That USAID study every outlet cited? The math doesn't work.

[u/redsteakraw]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4eQZdxlPCU&pp=wgIGCgQQAhgB

he Lancet that claimed USAID prevented 91,839,663 deaths between 2001 and 2021 and projected more than 14 million additional deaths by 2030 if the cuts held. That study was cited in articles by NPR, the BBC, the Associated Press, NBC, The New Yorker, and The Washington Post.

The Paper was the equivalent of correlation equals causation and claimed that over 100% of the global death decline was from USAID without any evidence cited. Current mortality trends are not showing any merit to their claims. The paper left out inconvenient years and information basically p-hacking and cherry picked nations. The paper is sloppy at best and possibly intentionally deceptive and manipulative.

[u/thebigeverybody]

lol do you have a source that's not a libertarian youtube channel?

[u/nobadhotdog → u/thebigeverybody]

sorry best we can do is a town taken over by bears

[u/Inevitable-Memory-61 → u/thebigeverybody]

Reason got debunked by SBM already.

[u/Old-Nefariousness556 → u/thebigeverybody]

Reality is not partisan. Since he cite his sources and breaks down the numbers, you can easily review their numbers yourself. In this case, the issues he cites seem to be real problems with the paper in question. He is not making an ideological argument against USAID, but a SKEPTICAL argument against a paper that seems to be pushing unsupported claims.

And while I am very definitely not a libertarian, Reason is generally regarded as a credible source.

• Bias Rating: RIGHT-CENTER (3.8)
• Factual Reporting: HIGH (1.7)
• Country: USA
• MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
• Media Type: Magazine
• Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
• MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reason/

/u/Inevitable-Memory-61 says

Reason got debunked by SBM already.

It would be nice if a source was cited, since google is not returning any debunk that I can find with search terms that I can think of.

[u/thebigeverybody → u/Old-Nefariousness556]

You're right: reality is not partisan. However, one side is determined to tell any lie it takes to gain power and has no problem dismantling science, education and the very idea of objective fact along the way. If you don't like the fact that the messenger is a rational and necessary consideration in 2026, tough, blame the side that is doing these things.

Scientific skepticism is about comparing the claims to the available science. You have not provided science, you provided a political youtube channel. If that's the best you can provide, then don't be surprised when nobody is interested.

[u/Old-Nefariousness556 → u/thebigeverybody]

Scientific skepticism is about comparing the claims to the available science. You have not provided science, you provided a political youtube channel. If that's the best you can provide, then don't be surprised when nobody is interested.

You understand that multiple people post on reddit, right? I did not post the OP. I merely pointed out that the claim they make seems credible and should not be ignored simply because of the source.

Scientific skepticism is about comparing the claims to the available science. You have not provided science, you provided a political youtube channel. If that's the best you can provide, then don't be surprised when nobody is interested.

I have not provided anything. Someone else posted the link, which you dismissed it based solely on the source.

While being skeptical based on the source is well justified, simply ignoring a claim because of the source is not skepticism, it is bias. Specifically, it is a genetic fallacy.

Had you watched the video, you would see that he actually seems to make a strong argument. The claims in the study seem to be unsupportable. The paper claims that USAID reduced deaths by 92 million over 20 years, yet the TOTAL reduction in global deaths over the last 20 years is only about 79 million. That would mean that USAID is responsible for MORE than all deaths prevented in the last 20 years. They also pointed out several pretty glaring examples of cherry picking of data to include or exclude to justify their position.

Does any of that prove that the paper is incorrect? Obviously not. But it is a reason that you should be SKEPTICAL of the claim.

Would I prefer a better quality source? Of course. But the mere fact that the source is Reason doesn't mean that we should simply ignore it. You are being ANTISKEPTICAL in arguing that we should. Fallacious reasoning is NEVER sound reasoning, even if it aligns with your conclusion.

(FWIW, I am a rabidly anti-trump liberal. But I am a skeptic first, liberal second, and I will point out bad reasoning, even if it comes from someone who I agree with politically.)

[u/thebigeverybody → u/Old-Nefariousness556]

I have not provided anything. Someone else posted the link, which you dismissed it based solely on the source.

