reSee.it - Related Video Feed

A large portion of Columbia's students are international and pay full tuition, which brings up a couple of questions. Why are American taxpayers funding the education of non-Americans, especially after reports of significant federal grant reductions? Also, what is the real direction of our cultural exchange? Harvard recently froze hiring, which is interesting considering where federal grants are usually allocated. The professors who are most vocal in supporting protests and opposing the administration are not the ones who will be affected by Trump pulling grant funding. This could create internal conflict within universities between researchers who just want to focus on their work and those who are willing to fight the administration.

The discussion centers on gain-of-function (GoF) research, its regulation, and the motivations behind it. The first speaker notes the administration’s goal to end GoF research and asks where that stands. The second speaker says progress has been made, and the White House is working on a formal policy. He then defines the issue in stages: what GoF research is, why someone would do it, and how to regulate it to prevent dangerous projects that could catastrophically harm human populations. He clarifies that GoF research is not inherently bad, but dangerous GoF research is. He gives an insulin example: creating bacteria to produce insulin is a legitimate GoF that benefits diabetics. In contrast, taking a virus from bat caves, bringing it to a lab in a densely populated city with weak biosafety, and manipulating it to be more transmissible among humans is a dangerous GoF that should not be supported. The administration’s policy aims to prevent such dangerous work entirely, and the President signed an executive order in April or May endorsing this policy. Next, he discusses implementation: how to create incentives to ensure this research does not recur. He explains that the utopian idea behind such research was to prevent all pandemics by collecting viruses from wild places, testing their potential to infect humans by increasing their pathogenicity, and then preparing countermeasures in advance (vaccines, antivirals) and stockpiling them, even though those countermeasures would not have been tested against humans yet. If a virus did leap to humans, the foreseen countermeasures might prove ineffective because evolution is unpredictable. This “triage” approach—identifying pathogens most likely to leap and preemptively preparing against them—was the rationale for dangerous GoF work, a rationale he characterizes as flawed. He notes that many scientists considered this an effort to do bioweapons research under the guise of safety and defense. The work is dual-use. The U.S. is a signatory to the Biological Weapons Convention and does not conduct offensive bio-weapons research, but other countries might. The discussion highlights that the GoF research discussed during the pandemic can backfire and may not align with true biodefense, since countermeasures might not match whatever pathogen actually emerges. The speaker concludes that this agenda—pursuing GoF to prevent pandemics—has drawn substantial support from parts of the Western world and other countries for about two and a half decades, but he implies it is not deserving of continuation.

The speaker expresses gratitude for a partnership with Doge and Elon, stating that Health and Human Services (HHS) expenditures increased by 38% and employees by 17% during the Biden administration, while healthcare declined. The department has 40 communications, procurement, IT, and HR departments that do not communicate with each other. With Elon's help, the speaker aims to eliminate redundancies and streamline the department. The goal is to restore gold standard science, directing funds to scientists and patients instead of administrators and bureaucrats, and to make America healthy again.

The speaker states that gain-of-function research, which aims to make pathogens more virulent and transmissible, is believed by many scientists to be responsible for the COVID pandemic. They claim this research doesn't protect against pandemics or other nations, but risks accidental leaks that could cause a pandemic. According to the speaker, any nation engaging in this research endangers its population and the world. They say the proclamation will not affect most science, but will address the fraction of research that risks causing a pandemic. The executive order establishes a framework to ensure the public has a say and can reject such risks, preventing scientists alone from making these decisions. The speaker expresses pride in President Trump for signing the order to end this research and establish a regulatory framework to eliminate it.

Speaker critiques the CDC’s ranking of medical advances, stating: "Today on CDC's website, right now, they list the 10 top advances the 10 greatest advances in medical science, and one of them is abortion." He continues, "The other is another is flirtation, another is vaccines." He argues that we need to "look at the priorities of the agency" because there may be "a deeply, deeply embedded, I would say, malaise at the agency." He calls for "strong leadership that will go in there and that will be able to execute on president Trump's broad ambitions." Yeah. The overall message centers on agency priorities, alleged malaise, and the call for leadership to advance President Trump's broad ambitions.

