my issues like insomnia, social anxiety and depression. He'll be interested to know that a right-winger on ISF knows more about prescribing me medication than he does.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Not really a great example. There genuinely is no medical need for marijuana. And it really never was about medical use - medical use was the thin end of the wedge because an argument could be made that THC stimulates appetite which is a good thing for cancer patients. The goal was never medical use of marijuana, the goal was always legalization for recreational use, and the money to be made from that.

it's mostly (ex-) Republican pushing for legalization to cash in.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'll tell my doctor you said that, you know, considering I'm prescribed it, and use it for many of my issues like insomnia, social anxiety and depression. He'll be interested to know that a right-winger on ISF knows more about prescribing me medication than he does.

I'm not a right winger. Please stop with the ad homs.

That said... have you actually looked at *medical* research, as opposed to research developed and funded by marijuana supporters? In some cases, it can help with depression - but in some people it makes it worse. For anxiety, it can provide temporary relief, but it frequently results in a rebound when it wears off that increases generalized anxiety. For insomnia, indica strains can help with *falling* asleep, but it's less effective for *staying* asleep than melatonin, generally speaking. For some people it works very well, but it's not nearly as universally effective as many people believe it to be.

And before you get all bent out of shape, I'm quite fond of my Friday Night Edibles. I vastly prefer marijuana to alcohol, and I'd very happily ban booze and replace it with pot. I don't have any objection to pot, I think it should be legalized for recreational purposes.

But none of that makes me blind to the reality that gaining a foothold for medical use was 100% the foot in the door - and that was *always* the plan. Marijuana growers and advocates very intentionally sought to gain ground for medical use because it was deemed the best first step toward legalization.

 

[Emily's Cat]

it's mostly (ex-) Republican pushing for legalization to cash in.

Sure, sure, all of the owners of pot stores are totally replubicans.

 

[plague311]

I'm not a right winger. Please stop with the ad homs.

Yeah, I'm not plague311 either. You're seriously marching through every ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ thread throwing your full weight behind everything Trump does. I don't know who you think you're fooling with this bull ◊◊◊◊. I saw Thermal is buying it on another thread, but you can save that ◊◊◊◊ for him. I don't buy it. You're bending over backwards to tell everyone what a good negotiator and strong leader Trump is. Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining.

That said... have you actually looked at *medical* research, as opposed to research developed and funded by marijuana supporters? In some cases, it can help with depression - but in some people it makes it worse.

Cool, link me to the *medical* research. It might be hard to find since the US couldn't do a lot of studies on it since it was a banned substance, but I'm game. You're the one that said there is "genuinely no medical need" for marijuana and you're already backtracking saying, "In some cases it can help". Yeah, that's the important part right there. I don't want to spill the beans either, but every medication that exists has situations where it makes its intended treatment "worse". We call them "side effects" and they're prattled off at the end of every medication commercial.

For anxiety, it can provide temporary relief, but it frequently results in a rebound when it wears off that increases generalized anxiety.

No, it ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ doesn't. You can't tell me this. I use it perpetually. It provides the relief *I* need. There are a million different strains with a million different effects that can help a ton of different things. You telling me how something works, that I'm taking is ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ dumb.

For insomnia, indica strains can help with *falling* asleep, but it's less effective for *staying* asleep than melatonin, generally speaking.

Great, guess which one of those I have an issue with? Go ahead, take your time.

For some people it works very well, but it's not nearly as universally effective as many people believe it to be.

Just like literally every ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ medication that exists in the entire world. Like when you prattled off all of those medicines that we already have that work on different diseases, like TB, AIDS, etc. Guess what? Certain people can't take certain meds. Certain strands of TB, or the flu, or insert_disease_here can change, mutate, and different medicines are required to treat them as those mutations happen.

And before you get all bent out of shape, I'm quite fond of my Friday Night Edibles.

I don't care and nothing you say "bends me out of shape". You tend to talk about things as if you're an expert, and you're not. You make claims and almost never back them up. This quote is an example. You taking edibles doesn't make me feel like you're "on my side". I don't eat edibles for the most part. I use a tincture, I smoke plant, I have a vape pen, and I have a THC based arthritic lotion.

I vastly prefer marijuana to alcohol, and I'd very happily ban booze and replace it with pot. I don't have any objection to pot, I think it should be legalized for recreational purposes.

Cool.

