I have broached the topic of regulatory capture on this board previously both in regard to this public health debacle and other topics only to be met with an array of 'when you don't like the message, go after the messenger' type responses. I caught a whiff of that in response to my recent post here as well. At the risk of doing so again I will respond to prior posts referencing my name and requesting further background on why it is that The Editorial Board of the WSJ categorized our fellow alumnus in less than glowing terms.
I want to make sure that this post is not viewed as political in nature by saying that any critique expressed here is done so from a vantage point that I believe that political officials and governmental regulators across the entire political spectrum feed from the same industry-funded trough. This unquestioned reality is the essence of the massive conflicts of interest that I see running throughout this public health saga much as they did the same in the housing crisis that brought upon the Wall Street crisis of 2008 and also the student loan racket (now ~$1.6T in size). So as to promote conflicts as right v left while the big money grab continues, a host of other issues are often and typically drummed up for purposes of distraction. Sad day in our country but not a surprise when pursuit of truth is relegated to the back burner by those charged in pursuing and promoting that prized virtue but I digress.
I do not know Dr. Fauci. I have never met him. I hold no personal animus toward him. I do hold in real contempt the fact that he and many others are undoubtedly subject to significant conflicts of interest and in my opinion fail to fully uphold their mandate to protect the public interest. Feel free not to take my word for this fact. In fact, vigorous debate on these topics is healthy and represents what I thought a Holy Cross education is supposed to represent. Fellow Crusaders and others who frequent these parts may want to think long and hard as to why The Editorial Board of the WSJ pans Dr. Fauci in such a fashion.
On that note and in regard to conflict of interest, here are some specific references further expounding on what I had linked from what The Editorial Board had to say:
"The World Health Organization on Tuesday finally released its report on the origins of the coronavirus, and the result wasn’t worth the wait. The document is best understood as a whitewash heavily influenced by the Chinese Communist Party and Westerners with conflicts of interest."
Further along the Editorial Board writes:
"The WHO team is also compromised by conflicts of interest. Zoologist Peter Daszak, the American on the team, has collaborated with the WIV (Wuhan Institute of Virology) for years and supported gain-of-function research. As early as February 2020 he helped coordinate a statement in the Lancet condemning “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.” Another team member, virologist Marion Koopmans, oversees an outfit in the Netherlands that has conducted gain-of-function research and could face serious repercussions if the pandemic started in a lab."
The statement referenced above about Daszak coordinating a statement in the industry periodical Lancet is par for the course in terms of how the conflicts of interest within the regulatory capture is evidenced.
"The Biden Administration hasn’t taken a definitive position on the lab-leak theory, but Covid-19 spokesman Anthony Fauci played down the idea last week. Dr. Fauci’s institute financed work at the WIV and has backed gain-of-function research. He’s the wrong man to reassure the public about lab research on coronaviruses."
That is a damning statement but again it goes straight to conflicts of interest. I wish the WSJ would pursue it even further.
"Even the WHO recognizes the implausibility of the report. “I do not believe that this assessment was extensive enough. Further data and studies will be needed to reach more robust conclusions,” WHO director-general Tedros Ghebreyesus said Tuesday. “Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this requires further investigation.” He’s ready to deploy more specialists, but don’t expect Beijing to welcome them."
One does not have to look far or dig too deeply to learn as to how massively corrupted Dr. Tedros and the WHO is. The fact that Dr. Fauci sung his and their praises very early on was in my opinion a massive red flag.
"The U.S. and 13 other governments released a statement Tuesday expressing “shared concerns” that the WHO study “was significantly delayed and lacked access to complete, original data and samples.” That’s nice, but it sounds like they’re prepared to conclude that Covid’s origin story is unknowable and move on.
That shouldn’t be the end of it. The Biden Administration knows the underlying intelligence and should release it to the public. Unless it does, China’s propaganda backed by the WHO’s failure will prevail in much of world opinion. The Biden Administration says it wants to revitalize multilateral institutions, and that should start with refusing to accept the WHO’s Wuhan whitewash."
