Name: How Government Cuts to Medical Research Affect Our Everyday Lives
Uploaded: 2025-09-16T14:45:08.000Z
Description: Watch the stand-up comedy video 'How Government Cuts to Medical Research Affect Our Everyday Lives' from Theo Von Clips on Comedy Buff. Published 2025-09-16. Transcript available.

Watch the stand-up comedy video 'How Government Cuts to Medical Research Affect Our Everyday Lives' from Theo Von Clips on Comedy Buff. Published 2025-09-16. Transcript available.

We had mentioned before we even started talking that the government is cutting
or potentially cutting funding for biomedical research.
How does – what does that look like realistically and then how does that –
how could that affect our everyday lives?
Yeah, well, it turns out that it is a potential absolute disaster for
biomedical research.
So in the president's budget for the next year, 40 percent cut to the National
Institutes of Health, about the same to the National Science Foundation.
This would devastate biomedical research.
It would basically – it would basically, you know, turn off the tap.
So many promising things would be lost.
There is so much right now that's changing in terms of new therapies for cancer,
for neurological illness, new devices, new therapies.
You know, just think about things that you know about in your own life like
these weight control and diabetes drugs, these GLP-1s, right?
They've only been around for a couple of years, right?
And those are – you're talking about like Ozempic and West Wego or whatever?
Yes, Wegovia, Ozempic, Zepbound, these drugs.
Like they are changing – they are saving lives, right?
You know, it's not just like, oh, I want to look better, right?
It's helping people with diabetes.
It's helping liver disease, heart disease.
It's remarkable how useful they are.
And you might say, well, all right, but didn't this just come about from drug
companies?
Didn't drug companies do that?
Well, no, the fundamental – the basic research that gave the drug companies
the idea, it came from funding from the federal government.
The federal government does the basic research.
And sometimes like these are the sort of things that people like to make fun of
and they think our money is being wasted.
So you ever heard of a lizard called a Gila monster?
Yeah.
Right, so they're out in the desert in Arizona and places like that.
And they've got venom.
And in their venom, there's something that looks like this hormone called GLP-1.
GLP-1 is the hormone that's secreted by your small intestine that goes to your
brain and suppresses your appetite.
And that's the basis.
That's what these drugs like Ozempic mimic.
They're like GLP-1 with some – natural GLP-1 with some modifications.
Now, the problem, you might say, well, people knew about GLP-1.
Why can't you just take GLP-1 and inject it into your body?
And the reason is it's broken down in your bloodstream like in a minute or two.
It doesn't linger long enough.
It turns out that there are modifications in the Gila monster venom GLP-1-like
molecule that make it linger and last.
And that was the innovation that allowed these drug companies to make these
long-lasting compounds that allow you to suppress appetite and lose weight.
And they also seem to have anti-inflammatory properties.
So the receptors for the GLP-1, what it binds to to make it work is not just in
your brain to suppress your appetite.
Those receptors are in your heart.
They're in your liver.
They're in your kidneys.
They're in all kinds of organs.
They're in your guts.
And they seem to have additional beneficial properties beyond just losing
weight.
But this kind of innovation would never happen if it weren't for the United
States government funding fundamental biomedical research,
the kind of thing that somebody in the Senate might get up and say,
these eggheads are wasting our money on studying Gila monster venom.
What a waste of your taxpayer dollars.
This is such bullshit.
But really, where did it get us?
It got us to a fundamental medical breakthrough that helps everybody.
Yeah.
What are some of the other positive effects of that?
That's a great point, man, because you would just hear, yeah, they were
studying like drool from a baby walrus or whatever.
But where did it get us, right?
So, yeah, bring up what are the other positive effects of GLP-1?
I never really look at this.
I hear about it all the time.
Well, so like one interesting claim that's being made right now is that GLP-1
is that these drugs just help suppress appetite,
also help other compulsive behaviors, whether it's drug addiction, compulsive
shopping, gambling.
The GLP-1 receptor agonists like semiglutide show promise in reducing alcohol
and opioid use disorders by targeting reward pathways in the brain and reducing
cravings.
They may also help by calming the stress response and reducing drug-seeking
behaviors.
However, more research is needed to fully understand their effectiveness and
safety in addition, in addiction treatment.
Are there side effects of GLP-1?
Yeah, there are.
Sometimes people get constipated on them.
Sometimes people feel nauseated.
