Contributor: Slashing NIH research guarantees a less healthy, less wealthy America
Amid this volatility, one thing remains clear: NIH grant funding is a valuable, proven investment, economically and in terms of improving human health.
A recent United for Medical Research report shows that in fiscal year 2024, research funded by the NIH generated $94.58 billion in economic activity nationwide, a 156% return on investment. Further, the report shows that NIH funding supported 407,782 jobs nationwide. According to the NIH's own figures, patents derived from work it has funded produce 20% more economic value than other U.S. patents.
These economic returns — including a return on investment that would thrill any startup or stock investor — cannot begin to capture the impact on individuals, families and communities in terms of increased longevity and higher quality of life.
While it is hard to precisely quantify human health improvements resulting from NIH-funded research, there are proxy measures. As one example, a study published in JAMA Health Forum found that NIH funding supported the development of 386 of 387 drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration from 2010-19. Many of the approved drugs address the most pressing human health concerns of our time, including cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, infectious diseases and neurological disorders such as Parkinson's disease.
Many other NIH-funded advancements represent what is now considered common knowledge, such as the relationship between cholesterol and cardiovascular health, or standard practice, such as screening newborns for serious diseases that may be treatable with early medical intervention. But each of these fundamental aspects of contemporary medicine had to first be discovered, tested and proved. They represent what NIH funding can do — and the type of paradigm-shifting advancements in medicine that are now very much at risk.
Consider the biotechnology industry as one such paradigm shift. In the 1970s, Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer were the first scientists to clone DNA and to transplant genes from one living organism to another. This work launched the biotechnology industry.
Two decades later, the NIH and the Department of Energy began a 13-year effort to sequence the human genome, including through university-based research grants. In 2003, the consortium of researchers produced a sequence accounting for 92% of the human genome. In 2022, a group of researchers primarily funded by the NIH's National Human Genome Research Institute produced a complete human genome sequence. This work paved the way for insights into inherited diseases, pharmacogenomics (how genetics affect the body's response to medications) and precision medicine.
NIH funding has also led to major breakthroughs in cancer treatments. In 1948, Sidney Farber demonstrated the first use of a chemotherapy drug, aminopterin, to induce remission in children with acute leukemia. Before Farber's research, which was funded in part by the NIH, children with acute leukemia were unlikely to survive even five years.
Over the years that followed, other modes of cancer treatment such as immunotherapy emerged, first as novel areas of inquiry, followed by drug development and clinical trials. NIH funding supported, among others, the development of CAR T cell therapy, which genetically modifies a patients' own T-cells to fight cancer. CAR T cell therapy has improved outcomes for many patients with persistent blood cancers, and clinical trials are ongoing to discover other cancers that might be treatable with CAR T cell therapies.
For decades, scientists knew that breast cancer could run in families and hypothesized a genetic role. In the 1990s, teams of scientists — supported at least in part by NIH funding — tracked down the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes responsible for inherited predispositions to breast and other cancers. Today, many people undergo testing for BRCA gene mutations to make informed decisions about prevention, screening and treatment.
These kinds of advancements, along with improvements in detection and screening, have meaningfully reduced cancer mortality rates. After hitting a smoking-related peak in 1991, U.S. mortality rates from all cancers dropped by 34% as of 2022, according to the American Cancer Society. For children with acute leukemias, who had effectively no long-term chance of survival just 75 years ago, the numbers are even more dramatic. The five-year survival rate is now approximately 90% for children with acute lymphocytic leukemia and between 65% and 70% for those with acute myelogenous leukemia.
These examples represent a fraction of the tremendous progress that has occurred through decades of compounding knowledge and research. Reductions in NIH funding now threaten similar breakthroughs that are the prerequisites to better care, better technology and better outcomes in the most common health concerns and diseases of our time.
It is not research alone that is threatened by NIH funding cuts. Researchers, too, face new uncertainties. We have heard firsthand the anxiety around building a research career in the current environment. Many young physician-scientists wonder whether it will be financially viable to build their own lab in the U.S., or to find jobs at research institutions that must tighten their belts. Many medical residents, fellows and junior faculty are considering leaving the U.S. to train and build careers elsewhere. Losing early-career researchers to other fields or countries would be a blow to talent for biomedical research institutions nationwide and weaken the country's ability to compete globally in the biomedical sector.