The speaker envisions a future where the NIH focuses on understanding the causes of American sickness, with 80% of its budget dedicated to innovations that reverse and prevent disease. A more deregulated FDA encourages innovation from therapeutic and preventative device makers, and has been freed from conflicts of interest. The CMS department is working with Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance to evolve the standard of care towards science, addressing lifestyle conditions that the current medical system doesn't incentivize reversing or preventing. The CDC is improving infectious disease procedures while also focusing on preventing and reversing chronic disease. The speaker claims this paradigm shift, driven by voters, will lead to a healthcare system focused on prevention and reversal, rather than being predicated on more Americans being sick.

The speaker states that Trump has asked him to reorganize the federal health agencies whose portfolios affect human health, specifically the CDC, NIH, FDA, and some USDA agencies. The goals are to clean up corruption, end conflicts of interest, and return these agencies to their “rich tradition of gold standard empirically based evidence based science, evidence based medicine.” He adds a aim to end the chronic disease epidemic in the country, with a specific request to measurably reduce chronic disease in children within two years.

It doesn't matter who comes before us as long as they support this administration and ignore your beliefs. If your views are fundamental, how do you reconcile that? President Trump tasked me with ending the chronic disease epidemic and making America healthy again. This is my primary focus at HHS. If we don't tackle this issue, all other discussions about healthcare funding are irrelevant. The U.S. has the highest chronic disease burden globally, and during COVID, we accounted for 16% of deaths despite having only 4.2% of the world’s population. The average American who died from COVID had multiple chronic diseases. This situation poses an existential threat to our economy, military, and overall well-being, making it a top priority for President Trump. If confirmed, I will address this challenge directly.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss government funding for scientific and medical research, focusing on a grant referred to as a Doge grant and a series of other NSF-funded projects. The exchange opens with Speaker 0 asking, “What is a birthing person?” and presses Speaker 1 to identify who birthing people are, including whether it is another word for a woman. Speaker 1 says he is not familiar with the Doge grant and notes that he takes a position that “all kinds of government research, medical, pharmacy” should be considered, but does not clarify the term further. Speaker 0 labels the term as erasure language and asks again whether a conference titled “gender equity in the mathematical study of commutative algebra” is a valid form of government spending. Speaker 1 replies that mathematical research of all types is deserving of government support. Speaker 0 asks about “women and non binary mathematicians” as described on the National Science Foundation’s website. Speaker 1 again supports government investment in mathematics broadly, stating, “I think all kinds of government investment should be dedicated toward mathematics.” When Speaker 0 questions whether there should be any limit on spending, Speaker 1 reiterates that he is talking about Doge, and notes he is not familiar with the particular grant but supports government investment in mathematical biology. Speaker 0 introduces another grant, “TranscendentHealth, adapting an LGB plus inclusive teen pregnancy prevention program for transgender boys,” and asks whether that is a useful form of tax spending. Speaker 1 says he is not familiar with that grant but emphasizes that bench research and government investment in scientific and pharmacotherapy are important, though he does not describe the grant’s specifics. Speaker 0 then asks about “the racialized basis of trait judgments from faces,” stating it is a $500,000 NSF grant, and asks for Speaker 1’s view. Speaker 1 confirms unfamiliarity with the subject matter but again asserts that government investment in all kinds of scientific research is of utmost importance. The conversation moves to “prostate steroid therapy and cardiovascular risk in the transgender female,” with Speaker 0 pressing on the usefulness of funding. Speaker 1 maintains that government investment in scientific research is important, without further qualification. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 thanking Speaker 1 for his testimony, and Speaker 1 acknowledging appreciation for the opportunity to testify.

The speaker says they are aligned with Elon's actions and that moving fast is necessary to overcome vested interests. Within a ten-mile radius, 25% of the US GDP pulsates, and everyone wants to "skim a little." Elon believes he's moving the American people's cheese, not someone else's. Changes cause people to come after Elon and the administration, and the benefits of cuts aren't immediately visible, creating a perception challenge. The speaker clarifies that it's the Department of Government Efficiency, not extinction, aiming to improve government operations without demonizing federal employees. Two significant savings will come from cutting contractors. One organization, Booz Allen, receives 98% of its revenue from the government, indicating a risk management failure and entrenched interests. Despite a six-month contract limit, some individuals have been in place for twenty years through repeated contracts. The administration's transparency in exposing this "grift" is crucial for taxpayers to understand the extent of the issue.

The speaker asks why Ivy League schools receive so much federal funding. Speaker 1 responds that the president has raised this question in discussions with Harvard, Columbia, and other Ivy League institutions. The president created an antisemitism task force with representatives from federal agencies who meet weekly to discuss this issue. Speaker 1 states that many Americans wonder why their tax dollars go to universities that are allegedly indoctrinating students and allowing egregious illegal behavior.

