Thanks James. It is hard to believe that this sort of thing has been going on for decades, but it has. And no one blinks. Instead they claim women are underfunded and understudied. You just can't make this stuff up.
Thank you, James. I will copy and paste you article into an email to the Congressional DOGE Caucus (DOGE@mail.house.gov). I will ask that they either cut funding to women's health in excess of that spent on men's health (which looks like it is zero dollars), or divide it in half, and give that to men's health.
I called up Congressman Bean (one of the three co-chairs of the DOGE Caucus) to follow up on previous notes I have sent them. I was told that they read EVERY email sent to them. So maybe we have half a chance.
Being that the National Academy of Sciences is involved in this injustice, I can ask the DOGE Caucus to look at them too.
I would be interested to know how much of this $1.2b gap is found in NIH investments in reproductive health research. There are multiple male contraceptives in development, yet limited NIH or other funding goes toward those methods or the related research around their marketing. Never mind the gap in reproductive health education or medical communication on this topic for men.
At the post linked below, I provide all previous reports published by the ORWH. In those reports, one can find budget tables in which research spending is listed by health category, including reproductive health and subcategories of reproductive health (e.g., contraception). These data are also broken down by sex, except for the most recent report which listed budget information only for women's health research.
"Results: We find that in nearly three-quarters of the cases where a disease afflicts primarily one gender, the funding pattern favors males, in that either the disease affects more women and is underfunded (with respect to burden), or the disease affects more men and is overfunded. Moreover, the disparity between actual funding and that which is commensurate with burden is nearly twice as large for diseases that favor males versus those that favor females. A chi-square test yields a p-value of 0.015, suggesting that our conclusions are representative of the full NIH disease portfolio. Conclusions: NIH applies a disproportionate share of its resources to diseases that affect primarily men, at the expense of those that affect primarily women."
One quick note on that paper - The researcher who published it isn't an employee of the NIH. The researcher's affiliation is listed as "independent researcher." The link to the paper comes from PubMed, which is an NIH-supported database. However, the paper itself wasn't written by the NIH.
Thanks James. It is hard to believe that this sort of thing has been going on for decades, but it has. And no one blinks. Instead they claim women are underfunded and understudied. You just can't make this stuff up.
Thank you, James. I will copy and paste you article into an email to the Congressional DOGE Caucus (DOGE@mail.house.gov). I will ask that they either cut funding to women's health in excess of that spent on men's health (which looks like it is zero dollars), or divide it in half, and give that to men's health.
I called up Congressman Bean (one of the three co-chairs of the DOGE Caucus) to follow up on previous notes I have sent them. I was told that they read EVERY email sent to them. So maybe we have half a chance.
Being that the National Academy of Sciences is involved in this injustice, I can ask the DOGE Caucus to look at them too.
I would be interested to know how much of this $1.2b gap is found in NIH investments in reproductive health research. There are multiple male contraceptives in development, yet limited NIH or other funding goes toward those methods or the related research around their marketing. Never mind the gap in reproductive health education or medical communication on this topic for men.
At the post linked below, I provide all previous reports published by the ORWH. In those reports, one can find budget tables in which research spending is listed by health category, including reproductive health and subcategories of reproductive health (e.g., contraception). These data are also broken down by sex, except for the most recent report which listed budget information only for women's health research.
https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/women-are-not-understudied-or-underrepresented
The buffoons at the NIH claim that the research funding favors MEN!
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33232627/
"Results: We find that in nearly three-quarters of the cases where a disease afflicts primarily one gender, the funding pattern favors males, in that either the disease affects more women and is underfunded (with respect to burden), or the disease affects more men and is overfunded. Moreover, the disparity between actual funding and that which is commensurate with burden is nearly twice as large for diseases that favor males versus those that favor females. A chi-square test yields a p-value of 0.015, suggesting that our conclusions are representative of the full NIH disease portfolio. Conclusions: NIH applies a disproportionate share of its resources to diseases that affect primarily men, at the expense of those that affect primarily women."
One quick note on that paper - The researcher who published it isn't an employee of the NIH. The researcher's affiliation is listed as "independent researcher." The link to the paper comes from PubMed, which is an NIH-supported database. However, the paper itself wasn't written by the NIH.
Thanks for the clarification, James.