There is well earned skepticism toward the NIH and public health agencies and then there is nihilism.I mean, the consequences might be as bad as the consequences for the billions 'lost' in Afghanistan. In other words, zero consequences.
I don't think the NIH is the CDC of the 90's. They are much more effective at hiding their corruption and putting a facade of decency on it. The CDC of the 90's was amateur hour by comparison.
On the upside, the $1 billion WILL be spent. On the downside, they'll likely find out nothing and bemoan a lack of funding once they've burned through that money. Didn't NYU get $470m in one fell swoop for their RECOVER study where they're now tasked with distributing (stealing) that money? I mean, I'm sure there's only like $70m left once they came up with that snazzy acronym. Acronyms like that aren't cheap.
In all seriousness, rather than studying manageable patient cohorts, the lion's share of this money will go toward administrative costs of attempting to steer this behemoth. They will end up with the most expensive databases of nonsense in the history of modern medicine. In five years, they'll announce that antihistamines and gabapentin seem helpful.
There have been small steps forward but rhey were steps forward. The IOM report was a big change in viewpoint at all the public health agencies . And even if there is major opposition by them why not protest like aids groups did. We can't simply give up. If I gave up hope on NIH funding I would [thing I can't talk about on this forum]. That's why I don't think that kind of blackpilled rhetoric is totally helpful. Do you want to encourage people to "give up" totally?