U.S. gov't restores some medical research grants, says top Trump official

Restoring the grants after an appeal is not the same as admitting that they had gone too far.

Restoring the grants after an appeal is not the same as admitting that they had gone too far.

Yes it is, they are recognizing they cut things that they should not and going back. The full consequences of gutting out the NIH are far from being yet evident, but enough are becoming clear to the point of a backlash that surpasses doctors and scientists, so Bhattacharya had to go back and at least pretend to restore something.

It is still of course too soon to see if this is actually a significant step or how much of the damage is going to be restored, but at least it is clear now that the scientific community is against Trump and the obviously incapable people that were put in charge.

Restoring the grants after an appeal is not the same as admitting that they had gone too far.

Yes it is, they are recognizing they cut things that they should not and going back.

No it isn't. Perhaps they had not made their case that the research deserved funding.

No it isn't. Perhaps they had not made their case that the research deserved funding.

Of course they did not, because Bhattacharya never gave that chance, now he is backtracking in view of the universal condemnation from the scientific circles and even from the public in general. Unfortunately it is too late to reverse all the damage and it is not even likely the backtracking will be significative, but it is a sign that they completely overdid their hand.

No it isn't. Perhaps they had not made their case that the research deserved funding.

Of course they did not, because Bhattacharya never gave that chance

He didn't? So why did he set up an appeal process?

Why shouldn't he "make sure that we do the research that advances the health needs of the American people"?

He didn't? So why did he set up an appeal process?

Because he needed to backtrack so he made a process to do it, it should be extremely clear. He is being forced to give that chance by the reaction to the destruction, he went too far and now has to go back and pretend that was not the intention from the very beginning.

Why shouldn't he "make sure that we do the research that advances the health needs of the American people"?

According to US and international experts that is not what he is doing, he is destroying one of the most important advantages the US had for meaningless political gains. He is pushing ideology to take the place of evidence based interventions.

If anyone is interested in hearing Bhattacharya explain what he's doing at the NIH, he recently went on the Huberman podcast. Beats reading misrepresentations built on a few short cherry picked quotes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y_PxTxLFVg

If anyone is interested in hearing Bhattacharya explain what he's doing at the NIH, he recently went on the Huberman podcast. Beats reading misrepresentations built on a few short cherry picked quotes.

There is no misrepresentation about his declarations, if anything he is the one misrepresenting himself and what he is doing, which ended up with the Bethesda Declaration (signed by actually respected scientists and doctors) to criticize what he does according to Bhattacharya own actions.

Huberman is just another example of how prioritizing profits can easily make scientists devolve into deeply unprofessional, unethical people that willingly lie and misrepresent things for popularity or money. It is not surprising that he gives a space for Bhattacharya to try and disguise his actions as rational without any criticism whatsoever, a safe space to try and mislead people.

https://slate.com/technology/2024/03/andrew-huberman-huberman-lab-health-advice-podcast-debunk.html

https://www.vox.com/technology/24127540/huberman-lab-science-misleading-information-andrew-huberman-podcasts-joe-rogan-health-medicine

If anyone is interested in hearing Bhattacharya explain what he's doing at the NIH, he recently went on the Huberman podcast. Beats reading misrepresentations built on a few short cherry picked quotes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y_PxTxLFVg

Good interview, thanks!

Good interview

It is the opposite of a good interview, very important topics (suchs as the evident lack of scientific quality on Bhattacharya works) are never mentioned, and claims transparently false are left unchallenged, as said before this is just a well known grifter giving support to another one that would never dare to give a real interview.