Shit, I get constipated off a bad waffle, you know, so, no, look, dude, I'm
willing to risk it.
And some people feel tired.
Oh, yeah.
So, there are some side effects and sometimes they can be serious enough that,
you know, people will want to quit the drug because they can't handle the side
effects.
But mostly the side effects are not bad.
Yeah, doesn't look like it.
And there are even some hints.
It's early days.
You know, I wouldn't bet my money on this, but there's some hints that it may
actually be beneficial in terms of likelihood of developing Alzheimer's disease.
Wow.
Yeah.
And there are some potential benefits for Parkinson's disease as well.
So, you know.
Do you, go on.
You know, right now, every drug company in the world is making another drug for
this.
There's an absolute gold rush for them.
So, right now, you know, Lilly's got one drug, Novo Nordisk drug company has
got another drug.
Oh, yeah, they're all popping off.
But there are many, many, many of them in the pipeline and clinical trials.
Wow.
And so, you know, these, we'll know more about their positive effects on things
like kidney and liver disease, but we'll also know more about their effects on
behavior, on compulsive behaviors like shopping, gambling, drug addiction.
You know, which, you know, anything we can do to help people get clean, you
know, is a godsend.
Oh, for sure, man.
Yeah.
Look, I've been down that road myself.
I do want to look at what are Trump's proposed budget cuts on that?
Forty percent.
Documents released late last week are providing new details about the breadth
and depth of the spending cuts the White House is asking Congress to make to
public health and biomedical research programs in the 2020 fiscal year that
begins on October 1st.
Among other things, the plans call for deeper spending and staff cuts at the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, and were outlined in a less
detailed skinny budget.
Yeah, and then scroll down to the other places you noticed.
Okay.
The request largely confirms cuts outlined in documents that leaked last month.
It proposes to cut NIH's discretionary budget by about 40% or $18 billion to $27.5
billion and consolidate NIH's 27 institutes and centers into just eight.
The reorganization would preserve National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases, a couple of other places, but eliminate institutes studying minority
health, alternative medicine, nursing,
and global health.
The remaining institutes would be folded into four new ones.
Biomedical research proponents sharply criticize the proposed cuts.
If the proposal is enacted, Americans today and tomorrow will be sicker, poor,
and die younger.
Why do they want to do this, I wonder?
Well, you know, I mean, some of it has to do with, you know, they want to save
money.
I don't think this is a place to save money.
Something that has to do with an actual hatred for academic scientists and
people in the public health world.
You know, I think it's become a partisan issue in a way it shouldn't be, right?
Everybody gets sick and everybody benefits from new therapies.
For years and years and years, it didn't matter what side of the aisle you're
on.
Republicans supported biomedical research.
Democrats supported biomedical research.
It was something that people agree on.
Now, just in these last couple, in this last time, it's starting to, really
since COVID, it started to get really politicized.
And, you know, the Trump administration will tell you, oh, this is waste, fraud,
and abuse, or this all has to do with, like, DEI efforts, and that's the only
stuff we're cutting.
But, like, it's nonsense.
40% it's a fucking hatchet, right?
You know, it's not just, oh, we got rid of a few bad studies that were misguided
or some waste or fraud that we found over here.
It's, like, we are going to cut it down to the bone.
And when that happens, the therapies to help everyone's families for, you know,
for cancer, for heart disease, for mental health, for everything that you're
hoping for, new therapies and cures, all that stuff's coming to a screeching
halt.
And the United States has been the world leader on this.
This is a place where America absolutely kicks ass.
We are the acknowledged world leader in biomedical research.
And to give it up would be the stupidest fucking thing we could possibly do.
How much of the funding is negatively influenced by big pharmacy stuff?
I'm just wondering, because otherwise I don't understand this doesn't make that
much sense.
Just to be clear, this funding doesn't go to drug companies, right?
This funding goes to research institutes.
It goes to universities.
And it goes to the NIH itself in Bethesda, Maryland, where some of the research
is done.
This funding, by and large, this isn't a way that the government is subsidizing
Pfizer or Lilly or any of these giant corporations.
These corporations are really good at taking an idea and turning it into a
product, right?
Okay.
They're not good at the basic research that gives the idea to do it in the
first place.
Is there anything in there that tells?
Pentagon.
That's defense stuff.
That's horrible.
Department of Homeland Security.
I feel like all these people are building us up to be in some type of a war.
