> You really do have skin in the game, given how many medicines you use and will use are also developed with NIH funding.
I meant to say that I don't have an opinion on the DEI angle, it doesn't affect me in any way in another country.
> There is no reason to be jolting any of these systems this severely. The entire emergency is contrived in order to force through an ideological purification.
Whether it is needed or not, and the motivation for it is completely unrelated to what I said.
> Your version just overlays wishful thinking.
No, it is more factual. There is no reason your hypothesis that it will affect medical research will be true, especially given the rates are just being brought to standard, so unless you can provide a concrete justification, you need to qualify it with "could" like I did, otherwise you are communicating misinformation, there is simply no two ways about it.
> All language is lossy compression, obviously.
This is pedantry. You can't claim that and proceed to throw away important information like what is fact and what is hypothesis when compressing, especially when said fact is a historical action taken by someone.
> Have you considered whether this was driven by the relative positions of Jupiter and Mercury? Or perhaps by the swirling of the tea leaves in Musk’s cup? It’s driven by a reckless attempt to reduce spending without having to think through the consequences because it’d take “too long.”
> Your version just overlays wishful thinking.
Sounds like your version is driven by inherent bias, rather than a coherent argument against what I said - why bringing the administrative overhead rates _equal_ to what is allowed by the NSF, _every_ other grant, and the NIH itself just a few years back, would magically affect research.