[WesternWind]

Pretty sure a bunch of statistics that might be used to argue against Republican talking points are going to disappear or not be updated. Maybe they won't even get to be collected. It's a lot easier to lie if you prevent scientists and health care professionals from undercutting you with inconvenient truths.

As someone who has worked in public health and epidemiology, this kind of open ended restriction is extremely concerning.

Also appears to undercut the whole free speech thing that President Trump supposedly supports, and that the constitution provides for in the first amendment.

[linsomniac]

>statistics that might be used to argue against Republican talking points are going to disappear

So, you're saying the WHOLE map will be drawn with Sharpie? ;-)

[UncleOxidant]

> Also appears to undercut the whole free speech thing that President Trump supposedly supports

Saying he supports "free speech" and actually doing it are two different things. In reality he supports speech that supports his preferred narrative of reality and opposes speech that doesn't.

[duxup]

Free speech, states rights, government accountability, any serious sense of libertarianism and so on are all with the caveat of “if I like it” as far as the current Republican Party is concerned.

[762236]

If you've worked as a scientist, why not gather evidence before jumping to conclusions? For example, you could inquire of the administration why they did this. They're actually putting in quite an effort at transparency.

[WesternWind]

My concerns about the future are based on what President Trump did in 2017 with the NIH budget (attempting to cut it 22%)¹ thus preventing important scientific research funding, as well as removal of covid-19 health statistics from the CDC in 2020² in the middle of a major pandemic.

Unfortunately, given that he is now holding the highest office in the US, it's a well known fact that Donald Trump lies constantly both when in office³ and when campaigning⁴, and I lack all faith in his administration's supposed transparency.

1.https://www.science.org/content/article/nih-plan-reduce-over... 2.https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/07/16/coronavirus... 3. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/16/politics/fact-check-dale-top-... 4. https://www.salon.com/2024/11/09/six-big-lies-that-won-the-e...

[ayakang31415]

Because for some people, this is not a scientific peer-reviewed discussion, but rather typical conversation normal people have over dinner table with gut feelings and limited information. Just assume that "I believe", "in my opinion", "AFAIK" are implied for statements like above.