Post New

Call your Republican reps and tell them “I DIDN’T VOTE FOR CANCER!”

https://gregpak.net/2025/02/08/call-your-republica...

Call your Republican reps and tell them “I DIDN’T VOTE FOR CANCER!”

https://gregpak.net/2025/02/08/call-your-republica... - Pucks

----------------

From the article.

The policy targets $9 billion in so-called indirect funds that the N.I.H. sends along with direct funds to support research into basic science and treatments for diseases ranging from cancer to Alzheimer’s to diabetes.

Lets study this. I have four concerns or lets call them missing details.

1 - The $9B is so called indirect funds. What this means to me is there is an open question whether we could be using indirect funding for NGO's doing some good work while also doing some bad work like was found at USAID. When you jump on me with "You don't know that", I will agree with you but adding "neither do you, you just prefer to not have the spending looked at all, whereas I would like to find out."

2 - The $9B indirect is sent along with direct funds. So there is an unknown amount of funding that will go to these programs even if the entire $9B is cancelled which is nt a given."

3 - If the same agency is sourcing the indirect and the direct funds, it is suspicious that they don't just hand it all out as direct. The unnecessary introduction of indirect is a way to mask the true intent of the expenditures such as the same LGBTQ non-sense we have seen. BTW, Biden ordered every department to aggressively promote and fund his LGBTQ agenda. And the bureaucracy dutifully followed orders as it should. So we should expect aevey department to show history of LGBTQ Spending. But now, we have a President who has issued new orders. And he is checking to make sure the departments are thorough in implementing the new policy.

4 - Restating the excerpt from above so you don't have to scroll up as I make my fourth and final pithy observation

The policy targets $9 billion in so-called indirect funds that the N.I.H. sends along with direct funds to support research into basic science and treatments for diseases ranging from cancer to Alzheimer’s to diabetes.

See that word "ranging" in there. It allows for funding of every other disease known to man. Yet the article is written as if the entire $9B is being cut and cut from just Cancer and Alzheimers. More shock value that way but misleading. Finally, there is history to consider, lets not forget that it was the NIH that funded Fauci for years as he used a third party to funnel US Taxpayer money into Gain of Function research, research that Obama rightly had banned.

I didn't vote for any Republican reps, so they would probably ignore me. Though, I did vote for both of my senators.

1poorlady is a cancer survivor, and I got lucky that mine wasn't cancer (they thought it was...and that it would likely be terminal). And I'm sure they already oppose pretty much everything the Felon does. So, it won't help anything in my situation.

bighairymike: The unnecessary introduction of indirect is a way to mask the true intent of the expenditures such as the same LGBTQ non-sense we have seen.

Indirect funding maintains equipment and facilities and pays the support staff that keep labs functioning. In short, it's to pay the rent, the utilities, administrative salaries, office equipment and supplies and has nothing to do with the subject matter of a grant. Indirect funding accounted for about 26% of the grant money distributed last year.

The numbers are "soft" because they're often shared among research projects at a university or institution (for example, several different research projects may operate out of the same facility and share some of the facility expenses).

NIH grants are extremely good investments.

In 2023, NIH distributed about $35 billion through about 50,000 grants to over 300,000 researchers at universities, medical schools, and other research institutions.

Every dollar of NIH funding generated about $2.46 in economic activity.

For every $100 million of funding, research supported by NIH generates 76 patents, which produce 20% more economic value than other U.S. patents and create opportunities for about $600 million in future research and development.


bighairymike: See that word "ranging" in there. It allows for funding of every other disease known to man.

First, cancer research is the top area in which NIH grants are awarded.

Second, NIH grants are extremely hard to obtain. Only about 20% of applications succeed. Research proposals are evaluated first by a panel of scholarly peers and then, if they pass that level, go before an advisory council which might ask for additional information before awarding a grant.

Once awarded and accepted, an NIH grant carries strict requirements for reporting and auditing, as well as record retention.

Finally, this is an area of particular interest for me personally right now. I spent Christmas Eve in the hospital being biopsied and the pathology results were delivered by my physician the day after Christmas: metastatic stage 4 cancer, later cofirmed by PET scan. Surgery is not an option. Prior to this diagnosis, I had never felt better physically or emotionally in my life. I was strong, fit, and happy. The test score that referred me to a specialist was normal but it's change from a year ago was too high (the velocity of change). I was lucky my primary care physician flagged it and made the referral.