Speaker argues for credit to federally funded researchers and the officials who funded their work, noting breakthroughs rely on decades of federal science. He states the mRNA vaccine story “does not start with operation warp speed” and that “the sprint actually began” as dedicated NIH and Moderna staff worked day and night. He traces investments back to Obama: “a 2010 PCAST report on reengineering vaccine production,” “a 2013 DARPA grant to Moderna,” and “a 2015 BARDA investment”; by the end of the Obama administration Moderna had mRNA vaccines and therapeutics under test in animals and humans. “This one liter bottle… would contain over 30,000,000 doses,” enough to vaccinate doctors, first responders, or seniors over 75, and “without those investments, frankly, project warp speed would not have squat.” Speaker 1 notes bipartisan support for biomedical research across administrations, mentions monoclonal antibody work and antiviral molecules, and cautions against proposed budget cuts.

The American people are tired of their tax dollars being wasted. For the first time, this president is committed to restoring accountability at every level of the federal government. If you agree there is waste, abuse, and corruption, why are you not celebrating the cuts and reforms that are being instituted? We are saving Americans billions of dollars and ending the theft, waste, grift, and corruption. We are stopping American taxpayer dollars from subsidizing a rogue federal bureaucracy that has been relentlessly weaponized against the American people. We care about this issue. The American public overwhelmingly supports what President Trump is doing.

The speaker credits the president for enabling Elon Musk's involvement with Doge. They also praise the president for allowing an outside team of experts to analyze government departments and identify potential cuts. According to the speaker, this team found $160 billion in annual administrative cuts. However, these cuts require congressional approval. The speaker acknowledges that some Republicans are not in favor of the necessary austerity measures to enact these cuts.

The DOGE program is targeted at bureaucrats. Take the Department of Education, for example. They have a budget of about $280 billion a year, but less than 25% goes to educating students. The other $220 billion goes to bureaucracy, consultants who donate money back to Democrats, NGOs—it's money laundering. You can find this in almost every agency. The brilliance of DOGE is not that he is cutting spending, he doesn't have the authority to do that, we do. I want him to create a report, going agency by agency, identifying programs we shouldn't fund, and attaching a number to it. We then put a preamble on the front of that report and say every agency's budget will be cut by X amount as shown in the report, and none of those programs can continue.

The speaker credits the president for allowing Elon to bring in a team of young geniuses to analyze departments and cut spending. They reportedly identified $160 billion in potential annual administrative cuts. However, congressional approval is needed to implement these cuts. The speaker acknowledges that some Republicans are not in favor of the level of austerity required to enact these cuts.

The DOGE program is definitely targeted at bureaucrats. Take the Department of Education, for instance. They have a $280 billion budget, but less than 25% actually goes to educating students. The other $220 billion? It goes to bureaucracy, consultants who donate back to Democrats, more consultants, and NGOs. It's money laundering at its finest, and you'll find it in almost every agency. The brilliance of DOGE is not that he has the authority to cut spending, we do. I want him to create a report, going agency by agency, identifying programs we shouldn't fund and assigning a number to each. We'll add a preamble, cut each agency's budget by a set amount based on the report, and halt those programs for good.

Speaker 0: Bouncing off the CDC sit the situation with CDC. I'm curious if if administration officials are pushing back on the president's agenda privately, publicly, however, should they fear to lose their jobs going forward? Speaker 1: Look, I think if you're doing your job well and if you are executing on the vision and the promises that the president made to the public who elected him back to this office, then you should have no fear about your job. Just do your job. That's what this president wants to see. He wants to see people solving problems. He wants to see the the people who have the privilege of serving the American taxpayer and the federal government abiding by the wishes of the American taxpayers who overwhelmingly reelected him, in this cabinet, to make America great again or, in this case, make America healthy again.

HHS is reportedly undergoing massive cuts, with a quarter of its employees leaving or expected to be terminated, impacting vaccine and drug research, HIV/AIDS research, AI, services for the elderly and low-income, STD prevention, and rural health. These changes are defended by arguing that voters wanted change by putting Bobby Kennedy Jr. in a position of power. The claim is that existing health authorities, specifically the NIH, oversaw the creation of a pandemic and a devastation of American health over the past twenty years, with skyrocketing disease rates. The FDA is allegedly stifling innovation with small pharma, and CMS is controlled by a pharmaceutical lobbying group. It is argued that cutting 20,000 people and taking HHS back to 68,000 employees is not slashing, but a necessary correction. The speaker suggests that Bobby Kennedy should make dramatic changes to the leadership and personnel at these authorities. The claim is that these authorities have overseen an abject devastation of American health, and that people voted for Bobby Kennedy to reform these agencies.

