China’s Coronavirus: EU is Betraying Europe


Chinese ambassadors, particularly those based in Western capitals, simply resort to blackmail, threatening to deny governments vital medical supplies to cope with the pandemic if they do not comply with Beijing’s wishes. All these countries have good

Source: China’s Coronavirus: How the EU is Betraying Europe

THIS DAY IN HISTORY – MAY 14


Encyclopædia Britannica

FEATURED EVENT

Israel

1948 – Declaration of Israel’s statehood. On this day in 1948—just before the expiry of the British mandate in PalestineDavid Ben-Gurion and the Jewish People’s Council proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel, precipitating the first Arab-Israeli war.

The Skylab space station in orbit.

1973 – Skylab, the first U.S. space station, was launched.

Edward Jenner: smallpox vaccination

1796 – Edward Jenner administered the first vaccination against smallpox.

Nicolas de Largillière: Louis XIV and His Family

1643 – Four-year-old Louis XIV ascended the throne of France.

The Charitable Heart


What is a charitable heart? It is a heart which is burning with charity for the whole creation, for men, for the birds, for the beasts, for the demons – for all creatures. He who has such a heart cannot see or call to mind a creature without his eyes becoming filled with tears by reason of the immense compassion which seizes his heart; a heart which is softened and can no longer bear to see or learn from others of any suffering, even the smallest pain, being inflicted upon a creature. This is why such a man never ceases to pray also for the animals, for the enemies of Truth, and for those who do him evil, that they may be preserved and purified. He will pray even for the reptiles, moved by the infinite pity which reigns in the hearts of those who are becoming united to God” – St Isak the Syrian

It follows therefore that in every human relationship, there is the likelihood of disagreement over different things because of the imperfection in the human person. Some are more knowledgeable than others. There are some with ability to think faster than others. Some are broadminded, some are narrow-minded, some are self-centered and self-opinionated, and there are others still who are neither here nor there. Some don’t make meaningful contributions at all. There are poor people who are irritable to some rich people. There are generously rich people. There are simple and understanding leaders and followers but there are also proud and conceited leaders and followers.

Wait A Minute! So Dr. Fauci Was Caught For Financial Impropriety Previously?


NIH Scientists Caught Concealing Millions in Royalties for Experimental Treatments – AP

NIH Scientists Caught Concealing Millions in Royalties for Experimental Treatments – AP

Tue, 11 Jan 2005

Alliance for Human Research Protection

The Associated Press has uncovered evidence of scientists and administrators at the National Institutes of Health flagrantly disregarding ethical and legal requirements of financial disclosure: “In all, 916 current and former NIH researchers are receiving royalty payments for drugs and other inventions they developed while working for the government.”

According to records obtained by the AP, among the 51 NIH scientists currently involved in testing products for which they secretly receive royalties, are Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and his deputy, Dr. H. Clifford Lane who “have received tens of thousands of dollars in royalties for an experimental AIDS treatment they invented [interleukin-2]. At the same time, their office has spent millions in tax dollars to test the treatment on patients across the globe.”

According to the AP, the government has licensed the commercial rights to interleukin-2 to Chiron Corp: “Fauci’s division subsequently has spent $36 million in taxpayer money testing the treatment on patients in one experiment alone. Known as the Esprit experiment, it is one of the largest AIDS research projects in NIH history, testing interleukin-2 on patients at more than 200 sites in 18 countries over the last five years.”

Five years ago Donna Shalala, then Secretary of the Health and Human Services, issued federal requirements (2000) of financial disclosure requiring NIH scientists to disclose their financial interest in experimental treatments on informed consent documents reviewed by patients being recruited as test subjects. According to the Associated Press, NIH administrators did not even consider implementing the 5 year old federal requirement until AP filed a Freedom of Information request last week: “Quite frankly, we should have done it more quickly…”

Scientists at the nation’s premier research centers who violate ethical and legal requirements and use underhanded recruitment tactics, pose a very real and present threat to public safety: “hundreds, perhaps thousands, of patients in NIH experiments made decisions to participate in experiments that often carry risks without full knowledge about the researchers’ financial interests.”

The scope of ethical / legal violations and corrupt human recruitment practices by researchers at America’s premier medical research institutions is reaching the proportions of a tzunami. Self-regulation and peer review have proven about as reliable at ensuring ethical and scientific integrity as expecting the Mafia to vouch for the honesty of one of its own…

It will take more than pledges and promises by the director of NIH – it will take more than TALK about “transparency” to restore moral integrity. It will take a law accompanied by specified penalties to fit the crime – like the Sarbanes Oxley law. And most important, it will take an external enforcement mechanism to keep scientists honest. Say, a “corrupt science practice” division at the Department of Justice. It will also require effective whistleblower protection laws.

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Feds Failed to Disclose Financial Interest
Mon Jan 10, 4:17 PM ET
By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – Government scientists have collected millions of dollars in royalties for experimental treatments without having to tell patients testing the treatments that the researchers’ had a financial connection, according to documents and interviews.

The personal royalties are legal, though the researchers developed the treatments at government expense. But the Health and Human Services Department promised in May 2000 that scientists’ financial stakes would be disclosed to patients, a pledge that followed an uproar over conflicts of interest and mistakes in federal experiments.

The National Institutes of Health says it didn’t implement a policy to order the disclosure until last week, shortly after The Associated Press filed a Freedom of Information Act request.

“Quite frankly, we should have done it more quickly. But as soon as Director (Elias A.) Zerhouni found out about it, he ordered it done immediately,” NIH spokesman John Burklow said.

The nearly five-year delay means hundreds, perhaps thousands, of patients in NIH experiments made decisions to participate in experiments that often carry risks without full knowledge about the researchers’ financial interests.