I don't even know.
It's very scary days.
Oh, the budget proposal aims to cut funding for research related to radical
gender ideology and diverse racialism.
That sounds so vague.
Well, you know, the truth is that, yeah, so there have been some grants that do
involve stuff like that.
But there's a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny fraction, right?
Don't believe that 40 percent of the NIH has to do with studying things like
trans folks.
I mean, I think it's perfectly legitimate to study trans folks myself.
Oh, yeah.
I'm curious about them.
Most people are curious.
Even if you think that's bad, that's like a tiny, tiny fraction of the NIH.
It's not – there's not 40 percent of that to be cut.
I wish we could talk to someone who was involved with – I don't know if it's
DOGE or what the exact group is that's organizing a lot of these proposed cuts.
Well, you've had RFK Jr. on here.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So, you know, he's –
Maybe if we get to have him back on and we get to talk to him about it.
You know, he's the one who's involved in this and the new head of the NIH and
the new head of the CDC.
That's a great point.
These are all folks that are fundamental to this.
Yeah.
What did that article say about RFK I saw, the one part?
Let me see.
The budget request reflects priorities advanced by the Department of Health and
Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., including a focus on food additives
and chronic diseases at the expense of infectious disease studies and a real-world
data platform to allow scientists to study the causes of autism.
Oh, that's awesome.
It also proposes using artificial intelligence and big data analysis to
research the exposome, the collection of environmental factors that can
influence human health.
So, I wonder if they're just trying to redirect it to things that he cares more
about.
Well, so I think the thing to realize is, first of all, it's a 40% cut.
So, it's not like you're taking the same pot of money and then just reshuffling
around to different priorities.
First of all, you start with a 40% cut.
And then the 60% that's left, you're going to take away from stuff like
vaccines and put it into bullshit clothes, you know, cold plunge therapy and
other stuff that are his pet projects, you know.
I mean, let me just be clear.
There are some things where I really agree with RFK Jr.
He is absolutely right that we should be taking a closer look at food additives.
He is absolutely right that ultra-processed foods are a big problem in health.
And he is absolutely right that environmental pollutants are a big problem in
health and there should be a lot more attention paid to that.
Where I get off the bus has to do with cutting all these other areas that are
so very, very promising.
And also with some of the other very unproven things that he has advocated for.
So, for example, the drug ivermectin.
He's a big fan of it for COVID and other things.
It's nonsense.
It doesn't work.
It's not true.
It's fraudulent.
Don't believe it.
I've had friends that have taken it.
I've had success with it.
Yeah, well, you know, that's the reason we don't make biomedical policy based
on anecdotes that something that happened to our buddy, right?
We do studies for it, right?
You know, and so, you know, like I go and I take some vitamin C and I feel
better for my cold.
Well, maybe I was going to get better anyway.
We don't know, right?
Maybe the vitamin C did something.
Well, what's the way to know that?
You have to do a real controlled study the way, the proper way.
Assuming that there aren't budget cuts or even assuming that there are, right?
What do you feel like the next 10 years of biomedical research looks like?
Well, I think it's going to involve a lot of really – there are a lot of
really exciting things that we're on the precipice of.
One of them is really finally realizing the promise of individualized medicine.
In other words, you go in, you give a little blood or they scrape the cells
from your cheek.
They read a lot of your genetic situation and they know how to give therapies
that are precisely designed for you for the very best outcome and the fewest
side effects.
This is the sort of thing that's already happening in cancer, right?
Like it used to be like you went and you'd say, oh, you got lung cancer.
All right, well, we're going to treat you generically for lung cancer with a
thing that works the best for the most amount of people.
But it turns out that like depending on the flavor of what's in your tumor,
actually for some people it might be much better to get this one than some
people it might be better to get that one, right?
And this is something where AI is actually – and machine learning are
extremely valuable.
Another thing that's extraordinarily exciting is the use of gene editing
technology, so-called CRISPR.
You may have heard that term.
CRISPR is a technology for changing your DNA.
So what this is like if you have kids that are born with these rare genetic
diseases where like they – there's a disease where you can't do your
metabolism right and you build up ammonia in your body and these kids, you know,
die within a few years, right?
So right now there is great promise for using CRISPR to be able to modify their
DNA to correct the genetic deficit and allow them to live normally.
This is just starting right now.
It's, you know, the very dawn of the age of CRISPR therapy.
