4 ms·
American Academy of Pediatrics loses HHS funding after criticizing RFK Jr.
- voxadam 10mo agohttps://archive.is/ntMtT https://archive.is/ntMtT
- etchalon 10mo agoThe era of petty government.
- Hikikomori 10mo agoBig and petty.
- jmclnx 10mo agoWhat a country, looks like yet another lawsuit for cancelling already allocated funds.
- robomartin 10mo agoInterested in having a greater understanding of the matter. Can anyone point to the HHS order/action/documentation for this?
- arjie 10mo agoAlso, if someone can share a process for reliably getting these. One of the mentioned grants is here https://www.grants.gov/search-results-detail/340378 https://www.grants.gov/search-results-detail/340378 But that page does not seem to have been updated yet.
- klaff 10mo agoHow many people will this administration kill?
- db48x 10mo ago[flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago> American Academy of Pediatrics treats nobody. At best it’s a lobbyist group In their FYE 2025, the AAP spent 6% and 3% of its $113mm budget on advocacy and membership, respectively [1]. Most of its money goes to child health activities (43%), educational publishing (30%) and education activities (14%). [1] https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP%20Financial%20Statements_FY25_Final.pdf https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP%20Financial%20Statemen...
- db48x 10mo agoNature of Business The mission of the American Academy of Pediatrics (the Academy) is to obtain optimal … health and well-being for all …. The Academy seeks to promote this goal by encouraging and assisting its members in their efforts …, by providing support and counsel …, and by serving as an advocate … within the community at large. They don’t actually treat anybody. They spend $28 million a year on salaries and benefits for people who advocate for improving children’s health, not on treating children. And then some more on offices and software for those advocates to use, for meals and meetings attended by those employees, postage, freight, etc, etc. None of that is related to treating people.
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago> They don’t actually treat anybody Neither does a pathologist. Or, more removed, anyone in research. Not everyone in medicine who doesn’t see patients is fluff. I’m open to the idea that they’re a BS organisation. But saying they’re upstream from patient care is naïvely obvious; not every engineer is a car mechanic.
- db48x 10mo agoI agree that it’s obvious, which is why I disagreed with someone who said that this decision would “kill” people. They clearly can’t tell the difference.
- qiqitori 10mo agoHe also drove his ex-wife into depression, who later committed suicide.
- viccis 10mo agoThe brain worm thing, as much as people think it's a funny stupid little story, was a lie he told to avoid paying any alimony when he divorced her.
- raverbashing 10mo agoNah my guess is that it was probably real, obtained from eating undercooked game
- ortusdux 10mo agoYeah IIRC it was diagnosed from a brain scan, which would make it easily fact-checked during discovery in a contentious divorce.
- lovich 10mo ago[flagged]
- croes 10mo agoThey will just say free speech doesn’t mean free of consequences
- outside1234 10mo agoAnd then that they aren't going to hold anyone accountable
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- lovich 10mo agoI know, I was mocking them. They’ve been liars from the start who always start screeching the second their thin skin is tested. They desire the ability to say the most atrocious shit to anyone without consequences but then want anyone who questions them immediately silenced. Meeting a self described “free speech absolutist” with principles is as rare as meeting a self described libertarian with principles
- kr99x 10mo agoHello. I would not trust any corporation (sometimes it's profitable to remove something so they retain control of some market) or government (sometimes it secures their power to keep people unaware of some facts about their actions) to only censor what is "truly" good for us to have censored. Why would anybody? The free exchange of ideas is a prerequisite for a just world. You cannot build one without it, because to build a just world you must change what is unjust. To change what is unjust, you must remove power from those who unjustly hold it. You can't do that if you can't communicate the injustice. If you place limits on the free exchange of ideas "just for this one really bad thing" then you have forfeited your own future ability to resist when a good and true idea is wrongfully labelled harmful by powerful and corrupt figures. Every single authoritarian regime in history has made speaking ill of the leadership a crime, because speech control is powerful. The power to ban information is too great to be entrusted to any authority at all. Depending on how thorough the "ban" (web text filter at the ISP level? mandatory AR implants at birth filtering banned content? worse?), it's anywhere from an abhorrent violation of human rights and the principles behind scientific inquiry all the way up through literally the most powerful weapon which could even theoretically be designed. Must we burn this book? No. The answer is always no. I am in favor of extremely strong free speech, legally and more importantly morally, because there is simply no acceptable alternative.
- buran77 10mo agoHell of an opportunity to choose to not think of the children all of a sudden.
- tpoacher 10mo ago[flagged]
- wat10000 10mo agoWhat nuance? HHS is run by a completely unqualified jackass who is trying to carry out a war against the most effective medical interventions ever devised. There’s no other side to this.
- lovich 10mo agoyou can always add to the discussion and be the agent of change to help improve the situation. I'm with the other poster though, there is no nuance here. Sometimes a spade is just a spade, and the HHS is being run by an incompetent jackass with literal insane beliefs about reality who is now forcing those beliefs on us
- Madmallard 10mo agoWhere is Dang? Or the other staff? The comments here are embarassing to read as a long time member of HN. The next generation is bringing regression to the mean a little too hard here.
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago23% of the AAP’s revenue comes from grants and pledges [1], and their $100mm in investments could cover the shortfall for up to three years if all $28.5mm of that is HHS. A crisis, for sure. But not an urgent one. The AAP can fight. To that end: 1) Does the AAP have a case that RFK Jr. acted unconstitutionally? 2) Were these “grants…previously awarded” in a binding nature? Or does the government sign grants with a get-out-of-jail-free clause? 3) Is Senator John Barasso, a pediatrician, a dues-paying member of the AAP? [1] https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP%20Financial%20Statements_FY25_Final.pdf https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP%20Financial%20Statemen...
- rtollert 10mo agoMy recollection (apologies, I'm not able to turn up a citation on this) is that the AAP has not really shied away from gripping ideological third rails with both hands; they've taken very liberal-leaning positions on abortion rights, gun violence, trans healthcare, etc. (Of course, depending on how you look at things, such policy positions might appear either partisan or nonpartisan.) I would be surprised if Sen. Barasso were a member.
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago> I would be surprised if Sen. Barasso were a member Hmm, I think you’re correct.
- HardwareLust 10mo agoWhy is this flagged?