Tag: nih

No, Democrats, Trump Didn’t Kill Drug Research — Here’s What Actually Happened at the NIH

Democrats are up in arms, accusing President Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) of gutting drug research funding.

Social media is flooded with dramatic claims—photos of sick children, stories of desperate patients—each suggesting that Trump has cut off their last hope. The truth, however, is far less dramatic.

The Trump administration has indeed pushed aggressive cost-cutting across federal agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which funds a large share of America’s drug research. But contrary to the headlines, there’s no blanket halt on medical research—far from it.

Studies continue under other federal programs and through robust private funding, supporting everything from cancer breakthroughs to rare disease therapies.

What the administration has done is implement targeted policies—like capping overhead costs and temporarily pausing some grant reviews—that have caused confusion, delays, and loud complaints from researchers and critics, but they haven’t shut down research altogether.

Here’s the real story: In February 2025, the NIH proposed capping “indirect costs”—expenses like lab maintenance and utilities—at 15%, down from the usual 27–30%.

That move would cut about $4 billion annually from the $9 billion typically allocated for such costs within the NIH’s $35 billion grant budget (based on 2023 figures, adjusted slightly for 2025).

Universities and hospitals quickly sounded the alarm, warning of layoffs and stalled projects. Then, on March 5, 2025, a federal judge in Boston issued a nationwide injunction, blocking the cuts after 22 Democratic-led states and research groups filed suit, citing bipartisan legislation that protects NIH funding.

As of April 3, the proposed cap remains tied up in court—no reductions have taken effect.

Meanwhile, shortly after Trump’s inauguration, the NIH temporarily froze most grant-review meetings, stalling roughly $1.5 billion in new research funding (Nature, February 2025).

This wasn’t a budget cut—it was a bureaucratic slowdown triggered by new oversight protocols.

Keep reading

The 3 Myths Supporting NIH Funding

The Trump administration’s proposal to cut National Institutes of Health (NIH) indirect funds has been widely attacked, with heated claims it will annihilate biomedical scientific research in the United States. Leading with a picture of a 12-year-old child with muscular dystrophy, Shetal Shah, a neonatology professor, argued in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser that the cuts would “hobble” vital medical research, and a Time magazine interviewee went as far as to call it the “apocalypse” of U.S. science writ large. While the funding cut has been blocked by federal judges for now, the future fiscal status of the NIH, and the university researchers that depend on it, remains uncertain.

Pundits discussing the cuts nearly universally agree that federally funded science is a crucial component of lifesaving medical therapies, innovative technology, and the ongoing status of the U.S. as a scientific superpower. These assertions are repeated ad nauseam despite history telling a different story. Promulgating three core myths, advocates for maintaining the status quo of public funding have been active in the media, but none of their key assertions withstand considering the historical record.

Keep reading

NIH has known for decades that flu vaccinations do not reduce deaths among the elderly but instead increases them

In 2005, the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) launched an effort to do “the” definitive study that would actually prove, for the first time, once and for all, that flu vaccines were beneficial to the elderly.  The study, published in JAMA, was covered up but Sharyl Attkisson, at the time an investigative journalist for CBS, aired a report on it in 2006.   

In her report, she interviewed Dr. Thomas Reichert, a co-author of the study.  She had originally agreed to interview the lead author, Lone Simonsen, but Simonsen’s bosses at the NIH blocked the interview.  Dr. Reichert was independent of the US government and so Attkisson was able to interview him.

“Here’s what scientists have found,” Attkisson said. “Over 20 years, the percentage of seniors getting flu shots increased sharply from 15% to 65%. It stands to reason that flu deaths among the elderly should have taken a dramatic dip … Instead, flu deaths among the elderly continued to climb.”

“We realised we had incendiary material,” Dr. Reichert said.  They not only checked the data to make sure what they found was correct, “we’ve looked at other countries now and the same is true,” he said.

Attkisson revisited her investigation in her blog in 2015.  She said the study emphasised how these vaccines might kill lives instead of saving them. While the researchers wanted to prove that the pressure on mass flu vaccination would save the world, they were “surprised” that the data did not support their assumption at all. The data actually shows that the number of deaths in the elderly increased after vaccination: 60 percent of people aged 65 and over have an enormously increased risk of death if they get the flu shot.

Last year, she again reminded her readers about Simonsen’s 2005 study in an article on her Substack page. “An important and definitive ‘mainstream’ government study done nearly two decades ago got little attention because the science came down on the wrong side,” she wrote.

“It found that after decades and billions of dollars spent promoting flu shots for the elderly, the mass vaccination program did not result in saving lives. In fact, the death rate among the elderly increased substantially,” she said.

Adding, “After the Simonsen study, many international studies also arrived at the same conclusion. Flu shots weren’t correlated with declining mortality in any age group. Yet you probably haven’t heard much about these ‘incendiary’ findings.”

Keep reading

Trump pledges to end the use of aborted baby tissues in federal investigation.