I began an aggressive multi-pronged treatment program and had my first of six rounds of chemotherapy ten days ago. If this aggressive treatment plan is successful, I have a 62% chance of being alive in 5 years. So, a coin toss. Currently, there is no cure.

My only hope of long-term survivability is successful cancer research. Period.

Your eagerness to condemn me and people like me to death because you falsely believe that indirect funding somehow makes it's magical way into LGBTQ or transgender "leftist agenda" research and the thunderous applause heard from the right for capping the permitted amount of indirect funding at a crippling 15% is -- given the economic data provided above -- disheartening at best.


https://vpresearch.louisiana.edu/pre-award/buildin...

Your eagerness to condemn me and people like me to death because you falsely believe that indirect funding somehow makes it's magical way into LGBTQ or transgender "leftist agenda" research - CO

------------------

How does eliminating whatever LGBTQ funding, that can be identified, diminish the funds available for Cancer Research? If that slice of funding is going into LGBTQ agendas then it isn't getting into Cancer Research anyway, so if it is cut, you won't miss it. You should be glad to save some US Taxpayer dollars, yet you scream reflexively that any cut will kill children.

There likely will be other spending that demands a question, "what's that for?" Yet the liberals only focus is on the data collection process and remain completely dismissive of what was found in the data collected. Remember Joe issued a CO ordering the promotion and funding of DEI initiatives throughout every agency. So we should expect there exists some DEI funding in every agency but when DOGE finds some you immediately go into protect all funding mode.

How does eliminating whatever LGBTQ funding, that can be identified, diminish the funds available for Cancer Research? If that slice of funding is going into LGBTQ agendas then it isn't getting into Cancer Research

I can tell you exactly how that happens, and it happens for good reasons.

When a pharmaceutical drug trial is run, care must be exercised by the investigators to recruit study subjects representative of a wide range of racial/gender, LGTBTQ populations- not for ANY DEI reasons, but for scientific/ investigative reasons. Why?
Because many pharmaceuticals act differently with males and females. Some interact with certain genetic types differently than with others.

The first thing that comes to mind (remembering back to 1991-2003 when I served on an Institutional Review Board at UTMB and reviewed and discussed about 25 new experimental protocols a month) was the issue of proper dosage). How do they determine proper dosages for males v females? Or even if females or males can safely take a drug, or even whether or not the drug is effective?

Through the various phases of clinical trials.

There are actually drugs that have been discovered to be effective only within a population that shares a specific genetic characteristic.

How are these things discovered- by running the various phases of clinical drug trials and by meticulously analyzing the clinical and statistical results- and by recruiting various study populations large enough to provide statistically significant results.

During the nineties when I served on an IRB, there were large numbers of cancer protocols, but also a large number of HIV/AIDS protocols, and this involved protocols that contained targeted strategies to recruit study subjects within the LGBTQ community and IV drug users. Shock! Scientists are out there recruiting homosexuals to receive study drugs!

Obviously- some genetic characteristics or sexual identities must form the exclusive pool of study subjects for many experimental protocols.

If the underlying disease is sickle cell anemia, only black folks are going to be recruited to be study subjects.
DEI! DEI! DEI!

If the disease is ovarian cancer- only females

Prostate cancer? Only males

So yes, Clinical drug trials involve a LOT of recruiting of various populations and subpopulations, and even having recruitment quotas in order to satisfy the statistical wonks who will reject a protocol if a particular study population is too small to provide a statistically significant conclusion.

Perfect fodder for an ignorant engineer looking for DEI under every bush, particularly an engineer who is a billionaire and thinks of himself as an expert on everything

So yes, Clinical drug trials involve a LOT of recruiting of various populations and subpopulations, and even having recruitment quotas in order to satisfy the statistical wonks who will reject a protocol if a particular study population is too small to provide a statistically significant conclusion. - Bill

---------------

Fine with me, recruit all the biological males and biological females you need for your study. Who they sleep with should not be factor and maybe it isn't in the cancer research wing of the NIH. Males and Females, you said it yourself right here,

"How do they determine proper dosages for males v females? Or even if females or males can safely take a drug, or even whether or not the drug is effective?"

So your conclusion is to stop looking. My desire is to keep looking not solely for DEI but for any apparent waste or abuse that then can be questioned; then if he further questioning reveals a lack of sufficient justification, its funding can be cut back or cancelled.