The effects of decreased NIH funding might not be immediately visible to most Americans, but as grant cancellations and delays mount, there will be a price. NIH funding produces incredible results. Cuts will set scientific research back and result in losses in quality of life and longevity for generations of Americans in years to come.
Euan Ashley is the chair of the Stanford University department of medicine and a professor of medicine and of genetics. He is the author of 'The Genome Odyssey: Medical Mysteries and the Incredible Quest to Solve Them.' Rachel Keranen is a writer in the Stanford department of medicine.
If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
4 hours ago
- Medscape
8 Times Taxpayer Money Led to Historic Leaps in Medical Care
Since World War II, a quiet partnership between the US government and academic researchers has helped shape the course of modern medicine. Public funding has underwritten discoveries that changed how we detect, treat, and prevent disease — sometimes in ways that were barely imaginable when the research began. This relationship traces its roots to the 1945 report Science, The Endless Frontier , written by Vannevar Bush, who was then the head of the wartime Office of Scientific Research and Development. Bush argued that continued investment in basic research — the kind driven by curiosity, not short-term profit — was essential not only for national security but also for public health and economic growth. 'Basic research is the pacemaker of technological progress,' Bush wrote. His report helped shape the creation of the National Science Foundation and guided peacetime funding efforts at agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which would go on to support generations of US scientists. In 2023, the federal government spent nearly $200 billion on research and development (R&D), much of it through NIH and other science-focused agencies. That money supports everything from molecular biology to drug development to health data infrastructure, often with payoffs that take decades to emerge. But this investment model is now under threat. The Trump administration's proposed 2026 federal budget calls for sharp reductions in R&D spending, including 40% less for NIH (though a Senate committee has rejected that proposal, calling instead for an increase in funding for the NIH for next year). Experts warn this could impede medical breakthroughs, slow the development of new treatments, and increase the burden of preventable disease. 'It's hard to even comprehend what's lost when federal funding dries up,' says Christopher Worsham, MD, a critical care physician and researcher at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthor of Random Acts of Medicine: The Hidden Forces That Sway Doctors, Impact Patients, and Shape Our Health . 'There are the obvious setbacks — ongoing projects shut down, discoveries delayed by years. But there are also the invisible losses. Labs that never form. Scientists who never get trained. A career's worth of discovery, gone before it began.' The eight breakthroughs highlighted below were selected with guidance from Worsham; David Jones, MD, PhD, a physician and professor of the culture of medicine at Harvard University, Boston; and Anupam Jena, MD, PhD, a physician and health economist at Harvard Medical School. But they're just a sample of how federal research support shaped the landscape of modern medicine. 1. The Framingham Heart Study A landmark, long-term investigation into cardiovascular disease and its risk factors. With funding from what is now the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, researchers began tracking the health of more than 5000 residents in Framingham, Massachusetts. The goal was to understand the root causes of heart disease, which at the time was the leading cause of death in the US but poorly understood. The study followed participants over decades, collecting information on blood pressure, cholesterol, smoking habits, physical activity, and more. It provided the first conclusive evidence linking high blood pressure and high cholesterol to cardiovascular illness. It also helped establish the role of smoking, obesity, and lack of exercise in heart disease. This led to the widely used Framingham Risk Score, which estimates a person's 10-year risk of developing cardiovascular disease. Jena says this first epidemiologic effort 'helped steer the development of both preventive guidelines and treatments.' Anupam Jena, MD, PhD Now in its 77th year, the Framingham Heart Study continues to follow the children and grandchildren of the original participants. Its scope has broadened to include genetics, dementia, cancer, and social determinants of health — making it one of the longest-running and most influential population studies in medical history. 