Trump's pick for budget director questions whether govt should fund science

I don’t think that will happen.

Agamemnon wrote:

<span class=”d4pbbc-font-color” style=”color: blue”>I don’t think that will happen.</span>

I agree.

nittany ram wrote:

bnw wrote:

So this is a credible news source the liberals bray about? The fourth word in the third sentence “seems” relegates this to nothing but conjecture. Now about Zika what the article didn’t go into is that he is correct to question the link between Zika and microencephaly. I posted about this some time ago. In Brazil the microencephaly was initially prevalent where certain agricultural chemicals were allowed to be used on crops and coincided with the Brazilian government mandating the use of a new vaccine cocktail for pregnant women. Whether these are credible explanations are not it is apparent the microencephaly “epidemic” stops at the Brazilian border. There is even doubt that the incidence of it has actually increased due to the lack of a coordinated data collection system.

The point is, the new budget director openly questions whether the federal government should fund scientific research and he uses our lack of knowledge about the Zika virus as his reasoning? Seems to me that’s exactly why the federal govt needs to continue to fund research. Microcephaly associated with Zika has been reported from 12 countries. So whatever the reason for the Colombia descrepency, the link between the virus and microcephaly still holds.

Microencephaly occurs in all nations. Zika has been around for at least 70 years in the tropics. That some women IN OTHER COUNTRIES are now identified as having the Zika virus and a child with microencephaly does not prove causation. Again the microencephaly so called epidemic STOPS AT THE BRAZILIAN BORDER. Caps used to provide emphasis of salient fact that apparently is conveniently overlooked or ignored.

nittany ram wrote:

bnw wrote:

nittany ram wrote:

bnw wrote:

occurs in all nations. Zika has been around for at least 70 years in the tropics. That some women IN OTHER COUNTRIES are now identified as having the Zika virus and a child with microencephaly does not prove causation. Again the microencephaly so called epidemic STOPS AT THE BRAZILIAN BORDER. Caps used to provide emphasis of salient fact that apparently is conveniently overlooked or ignored.

Actually Colombia is seeing a huge rise in microcephaly and other birth defects that correlates with the increase in Zika infections.

http://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i6716

But again, this is beside the point. The Zika virus can now be found in the US. If there is any chance at all it may be linked to birth defects why shouldn’t the federal government study it? Why should the US govt not fund research for this or any over issue?

Not true about Colombia. In fact it is just the opposite. Big outbreak of Zika and no epidemic of microencephaly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/health/colombia-zika-microcephaly.html

Your article is from October, mine is from December. Yours isn’t current.

And you still haven’t answered why the US govt shouldn’t fund research against diseases that threatens its citizens?

My article is from the last day of October.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 9 months ago by bnw.

Zooey wrote:

Drain the swamp, you know.