6 ms·

What?

sschueller 9d ago
Elon's DOGE is responsible for over 100k deaths. Some died a horrible death with medical devices stuck in them because there was no one to remove them after all funding was instantly cut. One of the most inhumane and disgusting acts in history.
- archagon 9d ago
  That every Musk-adjacent article and PR summary isn’t prefaced with this basic, indisputable fact is repulsive.
- upupupandaway 9d ago
  All of these numbers are based on a single source, the Impact Counter dashboard made by a BU professor, which is full of methodological problems. It assumes 100% cessation of funds, for example, while in reality there was a freeze.
- shimman 9d ago
  What is your claim for the last one? I'm not finding it on google. What was the program?
- dekhn 9d ago
  Do you have reliable citations for this claim rather than general hand-waving? It felt like the whole news cycle about the deaths was one where nobody critically examined the claim. I am looking for real data, not claims. If you link articles without real and unambiguous data, it's not helping.
  - Fricken 9d ago
    >Musk has said his critics “cannot cite a single name of someone who died” and “If there were, it would be worldwide headline news!” When confronted with the names – including those of children who died because of the cuts – Musk called a journalist “an utter piece of shit and a liar” and “utterly evil”. Musk has claimed, without evidence, that US tax dollars went to arming militants and “corrupt politicians”. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jul/07/elon-musk-doge-cuts-usaid-ebola https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jul/07/elon-musk... https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/usaid-shutdown-has-led-to-hundreds-of-thousands-of-deaths/ https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/usaid-shutdown-has-led-to-hund...
    - dekhn 9d ago
      those are estimates, not data. I am asking about actual data. For example, mortality reports, piles of bodies, etc. I understand feeling emotional about this, I really do. But the important bit is that if you make a big claim "millions of people died", you have to back that with actual evidence, not models.
      - ryandrake 9d ago
        You are sealioning[1]. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
        dekhn 9d ago
        Nope. And I hate that entire comic for poisoninh the very idea that asking for the evidence is wrong. I'm operating in good faith asking people to show data. There is no reliable data supporting the claim that millions of people died because usaid was canceled. That's all.
      - disgruntledphd2 8d ago
        > those are estimates, not data. I am asking about actual data. For example, mortality reports, piles of bodies, etc. I think that this is an unrealistic ask, right now. Over the next 5-10 years enough time will have passed such that we can get more accurate numbers, but right now, all we have are estimates with wide confidence bounds (but narrower than they were last year).
  - archagon 9d ago
    IIRC, I personally read three different articles where journalists on the ground described specific deaths (with names) from the sudden and unexpected cutoff of aid. And there were studies from top-ranked universities numbering deaths in the hundreds of thousands, extending to millions over time. I do not have these links on hand, but I’m sure you can find them if you’re genuinely interested.
    - dekhn 9d ago
      I've spent time looking and can't find anything reputable, so please share links. The studies you're referring to aren't based on evidence, they're estimates. If you're reading articles with specific names, that's journalism by anecdote not data. I care about facts and data and I know how to read through propaganda. What DOGE did was terrible but I don't really see reliable evidence here for the scale and scope of what the media reported.
