From: ‘Charlie Kirk Miracle’ - the Authoritarianism discussion

[Kishkumen]

It's projected that there will be an additional 6.6 million new HIV infections in the next 4 years because of Trump's policies with PEPFAR. Within the first weeks of his cuts, there were at least 300 babies who contracted HIV that otherwise wouldn't have (300 babies within weeks of his policies going into effect). The University of Maryland School of Medicine did an analysis on the USAID cuts, and just this year alone, there will be 1.12 million children who go without food. By the end of Trump's presidency, UCLA estimates that 4.5 million children under the age of 5 will die because of Trump's policies. The US burned food rather than give it away, under Trump's policies. Other countries literally offered to buy the food we had stockpiled and set aside for poor and starving people, but instead Trump decided it was better to burn the food than let hungry poor people have it.

Sure, one could argue that we need to save money, and spend it here, but keep in mind that the money spent for Trump to watch half of a football game, before leaving to rage tweet, would have paid for all of PEPFAR. The money spent for Trump to drive around in a circle at a race track would have saved at least 100,000 children's lives. Meanwhile, we're also giving $20 billion to Argentina's leader because they give Trump a lot of compliments. Trump also just made huge cuts to SNAP, one of the most important tools for lifting children out of poverty. He also just suspended the US's report of food insecurity, so that we don't see just how many children right here in America are going to suffer and die because of his actions.

Here at home, Trump's admin has also pushed to expand the federal death penalty. There have been at least 200 people in just my lifetime who were exonerated after being executed.

Trump's policies and actions are antithetical to the sanctity of life. At best, you have some lip-service regarding abortion. Is that lip service worth the millions of children dead because of his policies? Is that really an expression of the Christian ethos regarding the sanctity of life?

Trump has no respect for human life. His interest in abortion--doubtless he personally paid to have a few performed himself--is all about maintaining the support of his radical right-wing Christian followers and their cult of the fetus.

[Whiskey]

For many Christians (not all) the sanctity of life is foundational. Trump's presidency has been marked by significant pro-life actions.From publicly affirming the sanctity of life in unprecedented ways, to expanding the Mexico City Policy (which restricted taxpayer funded abortions overseas), to his appointments of justices to the SC that lead to the overturning of Roe V Wade and put these decisions back to the state level.

For many Christians who believe that every life is a sacred gift from God (again, not all Christians), these were not small things, they were monumental - And many saw them as very significant Christian principles.

I understand that many will see things very differently, but you said that you have never run across any supporter of Trump who could point out a Christian principle that DT displays, and since I am a DT supporter and a Christian, I thought I would point one out for you.

It's projected that there will be an additional 6.6 million new HIV infections in the next 4 years because of Trump's policies with PEPFAR. Within the first weeks of his cuts, there were at least 300 babies who contracted HIV that otherwise wouldn't have (300 babies within weeks of his policies going into effect). The University of Maryland School of Medicine did an analysis on the USAID cuts, and just this year alone, there will be 1.12 million children who go without food. By the end of Trump's presidency, UCLA estimates that 4.5 million children under the age of 5 will die because of Trump's policies. The US burned food rather than give it away, under Trump's policies. Other countries literally offered to buy the food we had stockpiled and set aside for poor and starving people, but instead Trump decided it was better to burn the food than let hungry poor people have it.

Sure, one could argue that we need to save money, and spend it here, but keep in mind that the money spent for Trump to watch half of a football game, before leaving to rage tweet, would have paid for all of PEPFAR. The money spent for Trump to drive around in a circle at a race track would have saved at least 100,000 children's lives. Meanwhile, we're also giving $20 billion to Argentina's leader because they give Trump a lot of compliments. Trump also just made huge cuts to SNAP, one of the most important tools for lifting children out of poverty. He also just suspended the US's report of food insecurity, so that we don't see just how many children right here in America are going to suffer and die because of his actions.

Here at home, Trump's admin has also pushed to expand the federal death penalty. There have been at least 200 people in just my lifetime who were exonerated after being executed.

Trump's policies and actions are antithetical to the sanctity of life. At best, you have some lip-service regarding abortion. Is that lip service worth the millions of children dead because of his policies? Is that really an expression of the Christian ethos regarding the sanctity of life?

Could all be true. Could all be propaganda. The 300 babies in the first weeks seems very, very, very suspicious to me. So, the claim is that a for profit or not for profit provider, didn't get the money deposited, and immediately denied children care. This does not add up. HIV prenatal care starts LONG before delivery. Does not make sense.