But the next 10, 20 years are going to see this sort of thing explode.
Is AI helping us?
AI is helping us massively because there are certain sort of things where you
want to – what you want to know is like what happens when you put a thousand
different variables that you measure from your blood test, from testing your
DNA in to predict what the best therapy is for you or how you are likely.
To respond to a different drug or antibody or something like that.
Right.
And AI is extraordinarily good.
There is a fellow named Eric Topol at the Scripps Institute just wrote a book
called Super Agers that is really excellent.
And he spends a long time talking about the promise of AI and big data in the
next era of medicine.
He would be a wonderful person for you to have on the podcast.
Thank you, David.
Yeah, I'm going to check that out.
Super Agers.
Yeah.
Do you think – I wonder if one of the reasons why they could be – or one of
the reasons why they even could be proposing budget cuts if they think that AI
could – would it save money, you think, for research?
No, AI is a good – in other words, bringing AI to medicine is a good idea.
I mean it's not always a good idea, but there are many areas where it is
genuine.
It's not like doing things with AI is going to allow you to achieve economies
of scale or cut this or do things in fundamentally different ways so much as
– it's another tool in the armamentarium.
There's nothing wrong with bringing AI to biomedical research.
What's wrong is that 40 percent cut.
Yeah.
And it's not just that.
They're doing dirty tricks, right?
Congress allocates money for biomedical research and then right now the
administration is just slow walking actually allocating it.
So the rate at which the money is actually getting to the scientists to support
the research is only about half the level that it was the previous year.
And this is illegal and unconstitutional.
The constitution says the power of the purse resides with Congress.
And, you know, the executive branch is saying, well, no, we're not really doing
anything.
But, you know, if you want to throw sand in the gears, if you want to slow
things down and screw things up, it's so – there's a million ways to do it.
Oh, yeah.
Well, I mean the same thing happened.
We had like a border patrol guy on and he said that they would arrest the same
guys over and over again.
And the executive judicial branch, they would never process any of them.
So it was like these parties just keep kind of finding ways.
There's always a way for them to choose to make things tougher on the regular
person, I feel like, you know?
Well, yeah.
There are ways to get around, to claim you're not doing something but really do
it.
Claim you're not cutting biomedical research.
Point at the next guy.
But, you know, actually just will slow down getting the money out there and
fundamentally you're cutting biomedical research.
Or in this case, you know, the Trump administration is actually saying, yeah,
we want to cut 40 percent.
And that's a good idea.
And then what it's really going to be is more than 40 percent because it's
going to be 60 percent and then they're going to throw the sand in the gears of
the 60 and it'll be even less than that.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I'd love to get to talk with Bobby Kennedy again to see, to learn more about
that, you know?
Yeah.
So hopefully I'll get that opportunity.
And if I do, I'll make sure to bring that up.
Please do.
Yeah.
I appreciate that.
Yeah.
I think one thing that makes us America also is that we are always trying to be
at the forefront, that we are trying to research, trying to figure out the best
way, right?
And trying to figure out new ways, right?
I think that's one thing that's always made us America.
I think that's always been America.

How Government Cuts to Medical Research Affect Our Everyday Lives

We had mentioned before we even started talking that the government is cutting
or potentially cutting funding for biomedical research.
How does – what does that look like realistically and then how does that –
how could that affect our everyday lives?
Yeah, well, it turns out that it is a potential absolute disaster for
biomedical research.
So in the president's budget for the next year, 40 percent cut to the National
Institutes of Health, about the same to the National Science Foundation.
This would devastate biomedical research.
It would basically – it would basically, you know, turn off the tap.
So many promising things would be lost.
There is so much right now that's changing in terms of new therapies for cancer,
for neurological illness, new devices, new therapies.
You know, just think about things that you know about in your own life like
these weight control and diabetes drugs, these GLP-1s, right?
They've only been around for a couple of years, right?
And those are – you're talking about like Ozempic and West Wego or whatever?
Yes, Wegovia, Ozempic, Zepbound, these drugs.
Like they are changing – they are saving lives, right?
You know, it's not just like, oh, I want to look better, right?
It's helping people with diabetes.
It's helping liver disease, heart disease.
It's remarkable how useful they are.
And you might say, well, all right, but didn't this just come about from drug
companies?
Didn't drug companies do that?
Well, no, the fundamental – the basic research that gave the drug companies
the idea, it came from funding from the federal government.