But none of that makes me blind to the reality that gaining a foothold for medical use was 100% the foot in the door - and that was *always* the plan. Marijuana growers and advocates very intentionally sought to gain ground for medical use because it was deemed the best first step toward legalization.

k.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yeah, I'm not plague311 either. You're seriously marching through every ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ thread throwing your full weight behind everything Trump does. I don't know who you think you're fooling with this bull ◊◊◊◊. I saw Thermal is buying it on another thread, but you can save that ◊◊◊◊ for him. I don't buy it. You're bending over backwards to tell everyone what a good negotiator and strong leader Trump is.

1) You perpetually make the same mistake here. You think that the only possible way to dislike Trump is to rabidly hate every single thing Trump does evvery time, without exception. And you seem to think that allowing that something they do isn't the absolute most evil thing ever is support for Trump. Well, guess what? I don't think Trump is Hitler reincarnated, I don't think they're the antichrist, and I don't think it's reasonable, skeptical, or rational to blindly believe every negative thing said about them. Some of the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ that gets posted here is just that - ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. And you know what? If you have to make up ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ or exaggerate it to absurdity in order to get support, you're not going to make headway. If you can't criticize Trump for the actual things they say or do in context and in reality, then you have no leg to stand on.

2) Good negotiation tactics <> strong leader. Someone can be a fantastic negotiator and a bad leader - I work with a whole department of good negotiators who couldn't lead their way out of a slip-and-slide. Someone can be a good leader without having good negotiation skills, because they recognize that lack of skill and hire people to negotiate for them. I don't think Trump is a good leader, I'm not even sold on them being a good negotiator. What I have pointed out is that at least some of the things they're doing are business style negotiation tactics. They're not insane, they're not stupid. That doesn't mean they'll be effective. It just means that some of the things Trump is doing are fairly common business tactics, not ideological saber-rattling.

3) If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

What I'm trying to tell you over and over is that You do not know your enemy.

 

[plague311]

1) You perpetually make the same mistake here. You think that the only possible way to dislike Trump is to rabidly hate every single thing Trump does evvery time, without exception.

I'll just cut you off here. I don't care about the rest of your nonsense because you are wrong with this statement. That's not what I think at all. I can just see what you post in all of the threads. It's a long winded support of Trump and then some stupid small print at the end that says "...bUT i dON't LiKe hIM". Save it.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Terry Pratchett described the kind of leader Trump is:

"When many expect a mighty stallion they will find hooves on an ant."

 

[LiteBright]

Meh. Some clinical trials make sense to support, some probably don't. It's also worth noting that the US subsidizing foreign clinical trials is one of the several ways in which the US subsidizes the health care costs of the rest of the world - this leads to other countries having lower costs for health care, then turning around and criticizing the US for having higher health care costs than them. So... yeah, how about we stop letting the rest of the world have lower costs so we can get our own house in order?

With respect to some of the clinical trials called out...

• We already have a fantastically effective device to prevent HIV and pregnancy - it's called a condom, and they're cheap and widely available.
• We already have a long-acting HIV prevention drug, it's called PREP, and it's been added to the list of drugs that insurers are required to provide at little to no cost.
• We already have treatments for malaria in children
• We already have a few malaria vaccines, which are widely available in the parts of the world where malaria is prevalent
• We already have treatments for cholera, predominantly staying well hydrated which has a 99% recovery rate; clean water is the most effective preventive for cholera
• We already have screening and treatment procedures for cervical cancer, we even have a vaccine that can prevent the most common types of cervical cancer
• We already have multiple different treatments for tuberculosis

So about the only thing in there that we don't already have something for is an HIV vaccine... but given that we have 1) treatments that will keep it untransmittable, preventive drugs that will keep a person from acquiring it, and extremely effective devices that prevent transmission (condoms), it really seems like that's covered well enough. Realistically if people would just stop having unprotected sex and using dirty needles, it would pretty much go away all by itself.

So take a step back and think about this - the US is funding research that doesn't solve a problem the US has, or a problem that directly affects the US... but which does allow pharmaceutical and device companies to make a whole lot of money without having to do their own investments. It's wasteful, and it doesn't further the interests of the US - which is what USAID is supposed to be doing.

The first and last paragraphs might be the most offensively ignorant thing you've ever posted on this forum. Anyone with even a fleeting understanding of the last 85 years of world history can see how ridiculous this is.