[-] AcidicBasicGlitch@lemm.ee 3 points 22 hours 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

25

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 23 hours 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 23 hours 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.

74
4
17

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.

[-] AcidicBasicGlitch@lemm.ee 11 points 1 day ago

I think Russian propaganda has always been there it's just been tweaked over the years to match the audience. Reddit has exiled anyone that doesn't support Musk, so by default the audience is mainly far-right. And it has definitely gotten out of hand to such an extreme that most of reddit is just dead internet. Bot posts filled with one liner bot comments that rarely actually engage in a discussion about anything.

I just assume any content that pushes extreme divisiveness on issues and refuses to acknowledge any sort of logic or gray area is probably due to Russian bot swarms on most major platforms.

Before I left reddit for the final time, if there was a message that was clearly being suppressed, any attempts to talk about it would be met with the most irrational wall of resistance.

Like I tried to post on a sub for federal workers back in late Jan telling people they should be refusing illegal orders being given to them. It started to get some traction, and then suddenly it was just like a swarm of very irrationally angry comments and downvotes. Like a thread could be almost completely dead, with no activity in the last several hours and I would make a comment like that and get one or two upvotes and then suddenly within a minute it would be sitting at -15 downvotes.

Idk if a community already exists for this but I feel like we need a way to teach people how to spot bot activity the same way we teach people how to spot disinformation.

[-] AcidicBasicGlitch@lemm.ee 12 points 1 day ago

She's got a work on her sales pitch. "Probably one of the greatest... Oh it's not for you, it's more of a Shelbyville idea..."

[-] AcidicBasicGlitch@lemm.ee 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.

[-] AcidicBasicGlitch@lemm.ee 3 points 1 day ago

You're absolutely right. Sorry about that. Just updated it.

[-] AcidicBasicGlitch@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago

Sorry about that not sure why it didn't attach. I just updated it

6
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by AcidicBasicGlitch@lemm.ee to c/fediverse_vs_disinfo@lemmy.dbzer0.com

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.

13
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by AcidicBasicGlitch@lemm.ee to c/publichealth@mander.xyz

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!

[-] AcidicBasicGlitch@lemm.ee 1 points 2 days ago

Thank you! Like I said I'm still figuring things out. The instance I joined says you can't post images until 40 days after joining. Is there an alternative way to do that?

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

Oh it was in the ysk community on .world

[-] AcidicBasicGlitch@lemm.ee 4 points 2 days ago

I am still learning how to navigate everything but I guess mainly community based? I really would like to share literally anywhere I could that would be interested in learning about the information.

Basically I guess it would be most closely a topic of public health policy being greatly misrepresented.

23

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?

21

Does anyone know of any communities that might be helpful for creating a shared place to track the "small government" DOGE taskforces that are popping up all over the country?

I've been piecing together what I can and my state has really gone off the rails with this. I'd really like to find a place to collaborate with others and collect evidence of how these supposedly small government actions are using the same playbook as the D.C. DOGE to aid some of the most powerful individuals and biggest corporations in the U.S.

view more: next ›

AcidicBasicGlitch

joined 6 days ago