The National Cancer Institute is using federal funds to study whether cancer can be cured by ivermectin, a cheap, off-patent anti-parasitic and deworming drug that fringe medical groups falsely claimed could treat COVID-19 during the pandemic and have since touted as a cure-all.

Large, high-quality clinical trials have resoundingly concluded that ivermectin is not effective against COVID-19. And there is no old or new scientific evidence to support a hypothesis that ivermectin can cure cancer—or justify any such federal expenditure. But, under anti-vaccine Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—who is otherwise well-known for claiming to have a parasitic worm in his brain—numerous members of the medical fringe are now in powerful federal positions or otherwise hold sway with the administration.

During a January 30 event, Anthony Letai, a cancer researcher the Trump administration installed as the director of the NCI in September, said the NCI was pursuing ivermectin.

Read full article

Comments

At the end of January, Washington, DC, saw an extremely unusual event. The MAHA Institute, which was set up to advocate for some of the most profoundly unscientific ideas of our time, hosted leaders of the best-funded scientific organization on the planet, the National Institutes of Health. Instead of a hostile reception, however, Jay Bhattacharya, the head of the NIH, was greeted as a hero by the audience, receiving a partial standing ovation when he rose to speak.

Over the ensuing five hours, the NIH leadership and MAHA Institute moderators found many areas of common ground: anger over pandemic-era decisions, a focus on the failures of the health care system, the idea that we might eat our way out of some health issues, the sense that science had lost people's trust, and so on. And Bhattacharya and others clearly shaped their messages to resonate with their audience.

The reason? MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) is likely to be one of the only political constituencies supporting Bhattacharya's main project, which he called a "second scientific revolution."

Read full article

Comments

Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health under the Trump administration, appeared before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Tuesday. In the wide-ranging hearing, Bhattacharya defended the chaotic and disruptive cuts at the institutes he helms while carefully wording responses related to vaccines—seemingly to avoid contradicting his boss, anti-vaccine Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

As Bhattacharya testified, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the HELP committee's ranking member, released a report outlining the state of the NIH. The report concluded that the Trump administration is "failing American patients," and "destroying medical research through cuts to research grants, terminations of clinical trials, and the chaos it has created."

Since Trump took office, the NIH has terminated or frozen hundreds of millions of dollars for research grants, including $561 million in grants to research the four leading causes of death in America, the report found.

Read full article

Comments

When a new presidential administration comes in, it is responsible for filling around 4,000 jobs sprinkled across the federal government’s vast bureaucracy. These political appointees help carry out the president’s agenda, and, at least in theory, make government agencies responsive to elected officials.

Some of these roles—the secretary of state, for example—are well-known. Others, such as the deputy assistant secretary for textiles, consumer goods, materials, critical minerals & metals industry & analysis, are more obscure.

Historically, science agencies like NASA or the National Institutes of Health tend to have fewer political appointees than many other parts of the federal government. Sometimes, very senior roles—with authority over billions of dollars of spending, and the power to shape entire fields of research—are filled without any direct input from the White House or Congress. The arrangement reflects a long-running argument that scientists should oversee the work of funding and conducting research with very little interference from political leaders.

Read full article

Comments