Turning a sick child into a human shield for a spending demand is political hackery at its most cynical. The published evidence involved one patient, short follow-up, and very early results. It also represents less than 0.1% of what NIH does. It does not prove that NIH was uniquely necessary or that the work could not have been funded and performed elsewhere. NIH stifles innovation by forcing scientists to spend enormous amounts of time writing and rewriting grants, rewards safe and predictable projects, and funnels money into bureaucratic programs and the same legacy institutions and boy's clubs. Too much funding supports paperwork, overhead, large bureacratic center grants, and other administrative structures instead of giving the best scientists the freedom to pursue their best ideas. A rough estimate is that less than 25% of what NIH funds is worthwhile. This is how NIH avoids accountability. Present one emotionally powerful case as a definitive NIH triumph, then use it to demand another $50 billion while brushing aside the vast majority of what the agency actually funds.