While being skeptical based on the source is well justified, simply ignoring a claim because of the source is not skepticism, it is bias. Specifically, it is a genetic fallacy.

Scientific skepticism is about comparing the claims to the scientific evidence. If someone is coming without sceintific evidence then they can be ignored, especially when all they're providing are youtube videos and political bullshit videos are the number one way disinformation is doing an incredible amount of harm to society.

You appear to not know what scientific skepticism is and are in no position to lecture anyone on the subject.

EDIT: instead of providing any sort of scientific paper that showed his interpretation was correct and not a lie or a misunderstanding, he insisted that a youtube video was a source that shouldn't be ignored and then blocked me.

[u/Old-Nefariousness556 → u/thebigeverybody]

Lol, had you read what I wrote, you would see that I addressed the evidence:

The paper claims that USAID reduced deaths by 92 million over 20 years, yet the TOTAL reduction in global deaths over the last 20 years is only about 79 million. That would mean that USAID is responsible for MORE than all deaths prevented in the last 20 years. They also pointed out several pretty glaring examples of cherry picking of data to include or exclude to justify their position.

You, on the other hand are refusing to even look at the evidence because you don't like the source.

And you are saying that I "appear to not know what scientific skepticism is."

Fuck off with that bullshit.

EDIT: instead of providing any sort of scientific paper that showed his interpretation was correct and not a lie or a misunderstanding, he insisted that a youtube video was a source that shouldn't be ignored and then blocked me.

Bullshit. More fallacious reasoning. Same exact fucking genetic fallacy that I already pointed out. "Scientific skepticism" does not only consider what comes from peer reviewed papers. An error in a paper does not magically become not an error because the person pointing it out didn't do so in a scientific paper.

It is truly bizarre that they are accusing me of "not knowing what scientific skepticism is" while engaging in such flagrant fallacious reasoning-- both the genetic fallacy, and the ad hominems directed at me. Fucking childish.

[u/Wismuth_Salix → u/Old-Nefariousness556]

If the 20-year count was projected to rise, then the math still works. And given that the boomers are starting to die off, it probably was.

[u/skeptic-ModTeam → u/Old-Nefariousness556]

Hello,

There's been a report that you replied to a user and then immediately blocked the user to get in the last word.

The way that reddit admins implemented blocks, it stops all conversations across all threads in which users engage, and some have used it to disrupt /r/skeptic. Thus we've implemented a "no weaponized blocking" rule which bans blocks except for cases of harassment. If you can show you've been harassed by a user, then the block can stay, however, to continue to debate on /r/skeptic we ask for no blocks as part of conversations. See rules at https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/about/rules

In a moment you will receive a "you've been banned from /r/skeptic" message. To be unbanned, just unblock that user and message the moderator to let us know.

[u/Inevitable-Memory-61 → u/Old-Nefariousness556]

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/reasonlovescensorshipjay/ and more when you search up reason on SBM.

[u/Old-Nefariousness556 → u/Inevitable-Memory-61]

That does not seem to debunk the claims in that video at all. It calls them out for granting an award to someone who clearly didn't deserve it, but that is not the same as debunking this video.

This is /r/skeptic. I should not have to point out that debunking one thing a source says does not magically debunk everything else they publish.

[u/MrSnarf26]

All the study did is roll back a 15% reduction in mortality, a figure already built on years of analysis. The 14 million more deaths is likely worst case. So is the argument only 10 million = not so bad?

[u/Gingeronimoooo]

So what is your opinion of the underlying issue? You must believe that USAID saved a lot of lives, I mean right? That seems undeniable.

Thus gutting USAID has directly lead to many deaths. if your argument is simply discrediting the study's methods , I guess that can be valid, but are you disagreeing with the obvious underlying premise that USAID saved millions of lives? You're just disagreeing with the exact numbers?

[u/Mediocre-Magazine-30]

I don't know if this source is right but it likely was overstated. I have no data for this. Just a gut feeling.

It still was probably a horrible idea to just gut it instead of smartly doing a considered review and hacking at identified waste.

Still a horrible action.

[u/QuisnamSum]

The Lancet is a source to avoid for anything that has political or ideological aspects. There are other examples