"Malte Runz" wrote in message
news:17246jpbt26n0ofnatokgs37nlcgnl2ir9@4ax.com...
>
>On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 12:41:59 +1000, "Andrew W" <space@defense.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"Malte Runz" wrote in message
>>news:7b116j5hppj32l6num9tjfib9udg0n1d54@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 22:09:46 +1000, "Andrew W" <space@defense.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Malte Runz" wrote in message
>>>>news:go606jhvfapledfc6oi0vhkjctqg2sfuk0@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 23:08:19 +1000, "Andrew W" <space@defense.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>NIH scientists made $710M in royalties from drug makers — a fact they
>>>>>>tried
>>>>>>to hide
>>>>>>
>>>>>>https://nypost.com/2024/06/02/opinion/nih-scientists-made-710m-in-royalties-from-drug-makers-a-fact-they-tried-to-hide/
>>>>>
>>>>>"New data from the National Institutes of Health reveal the agency and
>>>>>its scientists collected $710 million in royalties during the
>>>>>pandemic, from late 2021 through 2023."
>>>>>
>>>>>The data came from the NIH itself. If they were trying to hide it, why
>>>>>are they revealing it?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Because good people are taking over these corrupt orgs. The bad side is
>>>>losing.
>>>
>>>NIH is the bad side?
>>>
>>
>>Not entirely. There are good and bad people in every organisation.
>
>Who are the bad people in the NIH, and what did they do? Same for the
>good people.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"These are payments made by private companies, like pharmaceuticals,
>>>>>to license medical innovations from government scientists."
>>>>>
>>>>>The government spends billions of tax payers dollars on developing
>>>>>drugs and treatments. Private companies pay for a license that gives
>>>>>them the right to use that intellectual property. The property of the
>>>>>American people, mind you. Didn't you know that's how this shit works?
>>>>>Do you want them to simply give it to Big Pharma for free, so that the
>>>>>"corrupt corporations" can make giant profits?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Learn to discern the truths and lies in articles. Articles always
>>>>contain
>>>>a
>>>>mix.
>>>
>>>You fell for the propaganda. '$740 million. Whau! There must be
>>>corruption involved'.
>>>
>>
>>And what do you know it? You have nothing.
>
>Didn't I just show you what the yearly budget of the NIH is and
>illustrated that the $740 million is a tiny fraction of the budget?
>Didn't I show what the NIH has collected in royalties in previous
>years? What did I miss that was relevant to the topic at hand? That
>the aliens are controlling the bad people in the NIH?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>I bet you had no idea about the size of the NIH's yearly budget and
>>>what they spend the money on. And if you're going to claim that you
>>>did, then explain why you thought that the $740 million in royalties
>>>is supposed to be such a big deal.
>>>
>>
>>The situation is not that simple.
>
>I accept you surrender.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Here's a bit of perspective for you:
>>>>>https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/budget
>>>>>"Research for the People
>>>>>The NIH invests most of its nearly $48 billion budget in medical
>>>>>research for the American people."
>>>>>
>>>>>Let me do the math for you. $710 million worth of royalties over two+
>>>>>years is roughly $350 million per year. That amounts to 0.73% of the
>>>>>yearly NIH budget. Do you understand? Less than 1%.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Don't just trust everything they say.
>>>
>>>So, the NIH are telling the truth when they say that they received
>>>$740 million in royalties over two years, but I shouldn't believe them
>>>when they say their yearly budget is $48 billion?
>>>
>>>Another example of you calling facts lies when I use them to expose
>>>you for swallowing right wing propaganda.
>>>
>>
>>It's you who follows the propaganda.
>
>I predicted that reply in another of my recent posts.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>More:
>>>>>https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-52
>>>>>"NIH received up to $2 billion in royalties from its contributions to
>>>>>34 drugs sold from 1991-2019. But how does licensing support NIH's
>>>>>public health mission? What other benefits—e.g., drug affordability,
>>>>>or increased innovation—do taxpayers get in return?"
>>>>>
>>>>>That article was published in October, 2020!
>>>>>
>>>>>Your 'bombshell revelation' of 'huuuuge amounts of dollars' seems to
>>>>>be nothing other than an attempt to create a scandal where there is
>>>>>none. And you, a natural born sucker, goes 'Gluck Gluck' once again.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No. ...
>>>
>>>Yes. Every article you link to is and example of that.
>>>
>>
>>Only in your tiny clown mind.
>
>I see you have a new post about Fauci admitting something. I haven't
>looked at it yet, but I'm certain that Fauci did not admit to what the
>headline says. I will look at the video or read the article, show that
>Fauci didn't say what you claim he said. You'll say something like 'he
>didn't use those exact words', I'll ask you to point out what he said
>that led you to believe he said the other thing, and 'you'll end up
>saying "It's not that simple" and accuse me of only listening to
>extreme left wing deep state mind controlling propaganda. Wanna bet?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> ... All you do is read some articles and think you have all the facts.
>>>> It's
>>>>not that simple. ...
>>>
>>>Every time you say "It's not that simple" I know that you know that
>>>you've been had. You are that simple.
>>>
>>
>>No, you are. You're a narcissist.
>
>Define 'narcissist' and make it stick.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> ... You have to do research and use your brain. They never tell
>>>>you everything.
>>>
>>>You linked to one article that popped up in your feed and that is what
>>>you call research. Why didn't you find out what the NIH budget is? Why
>>>didn't you look into what they had previously received? Why didn't you
>>>do anything like that before you pressed send?
>>>
>>>'You only listen to the leftist MSM!'
>>>'You don't know what goes on!'
>>>'You have never heard of corruption!'
>>>'You think you know everything!'
>>>
>>>Feel free to add to your list of excuses.
>>>
>>
>>Jerk
>
>A monosyllabic grunt. For you that's very sophisticated.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>Definition of an idiot/ignoramus: Someone who gets their information
>>>>>>from
>>>>>>the mainstream media and calls it facts and evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.rumormillnews.com - The best alternative news site
>>>>>
>>>>>https://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=241334
>>>>>
>>>>>"The Satanic Roots to Modern Medicine – The Mark of the Beast?
>>>>>
>>>>>by Brian Shilhavy
>>>>>Editor, Health Impact News
>>>>>
>>>>>All the symbols and emblems for modern medicine have one thing in
>>>>>common: a serpent."
>>>>>
>>>>>Why is Fauci trying to hide that fact????
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What has Fauci been hiding? ...
>>>
>>>You tell me. You're the one who claims that he is hiding something.
>
>Another complete failure.
>
>>>
>>>> ... Only his guilt and profits.
>>>
>>>Prove it. The '$740 million affair' is not evidence of Fauci doing
>>>anything wrong. I was business as usual, as I showed you.
>>>
>>
>>So you still think Fauci is a good hard working person?
>
>You have given me no reason to think otherwise. '740 million. With an
>'m'!!!!'
>

Here's your problem. People always have to tell you and prove everything to
you because you can't figure anything out for yourself.

--
Definition of an idiot/ignoramus: Someone who gets their information from
the mainstream media and calls it facts and evidence.

http://www.rumormillnews.com - The best alternative news site