2. The Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health The official wake-up call on tobacco's deadly toll. On January 11, 1964, Surgeon General Dr. Luther Terry delivered a message that would reverberate across the nation: 'Cigarette smoking is a health hazard of sufficient importance to the US to warrant remedial action.' The Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service marked the first time the US government formally linked cigarette smoking to serious disease. Previous warnings didn't carry the weight of this 387-page document, published under the authority of the US Public Health Service and backed by decades of evidence — much of it supported, directly or indirectly, by federal research funding. At the time, 42% of American adults smoked cigarettes daily. Tobacco advertising was ubiquitous, and tobacco companies were politically powerful. But the report flipped a switch: Within a year, Congress mandated warning labels on cigarette packages. The findings helped lay the groundwork for tobacco control policies that led to dramatic declines in smoking rates and prevented millions of premature deaths. Jones calls it 'likely the most important public health innovation of the post-World War II era.' The report established a precedent for rigorous, government-backed assessments of environmental and behavioral health risks. Subsequent Surgeon General reports would expand on the dangers of secondhand smoke, the effects of nicotine addiction, and more. Dr. Luther Terry with the landmark Surgeon General report on smoking and health, funded by the US Public Health Service and informed by federally supported research. 3. Oral Rehydration Therapy A simple sugar-and-salt solution that has saved tens of millions of lives. In the late 1960s, cholera remained a deadly global threat. The disease, which causes severe diarrhea, could kill patients within hours by rapidly draining the body of water and essential salts. At the time, intravenous fluids were the standard treatment, but access was limited, particularly in the poorer countries where cholera outbreaks were most severe. Enter Dr. Richard Cash, a young physician who joined the NIH during the Vietnam War as an alternative to military service. The NIH sent him to what was then East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), where he and colleagues helped develop and test a stunningly simple solution: a mixture of water, salt, and glucose that patients could drink themselves. Plain water can't reverse cholera's rapid dehydration. Cash and his team showed that this precisely balanced oral formula could enable the body to absorb both water and electrolytes through the intestinal wall. Even patients in critical condition could recover — so long as they were conscious and able to drink. The impact was staggering. 'Oral rehydration therapy, pioneered by Richard Cash and others, has saved tens of millions of lives globally,' says Jones. Families can be trained to administer it at home. It doesn't require refrigeration, a sterile environment, or high-tech equipment. David Jones, MD, PhD Field trials in the 1970s showed a 93% effectiveness rate. The Lancet in 1978 called it 'potentially the most significant medical advance of the century.' 4. CRISPR Gene-Editing Technology A revolutionary tool for editing DNA. CRISPR emerged through decades of federally funded research into bacterial immune systems, molecular biology, and the intricate machinery of DNA repair. Today, it's among the most promising medical technologies of the 21st century — a gene-editing technique that could treat or even cure a wide range of genetic diseases. The foundation was laid in 2008, when researchers Erik Sontheimer and Luciano Marraffini identified CRISPR as a general purpose gene-editing mechanism. But the breakthrough came in 2012, when Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna showed that CRISPR-Cas9 could be used to precisely cut DNA in a test tube. Doudna, a Nobel laureate in chemistry and professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of California, Berkeley, says the potential now exists to 'cure genetic disease, breed disease-tolerant crops, and more.' 'CRISPR is a great example of the success of the long-standing US model for supporting science,' Doudna says. 'The NSF and DOE supported the early, curiosity-driven research that led to the discovery of CRISPR gene editing, and later funding from the NIH supported the development of applications of CRISPR in human health.' 5. Vaccines for Measles, Polio, and COVID-19 Immunizations have nearly eliminated devastating infectious diseases. Over the past century, publicly funded vaccine development has helped eradicate polio from most of the world, curb measles transmission in the Americas, and sharply reduce the global toll of COVID-19. 'Is there any doubt about the value of those vaccines?' says Jones. 'Polio was a massive source of fear, with summer epidemics shutting down pools, movie theaters, and other public spaces across the US….Now polio has been nearly eradicated from Earth.' Measles, meanwhile, was declared eliminated from the Western Hemisphere in 2016 (though recent outbreaks are raising concerns about that status). Public investment was crucial to the development of these vaccines. The measles vaccine, developed by John Enders and his team at Harvard, was made possible through NIH-supported research into how to culture the virus — a critical step toward producing a safe and effective vaccine, licensed in 1963. It laid the groundwork for the combination MMRV (measles, mumps, rubella vaccine) developed in 1971. In 2005, the varicella (chickenpox) vaccine was added, creating the now-standard MMRV shot for children. The polio vaccine emerged from a public fundraising campaign that started when President Franklin D. Roosevelt (a polio survivor) and Basil O'Connor founded the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis — later renamed the March of Dimes — which channeled donations into research and care. Their support enabled Dr. Jonas Salk to develop the first inactivated polio vaccine at the University of Pittsburgh in the early 1950s, leading to mass immunization efforts that would all but eliminate the disease from most of the world. The COVID-19 pandemic spurred the fastest large-scale vaccine development in history. Within 12 months of the SARS-CoV-2 genome being published, researchers — backed by tens of billions in US public funding — had developed multiple highly effective vaccines. That NIH investment (estimated at just shy of $32 billion) helped accelerate development and manufacturing, allowing the US to lead a global vaccination effort. Over 13 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses have since been administered worldwide. 