AcidicBasicGlitch

joined 1 week ago
[–] AcidicBasicGlitch@lemm.ee 10 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Nah, unless some things change very quickly, he will want to make retaliation against famous political enemies very public

Falling out of windows will be reserved for lesser known journalists, citizens, and even Republican law makers that dare to speak out against any of his policies.

I imagine famous political enemies at best night experience something like Putin's wet dream from The 3rd empire novel:

"representatives of the American elite: President [George] Bush III and former presidents Bill Clinton, Bush Junior, and Hillary Clinton; current and former members of the cabinet, the House, and the Senate; bankers and industrialists; newspaper commentators and television anchors; famous attorneys and top models; pop singers and Hollywood actresses. All of them passed through Red Square in shackles and with nameplates around their necks. … The Russian government was letting its own citizens and the whole world know that Russia had fought with and vanquished not only the American army but the American civilization."

Here is a snapshot of an Atlantic article from a few years ago about the novel. It seems to quite literally be Putin's playbook with some fanfiction about his deepest hopes and desires. The lady that wrote it is a professor in the U.S. that fled Russia and has been trying and failing to warn people about this book for years.

https://archive.is/CSBaa

[–] AcidicBasicGlitch@lemm.ee 12 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

There could be several people Trump has in mind for the first political enemy to be arrested, but my money would be on Anthony Fauci. They have been setting this guy up in a very elaborate way for years, but especially since last summer.

Below is a comment I made about the autopen pardon claim, but I'm just pasting it here so that more people can be aware of some facts before Trump starts making more bs claims to justify his bs policies:

Not sure if he has already said anything about the Fauci pardon, but almost certainly will be making the argument against him too.

I wrote about it a little in the post I made and plan to update with more information in a longer follow up post.

So Biden’s pardon to Fauci is backdated to 2014, the year the NIH issued pause on funding for gain of function (GOF) research. The pause was only meant to apply to research that increased the contagion or virulence of a pathogen with enhanced pandemic potential (ePPP).

From the time the notice was issued, many scientists were worried about the use of the term GOF because most virology and vaccine research involves what is by definition GOF research. Any modification of genetic material during an experiment could meet the definition of GOF. Whether it is traditional vaccine research where genetic alteration is used to increase yields for vaccine strains or even steps of genetic modification for mRNA vaccines which don’t require an inactive or weak pathogen to create a vaccine.

Anyway, this past summer during House Oversight COVID-19 Select Subcommitee Hearings into the NIH funding for the EcoHealth Alliance collaboration with Wuhan Institute of Virology, the subcommitee asked the deputy director of the NIH this question:

Rep Lesko: “Dr. Tabak, did NIH fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through EcoHealth?” Dr. Tabak: “It depends on your definition of gain-of-function research. If you’re speaking about the generic term, yes, we did…the generic term is research that goes on in many, many labs around the country. It is not regulated. And the reason it’s not regulated is it poses no threat or harm to anybody.” https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-nih-repeatedly-refutes-ecohealth-alliance-president-dr-peter-daszaks-testimony-tabak-testimony-reveals-federal-grant-procedures-in-need-of-serious-reform/

The Subcommitee claims this contradicts previous testimony given by Anthony Fauci. It seems pretty clear Fauci was referring to GOF as it was used in the 2014 NIH pause and Tabak was using it regarding the broad definition. However, the conclusion of many is that Fauci willingly misled the American public when he said the NIH does not support GOF research.

Biden has never acknowledged this is what the pardon was about, but it would be quite the coincidence if the 2014 backdate had nothing to do with this.

And of course the Heritage Foundation has jumped on to the we need to end dangerous GOF funding train https://www.heritage.org/public-health/commentary/president-trump-should-reinstate-president-obamas-moratorium-risky

Out of a concern for public safety of course.

 

Paywall but here is a snapshot link https://archive.is/pg4RA

"On the side, Mr. Davis pursued an economics doctorate and opened Mr. Yogato, a frozen yogurt shop that offered discounts to customers who answered trivia questions. He joined the board of the Atlas Society, a nonprofit dedicated to the teachings of the libertarian author Ayn Rand."

I just... this cannot be a real human. If Elon is surrounded by people like this, no wonder he believes everyone is a NPC.

[–] AcidicBasicGlitch@lemm.ee 2 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Also just need to add that I am so glad I started using lemmy. Without it, the death rattle of publicly available information and the internet would probably have been enough to make me give up any will to fight against the Broligarchy.

Finding so many people that have been way ahead of the game for years has motivated me to keep going even when you have to give up what's familiar and learn new ways around censorship

 

Hi, I am trying to access an NYT article from 2013 but for some reason it's unavailable on archive snapshot pages.