[Doctor Steuss]

Could all be true. Could all be propaganda. The 300 babies in the first weeks seems very, very, very suspicious to me. So, the claim is that a for profit or not for profit provider, didn't get the money deposited, and immediately denied children care. This does not add up. HIV prenatal care starts LONG before delivery. Does not make sense.

In 2023, PEPFAR supported the HIV treatment for 445,000 pregnant women (CDC Link). Averaging that out to weekly births, that's over 8,500 women every week. I don't think it's that suspicious to think that over the course of two weeks, suspension of anti-viral medications could cause 1.7% of pregnant women with HIV to have enough of the virus reactivate to be transferred to their child during birth.

According to UNAIDS, in as little as 3-14 days, HIV can become transmittable again upon cessation of antiretroviral therapy.

If anything, it seems very, very, very suspicious that the estimate is only 300 babies.

[Whiskey]

Could all be true. Could all be propaganda. The 300 babies in the first weeks seems very, very, very suspicious to me. So, the claim is that a for profit or not for profit provider, didn't get the money deposited, and immediately denied children care. This does not add up. HIV prenatal care starts LONG before delivery. Does not make sense.

In 2023, PEPFAR supported the HIV treatment for 445,000 pregnant women (CDC Link). Averaging that out to weekly births, that's over 8,500 women every week. I don't think it's that suspicious to think that over the course of two weeks, suspension of anti-viral medications could cause 1.7% of pregnant women with HIV to have enough of the virus reactivate to be transferred to their child during birth.

According to UNAIDS, in as little as 3-14 days, HIV can become transmittable again upon cessation of antiretroviral therapy.

If anything, it seems very, very, very suspicious that the estimate is only 300 babies.

I understand. Thanks man.

[Doctor Steuss]

I understand. Thanks man.

Thank you for prodding me to look into it deeper. I'm still reading/searching, but I was wrong about PEPFAR being completely suspended. Portions of it were given a waiver a while after the initial suspension (namely services for pregnant and breastfeeding women). So, the immediate effects were hopefully the only adverse outcomes, and there won't be any long-term ongoing effects.

At the time of the (temporary) suspension, the number I've been able to find is there were 679,936 pregnant women receiving ARVs. I'm genuinely curious if the numbers ebb-and-flow, or if that jump from the CDC report to the January 2025 number is from the exponential growth of the program and women contracting HIV (and we should anticipate that number to be even bigger for 2026, 2027, etc.).

C'mon CRISPR researchers, let's get this thing knocked out!

[Whiskey]

I understand. Thanks man.

Thank you for prodding me to look into it deeper. I'm still reading/searching, but I was wrong about PEPFAR being completely suspended. Portions of it were given a waiver a while after the initial suspension (namely services for pregnant and breastfeeding women). So, the immediate effects were hopefully the only adverse outcomes, and there won't be any long-term ongoing effects.

At the time of the (temporary) suspension, the number I've been able to find is there were 679,936 pregnant women receiving ARVs. I'm genuinely curious if the numbers ebb-and-flow, or if that jump from the CDC report to the January 2025 number is from the exponential growth of the program and women contracting HIV (and we should anticipate that number to be even bigger for 2026, 2027, etc.).

C'mon CRISPR researchers, let's get this thing knocked out!

680k HIV+ pregnancies? At 5 percent of the eligible population, that puts the 15-45 or so women with HIV stats at around 13.6 million. If 40 million people are HIV+, I suppose that is in the range. If these providers failed to secure backup or alternate funding.... that is something to look into. Still, looks odd that anyone has the data to support a claim that the funding went out and babies got HIV the next day. Thanks man. Nice work, research and writing.

[canpakes]

This seems weirdly authoritarian, in a way not seen in the previous administration, nor any other in recent memory. Even though they all possessed the same authority.

[Kishkumen]

I'd quit giving this whiskey oxygen. It's not ready to be consumed. It's cheap, one year old whiskey. We should leave it alone, let it age and see if it possibly gets any better, but it's certainly not ready for consumption now. Too bitter and harsh. I say we give it 18 years.

Good advice, Schmo!

[Kishkumen]

This seems weirdly authoritarian, in a way not seen in the previous administration, nor any other in recent memory. Even though they all possessed the same authority.

Guy is an evil prick.

[Whiskey]

Hey honorentheos, Kish and Res Ipsa,

Any progress on those countless examples of issues where one party, group or fringe POS wants the feds to be the leading and active authority and the other side wants the feds to not lead or participate?

So far I have provided two:

Abortion
Education

Anything else?