I've had to use the CDC lab to figure out a drug-resistant Trichomonas infection. Lots of very skilled people at that facility and this is a bad one to lose; it was the only lab that did those sorts of tests. There's not enough money in it for commercial labs.
It is so very important that we all understand this: not everything worth doing is profitable. Not everything which creates value for the economy or protects society is profitable. A system that expects all worthwhile things to be profitable will simply fail to do all worthwhile things and society will be worse for it. That society may appear to be functioning but it will not be the best society possible.
I believe it is of the "there's only one lab in the world that does this kind of thing" variety. Testing and various services for extremely rare diseases.
The article mentions something about resistant strains; that's going to be low volume, so high upfront investments for a one time result. In theory, I'm not an expert.
But this is the problem with capitalism and health care, the providers just stop if there's not enough money in it for them.
The millionaires in city center penthouses I have orgies with and sometimes meet in the spaceship-like waiting room of the fancy dermatologist in my home city and I say no.
This feels similar to the Reagan administration’s approach to the HIV epidemic, and for similar reasons. This will disproportionately impact men who have sex with men, and I have very little doubt that that’s the point.
No, there's a couple of idiots in charge whose policy is being shaped by outside forces that literally want to destroy the country. This isn't some attack on a social issue.
And, likely, it will eventually hit everyone harder than it should, because of this administration’s misconception that it’s only an issue for that community they hate.
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.
I have a weird interest in herpes as a casual reader of medical research papers and there's definitely many studies that found links between herpes and neurological issues, I believe it's a much more serious problem than society perceives it as being.
Society over perceives it in fact (otherwise there wouldn't be such strong stigmatism), but there may well be unknown effects.
I believe many infections both sexually transmitted and otherwise have understudied neurological effects. It wasn't until the widespread wrath of long covid that public discussion really kicked off.
It was in the news in the past week that the shingles vaccine may reduce dementia risk by 20%. The results also point to it being a causative effect rather than simply correlative, which, if true, is huge.
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.
This is a goal against the entire human race. The details are in the article. To summarize, they were collaborating with the rest of the world through WHO. And this isn't the only one either. I see scientists and archivists scrambling to save valuable information from the portals of CDC, NOAA, etc.
Hostis Humani Generis, hostile to humans in general.
From a particularly deranged wicked brand of human who see empathy as weakness, who see human prosperity as bad unless someone at the top is getting very rich.
> Do these nationalists always dismantle their nation
That's a very interesting premise.
I can think of a few counterexamples (Franco in Spain, for all the atrocities committed by his regime, Spain unquestionably progressed economically), but in general yes, nationalists are disasters when in power. Of course it doesn't help that often, especially nowadays, the nationalism is just a wrapper for a bunch of grifters that say whatever is needed to get into power (Farage, Le Pen, Trump, Orban, PiS, Putin). So they're just gifting for personal benefit (which explains the dismantling), advertised as nationalism because that convinces the masses.
But then again, I don't see how a trade war against the world is going to "Make America Great Again" either. It is much more likely to do the opposite.
Promote Christian values; abortion is bad, and STDs have the stigma of promiscuous behaviour. Treating STDs and having abortions available encourages promiscuity.
(not my views, oversimplified take on fundamentalists and project 2025)
If pro life people really cared that millions of babies were murdered every year there would be assassinations against abortion providers and bombings of clinics.
It's about pushing Judeo-Christian morality. Punishing women for having sex outside the goal of procreation.
This has the same goal, STDs are a punishment for loose morals. Preventing or curing them works against that punishment.
If pro-life people really cared about babies they'd put more effort into making sure they were fed and cared for after they were born instead of decrying any programs meant to help. Or about the mothers suffering medical complications because they can't have their non-viable fetus aborted. Pro-life is generally code for pro-birth.
> If pro life people really cared that millions of babies were murdered every year there would be assassinations against abortion providers and bombings of clinics.
Are you claiming there aren’t any?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_...: “In the United States, violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eleven people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, a police officer, two people (unclear of their connection), and a clinic escort.
[…]
According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, 13 wounded,[I 30] 100 butyric acid stink bomb attacks, 373 physical invasions, 41 bombings, 655 anthrax threats, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers.
[…]
According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs")”
Is there something wrong with the practice of abstinence, or marital fidelity?
I mean, sex inevitably causes babies: it’s an incontrovertible but inconvenient truth for the modern urban human species. But we were designed that way, yes?
Yeah. Daddy is cancelling all that unnecessary and expensive insurance so you can have a higher allowance. Why were we paying for that anyway?
Also, all those so-called "experts" with their agendas are out on their asses where they belong! The private market is sufficiently incentivized to keep their workers healthy and develop treatments for whatever ails them.
Besides, we all know that if you just live a proper, completely monogamous lifestyle, you can't get an STD. Why should Trump voters pay for those that fall ill to their own sexual deviance?
Take your pick from these (and likely more) lines of reason.
Whether this will actually benefit Trump voters is an exercise left to them, but so far they seem to think it will.