Are there any reliable alternatives I can check out or if anyone knows a different way to access this article could you please let me know: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/02/health/experts-scramble-to-trace-the-emergence-of-mers.html

Thanks!

 

Normally I use archive.is but oddly this NYT article I'm looking for isn't even available even though it's from 2013. It seems ridiculous to keep an article that's over a decade old behind a paywall.

Are there communities that help access paywalled information?

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/02/health/experts-scramble-to-trace-the-emergence-of-mers.html

Thanks!

[–] AcidicBasicGlitch@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago

And then when the billionaires are supposed to fight they just don't because Elon musk loves to run his mouth but knows even mark Zuckerberg could kick his ass

[–] AcidicBasicGlitch@lemm.ee 0 points 1 day ago

"Officially" he was a board member until 2020 when he left to avoid being investigated for a sexual harassment scandal

Unofficially there seems to be some indication he is still involved with decision making. Good thing rich people aren't able to use loopholes to buy press and hide their business interactions and finances. Otherwise we might be trapped in the lamest version of a cyberpunk dystopian nightmare.

https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft/bill-gates-still-backstage-manages-microsoft

 

Of fucking course. Fuck Bill Gates

I've been trying to call attention to his stupid fucking data centers for months. Musk built a constantly expanding data center in Memphis last summer, and then quietly built another in Atlanta back in February. He's got another in the works in the UK.

He's hoarding our data and hiring thousands of data annotators to create a giant database that he can charge access to for training AI or any number of evil things.

[–] AcidicBasicGlitch@lemm.ee 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think the lives are collateral damage. RFK Jr spouts all his BS about being anti vax bc of "big pharma" corruption.

Yet he had dinner with the CEO of Pfizer right before he was confirmed by the Senate. https://fortune.com/well/2025/02/04/pfizer-ceo-had-dinner-with-rfk-jr-cautiously-optimistic-despite-vaccine-controversy/

There is a very long convoluted story behind all of this going back to the COVID lab leak theory and the director of the CDC at the time Robert Redfield. That will be the focus of my next blog post, but he's been all over the news recently pushing the lab leak theory. Coincidentally he was also one of the two individuals that wrote the Heritage Foundation's praise of Trump's EO attacking vaccine research. https://www.heritage.org/public-health/commentary/president-trump-should-reinstate-president-obamas-moratorium-risky

It just so happened that article came out on Feb 13. Feb 14th, the HHS under RFK announces they are granting a Pharmaceutical company, Zoetis, a provisional patent for a bird flu vaccine. Zoetis is a spin off of Pfizer but allegedly fully independent.

Then on the 25th Pfizer and Zoetis shareholds suddenly peak in a very similar pattern, while Moderna shares take a tumble overnight (I cover all of this with images of the sock market trends in my blue sky post I linked in this post).

The morning of the 26th, HHS says they're considering pulling funds granted by Biden to Moderna for an mRNA bird flu vaccine. That same day senator Roger Marshall re-proposes a senate bill that would effectively end all public funding for vaccine research, making it completely privatized.

Meanwhile it turns out Pfizer and Moderna have been in a legal battle for mRNA vaccine patent rights in the U.S. and Germany. Then today the NIH starts telling researchers they can't include any mRNA references in federal grant submissions

So, the sicker and more desperate people are when a bird flu pandemic finally hits, the more they will be in complete control of a vaccine roll out. It will be completely private so they can charge as much as they want and make up whatever rules they want, and if we want vaccines we better play by their rules or tough shit.

Trump gets to make all the money he didn't get to make during COVID because of all that pesky NIH publicly funded science that made mRNA vaccine technology possible.

It's a win win for everyone involved in his administration and the giant pharmaceutical companies RFK allegedly despises.

[–] AcidicBasicGlitch@lemm.ee 3 points 2 days ago

😂 yeah I agree. I don't use bluesky very often so I wasn't sure what to call them. but I agree I really don't like the term skeet

 

Like I’m sure we all know profits are usually the true motivation behind this stuff but this lays it out step by step with news headlines explaining the how for each step. Just trying to make this publicly available knowledge. Even if we can’t stop them we should at least try to stay a few steps ahead

Also didn't include this one in the skeets but it's included in my blog post write up: RFK and Pfizer CEO had dinner just prior to his nomination https://fortune.com/well/2025/02/04/pfizer-ceo-had-dinner-with-rfk-jr-cautiously-optimistic-despite-vaccine-controversy/

Even though RFK allegedly despises big pharma corruption so much right 🙄 https://cepr.net/publications/big-pharma-is-corrupt/

[–] AcidicBasicGlitch@lemm.ee 2 points 2 days ago

I don't really use blue sky but here is my attempt to make a series of skeets(?) explaining exactly how they could be making a lot of money off of this https://bsky.app/profile/pimentomori123.bsky.social/post/3lkoogcqvo22o

Just hoping somebody points this out before we're in the thick of a bird flu pandemic

[–] AcidicBasicGlitch@lemm.ee 8 points 2 days ago

Hmm wonder what possibly could be motivating an attack against mRNA vaccine technology.

