Christopher Russell, MD, MS (he/his/him)
banner
cjrussellmd.bsky.social
Christopher Russell, MD, MS (he/his/him)
@cjrussellmd.bsky.social
1.8K followers 690 following 22 posts
Associate Professor, Pediatric Hospitalist, Stanford Medicine Children’s Health. Physician-scientist & clinical researcher studying children with medical complexity. Views my own. 🏳️‍🌈 More at https://med.stanford.edu/profiles/314127
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Reposted by Christopher Russell, MD, MS (he/his/him)
Reposted by Christopher Russell, MD, MS (he/his/him)
I'm Dr. Annie Andrews. I’m a pediatrician, not a politician. But either way I know how to handle people who are full of sh*t.

Today I am announcing my campaign for US Senate to replace Lindsey Graham. Share this if you're with me.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8wM...
Annie Andrews Launch Video: "Unafraid"
YouTube video by Annie Andrews
www.youtube.com
Reposted by Christopher Russell, MD, MS (he/his/him)
Harvard has set an example for other higher-ed institutions - rejecting an unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom, while taking steps to make sure students can benefit from an environment of intellectual inquiry, rigorous debate and mutual respect. Let’s hope others follow suit.
Proud of my alma mater: “We have informed the administration through our legal counsel that we will not accept their proposed agreement. The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.”
Harvard rejects Trump administration’s demands with federal funding at risk
The university’s response comes after the government announced a federal review of nearly $9 billion in funding to Harvard and its affiliates.
wapo.st
Reposted by Christopher Russell, MD, MS (he/his/him)
The NIH grant that has supported 38 years of training the best pediatrician-scientists in the country (I’m a proud former recipient) was cancelled. It was just approved for a 5 year renewal. The PSDP has supported the careers of many NIH-funded pediatrician-scientists and thought leaders
Reposted by Christopher Russell, MD, MS (he/his/him)
Reposted by Christopher Russell, MD, MS (he/his/him)
Reposted by Christopher Russell, MD, MS (he/his/him)
This is a five-alarm fire 🔥 for US science 🧪.
(We keep saying that, but it keeps being true 😭.)

Trump and Musk are blocking *ALL* NIH grants ‼️ by "exploiting a loophole in the process"—stopping study sections & council meetings.

Every biomedical researcher in the country should be screaming. 1/
NEW: The Trump administration is exploiting a loophole to keep funding frozen at the NIH - a move that some legal scholars say is illegal.

Federal Register notices are blocked, so no grant-review sessions can be scheduled.

All the gritty details here, and a short 🧵:
www.nature.com/articles/d41...
Revealed: NIH research grants still frozen despite lawsuits challenging Trump order
The Trump administration is exploiting a loophole to keep a funding freeze in place, leaving researchers in limbo.
www.nature.com
Reposted by Christopher Russell, MD, MS (he/his/him)
How Capping NIH Indirect Costs at 15% Hurts Science, Jobs, and Public Health
1/ The new cap to indirect costs at 15% on NIH grants may sound like a way to cut wasteful spending. In reality, it would devastate biomedical research, slow medical breakthroughs, and cost jobs.
Y'all know I love a good 🧵
Reposted by Christopher Russell, MD, MS (he/his/him)
“This is a blatant attempt to gut the universities and health research that have saved so many lives and given economic opportunity to so many people.” @iwashyna.bsky.social on impact of new NIh order to cut research indirect costs. www.statnews.com/2025/02/07/n...
NIH plans to slash support for indirect research costs, sending shockwaves through science
The NIH said Friday night that it would slash support for indirect costs on all existing and future grants to 15%
www.statnews.com
🚨 🚨
The NIH capping the indirect cost rate (IDC) for grants at 15% can best be described as a direct assault on Universities. It’s such a bureaucratic, innocuous sounding thing that actually means that research universities will be kneecapped. Thousands of employees across the US will lose their jobs.
Reposted by Christopher Russell, MD, MS (he/his/him)
Withdrawal of funding mid-trial is a serious violation of research ethics and implicates all of us who engage in clinical research. Ethical review boards around the world will have to re-evaluate allowing US-funded projects. The balance between harm-benefit is complexly upended.
Reposted by Christopher Russell, MD, MS (he/his/him)
BREAKING NEWS: CDC orders mass retraction and revision of submitted research across all science and medicine journals. Banned terms must be scrubbed.

Goes beyond MMWR +other CDC pubs. Applies to research already submitted to top medical journals.

Take a look.
open.substack.com/pub/insideme...
BREAKING NEWS: CDC orders mass retraction and revision of submitted research across all science and medicine journals. Banned terms must be scrubbed.
Any unpublished manuscript mentioning certain topics, including gender and "LGBT," must be pulled or revised.
open.substack.com
Reposted by Christopher Russell, MD, MS (he/his/him)
thinking this morning about how the NIH's definition of diversity also includes uplifting struggling Americans of all races and genders (formerly homeless, on WIC, foster kids, first-gen students, rural Americans, etc)
Or be clear in the abstract that it was underpowered (understanding that this was not due to any fault of the investigators). However, noting this as a randomized, multicenter, double-blinded study in the title but not acknowledging that it was underpowered in the abstract is concerning.
Can’t reliably estimate the rare outcomes if you are so underpowered. IMO, underpowered RCTs, particularly those with null findings or non-inferiority design, should rarely be published. People see RCT and think high level of evidence, and assume the conclusions are sound.
They also (incorrectly) state in the abstract that “Placebo appears to be non-inferior to amoxicillin in reducing fever duration” but then correctly say in the discussion that they “must reject the hypothesis of non-inferiority of placebo over amoxicillin.” Can’t move the goal posts…
The primary outcome is odd—fever duration—and they are quite underpowered to detect differences in adverse events. The adverse events aren’t benign (~3% in placebo with RPA), which may have been prevented by upfront treatment. Not sure how to use this in my practice.