I was personally surprised that the WSJ Editorial Board wrote this editorial as I have often seen them fail to properly call out banks, academics, other industries, so called charitable organizations, non-governmental organizations and our pols and regulators who have fallen into the regulatory capture trap that is our national reality circa 2021.
I gather that when that reality encompasses none other than the leaders of the PRC that even The Editorial Board of the WSJ looks upon that as a bridge too far.
I commend them for doing so and again hope they might dig even deeper in this effort.
Thanks, td - anytime China is involved it’s hard to believe anything that comes out of their mouths - I too wish dr. Fauci would criticize them more but he doesn’t - he enjoys a lit of credibility in this country and could do more to tell ‘the rest of the story’
Post by newfieguy74 on Apr 4, 2021 13:04:09 GMT -5
1. I admire Dr. Fauci greatly but don't think he should be immune from reasonable criticism 2. I agree you can trust very little of the information put out by China 3. I agree that WHO has compromised its credibility (which doesn't mean it has no value as an organization) 4. I've seen contradictory reporting about the connection between NIH and the Wuhan Lab. It does appear that NIH gives a lot of money to international groups to fund research. If NIH has given or does give money to the Wuhan Lab I can see an argument that there is an appearance of a conflict. But the appearance of a conflict does not mean that Dr. Fauci is suppressing or watering down his real opinions about the origins of he virus or anything else. Any appearance of a conflict notwithstanding I think that Dr. Fauci is a man of sufficient integrity that he would and does tell the truth.
The U S. Government providing financial aid to China appears outdated. Scientific cooperation of course but save the financial support for countries that need it.
This is a mis-use of the term financial aid. The U.S. was buying research that was not being done in the United States.
General Considerations for Issuing Grant Awards to Foreign Institutions and Domestic Institutions With Foreign Components
NIAID [Fauci's institute] issues grant awards to institutions in foreign countries if the proposed research meets the following criteria:
>It includes talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions not in the U.S. or that augment U.S. resources. >It is relevant to the NIAID mission. >It is not being done in the United States.
Foreign applications must be presented to the NIAID advisory Council as a special issue to obtain approval.
Domestic applications with foreign components require Council approval, but they are not presented as a special issue.
A foreign component cannot be added to a grant without obtaining prior approval of the grants management officer (GMO). ...............
Who owns the liability attached to the use of the Astra Zeneca product used in this public health situation?
The only vaccinations in the United States with Astra Zeneca's vaccine were clinical trials. (Although millions of doses were manufactured in the U.S., these are sitting on the shelf, as AZ will not be approved for use in the U.S., there being no need for it. The question is where do those AZ doses now get sent, gratis.)
Subjects who participate in clinical trials sign a waiver.
In the United States, there is a vaccine injury program run by the Federal government, which indemnifies manufacturers against claims of vaccine injury. (That the Federal government indemnifies the private sector against certain losses is not new, nor is it confined to vaccines. There would be no nuclear power in the U.S. if there weren't government indemnification of the nuclear power industry. Post 9-11, the Federal government indemnified two airlines, and, IIRC, several airport operators.) See: www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html
I am not a student of product liability law in other countries. However, I will note that aviation-injury lawyers engage in forum shopping when it comes to plane crashes, pursuing Boeing or GE in U.S. courts (including less sophisticated state courts) for plane crashes (1) occurring in a foreign country, (2) where the airline is a foreign operator not doing business in the United States, (3) none of the passengers were citizens/residents of the United States, and (4) a manufacturing defect is not thought to be the cause. Thus, it would not surprise me that if AZ vaccine had been developed in the U.S., e.g., Moderna, that the tort bar in the U.S. would pursue damages against AZ in a U.S. court on behalf of individuals who had no association with the United States for injuries allegedly arising from a vaccination in the UK, or Belgium, or Egypt, or Uzbekistan, etc., etc. See: www.flightglobal.com/parker-stunned-by-43m-court-award/55330.article