3 ms·

They cut much more than DEI programs. They aggressively and ignorantly cut jobs and grants which could have benefited the planet and saved lives. https://airta

by daheza 3mo ago

They cut much more than DEI programs. They aggressively and ignorantly cut jobs and grants which could have benefited the planet and saved lives. https://airtable.com/appjhyo9NTvJLocRy/shrNto1NNp9eJlgpA?Ffj6Q=allRecords https://airtable.com/appjhyo9NTvJLocRy/shrNto1NNp9eJlgpA?Ffj...

yandie 3mo ago
This government thinks bike lanes are DEI: https://newrepublic.com/post/212853/donald-trump-transportation-secretary-bike-lanes-dei https://newrepublic.com/post/212853/donald-trump-transportat... They just slap DEI on any policy they disagree with.
0xy 3mo ago
NIH funded gain-of-function research into coronaviruses in Wuhan via grants issued to EcoHealth Alliance. Which, even if you do not think lab leak theory is likely, is extremely reckless and incompetent. So, at best, they're funding illegal research. At worst, their research inadvertently led to millions of deaths and trillions in economic damage. Exactly how many grants are necessary to make up for that, and why would you trust the agency issuing grants for illegal research to manage such a program?
- thunderfork 3mo ago
  >NIH funded gain-of-function research into coronaviruses in Wuhan Even this assertion is heavily, heavily disputed: https://web.archive.org/web/20210706065130/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/18/fact-checking-senator-paul-dr-fauci-flap-over-wuhan-lab-funding/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210706065130/https://www.washi...
  - 0xy 3mo ago
    Disputed by the person who approved the funding and has a major conflict of interest? The research clearly qualifies as gain-of-function, as natural viruses' functions were modified. >Richard Ebright, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University and a critic of gain-of-function research, told the Washington Post that the EcoHealth/Wuhan lab research “was — unequivocally — gain-of-function research.” He said it “met the definition for gain-of-function research of concern under the 2014 Pause.”.
    - thunderfork 3mo ago
      From the article text of its conclusion: "the EcoHealth funding was not related to the experiments, but the collection of samples." Pretty cut and dry?

by daheza 3mo ago

yandie 3mo ago

This government thinks bike lanes are DEI: https://newrepublic.com/post/212853/donald-trump-transportation-secretary-bike-lanes-dei https://newrepublic.com/post/212853/donald-trump-transportat... They just slap DEI on any policy they disagree with.

0xy 3mo ago

NIH funded gain-of-function research into coronaviruses in Wuhan via grants issued to EcoHealth Alliance. Which, even if you do not think lab leak theory is likely, is extremely reckless and incompetent. So, at best, they're funding illegal research. At worst, their research inadvertently led to millions of deaths and trillions in economic damage. Exactly how many grants are necessary to make up for that, and why would you trust the agency issuing grants for illegal research to manage such a program?

thunderfork 3mo ago
>NIH funded gain-of-function research into coronaviruses in Wuhan Even this assertion is heavily, heavily disputed: https://web.archive.org/web/20210706065130/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/18/fact-checking-senator-paul-dr-fauci-flap-over-wuhan-lab-funding/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210706065130/https://www.washi...
- 0xy 3mo ago
  Disputed by the person who approved the funding and has a major conflict of interest? The research clearly qualifies as gain-of-function, as natural viruses' functions were modified. >Richard Ebright, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University and a critic of gain-of-function research, told the Washington Post that the EcoHealth/Wuhan lab research “was — unequivocally — gain-of-function research.” He said it “met the definition for gain-of-function research of concern under the 2014 Pause.”.
  - thunderfork 3mo ago
    From the article text of its conclusion: "the EcoHealth funding was not related to the experiments, but the collection of samples." Pretty cut and dry?