Trump administration fires CDC 'disease detectives' as bird flu fears rise

When this next pandemic arrives, and it will, the US will have only itself to blame.

Unfortunately both co-presidents have a long history of being called on wrong doings during the pandemic, so their desire to take revenge on the pesky experts that criticized them takes absolute priority. Tuberculosis, Measles, two types of Flu (and whatever comes next) will spread and kill unnecessarily thanks to this.

Some of this work could move into the US university system to keep it going. Some US unis are very well endowed. Once the costs and consequences of the policies of Presidents Trump and Musk hit home, you won't see many Republicans in office for a while, and normal service can be restored. Wrecking ball politics grabs headlines but the inevitable consequences don't go down well as they play out over time, as with Brexit. The more the damage, the less popular they will eventually be. Karma, bros. Karma.

The number of contracts that must be being broken by all this has to be quite high. I doubt there was any small print mentioning MAGA or tech bros in them, so each and every party who has lost out has a claim. The US government isn't a business that has gone bust, so it will have to cough up compensation.

With the way covid was handled, I can't imagine most people having any faith in the CDC.

So yes, get rid of the captured staff, and hire honest people with integrity.

Good

I had the same feeling when one day I decided to just clean my house and throw away stuff except barebones necessity. Boy, was the high exhilarating.

The next week I was doomed.

Some of this work could move into the US university system to keep it going

Already gutted with the measures that make it impossible to grant any funds necessary. Not to mention that even if this was possible it would take many years to be put in order in any way that resemble the usefulness it has right now.

With the way covid was handled, I can't imagine most people having any faith in the CDC.

As the evidence of hospitalizations and death the problems with how the pandemic was handled in the US depend much more on people having antiscientific beliefs related to political positions than what the CDC did, if anything the argument is that the less people listened to what the CDC recommended the worst they did.

Good

According to the people that work against disease and for public health this is not good. Except of course for international pharmaceutical companies, that are already projecting huge increases in profit.

Already gutted with the measures that make it impossible to grant any funds necessary. 

Totally untrue baseless claim.

Another stupid and very bad idea in a long list of stupid and very bad ideas from Trump 2.0.

Totally untrue baseless claim.

This is well reported and a big part why scientists have complained about the impossibility to conduct research, there is nothing false about it.

https://www.science.org/content/article/nih-slashes-overhead-payments-research-sparking-outrage

Or as the reference clearly reports

The abrupt change represents “a nuclear bomb on university budgets,” says Morgan Polikoff, an education researcher at the University of Southern California. “I mean, listen, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out. They’re just trying to hurt universities.”

The losses the CDC is taking would take years to be fully corrected even if the measures were rescinded today, even longer if their responsibilities could be taken by universities (since it would not be centralized), but since universities are being gutted as well there is just nobody that could rescue the functionality.

This is well reported and a big part why scientists have complained about the impossibility to conduct research, there is nothing false about it.

The article says nothing about universities being gutted, as you claimed, so it is a baseless claim.

The losses the CDC is taking would take years to be fully corrected even if the measures were rescinded today, even longer if their responsibilities could be taken by universities (since it would not be centralized), but since universities are being gutted as well there is just nobody that could rescue the functionality.

Again, this is just your opinion, unsupported by any facts.

The losses the CDC is taking would take years to be fully corrected even if the measures were rescinded today, even longer if their responsibilities could be taken by universities (since it would not be centralized), but since universities are being gutted as well there is just nobody that could rescue the functionality.

This is fact uknownothing LOL

The article says nothing about universities being gutted, as you claimed, so it is a baseless claim.

The quote is there to prove it, I can easily copy-paste it again, there is no point in pretending not being able to read it.

The abrupt change represents “a nuclear bomb on university budgets,” says Morgan Polikoff, an education researcher at the University of Southern California. “I mean, listen, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out. They’re just trying to hurt universities.”

Again, this is just your opinion, unsupported by any facts.

Is an argument and it reflects the content of the article without problem, as it says:

"The Epidemic Intelligence Service is one of the most storied and prestigious programs of the CDC," infectious disease physician Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at Johns Hopkins University told AFP. "Any attempts to end this program will directly impact the national and health security of the U.S."

Do you have any argument against it? without any argument it means it is still a valid representation of the problem.

The abrupt change represents “a nuclear bomb on university budgets,” says Morgan Polikoff, an education researcher at the University of Southern California. “I mean, listen, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out. They’re just trying to hurt universities.”