Remember also, this is the NIH we are talking about, so the audit spans a much larger scope than just Cancer Research. Remember somewhere else in the vast corridors at NIH an unelected bureaucrat is making Multi Million Dollar decisions to allocate Taxpayer funds to various programs. It is important that we root out any funding for research that has been outlawed. That sort of abuse not only is a waste of money, but also it is not compliant with US Policy.

It's not just grants either, contractors are a fertile area where abuse can languish for years when no one is looking. There are many areas that need to be looked at, leasing rental space that is not or seldom used for example. But your side doesn't even want to look, which puzzles me.

BHM asks, “ How does eliminating whatever LGBTQ funding, that can be identified, diminish the funds available for Cancer Research? "

Pay attention. He just told you what “indirect costs” are. When you apply for a federal grant (or for pretty much any kind of grant, which I did numerous times during 39 years as a research scientist at a major university), “direct costs” do not include maintaining capital equipment, utilities, nonresearch support staff, and the like. Rather than attempt the impossible task of allocating all of those very real costs across potentially hundreds of grants, they’re folded into indirect costs according to mutually agreeable rules. It doesn’t include “LGBTQ agendas” or any such bullshit.

These actions are part of a know-nothing campaign of revenge and retribution against centers of expertise and excellence, period.

If the underlying disease is sickle cell anemia, only black folks are going to be recruited to be study subjects.

Nit: I believe SCD can affect non blacks too though right? Or at least some who don't identify as black.

https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/sickle-cell-disea...

Pay attention. He just told you what “indirect costs” are. - MisterFungI

------------------

You pay attention. I did not know what indirect costs were, speculated what that distinction could mean, had it explained to me what it really was, an explanation that seemed reasonable, an explanation I did not dispute.

What we are left with is a giant amount of Taxpayer money being spent every year by the NIH, most of which will be shown to be entirely useful and beneficial, but the agency still needs to be audited. The NIH is not being singled out, all spending by all agencies will have their turn. And questionable expenditures are not limited to DEI, waste can occur in service contracts, space rental, excessive or luxury travel, funding of outlawed Gain of Function Research, and so on.

I see benefit and prefer the comprehensive audits continue, ideally with the full cooperation of the agencies leadership like we have at the DOD.

Is it your position that all spending is justified and none of it should be questioned, ever? I am puzzled there is such strident opposition expressed by so many liberals and maybe you are not one of them. Put it in your own words if you want to.

What we are left with is a giant amount of Taxpayer money being spent every year by the NIH, most of which will be shown to be entirely useful and beneficial, but the agency still needs to be audited.

Who has promulgated that no audits should be performed?

I encourage audits, especially when done by professional auditors, as opposed to political hacks.

Who has promulgated that no audits should be performed?

I encourage audits, especially when done by professional auditors, as opposed to political hacks.

IGs? IGs? Whatever happened to the IGs?

Oh……. Nevermind.

BHM says, “Is it your position that all spending is justified and none of it should be questioned, ever? I am puzzled there is such strident opposition expressed by so many liberals…”

I see that at two “other liberals” have already replied to you, so I won’t repeat what they said. I’ll only add that what’s being done now isn’t even remotely an “audit.”

I and others here are stridently opposed to the imminent threats to national security and the health and welfare of our fellow citizens that are a direct consequence of the blatantly unconstitutional actions of the current regime.

IGs? IGs? Whatever happened to the IGs? - bill

-------------------

I will tell you what happened, the IG's were not independent and with their reports, as well as their very employment, are subject to the whims of the agencies they audit. And, don't get into the literalist crap that IG's are not the actual auditor, they employ auditors. OK, such attempts as diversion don't change the underlying lack of independence problem. We need to adopt the Dope Plan for an Independent IG Corp. And I add that not only should Independent IG's be supported, but that we need way more than 17, how about a hundred to start with.

So I am all for a beefy team of IG's that can actually audit and have their results heard without redaction or censorship. But I am not in favor of restoral of what was the status quo.

BHM says, "I will tell you what happened, the IG's were not independent and with their reports, as well as their very employment, are subject to the whims of the agencies they audit. ...So I am all for a beefy team of IG's that can actually audit and have their results heard without redaction or censorship."

You are factually in error. People here have told you this, multiple times, but you persist. You could take 30 seconds to google the facts yourself.

<<Are IGs independent?

Yes, IGs are independent. While by law, IG's are under the general supervision of the agency head or deputy, neither the agency head nor the deputy can prevent or prohibit an IG from conducting an audit or investigation.