      - archagon 9d ago
        “Musk gleefully fed USAID into the woodchipper which directly caused X deaths that could have been avoided through gradual tapering of aid.” Simple question: how small does X have to be for you to not care? Or do you genuinely believe that Musk’s antics caused zero excess deaths?
        dekhn 9d ago
        I'm not sure what your point is. The problem here is that you are taking as fact something that a person with a vested interested in making Musk look bad has said. I'm just asking: where is the evidence supporting the claims for the deaths of this magnitude?
        archagon 9d ago
        My point is that the most prominent tech CEO definitely killed people through reckless action, without apology or remorse. The actual number is unquestionably more than ten; almost certainly in the thousands; and, based (again) on research from people who study this kind of thing for a living, likely in the hundreds of thousands. But even if he “only” killed 10 people (which we know for a fact based on reporting), that should be more than enough to make him persona non grata in polite society. The actual numbers are more useful for the history books and eventual tribunals. Maybe that data can be gathered more definitively over time; I’m sure people are working on it as we speak.
  - zestyping 9d ago
    I believe this is the article he's referring to: https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/usaid-shutdown-has-led-to-hundreds-of-thousands-of-deaths/ https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/usaid-shutdown-has-led-to-hund... It cites this study, published in The Lancet (open access full text): https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)01186-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... Summary: The study calculates that 91.8 million all-age deaths, including 30 million deaths of children under 5, were prevented by USAID funding in the period from 2001 to 2021, and projects that DOGE's cuts to USAID will result in 14 million additional all-age deaths, including 4.5 million deaths of children under 5, by 2030.
    - dekhn 9d ago
      The Harvard articfle is just PR for a documentary that focuses on an individual (IE, an anecdote intended to be emotionally manipulative). As for the article, this is modelling, not data (both the retrospective and the predictive). There is no direct causation being shown. You simply cannot make a claim like "X million people will die because USAID was terminated" based on this sort of evidence. It's not factual. It's not logical. Just emotionally driven claims intended to manipulate public opinion.
      - disgruntledphd2 8d ago
        > As for the article, this is modelling, not data (both the retrospective and the predictive). There is no direct causation being shown. You simply cannot make a claim like "X million people will die because USAID was terminated" based on this sort of evidence. It's not factual. It's not logical. Just emotionally driven claims intended to manipulate public opinion. How would one (ethically nor not) perform a randomised trial of this kind of intervention? Like, the Lancet definitely hop on far too many bandwagons for my taste, but it's almost certain that the withdrawal of USAID will cause ~millions of otherwise avoidable deaths. And ultimately, it's the choice of the US government and people whether or not to fund these programmes. Personally, I think that they are worthwhile, but others may disagree. But really, you're holding the evidence required here to a very high standard, one that many things you believe would probably not meet.