The federal government does the basic research.
And sometimes like these are the sort of things that people like to make fun of
and they think our money is being wasted.
So you ever heard of a lizard called a Gila monster?
Yeah.
Right, so they're out in the desert in Arizona and places like that.
And they've got venom.
And in their venom, there's something that looks like this hormone called GLP-1.
GLP-1 is the hormone that's secreted by your small intestine that goes to your
brain and suppresses your appetite.
And that's the basis.
That's what these drugs like Ozempic mimic.
They're like GLP-1 with some – natural GLP-1 with some modifications.
Now, the problem, you might say, well, people knew about GLP-1.
Why can't you just take GLP-1 and inject it into your body?
And the reason is it's broken down in your bloodstream like in a minute or two.
It doesn't linger long enough.
It turns out that there are modifications in the Gila monster venom GLP-1-like
molecule that make it linger and last.
And that was the innovation that allowed these drug companies to make these
long-lasting compounds that allow you to suppress appetite and lose weight.
And they also seem to have anti-inflammatory properties.
So the receptors for the GLP-1, what it binds to to make it work is not just in
your brain to suppress your appetite.
Those receptors are in your heart.
They're in your liver.
They're in your kidneys.
They're in all kinds of organs.
They're in your guts.
And they seem to have additional beneficial properties beyond just losing
weight.
But this kind of innovation would never happen if it weren't for the United
States government funding fundamental biomedical research,
the kind of thing that somebody in the Senate might get up and say,
these eggheads are wasting our money on studying Gila monster venom.
What a waste of your taxpayer dollars.
This is such bullshit.
But really, where did it get us?
It got us to a fundamental medical breakthrough that helps everybody.
Yeah.
What are some of the other positive effects of that?
That's a great point, man, because you would just hear, yeah, they were
studying like drool from a baby walrus or whatever.
But where did it get us, right?
So, yeah, bring up what are the other positive effects of GLP-1?
I never really look at this.
I hear about it all the time.
Well, so like one interesting claim that's being made right now is that GLP-1
is that these drugs just help suppress appetite,
also help other compulsive behaviors, whether it's drug addiction, compulsive
shopping, gambling.
The GLP-1 receptor agonists like semiglutide show promise in reducing alcohol
and opioid use disorders by targeting reward pathways in the brain and reducing
cravings.
They may also help by calming the stress response and reducing drug-seeking
behaviors.
However, more research is needed to fully understand their effectiveness and
safety in addition, in addiction treatment.
Are there side effects of GLP-1?
Yeah, there are.
Sometimes people get constipated on them.
Sometimes people feel nauseated.
Shit, I get constipated off a bad waffle, you know, so, no, look, dude, I'm
willing to risk it.
And some people feel tired.
Oh, yeah.
So, there are some side effects and sometimes they can be serious enough that,
you know, people will want to quit the drug because they can't handle the side
effects.
But mostly the side effects are not bad.
Yeah, doesn't look like it.
And there are even some hints.
It's early days.
You know, I wouldn't bet my money on this, but there's some hints that it may
actually be beneficial in terms of likelihood of developing Alzheimer's disease.
Wow.
Yeah.
And there are some potential benefits for Parkinson's disease as well.
So, you know.
Do you, go on.
You know, right now, every drug company in the world is making another drug for
this.
There's an absolute gold rush for them.
So, right now, you know, Lilly's got one drug, Novo Nordisk drug company has
got another drug.
Oh, yeah, they're all popping off.
But there are many, many, many of them in the pipeline and clinical trials.
Wow.
And so, you know, these, we'll know more about their positive effects on things
like kidney and liver disease, but we'll also know more about their effects on
behavior, on compulsive behaviors like shopping, gambling, drug addiction.
You know, which, you know, anything we can do to help people get clean, you
know, is a godsend.
Oh, for sure, man.
Yeah.
Look, I've been down that road myself.
I do want to look at what are Trump's proposed budget cuts on that?
Forty percent.
Documents released late last week are providing new details about the breadth
and depth of the spending cuts the White House is asking Congress to make to
public health and biomedical research programs in the 2020 fiscal year that
begins on October 1st.
Among other things, the plans call for deeper spending and staff cuts at the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, and were outlined in a less
detailed skinny budget.
Yeah, and then scroll down to the other places you noticed.
Okay.
The request largely confirms cuts outlined in documents that leaked last month.