I just read a story about a young Trump voter who died a gruesome death because she wasn't allowed to have her foetus aborted/evacuated after it died naturally inside her and started rotting. She was waiting eagerly for her baby and had even named her. So much for 'pro-life'!
Meanwhile, the private companies are so incentivized to protect their workers' health that even employed people are dying of diabetes because they still can't afford insulin - something unthinkable in other countries! Insulin injections are so old and cheap to manufacter at this point. Did you forgot to mention that the employees must also be rich? And what about jobless or homeless people?
Meanwhile, about 68K people die annually of preventable diseases because their insurance claims on essential treatment get turned down by insurance companies against their doctors' determination. And that isn't charity money - it's what they paid the premiums for. How many of those thousands will be saved if you cut STD treatments, contraceptives and abortions nationwide?
There are less developed and more conservative countries in the world who know better. I don't understand how such obviously dangerous decisions can be spun as benefits for the masses!
Readit News
But this is the problem with capitalism and health care, the providers just stop if there's not enough money in it for them.
The millionaires in city center penthouses I have orgies with and sometimes meet in the spaceship-like waiting room of the fancy dermatologist in my home city and I say no.
== government’s duty
No, there's a couple of idiots in charge whose policy is being shaped by outside forces that literally want to destroy the country. This isn't some attack on a social issue.
If I choose to drive drunk, I am not magically not responsible when I mow down a mother with a child in her stroller.
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.
I believe many infections both sexually transmitted and otherwise have understudied neurological effects. It wasn't until the widespread wrath of long covid that public discussion really kicked off.
Though I agree, any advance against simplex would have been a big victory.
https://www.business-standard.com/health/shingles-vaccine-ma...
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.
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.
See also:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/04/health/cdc-sti-lab-gonorr...
From a particularly deranged wicked brand of human who see empathy as weakness, who see human prosperity as bad unless someone at the top is getting very rich.
Do these nationalists always dismantle their nation?
That's a very interesting premise.
I can think of a few counterexamples (Franco in Spain, for all the atrocities committed by his regime, Spain unquestionably progressed economically), but in general yes, nationalists are disasters when in power. Of course it doesn't help that often, especially nowadays, the nationalism is just a wrapper for a bunch of grifters that say whatever is needed to get into power (Farage, Le Pen, Trump, Orban, PiS, Putin). So they're just gifting for personal benefit (which explains the dismantling), advertised as nationalism because that convinces the masses.
Now, only the parts outside the tier 1 cities are falling apart.
I don't see it.
But then again, I don't see how a trade war against the world is going to "Make America Great Again" either. It is much more likely to do the opposite.
(not my views, oversimplified take on fundamentalists and project 2025)
Dead Comment
It's about pushing Judeo-Christian morality. Punishing women for having sex outside the goal of procreation.
This has the same goal, STDs are a punishment for loose morals. Preventing or curing them works against that punishment.
Are you claiming there aren’t any?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_...: “In the United States, violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eleven people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, a police officer, two people (unclear of their connection), and a clinic escort.
[…]
According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, 13 wounded,[I 30] 100 butyric acid stink bomb attacks, 373 physical invasions, 41 bombings, 655 anthrax threats, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers.
[…]
According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs")”
Edit: I was going to say, also don't get raped, but then I remembered, only people asking for it, i.e., Bad People get raped.
I mean, sex inevitably causes babies: it’s an incontrovertible but inconvenient truth for the modern urban human species. But we were designed that way, yes?
Also, all those so-called "experts" with their agendas are out on their asses where they belong! The private market is sufficiently incentivized to keep their workers healthy and develop treatments for whatever ails them.
Besides, we all know that if you just live a proper, completely monogamous lifestyle, you can't get an STD. Why should Trump voters pay for those that fall ill to their own sexual deviance?
Take your pick from these (and likely more) lines of reason.
Whether this will actually benefit Trump voters is an exercise left to them, but so far they seem to think it will.
Meanwhile, the private companies are so incentivized to protect their workers' health that even employed people are dying of diabetes because they still can't afford insulin - something unthinkable in other countries! Insulin injections are so old and cheap to manufacter at this point. Did you forgot to mention that the employees must also be rich? And what about jobless or homeless people?
Meanwhile, about 68K people die annually of preventable diseases because their insurance claims on essential treatment get turned down by insurance companies against their doctors' determination. And that isn't charity money - it's what they paid the premiums for. How many of those thousands will be saved if you cut STD treatments, contraceptives and abortions nationwide?
There are less developed and more conservative countries in the world who know better. I don't understand how such obviously dangerous decisions can be spun as benefits for the masses!
They get to punish woke science. That's about how much thought they put it into. There's no 5-dimensional chess at play.
Imagine how all the chemists who study cis/trans isomerization feel right now ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis%E2%80%93trans_isomerism
As someone who studied an cis/trans isomerase decades ago in grad school, I say this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but not completely.
Sure, stuff like this will disproportionately affect gay men. The average Trump voter things homosexuality is a sin.