'The evidence is quite good that COVID vaccines saved lives and reduced suffering,' says Jones. A new study from JAMA Health Forum offered one of the most comprehensive and conservative estimates to date: COVID-19 vaccines averted 2.5 million deaths in the US between 2020 and 2024 — reinforcing the enormous public health return, even under modest assumptions. 6. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality The federal agency is quietly making healthcare safer, smarter, and more efficient. Despite a modest staff of around 300 people and a budget of just 0.02% of total federal healthcare spending, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) has a far-reaching impact on American medicine. AHRQ plays a critical role in improving the quality, safety, and effectiveness of healthcare delivery. AHRQ was established by a law signed in 1999 by President Bill Clinton, succeeding an agency created in 1989. The need was obvious following two landmark reports from the Institute of Medicine: To Err Is Human (1999), which revealed that medical error was a leading cause of death in the US, and Crossing the Quality Chasm (2001), which called for systemic reform. Since then, AHRQ has become the backbone of the patient safety and quality improvement movement in the US, supporting thousands of research projects and building essential infrastructure for analyzing healthcare delivery. One example: An AHRQ-funded study evaluated the use of a standardized sterile checklist to prevent central line infections in ICU patients. As hospitals adopted these practices, 'infection rates plummeted,' a study showed. 'There was no new technology,' Worsham says, 'just a change in practice behavior.' Christopher Worsham, MD AHRQ has also helped bring data science into modern health services research, giving researchers access to standardized, national healthcare data. 7. The Human Genome Project A global effort that decoded the blueprint of human life — and revolutionized medicine. On June 26, 2000, President Bill Clinton declared the completion of 'the most important, most wondrous map ever produced by humankind.' He was referring to the successful first draft of the human genome: a complete survey of the genetic code that underlies all human biology. The Human Genome Project began in 1988 as a joint initiative of the US Department of Energy and the NIH, with an initial investment of $3 billion. Over the next 15 years, it evolved into a massive international collaboration that delivered the first full sequence in 2003. The work laid the foundation for modern genomics and enabled entirely new approaches to understanding, diagnosing, and treating disease. Dr. Francis Collins, who led the project between 1993 and 2008, told the White House gathering, 'We have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God.' Collins, the former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, told NPR this summer that he knew then 'this would become fundamental to pretty much everything we would do in the future in human biology. And I was also convinced as a physician that this was going to open the door to much better ways to diagnose, treat, and prevent a long list of diseases that we didn't understand very well.' The impact has been profound. The project sparked advances in personalized medicine, cancer genomics, and rare disease diagnostics. It led to the creation of tools that are now standard in medical research and enabled a generation of scientists to ask more precise, data-driven questions about human health. Francis Collins (alongside Craig Venter, CEO of Celera Genomics) announces the first draft of the human genome — a $3 billion federal investment — at the White House, June 26, 2000. 8. Protease Inhibitors for HIV/AIDS Antiretroviral drugs that turned HIV into a manageable chronic illness. By 1994, AIDS had become the leading cause of death for Americans aged 25-44 years. Treatment options were limited, and a diagnosis often meant a sharply shortened life expectancy. That changed in 1995, when a new class of drugs — protease inhibitors — was introduced as part of a novel treatment approach known as highly active antiretroviral therapy. The results were immediate and dramatic. Protease inhibitors work by targeting an enzyme called HIV protease, which is essential to the virus's ability to replicate. The drugs disrupt the virus's life cycle, reducing viral loads to undetectable levels when taken consistently. The first FDA-approved protease inhibitor, saquinavir, was quickly followed by others, including ritonavir, indinavir, and nelfinavir. The scientific foundation for these breakthroughs was laid by researchers at the National Cancer Institute, the federal agency that played a central role in both mapping the structure of the HIV protease enzyme and designing early versions of the drugs. Jones says protease inhibitors have 'saved tens of millions of lives.' Globally, the number of new HIV infections has fallen by more than 60% since the mid-1990s. UNAIDS officials have warned that without continued investment, particularly from major funders like the US, the world could see a dramatic resurgence in HIV-related deaths and infections.