It proposes to cut NIH's discretionary budget by about 40% or $18 billion to $27.5
billion and consolidate NIH's 27 institutes and centers into just eight.
The reorganization would preserve National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases, a couple of other places, but eliminate institutes studying minority
health, alternative medicine, nursing,
and global health.
The remaining institutes would be folded into four new ones.
Biomedical research proponents sharply criticize the proposed cuts.
If the proposal is enacted, Americans today and tomorrow will be sicker, poor,
and die younger.
Why do they want to do this, I wonder?
Well, you know, I mean, some of it has to do with, you know, they want to save
money.
I don't think this is a place to save money.
Something that has to do with an actual hatred for academic scientists and
people in the public health world.
You know, I think it's become a partisan issue in a way it shouldn't be, right?
Everybody gets sick and everybody benefits from new therapies.
For years and years and years, it didn't matter what side of the aisle you're
on.
Republicans supported biomedical research.
Democrats supported biomedical research.
It was something that people agree on.
Now, just in these last couple, in this last time, it's starting to, really
since COVID, it started to get really politicized.
And, you know, the Trump administration will tell you, oh, this is waste, fraud,
and abuse, or this all has to do with, like, DEI efforts, and that's the only
stuff we're cutting.
But, like, it's nonsense.
40% it's a fucking hatchet, right?
You know, it's not just, oh, we got rid of a few bad studies that were misguided
or some waste or fraud that we found over here.
It's, like, we are going to cut it down to the bone.
And when that happens, the therapies to help everyone's families for, you know,
for cancer, for heart disease, for mental health, for everything that you're
hoping for, new therapies and cures, all that stuff's coming to a screeching
halt.
And the United States has been the world leader on this.
This is a place where America absolutely kicks ass.
We are the acknowledged world leader in biomedical research.
And to give it up would be the stupidest fucking thing we could possibly do.
How much of the funding is negatively influenced by big pharmacy stuff?
I'm just wondering, because otherwise I don't understand this doesn't make that
much sense.
Just to be clear, this funding doesn't go to drug companies, right?
This funding goes to research institutes.
It goes to universities.
And it goes to the NIH itself in Bethesda, Maryland, where some of the research
is done.
This funding, by and large, this isn't a way that the government is subsidizing
Pfizer or Lilly or any of these giant corporations.
These corporations are really good at taking an idea and turning it into a
product, right?
Okay.
They're not good at the basic research that gives the idea to do it in the
first place.
Is there anything in there that tells?
Pentagon.
That's defense stuff.
That's horrible.
Department of Homeland Security.
I feel like all these people are building us up to be in some type of a war.
I don't even know.
It's very scary days.
Oh, the budget proposal aims to cut funding for research related to radical
gender ideology and diverse racialism.
That sounds so vague.
Well, you know, the truth is that, yeah, so there have been some grants that do
involve stuff like that.
But there's a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny fraction, right?
Don't believe that 40 percent of the NIH has to do with studying things like
trans folks.
I mean, I think it's perfectly legitimate to study trans folks myself.
Oh, yeah.
I'm curious about them.
Most people are curious.
Even if you think that's bad, that's like a tiny, tiny fraction of the NIH.
It's not – there's not 40 percent of that to be cut.
I wish we could talk to someone who was involved with – I don't know if it's
DOGE or what the exact group is that's organizing a lot of these proposed cuts.
Well, you've had RFK Jr. on here.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So, you know, he's –
Maybe if we get to have him back on and we get to talk to him about it.
You know, he's the one who's involved in this and the new head of the NIH and
the new head of the CDC.
That's a great point.
These are all folks that are fundamental to this.
Yeah.
What did that article say about RFK I saw, the one part?
Let me see.
The budget request reflects priorities advanced by the Department of Health and
Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., including a focus on food additives
and chronic diseases at the expense of infectious disease studies and a real-world
data platform to allow scientists to study the causes of autism.
Oh, that's awesome.
It also proposes using artificial intelligence and big data analysis to
research the exposome, the collection of environmental factors that can
influence human health.
So, I wonder if they're just trying to redirect it to things that he cares more
about.
Well, so I think the thing to realize is, first of all, it's a 40% cut.
So, it's not like you're taking the same pot of money and then just reshuffling
around to different priorities.
First of all, you start with a 40% cut.
And then the 60% that's left, you're going to take away from stuff like