|
Post by efg72 on May 11, 2022 20:13:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by td128 on May 11, 2022 20:28:28 GMT -5
The public is fully entitled to know all of this information. Who provided the funds? Who received it? How much?
The conflicts of interest are rampant and obvious on their face.
Truth and transparency are the great AND only disinfectants.
Follow the $$$.
Thank you Ed for drawing attention to this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2022 21:39:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on May 12, 2022 6:59:49 GMT -5
The public is fully entitled to know all of this information. Who provided the funds? Who received it? How much? The conflicts of interest are rampant and obvious on their face. Truth and transparency are the great AND only disinfectants. Follow the $$$. Thank you Ed for drawing attention to this. With so little detail I'm surprised you could conclude that conflicts are "rampant and obvious." Please elaborate. I agree it would be good to know more. Also keep in mind that the man behind this article is a conservative whose efforts are funded by donors he won't disclose.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on May 12, 2022 7:25:15 GMT -5
The author speaks of a "potentially unholy alliance" but offers little to prove such an alliance exists. It may well be out there, I don't know (and neither does he). Such an accusation makes it appear that an "unholy alliance" has been proven. AFAIK it has not. I try to avoid being one of those who follow conspiracy theories. If I say this sort of article is "potentially" flawed and, at worst, an outright lie/distortion I would only be using the authors technique.
PS: Getting FOIA documents with massive sections redacted is meeting the "letter" of the law but is in reality a complete waste of time. The people in charge are giving fertilizer to any critics by spreading so much BS through this type of censorship.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on May 12, 2022 7:40:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alum on May 12, 2022 8:45:56 GMT -5
1. Federal FOI requests go into a black hole. I have seen reporters commenting on Twitter about two year old requests being met--long after the story the reporter was covering was of interest to anyone. From what I have read, it is a constant problem and has been for decades. 2. I am in favor of the NIH being paid royalties. Government scientists provide the basic sciences but are not in a position to turn that work into actual medical products which can be used to treat patients. Selling the science in exchange for royalties seems like good business and good for public health. 3. That the NIH allocates some of the royalties paid to it to individual employees, as part of their compensation, doesn't seem unrealistic. So long as it is part of a compensation plan written down in advance, it is payment on an employment contract. 4. To those who would tell you that Fauci is overpaid, let me suggest to you that they don't know what they are talking about. A quick look at the State of Connecticut payroll site reveals that all sorts of doctors at the UConn Health Center earn substantially more than Fauci. www.openthebooks.com/connecticut-state-employees/efg told us in the earliest days of Covid that when he was working at a pharmaceutical company they offered Fauci a job and he declined. I think it is safe to say that if he had left the public sector thirty years ago he would be worth well more than $100 million today.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on May 12, 2022 9:02:49 GMT -5
The highlight of my upcoming, oft-postponed 50th Reunion will be to attend the honoring of Dr. Fauci - hopefully outdoors - with the Integrated Science Center. I have my KN-95 masks at the ready if indoors, vaxed and double boosted with the "real" vaccine - Moderna.
There's lots of stuff to be angry about with alma mater - Fauci's honor should not be one of them.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on May 12, 2022 9:25:30 GMT -5
1. Federal FOI requests go into a black hole. I have seen reporters commenting on Twitter about two year old requests being met--long after the story the reporter was covering was of interest to anyone. From what I have read, it is a constant problem and has been for decades. 2. I am in favor of the NIH being paid royalties. Government scientists provide the basic sciences but are not in a position to turn that work into actual medical products which can be used to treat patients. Selling the science in exchange for royalties seems like good business and good for public health. 3. That the NIH allocates some of the royalties paid to it to individual employees, as part of their compensation, doesn't seem unrealistic. So long as it is part of a compensation plan written down in advance, it is payment on an employment contract. 4. To those who would tell you that Fauci is overpaid, let me suggest to you that they don't know what they are talking about. A quick look at the State of Connecticut payroll site reveals that all sorts of doctors at the UConn Health Center earn substantially more than Fauci. www.openthebooks.com/connecticut-state-employees/efg told us in the earliest days of Covid that when he was working at a pharmaceutical company they offered Fauci a job and he declined. I think it is safe to say that if he had left the public sector thirty years ago he would be worth well more than $100 million today. Dr. Fauci makes less than many Medical School Chancellors. Who has more responsibility? And no Chancellor has more seniority. Plus as I mentioned earlier, he only makes the difference between his salary and what his pension would be if he retired, maybe a hundred grand a year. We're getting him for a lower net cost for a year than we pay BN for just the summer.🤕
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on May 12, 2022 9:41:21 GMT -5
I have tried not to take the bait & extend the life of this aforementioned post. But as others have contributed... No doubt Andrezjewski is controversial. TBT newsletters such as sub stack provide red meat for a certain subset of Americans. They are quite lucrative for the authors who endeavor to provide the readers what they want to read. Forbes fired Andrezjewski in an attempt to maintain its journalistic integrity. Clearly, Adam approached the article on Dr. Fauci with his mind made up as his goal was merely to discredit the good doctor. This article article is a big nothing masquerading in innuendo and little else. To wit: Royalties have been common knowledge. The arrangement is quite proper and provides great benefits to the American public $46,000+ in payments ? Huh? In fact Dr. Fauci's salary is quite meager. To quote his "boss," Adam, you're fired! Yawn.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on May 12, 2022 10:16:28 GMT -5