CBS News
5 hours ago
- CBS News
Patient numbers at NIH hospital have dropped under Trump, jeopardizing care
The number of people receiving treatment at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center — the renowned research hospital that cares for patients with rare or life-threatening diseases — has tumbled under the second Trump administration, according to government documents and interviews with current and former NIH employees. NIH documents viewed by KFF Health News show a pronounced decline in patients at the 200-bed hospital from February through April, a time that coincides with the Department of Health and Human Services' mass firings of government employees, the gutting of scientific research, and the administration's broad crackdown on immigration. The average number of patients being treated daily during that time hovered between 60 and 80, with the April numbers falling to the lower end of that range. By contrast, in October, about 80 patients per day on average were at the hospital. The number of cancer clinical trial participants at the hospital as of July was down about 20% from last year, one NIH cancer scientist said. KFF Health News agreed not to identify the scientist and others who participated in this article who were not authorized to speak to the press and feared retaliation. The numbers "really don't look too good," Pius Aiyelawo, acting CEO of the clinical center, said during a May 23 meeting of the NIH Clinical Center Research Hospital Board. As of April 30, the average number of patients in the hospital per day had declined by 5.7% compared with the same period a year ago. Adults and children with cancer, people who need bone marrow transplants, and people with rare diseases or infections are among the patients who receive care at no charge at the NIH hospital, according to former officials. Clinicians there provide potentially lifesaving treatments as part of clinical trials, often to people who have run out of options. Research at the hospital has also led to breakthroughs about cancer, traumatic brain injury, and AIDS, among other ailments. James Gilman, a physician who was CEO of the clinical center from 2017 until retiring in January, said the center has driven important advances against disease "that couldn't have happened anywhere else." Former officials said the drop in patients this year is a consequence of the upheaval the Trump administration has caused at the NIH, the world's largest public funder of scientific research. Current and former employees say an exodus of clinicians, scientists, and other staffers has limited how many patients can be treated. Morale has tanked because of widespread firings and the administration's cancellation of grants that funded research into health disparities, vaccines, the health of LGBTQ+ people, and more. Contracts have been cut, and scientists have seen delays in getting essential supplies for clinical research. "Every day seems to be some type of breaking point," one NIH worker said. During the May board meeting, a video of which KFF Health News viewed, Aiyelawo attributed the decrease in patients coming to the hospital to the departure of NIH investigators — the researchers on studies — and less patient recruitment. He also noted 11 recent departures of clinical center staffers. They included Christine Grady, a nurse who led the center's bioethics department and the wife of Anthony Fauci, the former head of the NIH's infectious diseases institute who became a lightning rod for conservatives during the COVID-19 pandemic. HHS has fired more than 1,200 NIH employees this year as part of its purge of the federal workforce, but the true number of departures is almost certainly higher. Others have opted for early retirement or quit because they opposed the Trump administration's orders. Gilman said the NIH hospital relies on a "very complex ecosystem and network to find patients who are not too sick" to potentially be enrolled in a clinical trial. When researchers leave, "those patients are lost," he said. The clinical center's 2025 annual report said there were roughly 1,500 research studies underway in 2024, including studies focused on cancer, infectious disease, heart and lung conditions, and blood disorders. Clinical trials accounted for about half. The National Cancer Institute — which is the largest of the NIH's 27 institutes and has been crippled by cuts and chaos this year — typically has the most patients needing inpatient care, Gilman said. "What has happened here since January has been a pretty traumatic time for that ecosystem," he said, "and there are pieces of it that will take a long time to rebuild, if indeed they get a chance to rebuild." During the May board meeting, Aiyelawo said NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya "is very aware" that fewer people are getting treated at the hospital "and we're doing everything we can to be able to get those numbers up." The drop in patients this year isn't isolated to people needing