The IGs are authorized to:

have direct access to all records and information of the agency,
have ready access to the agency head,
conduct such investigations and issue such reports as the IG thinks appropriate (with limited national security and law enforcement exceptions),
issue subpoenas for information and documents outside the agency (with same limited exceptions),
administer oaths for taking testimony, and
hire and control their own staff and contract resources.>>

Source: https://www.ignet.gov/content/frequently-asked-que...

Also, IG reports are public documents. You could read them yourself. For example:
https://oig.hhs.gov/documents/sar/10084/Fall_2024_...

The "sources" of what you believe to be true are lying to you. The facts are likely to be uncomfortable to you, at first. Your choice.

The "sources" of what you believe to be true are lying to you. The facts are likely to be uncomfortable to you, at first. Your choice.

--------------------

Saying it don't make it so. As an employee, you are beholden to the guy who performs your conducts your performance reviews; recommends you for promotions or not; authorizes pay increases or not; authorizes travel or not. You are naive in my opinion if you don't recognize this.

And BTW, what exactly is the basis for your dismissal of the idea of an IG Corp? Don't bother if the reason is a vague, overused, "Because it will destroy our country". Your side projects that only restoring the status quo can save us. That may sell well in progressive bubbles but not so much on main street.

Yes, IGs are independent. While by law, IG's are under the general supervision of the agency head or deputy,

Yeah, thanks for making my point. They've done so well at spotting waste, fraud and abuse the Pentagon with the exception of the Marine Corps has failed its last 7 or something audits.

No one claimed you couldn't read IG documents although audits of classified programs would be another story.

Mike nailed it (and you). You people are merely arguing for the status quo and aren't offering any ways forward.

"I will tell you what happened, the IG's were not independent and with their reports, as well as their very employment, are subject to the whims of the agencies they audit. And, don't get into the literalist crap that IG's are not the actual auditor, they employ auditors. OK, such attempts as diversion don't change the underlying lack of independence problem. We need to adopt the Dope Plan for an Independent IG Corp. And I add that not only should Independent IG's be supported, but that we need way more than 17, how about a hundred to start with.

So I am all for a beefy team of IG's that can actually audit and have their results heard without redaction or censorship. But I am not in favor of restoral of what was the status quo." - BHM

Do you ever get tired of people taking advantage of your ignorance and making you look like an idiot by filling your head with nonsense?

I am guessing no because it happens over and over and over and over........

Do you ever get tired of people taking advantage of your ignorance and making you look like an idiot by filling your head with nonsense?

I am guessing no because it happens over and over and over and over........

Oh dear Umm, this is one of your copy and paste lines. You’re becoming very boring.
Please get some new put down lines so I can laugh at you instead of groaning, oh no,
not the same old material again.

BHM says, "I will tell you what happened, the IG's were not independent and with their reports, as well as their very employment, are subject to the whims of the agencies they audit. ...So I am all for a beefy team of IG's that can actually audit and have their results heard without redaction or censorship."

WRONG!

But you think that Musk and DOGE are 'independent'? That is NUTS. And that is who is calling the shots now and if they do replace the IGs they will be like every other corrupt stooge in this administration, worthless sycophants.

But you think that Musk and DOGE are 'independent'? - ges

--------------

I think you know from the context of the thread, I was talking about IG Corp independence from the agencies they audit.

And sure, they will replaced by a bunch of Trump sycophants sworn to speed up taking over the country. Ask Maxine Waters, she knows.

BHM again: “Saying it don’t make it so.”

Saying it? I gave you links to official government information. Here’s a link to the Act that established the Office of Inspector General. What you say you want already exists, has for a long time, and does what you say you would like it to do. But you won’t accept that fact because doing so might upset your pretend-world.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%...

Also, as 1poorguy noted, the stuff you wrote about Presidential veto power is gibberish.

Enough. I’m heading out now at age 75 to run 12 miles as I train to raise money to help some folks in need. You go watch some more Fox “News” or whatever.

Saying it don't make it so.

Nope. And the reply to this post so beautifully sums up so many of our friends here - he doesn't understand what you're saying so he goes back to left wing arrogance. Along with a humble brag about whatever they do all day (which for sure isn't following current events).

"Oh dear Umm, this is one of your copy and paste lines. You’re becoming very boring.
Please get some new put down lines so I can laugh at you instead of groaning, oh no,
not the same old material again." - LM

I bet deep down inside you think you are a nice person.......

Post New

Macroeconomic Trends and Risks FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.