The Trump administration is about to take a monumental step in defending life and scientific ethics by banning the use of fetal tissues from abortions in research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

This decision, driven by Trump’s nominee to lead the NIH, Jay Bhattacharya, and backed by key figures such as Senator Josh Hawley and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., marks a milestone in the pro-life movement and the search for ethical alternatives in science.

During a hearing before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Trump’s NIH nominee, Jay Bhattacharya, explicitly promised to ban the use of fetal tissues from abortions in research funded by the institution.

When Senator Josh Hawley asked him if he supported Kennedy’s attempt to reinstate a policy from Trump’s first administration that severely restricted such investigation, Bhattacharya responded affirmatively, emphasizing that viable ethical alternatives exist.

@DrJBhattacharya promised that NO aborted fetal tissue will be used in NIH-funded research.

Keep reading

Former NIH Director Does Cringeworthy Musical Performance at Anti-Trump Rally

Can someone please call the Democrats and ask them to stop singing songs? The cringe is getting difficult to take.

Dr. Francis Collins, former director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), busted out a guitar at an anti-Trump event and began banging away as if he was Woody Guthrie or something. The result was so off the charts bad that it’s difficult to describe.

Why do they think this is a good idea?

The Daily Caller reported:

At Anti-Trump Rally, Former NIH Director Sings The Same Way He Practices Science

Former National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins sang during an anti-Trump rally in video posted on social media Friday.

Collins, who retired in December 2021 after he was appointed in 2009 by then-President Barack Obama, came under fire during the COVID-19 pandemic for trying to shut down “The Great Barrington Declaration,” which criticized the COVID-19 lockdowns. Collins joined a “Stand Up For Science” protest that aired on CSPAN2, where he attempted to lead the protesters in a song and teach them lyrics.

“You got that, so it’s all the good people, but the second line, part of this family, the last line, we’re joined together by this noble dream. Do that with me,” Collins said before breaking into the song.

During Collins’ tenure as director of NIH, the agency funded “gain of function” research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China via EcoHealth Alliance. Collins refused to answer questions publicly about WIV’s research, even though a lab leak at WIV is suspected to have caused the COVID-19 pandemic.

Keep reading

Bhattacharya Opposes Vaccine Mandates, Promises to Tackle Chronic Disease Epidemic

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the National Institutes of Health (NIH), said during today’s confirmation hearing that he opposes vaccine mandates and scientific censorship.

He also told members of the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (STEP) that he believes in diverse scientific research and he supports efforts to address today’s chronic disease epidemic.

During his opening statement, Bhattacharya, a critic of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions and co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, listed the five priorities he will pursue if confirmed as NIH director:

  • Tackle the chronic disease epidemic.
  • Support scientific research that is “replicable, reproducible and generalizable.”
  • Establish “a culture of respect for free speech in science and scientific dissent.”
  • Fund “the most innovative biomedical research agenda possible to improve American health.”
  • “Vigorously” regulate research “that has the possibility of causing a pandemic,” such as gain-of-function research.

According to STAT News, if confirmed as NIH director, Bhattacharya will oversee “the biggest funder of biomedical research in the world.” Composed of 27 research institutes and centers, the NIH has a nearly $50 billion budget, NBC News reported.

Following the hearing, Endpoints News reported that Bhattacharya sailed through today’s proceedings and “appears headed for a relatively easy Senate confirmation.”

Bhattacharya supports ‘broad scientific agenda’ to study rise in autism

Early during the hearing, Bhattacharya responded to statements by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), chair of the committee, that a link between the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism has been debunked and therefore doesn’t require further scientific study.

Bhattacharya responded:

“As far as research on autism and vaccines, I don’t generally believe that there is a link, based on my reading of the literature. But what I have seen is that there’s tremendous distrust in medicine and science coming out of the pandemic.

“We do have … a sharp rise in autism rates in this country, and I don’t know, and I don’t think any scientist really knows, the cause of it. So, I would support [a] broad scientific agenda based on data to get an answer to that.”

Bhattacharya said people’s doubts about vaccines and mistrust toward public health agencies can be addressed by providing “good data.”

“We want answers,” he said. “Parents want answers. Kids are suffering. And the NIH ought to be doing the research that [provides] those answers. That’s the most important thing.”

Bhattacharya called for funding “the most innovative biomedical research agenda possible to improve American health.”

“My plan is to ensure that the NIH invests in cutting-edge research in every field to make big advances rather than just small incremental progress,” Bhattacharya said.

Keep reading

NIH Redacts Nearly 2,500 Pages Of Records On Wireless Radiation Studies

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) refuses to reveal nearly 2,500 pages of records related to the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) decision to shut down its research on how wireless radiation affects human health, according to an investigation by The Defender.

In January 2024, the NTP announced it had no plans to further study the effects of cellphone radiofrequency radiation (RFR) on human health — even though the program’s own 10-year, $30 million study, completed in 2018, found “clear evidence” of cancer and DNA damage.

In April 2024, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed requests to the NIH under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to obtain records related to why the government shut down the research.

Miriam Eckenfels, director of CHD’s Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) & Wireless Program said, “First and foremost, we want the science done.”