“It’s hard for patients to make an informed decision when they don’t have all the information,” said Bill Allison of the Center for Public Integrity, which monitors the ethics of government employees.

“When a doctor says, ‘Here, try this experiment, it is safe, or it will help,’ and the patient isn’t aware he has a financial interest in the outcome of that treatment, it in essence is taking advantage of someone by not letting them have all the information,” Allison said.

In all, 916 current and former NIH researchers are receiving royalty payments for drugs and other inventions they developed while working for the government, according to information obtained by AP. They can collect up to $150,000 each a year, but the average is about $9,700, officials said.

In 2004, these researchers collected a total of $8.9 million. Only a dozen received the legal maximum.

The government owns the patents and the scientists are listed as inventors so they can share in licensing deals struck with private manufacturers. In addition to the inventors’ take, the government received $55.9 million in royalties for the same inventions and put that money back into research.

The arrangements can create concerns about conflicts.

For instance, two top managers in NIH’s infectious disease division have received tens of thousands of dollars in royalties for an experimental AIDS treatment they invented. At the same time, their office has spent millions in tax dollars to test the treatment on patients across the globe, the records show.

Such research helps bring the treatment closer to possible commercial use, which could in turn bring the researchers and NIH higher royalties.

Except for patent records and scientific journals, the patients have had no easy way of learning about the researchers’ financial stakes.

That’s because NIH told doctors not to report royalties on their government ethics disclosure forms and did not require the royalties listed on patient consent forms until last week’s policy.

Fifty-one NIH royalty recipients are currently involved in clinical research involving the inventions for which they are being paid, meaning they’ll be affected by the new policy, according to the information obtained by AP.

Among them are National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci and his deputy, H. Clifford Lane.

The two managers have received $45,072.82 each in royalties since 1997 for an experimental AIDS treatment known as interleukin-2 that they invented with a third NIH doctor, Joseph Kovacs, the records show.

The government has licensed the commercial rights to that treatment to drug maker Chiron Corp., and Fauci’s division subsequently has spent $36 million in taxpayer money testing the treatment on patients in one experiment alone. Known as the Esprit experiment, it is one of the largest AIDS research projects in NIH history, testing interleukin-2 on patients at more than 200 sites in 18 countries over the last five years.

Both doctors said they were extremely sensitive about the possibility of an appearance of a conflict of interest and took steps on their own to address it even as they waited for their agency to do what they believed should have been done all along – fully disclose the payments to patients.

A panel of peers from the National Cancer Institute was brought in to approve the Esprit project because Fauci and Lane were in a position to profit.

Fauci, an internationally known expert on illnesses from the flu to AIDS, said he originally refused to take the royalties but was told he legally had to accept them. So he has donated all the money to charity.

“I’m going to give every penny of it to charity … no matter what the yearly amount is,” he said.

Fauci also said he once tried to report his payments on his federal financial disclosure report, which is available to the public, but was told to remove them because NIH considers the money federal compensation, not outside income.

Lane keeps his royalties but said he occasionally gave patients scientific journal articles that noted he was listed on the patent for interleukin-2. “I believe patients should know everything that might influence their desire to be participants in research,” Lane said.

Both acknowledged they were unwilling to tell interleukin-2 patients about the royalties on consent forms until NIH developed its policy. Both will do so from now on.

“We were reluctant to make a formal policy until the broad policy came down from the department and NIH,” Fauci explained.

Their case illustrates the gulf between what the government promised nearly five years ago in the midst of controversy and what actually has been done.

Then-Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala pledged in May 2000 that the government would develop policies to require “that any researchers’ financial interest in a clinical trial be disclosed to potential participants.”

Congress, concerned by reports of conflicts of interest and researchers’ conduct in several high profile experiments, was told the changes would happen. The government first published guidance for the disclosure in January 2001.

Current HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson issued new guidance this May that again clearly cited “compensation that may be affected by the study outcome” and “proprietary interests in the products, including patents, trademarks, copyrights or licensing arrangements.”

NIH, however, didn’t order the disclosure until last week’s policy.

The Left Found Trump’s Achilles?


LewRockwell.com

By Thomas DiLorenzo

During the summer of 2016 I was interviewed by several radio talk show hosts and a German newspaper who asked of my views of the presidential race.  I predicted at the time that Trump would be the next president.  They all politely refrained from laughing — at least while I was within earshot.  My main reason for making this prediction was: 1) the notoriously fraudulent business of political “polling” which at the time was predicting a Hillary Clinton landslide; and 2) Trump’s stupendous popularity at campaign rallies all across the country.

Then comes the lockdown, the destruction of most of the economy, and the abolition of the rule of law once and for all.  Trump’s second major strength was his reputation as a successful businessman with a decades-long record of getting things done, not just promising and then never performing, as is the case with every single member of Congress and the entire federal bureaucracy.  This in fact is the primary reason why the Washington establishment has such a red hot hatred of the president:  He speaks this truth about them to the American public.

The Democrats’ worst nightmare is that the warm weather (as I write this the forecast for New York City in three days is 84 degrees) will cause this cold virus to disappear, as all others usually do once the cold-and-flu season ends in May or early June every year.  Even if this occurs, their stooges in the “mainstream media” will spend the next several months continuing their reign of terror about a theoretical return of the deadly virus (the death rate of which even Dr. Brixx now says is exaggerated by the CDC by 25%).  In short, any kind of economic recovery before the election is the Democrats’ worst nightmare; they will do anything they can to avoid it.

This is Tump’s right (political) achilles heel.  Taking away his ability to boast of his economic accomplishments and to display his popularity through those monster campaign rallies will make it almost impossible for him to win.

Of course, it is likely that after the election will come stagflation – rising price inflation and unemployment, the latter caused by the inevitable bursting of another round of Fed-created bubbles in the economy.  That’s a story for another day.