Joe Duarte @ValidScience

@benryanwriter He's a "transplant" from Syria. More importantly, it stars Laurence Leboeuf.

@benryanwriter It's a good show though, at least the first few episodes. imdb.com/title/tt109363…

One of the reasons NIH needs a systematic anti-ideology framework is that it changes the narrative. The media reports any effort to fight ideological bias as research the Trump administration "doesn't like", or "liberal" research, or just that they're cutting "health research". If NIH/NSF had a principled, rigorous framework, with a nonpartisan definition of ideology, and admin officials cited it, the media would be forced to refer to it (even if they put it in scare quotes). Defining ideology in grants as "the presence of constructs that pertain to justice or oppression" is crystal clear, easy to quote, and the public won't have a problem with it. And it would be easy to explain how this actual grant embeds leftist ideology: "Ecological Momentary Assessment of Racial/Ethnic Microaggressions and Cannabis Use among Black Adults" Jay wouldn't implement anything, and I'm not sure if he understands what an anti-ideology framework entails. In any case, NIH funding of invalid leftist grants is harmful: 1. It subsidizes a large number of leftist activists, while there's no symmetric subsidy for conservative or libertarian activists. 2. It generates invalid research "results" which are then parroted by leftist-biased media, which shows up in your mandatory HR training, etc. 3. It pollutes our civilization with false claims under the banner of science. 4. It eats funding that could be returned to taxpayers or directed at real, helpful research, like the extraordinary rates of male suicide, esp. white and American Indian males (which NIH completely ignores)

Laura Loomer @LauraLoomer

a day ago

As I’ve been saying for a year and half: Fire NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya @NIHDirector_Jay for undermining President Donald Trump’s @realDonaldTrump work to fix the mess that people like Anthony Fauci created at @NIH under Joe Biden. Bhattacharya has defiantly refused to cut

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

60 1K 3K 102K 91

@benryanwriter He sure curses a lot.

It sounds like the White House learned that NIH is still funding lots of invalid leftist grants, like: Examining Anti-Racist Healing in Nature to Protect Telomeres of Transitional Age BIPOC for Health Equity Intersectional discrimination and linkage to HIV prevention and care in transgender women in Ecuador Ecological Momentary Assessment of Racial/Ethnic Microaggressions and Cannabis Use among Black Adults And many, many more. Jay wouldn't do anything about them. Without a systematic framework, NIH won't catch most of the rigged or invalid grants (DOGE didn't) and won't be able to defend its termination decisions very well, in court for instance. Jay's approach of canceling a few grants because they don't fit with the director's "priorities" is extremely fragile, unscientific, legally iffy, and doesn't implement lasting NIH reform via a smart anti-ideology framework.

Joseph Marine @DrJMarine

2 days ago

“Jay Bhattacharya, director of the $47 billion health agency, which is the nation’s largest single funder of biomedical research, defended the NIH’s grant-making process, the people said.” White House budget chief pushes for scrutiny of NIH grants wapo.st/3UPK3BP

2 4 32 6K 6

Seems mixed. I had more reach with ≤1,000 followers on old Twitter than I do with 5,400 followers on 𝕏, but I might be an outlier. I've only ever been censored and even suspended by 𝕏. But they clearly uncensored lots of people who had been banned by Twitter, including gender critical women, the Babylon Bee, etc.

DHH @dhh

2 days ago

Motivated reasoning rules the day. X is better than Twitter ever was. Better company, better platform. But how many detractors from back then dare admit they were wrong?

163 107 3K 162K 153

@RickAddante @christopherrufo It sounds like the message got through to the White House that NIH was still funding a bunch of invalid leftist grants. I wonder what Jay's perspective was.

Agreed.

Mia Hughes @_CryMiaRiver

2 days ago

Imagine a group of powerful, well-connected anorexics gather and formulate a plot to reject the psychiatric framing of anorexia and turn their illness into a healthy identity. They make it discrimination and bigotry to call anorexia a mental disorder and frame access to

177 1K 6K 172K 1K

There's a surge of racism on the right. Lots of cowards aren't calling it out. We see you.

Harmeet K. Dhillon @HarmeetKDhillon

3 days ago

Happy weekend and good Shabbos to all — yes, even the people who call me a “paperwork American,” who post racist nonsense for clicks, who haven’t read enough books, who don’t know history. God loves all of you and it’s not too late to stop being wrong. I’m going to spend the

912 1K 12K 320K 120

The Babylon Bee at their finest--which is mighty fine: "Volunteers had reportedly prepared to hide the juror in houses, church basements, and Chick-fil-A stockrooms along the escape route. 'We've got our people looking out for any sign of danger, like a shirt saying "Love Is Love" or "Believe All Women,"' explained a pastor working the trail. 'It's a little different direction from the old Railroad, but it's still black people fleeing angry white Democrats who want to do them harm and force them to do their bidding. Some things never change, I guess.'" "At publishing time, the juror had reportedly made it safely across the Pennsylvania border after narrowly escaping a mob carrying 'BE KIND' signs." babylonbee.com/news/new-under…

@wil_da_beast630 Those little fish in the Amazon that swim up your lightsaber.

@feelsdesperate Why does his voice sound so different live than in the record? Did you ever see Edward Sharpe and the MZ?

