←back to thread

CDC's top laboratory on STDs is shut by Trump administration

(www.statnews.com)
157 points pmags | 10 comments | 07 Apr 25 05:08 UTC | HN request time: 1.065s | source | bottom
Show context
Teever ◴[07 Apr 25 05:50 UTC] No.43608201[source]▶
I've been casually watching Moderna's progress towards a herpes vaccine which IIRC was supposed to come out in 2028.

Herpes is one of those things that obviously isn't as big a deal as cancer but it would be nice to be one less thing to worry about when having sexual encounters with new people, and sufferers of it would love to have some sort of relief from infections and the elimination of the stigma around it. It's also associated with Alzheimer's disease so the cost of not producing this vaccine might be hundreds of billions of dollars and years of life and the prevention of so much suffering down the line.

It's really dismaying to know that this kind of stuff might not come to fruition because of the combination of incompetence and intentional chaos.

replies(3): >>43608212 #>>43608289 #>>43608431 #
1. userbinator ◴[07 Apr 25 06:03 UTC] No.43608289[source]▶
Moderna isn't the government.
replies(4): >>43608446 #>>43608450 #>>43608517 #>>43608575 #
2. patates ◴[07 Apr 25 06:31 UTC] No.43608446[source]▶
If CDC, FDA, ACIP etc. are crippled,

a) it'd be very hard to release advanced medicine

or

b) it'd be very easy to release snake oil as medicine

and both scenarios would be very bad.

3. rl3 ◴[07 Apr 25 06:32 UTC] No.43608450[source]▶
Public and private sector science have historically been enmeshed by design.

Public sector medical research has been decimated in recent months, so adverse effects on products developed by private entities is an unfortunate byproduct of that.

replies(1): >>43608883 #
4. prawn ◴[07 Apr 25 06:43 UTC] No.43608517[source]▶
"this kind of stuff"
5. smt88 ◴[07 Apr 25 06:53 UTC] No.43608575[source]▶
Moderna, like all modern hard-science companies, is a tiny house built on the top of hundreds of billions of dollars of government-funded research.
6. Teever ◴[07 Apr 25 07:39 UTC] No.43608883[source]▶
Just flag the 4 word comment that obviously wasn't made in good faith and move on.
replies(2): >>43612040 #>>43617135 #
7. johnnyanmac ◴[07 Apr 25 14:38 UTC] No.43612040{3}[source]▶
ehh, I'll generally assume good faith until shown otherwise. I don't really flag something unless it shows active malice.

In this case, it was a good opportunity to educate others who may also think that the private sector wouldn't be affected by these public sector cuts. That's much better than flagging a comment that may have been simply made in ignorance.

replies(1): >>43613894 #
8. Teever ◴[07 Apr 25 17:31 UTC] No.43613894{4}[source]▶
a comment that consists entirely of x != y isn't made in good faith. It just isn't.

You're right about using it as a chance to educate others though.

replies(1): >>43616902 #
9. ◴[07 Apr 25 23:11 UTC] No.43616902{5}[source]▶
10. rl3 ◴[07 Apr 25 23:56 UTC] No.43617135{3}[source]▶
Keep in mind flagging anything probably increases the chances that the entire submission is sent to purgatory (read: also flagged) via whatever flamewar detection mechanisms exist.

Generally it should only be reserved for obviously egregious things, not mere perceived bad faith.