inpatient care, NIH documents show. As of the end of April, outpatient visits were down 8.5% compared with the same period in the prior fiscal year. The number of new patients overall had declined by 6.7%, to about 3,370 people. In response to questions, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon wrote in an emailed statement that the clinical center "remains fully operational and continues to provide world-class clinical research and patient care. Every day, patients from across the country and around the globe come here to participate in cutting-edge studies that drive scientific discovery and improve health outcomes." "As the crown jewel of research and discovery, the Clinical Center is a top priority" under Bhattacharya's leadership, Nixon said. "We are committed to fully leveraging its capabilities as the nation's hub for clinical research innovation. Our focus remains on empowering the research community and advancing the critical mission of making medical breakthroughs possible right here on the NIH campus." Even before President Trump began his second term, the hospital had struggled with lagging patient numbers. Before the pandemic, it averaged more than 110 patients daily. Those numbers plummeted starting in 2020, government documents show. During the 2022 fiscal year, there were about 73 patients, on average, in the hospital per day. While yearly figures have increased since then, they have not gone back to pre-pandemic levels. NIH documents show that the hospital saw an average of roughly 81 patients per day during fiscal 2024, which ended in September. Still, one NIH worker said: "This is a manufactured crisis. COVID was not." The federal government has also moved to tighten rules surrounding visitors from abroad, which likely limits how many people living in the U.S. without legal status would come to the NIH for care. Before Mr. Trump, officials developed a new visitor policy for the NIH that required people who aren't U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents to register online before arriving. But its implementation was delayed, Gilman said. It did not launch until late January, after President Joe Biden was no longer in office and around the time the Trump administration began its deportation operation. The Department of Homeland Security has carried out widespread raids and arrests and allowed immigration authorities unprecedented access to various federal data sources — including tax information and Medicaid recipients' personal data — as part of its immigration enforcement efforts. The clinical center's most recent annual report said around 600 patients in 2024 were from abroad. Now "international patients are terrified to come," said one recently departed clinician. "They don't know what will happen to them." KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
UPI
5 hours ago
- UPI
Myanmar's junta-picked acting president dies
Aug. 7 (UPI) -- Myanmar's junta-appointed acting President U Myint Swe died Thursday morning, weeks after he was declared unable to perform his mostly ceremonial duties due to Parkinson's disease. He was 74. Myint Swe died at 8:28 a.m. local time at the No. 2 Defense Services General Hospital, the National Defense Security Council said in a statement. Myint Swe, a former general, was vice president of Myanmar during the Feb. 1, 2021, military coup. He was appointed acting president after the country's civilian leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, was arrested. According to the National Defense and Security Council, Myint Swe began experiencing "sluggishness in movement and the ability to consume food and nutrients" in early 2023, and was soon diagnosed with Parkinson's, which the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calls is a progressive nervous system disorder that afects movement and has no cure. In April of last year, he received medical treatment at Singapore's Mount Elizabeth Medical Center. Then from late May to mid-June of this year, he received treatment again, this time at the No. 2 Defense Services General Hospital in Myanmar. According to officials, Myint Swe experience wight loss, loss of appetite, fever and a decline in cognitive function last month, and was placed on medical leave July 18 and then hospitalized on July 24. He was listed as in critical condition after being hospitalized in the Special Intensive Care Unit of the No. 2 Defense Services General Hospital, where he died Thursday morning. A period of mourning has been declared from Thursday to Monday, during which the national flag will be flown at half-mast. The coup of 2021 has upended the country, which has been embroiled in civil war since. According to the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners, more than 7,000 civilians have been killed by junta forces amid the civil war and 22,000 remain arbitrarily detained. The United Nations estimates 22 million are in need of assistance and more than 3.5 million have been displaced by the fighting.