Grant links: The puberty blockers trial: THE IMPACT OF PUBERTAL SUPPRESSION ON ADOLESCENT NEURAL AND MENTAL HEALTH TRAJECTORIES: reporter.nih.gov/project-detail… The one getting illegals on Medicaid. The "misinformation" they're fighting is the belief that illegals don't qualify for Medicaid: Understanding Mis- and Disinformation About Health Care Access and Their Impacts on Decision-Making Among Latino Immigrants: reporter.nih.gov/project-detail… The one fighting state bans on sterilizing and mutilating trans-indoctrinated children: Supportive and restrictive factors and mental health in LGBT adolescent and young adult populations: reporter.nih.gov/project-detail… The Ecuador madness: Intersectional discrimination and linkage to HIV prevention and care in transgender women in Ecuador: reporter.nih.gov/project-detail…

NIH is still funding a puberty blockers trial that will sterilize children, as well as: - a project to get more illegals on Medicaid in California - a grant to FIGHT state bans on sterilizing and mutilating children - a grant about trans-asserting men and AIDS in Ecuador... At the same time, NIH struggles to defend itself against lawsuits over the few ideological grants it DID terminate. A systematic, rigorous anti-ideology framework solves both problems: 1. It reliably identifies all the ideologically driven and scientifically invalid grants. It goes much further than DOGE's DEI keyword search, and avoids false positives. 2. It gives NIH staff and the attorneys at DOJ and HHS a much stronger toolkit to defend against these lawsuits. A good framework will objectively and impartially define ideology, and provide the tools to explain how a given grant inappropriately embedded ideology, how this makes it scientifically invalid, etc. Judges will like it – I guarantee it. Well, most judges. Right now, NIH is missing a lot of bogus grants, continuing to fund them and even awarding new ones, and it can't robustly defend the termination decisions it already made.

Joe Duarte @ValidScience

3 days ago

At NIH, I told Jay that one of the reasons we needed a Clean Science, anti-ideology framework was to defend against these sorts of lawsuits. Unfortunately, he didn't listen. What's the issue? The issue is that leftists embed their ideology in research in ways that make it

1 7 24 3K 3

At NIH, I told Jay that one of the reasons we needed a Clean Science, anti-ideology framework was to defend against these sorts of lawsuits. Unfortunately, he didn't listen. What's the issue? The issue is that leftists embed their ideology in research in ways that make it scientifically invalid, or otherwise inappropriate for taxpayer funding. They then leverage the results of this invalid research to advance their power and defeat conservatives and other non-leftists. They use complicit media to report false/invalid "findings", which affect policy and voter behavior. And they embed their ideology everywhere else, including the workplace, peppered with false claims about "the science" backing HR's claims on "implicit bias", "transphobia", "systemic racism", the harms of stereotyping, etc. The outcome: thousands of chemically sterilized kids, the dramatic reversal in perceptions of racism, toxic delusions about a "climate crisis", and thousands of leftist activists cosplaying as scientists subsidized by you, the taxpayer. It's a big mistake for Republicans and the Trump administration to not end this. NIH and NSF need to understand *validity* and in this context that means defining "ideology" and explaining how it can be embedded in research in inappropriate ways. It's not enough to point to a study and say "DEI!" or "woke!". No, that's not nearly good enough and it won't answer the complaints leftists make or accomplish anything in a courtroom. You have to use your words. You have to make a rigorous case for why "Ecological Momentary Assessment of Racial/Ethnic Microaggressions and Cannabis Use among Black Adults" (actual NIH grant) is an invalid embedding of a political ideology and that this embedding makes it scientifically invalid. I provisionally defined ideology for NIH purposes as "any construct that pertains to justice or oppression", and we can add that the "usage stems from a specific political ideology like leftism/liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, etc." All the MAGA-adjacent influencers commenting on biased science have so far been unable to drill into the problem. They're just ranting about bias at the journals, over and over, but we need real insight into the epistemological problem here. What's the nature of what leftists are doing? What do we call it? We need a taxonomy and a framework. We need to integrate applied epistemology and philosophy of science. Conservatives haven't funded that work and it's extremely important because this is how leftists win – they rig the game. They embed the ideological assumptions and constructs in the research from the start – "systemic racism" as real and as the cause of arbitrary outcomes unfavorable to certain groups (and they only think in terms of groups), "microaggressions", all their made-up, nonexistent x-phobia terms, Leftists are able to get away with sweeping empirical claims without evidence. No one at NIH or NSF or the journals stop them, because they're all controlled by leftists. Leftists are able to get away with trafficking in a cult ideology with ridiculous cult constructs and Soviet-style enforcement for the same reasons. With a framework, NIH can answer these lawsuits by saying "We define ideology, neutrally and objectively, as constructs that pertain to justice or oppression, especially where the usage stems from a specific political ideology like leftism/liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, etc. In this grant, they embed the new leftist construct of "microaggression", which asserts that various mundane acts like a white person denying that he's racist, someone advocating color blindness, or disputing that "systemic racism" against blacks exists currently and pervades all our institutions – itself a tenet of leftist ideology, so we're talking about simply disagreeing with leftism – are acts of aggression and oppression." Right now, NIH can't say that because they don't have a definition of ideology and they don't have a framework. Jay wouldn't implement anything. They're just winging it, and that's unlikely to work. As it stands, they're going to hand everything back to the left in two years, with no framework or deep reforms having been implemented. That would be an incredible waste.

News from Science @NewsfromScience

4 days ago

Researchers have filed a new lawsuit alleging that the U.S. National Institutes of Health is illegally censoring research grants. scim.ag/46uyen6

2 7 29 17K 9

I made the point to Jay that a clear and rigorous anti-ideology framework would be very helpful in defending against these sorts of lawsuits. (And would have other big benefits.) He didn't listen and did nothing. Now they just have the chaotic terminations and DOGE anti-DEI boilerplate that I had fixed. That makes their terminations harder to defend. We need an objective definition of ideology and what it means to embed it in research. That's critical.

@asymmetricinfo These people accelerate me back to Rand. She was marvelous, especially compared to this. Their whole premise of thinking that humans should live their lives focused on strangers, and that strangers have no agency, is absurd. And they always end up going to naked parties.