Jim_in_Delaware
Jetboaters Captain
- Messages
- 1,820
- Reaction score
- 2,828
- Points
- 227
- Location
- Southeastern DE
- Boat Make
- Boatless
- Year
- NA
- Boat Model
- Other
- Boat Length
- Other
We are delighted you have found your way to the best Jet Boaters Forum on the internet! Please consider Signing Up so that you can enjoy all the features and offers on the forum. We have members with boats from all the major manufacturers including Yamaha, Seadoo, Scarab and Chaparral. We don't email you SPAM, and the site is totally non-commercial. So what's to lose? IT IS FREE!
Membership allows you to ask questions (no matter how mundane), meet up with other jet boaters, see full images (not just thumbnails), browse the member map and qualifies you for members only discounts offered by vendors who run specials for our members only! (It also gets rid of this banner!)
In nominal $US, yes.
I read the story before I posted. From memory: It states that ~$900K of Fauci's gains were from investment appreciation. It does not say, with any specificity, where the whole ~$5M gain came from. Was it appreciation of real estate holdings? Was it a surge of honorarium dollars? Was it something else? Article does not appear to address the overall issue that it seems to imply. If it does, then yes, I missed that.Sorry, but none of that matters or is germane to the conspiracy theory at hand that Fauci did what he did to increase his net worth. This is a simple story, and you seem to have missed the cutoff in both the article and what I mentioned in my post. Through the end of 2021 is the key phrase. Everybody who had money invested saw it skyrocket, and over the last 10 months this correction has put it basically back on course had that runup not occurred.
Do you trust this dermatologist?Now that we know so much more about the disease, origins, treatments and policies. Many more studies Done. Would be interesting to go back and sort fact from fiction. Recent 2 min vid I just saw regarding preventative treatment & another on side effects. Food for thought.
Daily Dose: ‘Vitamin D for Frontline Workers’ with Dr. Peterson Pierre
He is quoting a peer reviewed study, so yes More than this author’s medical backgroundDo you trust this dermatologist?
Good idea. Lets start here.Follow the money.
Patent payments for inventors are perfectly normal and reasonable whether those inventors work at a private company or the NHS.Good idea. Lets start here.
Fauci’s Royalties And The $350 Million Royalty Payment Stream HIDDEN By NIH
It's the first time since 2005 that the NIH royalty payments receive oversight.perma.cc
Why are they secret. Payments made to public employees should never be secret.Patent payments for inventors are perfectly normal and reasonable whether those inventors work at a private company or the NHS.
This may provide useful perspective on your link.
Some Posts About NIH Royalties Omit Fauci Statement That He Donates His Payments - FactCheck.org
A nonprofit recently reported that, since 2009, the National Institutes of Health and many of its scientists received an estimated $350 million in royalties for developing experimental treatments. Some kept the money, but Dr. Anthony Fauci has said that he donates royalties he receives to...www.factcheck.org
NIH patent payments are not secret or the data would not be available to the public. I do agree that greater public disclosure would be good just as the GAO does. More detailed disclosure could be helpful to reduce the conspiracy theories and hatred around these payments.Why are they secret. Payments made to public employees should never be secret.
By your logic if people funding a research project with your tax dollars get millions in payments from the very same companies they are funding and then kept secret those payments is perfectly ok with you. Well i guess we will disagree on that subject.
Please stop with the disinformation. The payments are secret. They only identify the person and the frequency of the payments. The amount and what company made them are SECRET.NIH patent payments are not secret or the data would not be available to the public. I do agree that greater public disclosure would be good just as the GAO does. More detailed disclosure could be helpful to reduce the conspiracy theories and hatred around these payments.
I am not a fan of the way that taxpayer money is used to develop medical treatments through NIH, DOD and other organizations, then commercialized and sold to Americans at higher prices than the rest of the world. This is a major issue, not with the scientists at NIH but with the the greedy corporations that commercialize those treatments and the lack of willingness by Congress to force consideration of taxpayer contributions in drug pricing.
The royalties are not going back to the NIH. They are being paid as income to the scientists who are co-holders of the patents. Are they being spent on hookers and blow by these guys? Don’t know the answers to that question but one thing I am sure of is that they are not donating it back to the NIH.One could find conspiracies wherever they want, but I personally see nothing wrong with royalty payments going back to NIH for research they have conducted and made available to the industry. The royalties to NIH are monies that can then be used to fund future research leading to new scientific breakthroughs.
Jim
This isn't true. From the article that YOU linked, "We estimate that between fiscal years 2010 and 2020, more than $350 million in royalties were paid by third-parties to the agency and NIH scientists – who are credited as co-inventors." From NIH's website, "Inventors receive the first $2,000 collected from a licensee. Next, they receive 15 percent of royalties above $2,000 and up to $50,000. Finally, they receive 25 percent of royalties in excess of the first $50,000 collected each year. Each inventor cannot receive more than $150,000 in royalty payments for a calendar year."The royalties are not going back to the NIH. They are being paid as income to the scientists who are co-holders of the patents...
Please read the redacted documents provided by the NIH. All 350 million dollars in royalties were paid to individuals. But your disinformation sure does sound better.
Fact-check.org? Hmm who pays them? And the article clearly ties MRNa vax to myocarditis and death. So does your response mean you take the stance that they are 100% safe and nobody has died or been injured from them? Which approach is dangerous and misinformed here?@Farny is your disinformation video referring to this study?
If so you might want to read this plainly written summary and reconsider the harm that you do to the most gullible people by spreading such disinformation. Autopsy Study Doesn’t Show COVID-19 Vaccines Are Unsafe - FactCheck.org
Who benefits from your promotion of this shysters video?