Keep reading

Former NIH Director Francis Collins Abruptly Retires From Agency After Docs Previously Revealed He Lied About His Involvement with Gain-of-Function Research in Wuhan Lab

Former NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins abruptly retired from the agency on Saturday amid accusations of perjury.

In 2021, Dr. Francis Collins resigned just a few weeks after documents exposed he lied about his involvement in gain-of-function research in the Wuhan lab.

“It has been an incredible privilege to lead this great agency for more than a decade,” Collins said in a statement.

“I love this agency and its people so deeply that the decision to step down was a difficult one, done in close counsel with my wife, Diane Baker, and my family. I am proud of all we’ve accomplished. I fundamentally believe, however, that no single person should serve in the position too long, and that it’s time to bring in a new scientist to lead the NIH into the future. I’m most grateful and proud of the NIH staff and the scientific community, whose extraordinary commitment to lifesaving research delivers hope to the American people and the world every day.”

Recall, Francis Collins in the summer of 2021 said parents should wear masks at home in front of their unvaccinated children.

Collins conceded that it “may sound weird” that people should wear masks in their homes, but he advised it anyway.

“Parents of unvaccinated kids should be thoughtful about this and the recommendation is to wear masks [at home] as well,” Collins said. “I know that’s uncomfortable. I know it seems weird but it is the best way to protect your kids.”

This kind of lunacy wasn’t even advised before Covid vaccines were available.

Keep reading

Perspectives From A Senior Staffer And NIH Loyalist: The Dark Side Of NIH Leadership

As someone who works directly with the NIH Director’s office, I am dismayed by the disingenuous coverage of NIH in places like the New York Times and Science Magazine. Very little of what I read comports with my own experience and I am worried that scientists and the general public are getting a false view of the real problems inside the world’s largest funder of biomedical research.

Every large institution is fraught with palace politics, but today’s NIH is suffering from a deeply entrenched senior leadership in the director’s office that is plagued by enmity, distrust and isolation. The NIH Director works in Building 1 and oversees 27 other Institutes that research various diseases—the one most people have heard of is the National Cancer Institute. But to most of these institute directors, Building1 is a dark hole they both fear and despise. If you’re a running a research lab in Wisconsin this probably doesn’t matter to you; if you’re bed ridden with an undiagnosed, complex neurological disease—a life put on hold—why would you care?

But at every level today NIH’s management is distanced further away from its overall mission to advance science that improves health.

NIH scientists are quite busy with their research and don’t always read news about NIH scandals. I don’t, because I don’t really have time, nor do I care. But turmoil from the recent election has caused me to read about the retirement of Dr. Lawrence Tabak, who served as Principal Deputy Director, the number two position at NIH. I have worked with and observed Dr. Tabak’s ascent to this commanding position at NIH, from which he weaponized systems and processes to harm those who disagreed with his views or decisions.

Yet, I saw none of this in a news account by the New York Times and much of the reporting seemed to describe a different person than the Larry Tabak that I know. According to this New York Times reporter, Tabak’s retirement was “surprising” as he was “long considered a steadying force” and “someone who could work across party lines.”

Tabak’s retirement was not “surprising.” After Trump won office, Tabak told senior NIH officials several times in private meetings that he might be forced to retire or step down. And he was only a “steadying force” if he liked you personally and you didn’t dare to question his decisions or those made by his favored staff.

I find it odd that the New York Times would report that Tabak was “someone who could work across party lines.” Like almost every NIH leader, Tabak is a committed Democrat who can work with Republicans if he holds his nose, but he despised President Trump. Several have heard Tabak say several times that he couldn’t stand to be in the same room as Trump.

Keep reading

Speaking Of Lawfare… CT AG Tong And Blue State AG Coalition Sue To Stop Cost-Cutting Efforts At HHS And NIH, Including $35M From UCONN

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong and 21 other attorneys general today sued the Trump Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) over new guidance on indirect costs (e.g., depreciation, interest on debt, general administrative expenses) at universities and research institutions across the country that would bring such costs in line with market rates.

Pursuant to the new guidance, there will be a standard cost rate of 15% across all NIH grants for indirect costs in lieu of a separately negotiated rate for indirect costs in every grant.

Per NIH, it is “obligated to carefully steward grant awards to ensure taxpayer dollars are used in ways that benefit the American people and improve their quality of life.  Indirect costs are, by their very nature, ‘not readily assignable to the cost objectives specifically benefitted’ and are therefore difficult for NIH to oversee.”

The indirect cost rate reported by NIH has averaged between 27% and 28% over time. And many organizations are much higher—charging indirect rates of over 50% and in some cases over 60%.

Most private foundations that fund research provide substantially lower indirect costs than the federal government, and universities readily accept grants from these foundations.  

For example, a recent study found that the most common rate of indirect rate reimbursement by foundations was 0%, meaning many foundations do not fund indirect costs whatsoever.  In addition, many of the nation’s largest funders of research—such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation—have a maximum indirect rate of 15%.  And in the case of the Gates Foundation, the maximum indirect costs rate is 10% for institutions of higher education.

Keep reading