What?

Elon's DOGE is responsible for over 100k deaths. Some died a horrible death with medical devices stuck in them because there was no one to remove them after all funding was instantly cut. One of the most inhumane and disgusting acts in history.

archagon 9d ago
That every Musk-adjacent article and PR summary isn’t prefaced with this basic, indisputable fact is repulsive.
upupupandaway 9d ago
All of these numbers are based on a single source, the Impact Counter dashboard made by a BU professor, which is full of methodological problems. It assumes 100% cessation of funds, for example, while in reality there was a freeze.
shimman 9d ago
What is your claim for the last one? I'm not finding it on google. What was the program?
dekhn 9d ago
Do you have reliable citations for this claim rather than general hand-waving? It felt like the whole news cycle about the deaths was one where nobody critically examined the claim. I am looking for real data, not claims. If you link articles without real and unambiguous data, it's not helping.
- Fricken 9d ago
  >Musk has said his critics “cannot cite a single name of someone who died” and “If there were, it would be worldwide headline news!” When confronted with the names – including those of children who died because of the cuts – Musk called a journalist “an utter piece of shit and a liar” and “utterly evil”. Musk has claimed, without evidence, that US tax dollars went to arming militants and “corrupt politicians”. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jul/07/elon-musk-doge-cuts-usaid-ebola https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jul/07/elon-musk... https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/usaid-shutdown-has-led-to-hundreds-of-thousands-of-deaths/ https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/usaid-shutdown-has-led-to-hund...
  - dekhn 9d ago
    those are estimates, not data. I am asking about actual data. For example, mortality reports, piles of bodies, etc. I understand feeling emotional about this, I really do. But the important bit is that if you make a big claim "millions of people died", you have to back that with actual evidence, not models.
    - ryandrake 9d ago
      You are sealioning[1]. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
      - dekhn 9d ago
        Nope. And I hate that entire comic for poisoninh the very idea that asking for the evidence is wrong. I'm operating in good faith asking people to show data. There is no reliable data supporting the claim that millions of people died because usaid was canceled. That's all.
    - disgruntledphd2 8d ago
      > those are estimates, not data. I am asking about actual data. For example, mortality reports, piles of bodies, etc. I think that this is an unrealistic ask, right now. Over the next 5-10 years enough time will have passed such that we can get more accurate numbers, but right now, all we have are estimates with wide confidence bounds (but narrower than they were last year).
- archagon 9d ago
  IIRC, I personally read three different articles where journalists on the ground described specific deaths (with names) from the sudden and unexpected cutoff of aid. And there were studies from top-ranked universities numbering deaths in the hundreds of thousands, extending to millions over time. I do not have these links on hand, but I’m sure you can find them if you’re genuinely interested.
  - dekhn 9d ago
    I've spent time looking and can't find anything reputable, so please share links. The studies you're referring to aren't based on evidence, they're estimates. If you're reading articles with specific names, that's journalism by anecdote not data. I care about facts and data and I know how to read through propaganda. What DOGE did was terrible but I don't really see reliable evidence here for the scale and scope of what the media reported.
    - archagon 9d ago
      “Musk gleefully fed USAID into the woodchipper which directly caused X deaths that could have been avoided through gradual tapering of aid.” Simple question: how small does X have to be for you to not care? Or do you genuinely believe that Musk’s antics caused zero excess deaths?
      - dekhn 9d ago
        I'm not sure what your point is. The problem here is that you are taking as fact something that a person with a vested interested in making Musk look bad has said. I'm just asking: where is the evidence supporting the claims for the deaths of this magnitude?
        archagon 9d ago
        My point is that the most prominent tech CEO definitely killed people through reckless action, without apology or remorse. The actual number is unquestionably more than ten; almost certainly in the thousands; and, based (again) on research from people who study this kind of thing for a living, likely in the hundreds of thousands. But even if he “only” killed 10 people (which we know for a fact based on reporting), that should be more than enough to make him persona non grata in polite society. The actual numbers are more useful for the history books and eventual tribunals. Maybe that data can be gathered more definitively over time; I’m sure people are working on it as we speak.
- zestyping 9d ago
  I believe this is the article he's referring to: https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/usaid-shutdown-has-led-to-hundreds-of-thousands-of-deaths/ https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/usaid-shutdown-has-led-to-hund... It cites this study, published in The Lancet (open access full text): https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)01186-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... Summary: The study calculates that 91.8 million all-age deaths, including 30 million deaths of children under 5, were prevented by USAID funding in the period from 2001 to 2021, and projects that DOGE's cuts to USAID will result in 14 million additional all-age deaths, including 4.5 million deaths of children under 5, by 2030.
  - dekhn 9d ago
    The Harvard articfle is just PR for a documentary that focuses on an individual (IE, an anecdote intended to be emotionally manipulative). As for the article, this is modelling, not data (both the retrospective and the predictive). There is no direct causation being shown. You simply cannot make a claim like "X million people will die because USAID was terminated" based on this sort of evidence. It's not factual. It's not logical. Just emotionally driven claims intended to manipulate public opinion.
    - disgruntledphd2 8d ago
      > As for the article, this is modelling, not data (both the retrospective and the predictive). There is no direct causation being shown. You simply cannot make a claim like "X million people will die because USAID was terminated" based on this sort of evidence. It's not factual. It's not logical. Just emotionally driven claims intended to manipulate public opinion. How would one (ethically nor not) perform a randomised trial of this kind of intervention? Like, the Lancet definitely hop on far too many bandwagons for my taste, but it's almost certain that the withdrawal of USAID will cause ~millions of otherwise avoidable deaths. And ultimately, it's the choice of the US government and people whether or not to fund these programmes. Personally, I think that they are worthwhile, but others may disagree. But really, you're holding the evidence required here to a very high standard, one that many things you believe would probably not meet.