The NIH pays out royalties to 'inventors' and collects 'royalties' from licensees. In Federal fiscal year 2021, the NIH received $126,180,466.26 in royalties from licensees. For information on royalties paid by NIH, see: www.techtransfer.nih.gov/royalty/information-nih-inventorsFor information royalties received by NIH, see: www.techtransfer.nih.gov/royalty/information-nih-inventorsIt is important to note that royalties from licensees are payable to the United State Government, and are recorded as a government receipt by the U. S. Treasury, the recipient institution. (The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the National Institutes of Health are not running banks as on the side.) From Fauci's tax return as published in Forbes, my recollection is that the only royalties he received (if they were characterized as such) were paid for his role as an editor of a medical textbook, and amounted to $100,000. The HHS annually prepares an annual financial report, which is independently audited. (For HHS, the auditor is Ernst & Young). The annual financial report details deficiencies in HHS' financial reporting as identified by the independent auditor, the Office of Inspector General for HHS, and rarely, by the General Accountability Office. a agency in the Legislative Branch. If royalties were being paid by licensees directly to individuals in NIH, that activity would certainly be flagged by auditors, and a criminal investigation initiated. For those so interested, the most recent report can be found here. It is 316 pages. www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/fy-2021-hhs-agency-financial-report.pdf I reviewed the HHS annual financial report about 10-12 years ago. I did so at the request of Hal Steinberg, a colleague and friend, who, without exaggeration, was almost singularly responsible for the introduction of audited financial reports in the Federal government. He came to work in the Executive Office of the President in 1981, in the first year of the Reagan Administration. There is a memorial tribute to Hal on p. 2 of the 2021 HHS annual financial report. A very brief summary of Hal's remarkable accomplishments can be found here: www.washingtonjewishweek.com/harold-ivan-hal-steinberg/ ___________________________________ This openthebooks non-profit site is a scam, and I save that unreservedly. _________________ Edited to add this report on royalty payments to individuals including Fauci www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC545012/
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on May 12, 2022 10:47:22 GMT -5
Phreek, here's where some will say there is a flaw in your argument . . . . . . they believe there is a conspiracy within the government and any payouts to Fauci and other individuals are covered up. Graft and corruption, the kind we didn't see in a past administration.
See definition of "projection": the attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on May 12, 2022 12:48:32 GMT -5
Dr. Fauci is heroic in much of the world. I am extremely proud he is an HC grad. Some article appealing to a relative few cannot dim his luster. Maybe if he dishonestly advocated the use of Ivermection followed by a Clorox chaser an article such as this would not have been published. I am very saddened.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on May 12, 2022 12:51:16 GMT -5
Dr. Fauci is heroic in much of the world. Definitely not in Africa.
|
|
|
Post by Chu Chu on May 12, 2022 13:08:50 GMT -5
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is a national treasure. Research begun at NIH and funded by taxpayers has contributed mightily over the years to wonderful advances in scientific understanding, medical care, technology and our GDP. NIH is able to designate research priorities in the public interest and then fund research programs that for profit companies cannot justify or sustain, and see them through for many years before they might pay off. Thankfully, when these advances get monetized by for profit companies, the NIH is often paid royalties which reflect the contribution of our taxpayer dollars to their profits. This is as it should be! In fact, my criticism would be that these payments are usually far less than what is economically justified.
This article takes the fact of these payments as a sign of malfeasence. It is NOT! In fact, it is a sign of good governance and sound fiscal management by an essential government agency. The article is simply a right wing hit job.
Thanks to phreek for the excellent references.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on May 12, 2022 13:16:34 GMT -5
What the law says about royalty payments to Federal employees, as a distribution from royalties received by the agency (U.S. Government). Suffice to say, any royalties received by Fauci or any other researchers at NIH or ANY other Federal agency are and were allowed by law. [bolding mine] (Pub. L. 96–480, § 14, as added, renumbered § 13, and amended Pub. L. 99–502, §§ 7, 9(e)(1), (3), Oct. 20, 1986, 100 Stat. 1792, 1797; renumbered § 14 and amended Pub. L. 100–418, title V, §§ 5122(a)(1), 5162(a), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1438, 1450; Pub. L. 100–519, title III, § 303(a), Oct. 24, 1988, 102 Stat. 2597; Pub. L. 101–189, div. C, title XXXI, § 3133(c), Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1677; Pub. L. 104–113, § 5, Mar. 7, 1996, 110 Stat. 777; Pub. L. 106–404, §§ 7(7), 10(b), Nov. 1, 2000, 114 Stat. 1746, 1749.) Law was enacted at the end of Carter, and subsequently amended principally during the Administrations of Reagan and GHW Bush Re: the reference to 35 USC 207, that law, 35 U.S. Code § 207 - Domestic and foreign protection of federally owned inventions
Can be found here www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/207
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on May 12, 2022 13:53:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on May 12, 2022 14:51:26 GMT -5
Congress passes the law and then certain members drop anvils on Dr. Fauci for following the law. Why don't they reach across the aisle, build a coalition and improve the law if they are that concerned.
|
|