3 ms·

> BARDA is terminating 22 mRNA vaccine development investments because the data show these vaccines fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infect

> BARDA is terminating 22 mRNA vaccine development investments because the data show these vaccines fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like COVID and flu.

650REDHAIR 1y ago
The problem is that I don’t believe RFK jr and therefore I don’t believe HHS. How accurate is their data? Was it manipulated?
- j3th9n 1y ago
  Good questions to always ask. But better late than never. Welcome to the matrix.
- yakz 1y ago
  They didn’t trust the government and wanted you to stop trusting the government too. 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 1y ago
It's a good thing Shockley gave up on the transistor, it never would've been able to switch as much current as a relay, or switch as quickly as a vacuum tube. 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.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- wk_end 1y ago
  With the caveats that 1) I suspect that this isn't actually data-driven as RFK Jr. is an anti-vax nut and 2) personally I think the government should fund vaccine development: 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 1y ago
    it will be government funded, but just not our government, and not in our universities
  - quadhome 1y ago
    AIUI early transistor research was funded by public (defense) grants. And Bell Labs was definitely government supported, if not outright government funded.
text0404 1y ago
when you think of scientific research, do you imagine someone having an immediate eureka moment in a vacuum and writing a paper without having ever considered a problem before? do you understand that scientific progress takes years of dedication, hard work, trial and error, and then finally (occasionally) success? 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 1y ago
  As a published researcher operating outside traditional academia, I find this rhetoric somewhat tiresome, as it overlooks the systemic interplay between public funding, academic training, and industrial commercialization in scientific advancement. 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.
insane_dreamer 1y ago
Which data? Citations please.

> BARDA is terminating 22 mRNA vaccine development investments because the data show these vaccines fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like COVID and flu.

650REDHAIR 1y ago

The problem is that I don’t believe RFK jr and therefore I don’t believe HHS. How accurate is their data? Was it manipulated?

j3th9n 1y ago
Good questions to always ask. But better late than never. Welcome to the matrix.
yakz 1y ago
They didn’t trust the government and wanted you to stop trusting the government too. 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 1y ago

It's a good thing Shockley gave up on the transistor, it never would've been able to switch as much current as a relay, or switch as quickly as a vacuum tube. 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.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
wk_end 1y ago
With the caveats that 1) I suspect that this isn't actually data-driven as RFK Jr. is an anti-vax nut and 2) personally I think the government should fund vaccine development: 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 1y ago
  it will be government funded, but just not our government, and not in our universities
- quadhome 1y ago
  AIUI early transistor research was funded by public (defense) grants. And Bell Labs was definitely government supported, if not outright government funded.

text0404 1y ago

when you think of scientific research, do you imagine someone having an immediate eureka moment in a vacuum and writing a paper without having ever considered a problem before? do you understand that scientific progress takes years of dedication, hard work, trial and error, and then finally (occasionally) success? 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 1y ago
As a published researcher operating outside traditional academia, I find this rhetoric somewhat tiresome, as it overlooks the systemic interplay between public funding, academic training, and industrial commercialization in scientific advancement. 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.

insane_dreamer 1y ago

Which data? Citations please.