The speaker rejects the idea that American citizens lack the talent to excel and believes that reducing foreign student visas presents an opportunity for Americans. American higher education, particularly in biology, faces a reproducibility crisis, with many published papers being irreproducible and not representing sound science. Furthermore, these institutions are allegedly engaging in explicit racial discrimination against whites and Asians, violating the Civil Rights Act. The speaker suggests government intervention to ensure accountability, prevent civil rights violations, and ensure that federally funded science is of high quality. The speaker clarifies that this is accountability, not a war on institutions.

HHS is reportedly undergoing massive cuts, with a quarter of its employees leaving or expected to be terminated, impacting vaccine and drug research, HIV/AIDS research, AI, services for the elderly and low-income, STD prevention, and rural health. These changes are defended by citing voter sentiment that the existing health system is failing. The NIH is accused of overseeing the creation of a pandemic and a decline in American health, with rising chronic disease rates. The FDA is criticized for hindering small pharma innovation due to high costs, and CMS is allegedly controlled by pharmaceutical lobbying. It is argued that the cuts are not slashes but a return to 2017 levels, reducing HHS to 68,000 employees. The speaker believes that dramatic changes are needed in health authorities and personnel, and that Bobby Kennedy should appoint reformers to agencies like the FDA. The speaker cites Peter Marks as an example of someone who went against FDA advisory opinions and should be replaced.

The speaker credits the president for allowing Elon to bring in a team of young geniuses to analyze departments and cut spending. They reportedly identified $160 billion a year in administrative cuts. However, these cuts require congressional approval. The speaker acknowledges that some Republicans are soft on spending, making it difficult to achieve the desired austerity and cuts.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the politicization of science and changes at the NIH. Over the last fifteen to twenty years, the NIH incorporated what Speaker 1 characterizes as political agendas rather than scientific agendas into its portfolio, with DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) being the most prominent example. A chunk of NIH funding went to projects focused on achieving social objectives rather than the health mission. Every NIH employee allegedly had to write a loyalty oath to DEI principles and was evaluated on devotion to the cause. Researchers inside and outside the NIH could access funds, with outside researchers more easily securing money if they promised to conduct DEI research, according to Speaker 1. Much of that research allegedly lacked a real scientific basis and was not science. Speaker 1 provides an example of projects they worked to deprioritize: a project asking whether structural racism is the root reason why African Americans have worse hypertension outcomes. The problem, they say, is that there is no way to test the hypothesis because, if structural racism is the cause, there is no workable control group to test the idea as true. They assert that such research did not translate into better health for anybody, including minority populations. They describe these projects as political agendas that do not belong in a science agency. The stated mission is to improve the health of everybody, including minority populations, but only if projects are clearly scientific, well defined, and have a real chance of improving health. Speaker 0 asks for clarification, summarizing that there were ideological or political projects receiving NIH funding. Speaker 1 confirms and adds another practice: when a good science project ended the year with leftover funds, program officers would approach researchers with leftover money and offer a “diversity supplement”—an add-on tied to DEI that was not actual science—to obtain extra funding. This, they claim, was a waste of taxpayer money with no real health benefit. They say they have since gotten rid of all of that.

There are no Doge cuts, and this is not USAID. The speaker is talking about waste and fraud, specifically in Medicaid, and claims no one has been turned over to the DOJ for fraud. Elon Musk gave false hope to a political class that doesn't want to cut anything. The big bill has problems, but it passed because Musk promised a trillion dollars. The rescission next week is $9 billion, with $2 billion from PBS and NPR. There's supposedly $7 billion in fraud on a $7 trillion budget. Musk committed $1 trillion to the President, leading to questions about whether it's all "BS."

The speaker expressed gratitude for a partnership with Doge and Elon. They stated that during the Biden administration, the HHS budget increased by 38% and employees increased by 17%, while healthcare declined. The speaker claimed HHS has 40 comms, procurement, and IT departments that don't communicate. With Elon's help, they aim to eliminate redundancies and streamline the department. The goal is to restore gold standard science, directing funds to scientists and patients instead of administrators and bureaucrats, and to make America healthy again.