All references to mRNA vaccines should be scrubbed from future grant applications... As in no federal funding for mRNA vaccines. Which would leave only privately funded research with no public input or oversight/transparency.

 

Does a community exist to help people learn to spot more sophisticated bot activity and algorithm control on social media platforms. I was thinking of something where people could share screen shots of weird activity to warn others, similar to teaching people how to spot disinformation propaganda? Or a place where information is available focused on discussing bot activity.

I feel like that will be a useful skill to have in the coming years.

 

The NIH has been accused of funding dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Legislation is being proposed to ban federal funding for this research, which many powerful individuals have alleged is what led to the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, many scientists have pointed out that the vague language of the legislation would result in a blanket ban of federal funding for any virology or vaccine research in the U.S. This would mean that vaccine production and roll out would become completely privatized, even in the event of a pandemic.

This post examines the current policy behind federal funding for GOF research, which is based on framework created nearly a year into Donald Trump's first term.

The framework was created in response to policy recommendations provided by the Obama administration for oversight and care of pathogens with pandemic potential (P3CO). However, while P3CO provided recommendations for oversight and public transparency, these recommendations seem to have been omitted from the Trump framework for federal funding.

Justification for the removal of federal funding frequently sites a lack of oversight and transparency by the NIH. However, there is never any explanation given for why the Trump framework failed to include the recommendations to enable oversight and transparency for funding decisions.

Two days after taking office for his second term, Trump proposed an executive order banning GOF research, and received public praise from the Heritage Foundation.

This post which is focused on the policy background, will be followed by additional posts examining the proposed legislation and vaccine privatization.

 

Hello,

I am a researcher in the U.S. who began writing about the NIH federal funding issues just to keep people informed about things that weren't reaching most major news outlets.

I began this piece several weeks ago, and finally finished it this past week. The focus is on the attacks against the NIH for their gain-of-function research funding policy. I ended up doing a deep dive into the history of the policy which began in 2014, and trying to condense everything into an article for a broad audience.

You may have seen all of the proposed legislation about gain-of-function (GOF) research, and more recently increasing attacks on mRNA vaccines. It is being presented by legislative members as a concern over safety issues, however, it turns out there are many reasons to question if that is the legitimate reason these bills are being introduced. It's important to note that the GOF legislation is not aimed at improving any safety requirements for the research. It is only aimed at funding policy.

The language of the bills is very vague, and many researchers worry that the legislation would make it illegal to federally fund any vaccine research in the U.S. This would mean a complete privatization of vaccine research. Pharmaceutical companies would still be free to carry out the allegedly dangerous research because it is (typically) privately funded.

Interestingly, if you do a deep dive into the policy history, and everything that has led to this moment, you will find that an updated set of policy guidelines has been in the works since last summer. The updated policy may even be extend to the creation of mandatory oversight laws for private research. Meaning that the updated policy guidelines which are due to be released by May of 2025, would not only address the safety concerns which are being used to justify the GOF legislation for federal funding, they may even result in safety improvements and oversight across the private sector.

So, why do so many law makers seem to be in such a rush to pass these bills that will only privatize the allegedly dangerous research?

The article is broken up into 5 sections including the introduction. The main focus of this article is GOF funding policy history, which is covered in sections 1-3. The last two sections briefly focus on the legislation attacking the research, and some potential motivations for vaccine research privatization.

I am planning two individual follow up articles that will cover these last two sections in greater depth. My goal is to spread public awareness of this information, to defend science and improve public health. Please help me do that by either sharing the article or just by spreading this information by word of mouth.

Thank you!

 

Ok, so I am a U.S. researcher who has ended up here bc of censorship issues on other platforms.

I understand why rules for no self promotion exist in general, but typically I would consider that to be things like promoting a business or anything with a paywall or with the goal to get more attention for self vs the goal to spread information that is being suppressed.

I started writing a blog on ghost and putting some information together to raise awareness about science and other policy disinformation. Would sharing the information or graphics from the blog still be self promotion since it's my own blog

If it is self promotion, are there any good communities where this kind of things is ok to share?

view more: next ›