Again, you claimed Already gutted with the measures that make it impossible to grant any funds necessary.

Nowhere in the article is "gutted" or "impossible to grant any funds" mentioned.

Nowhere.

Nowhere in the article is "gutted" or "impossible to grant any funds" mentioned.

It does, the quoted text makes this clear and explicit, but it is not even the only part

“This is a surefire way to cripple lifesaving research and innovation,”

“This would have the most dramatic alteration on research in the United States that one has seen in decades... indirect costs are critical to paying for research infrastructure.” 

When grants are insufficient to pay for the necessary infrastructure to do research that means universities no longer get those funds, because they can't be included as direct or indirect costs, this is not that hard to understand.

It does, the quoted text makes this clear and explicit, but it is not even the only part 

“This is a surefire way to cripple lifesaving research and innovation,”

“This would have the most dramatic alteration on research in the United States that one has seen in decades... indirect costs are critical to paying for research infrastructure.” 

When grants are insufficient to pay for the necessary infrastructure to do research that means universities no longer get those funds, because they can't be included as direct or indirect costs, this is not that hard to understand.

Nowhere is "already gutted" mentioned, even though you made this baseless claim.

When grants are insufficient to pay for the necessary infrastructure to do research that means universities no longer get those funds,

Nowhere in the article--your source, is "insufficient" even written.

Nowhere is "already gutted" mentioned, even though you made this baseless claim.

Wait, so your new argument is about writing exactly the specific words? is that what you are arguing now?

Because that is too obviously meritless, when the reference explicitly calls the measure an attack to universities that cripples them, and make research impossible because it takes out a critical part of the funding, that is the same meaning.

Pretending that only the exact wording can convey the same meaning is not even an excuse, much less an argument.

Wait, so your new argument is about writing exactly the specific words? is that what you are arguing now?

You are making one argument, then using a source that does not support your claims.

Find a source that mentions Already gutted with the measures that make it impossible to grant any funds necessary. 

If you can'T, then you are just making a baseless claim.

You are making one argument, then using a source that does not support your claims.

As explained it completely does, your new argument was that it needed to use the exact words, which is too obviously nonsensical. You have not been able to refute any of the quoted texts as supportive of the claim being made.

The source is clear and explicit, so much that you need to completely ignore the quotes to criticize it, that means it do prove the original comment was not false in any way.

As explained it completely does, your new argument was that it needed to use the exact words, which is too obviously nonsensical. You have not been able to refute any of the quoted texts as supportive of the claim being made.

I've refuted you stated one thing, nonsensical at that, and then you present a source that says another thing.

The source is clear and explicit,

What's the fallacy called when someone says "It is so because I say it is!"?

Come on . . .

so much that you need to completely ignore the quotes to criticize it, that means it do prove the original comment was not false in any way.

I'm completely focused on the quotes that are completely different from what you wrote. Why use a source that doesn't even substantiate your claim???

I've refuted you stated one thing, nonsensical at that, and then you present a source that says another thing.

Not at all, your current position is that the specific terminology is necessary to convey the same meaning, which is nonsense.

What's the fallacy called when someone says "It is so because I say it is!"?

You mean the fallacy when someone tries to ignore the quoted text from a well recognized source that proves the claim just because it does not use exactly the same words?

I'm completely focused on the quotes that are completely different from what you wrote.

Not at all, you have not mentioned even once, much less argued how they convey a different meaning.

Once again you are just claiming they say something different, but without proving it with any argument.

They do clearly prove the point.

One more huge failure by Trump 2.0.

The destruction from within of the USA continues at a frenetic pace. By the time Trump leaves office, if he can ever be pried away again, America will be a basket case and possibly be a third world country when it comes to medical, trade and government processes.

It is hard to fathom the damage being done with no understanding of consequences to the people of America. It is almost like they voted to remove and arm and a leg, yet wonder why things are now wobbly.

Much worse to come in the near future.

It is almost like they voted to remove and arm and a leg, yet wonder why things are now wobbly.

I think a lot of americans know exactly why things are getting wobbly and are either terrified or coldly fatalistic.

Then there's a good part of Americans who are slowly realizing they made a huge mistake and deeply regret it.

Making America stupid again, as rapidly as possible.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-cancels-science-reviews-at-nih-worlds-largest-public-biomedical/

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/science-research-policy/2025/02/03/how-trumps-executive-orders-are-disrupting

https://apnews.com/article/trump-academic-research-funding-cuts-lawsuit-nih-fcdad42b9623305dd7ad8db4cff5fc1d