PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Number7 on September 22, 2021, 08:13:20 PM
-
Explains a bit more for those who are capable of doubt.
It never was about the science, but even the loudest mouthed asshole democrats always knew that.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/09/why_do_doctors_go_along_with_covid_panic_porn_and_cdc_prescriptions.html
-
The very idea that outside researchers are incapable of discovering anything useful without the help of the bureaucrats in D.C. is hubris of the highest order.
THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Outside researchers desperately need the help of bureaucrats in D.C. Where do you thing the money comes from? NIH, NSK, DOE and other federal bureaucracies fund most of the research done in the US.
-
mikey is a poor, deranged, drunk, idiot.
He actually believes that all funded research is pure and without a heavily controlled agenda.
No wonder the idiot still believes in mmgw.
-
Outside researchers desperately need the help of bureaucrats in D.C. Where do you thing the money comes from? NIH, NSK, DOE and other federal bureaucracies fund most of the research done in the US.
Here's how government and researchers work.
A bureaucrat wants to promote a narrative for his agency, so he develops a grant to "study" what they want to become their new problem that must be solved, and he needs justification.
Grant is put out to several entities to "research". As part of the research package the bureaucrat makes it clear that if this research shows what he is after, there will be even more grants for "further research". The entities know that if they disprove the bureaucrat this ends the grant, and places them in a position not to be considered for future grants.
A few honest entities will refuse to participate in order not to harm their reputation. Others will jump in and get on the lucrative money train of grant money.
You will of course argue this is not true, but it is. Follow the money.
-
Damn. This answers the question that I asked in a different thread re: why docs are cooperating with the FedGov line.
“Let's change the scene. Suppose you're in private practice. You can't give ivermectin because the feds will key in on it if your patient's on Medicare or Medicaid. So you decide to take care of him off the books. He pays you cash, and all is well. Not! You now took a private payment for Medicare-covered service. That will get you barred from seeing another Medicare patient for two years.”
-
Damn. This answers the question that I asked in a different thread re: why docs are cooperating with the FedGov line.
“Let's change the scene. Suppose you're in private practice. You can't give ivermectin because the feds will key in on it if your patient's on Medicare or Medicaid. So you decide to take care of him off the books. He pays you cash, and all is well. Not! You now took a private payment for Medicare-covered service. That will get you barred from seeing another Medicare patient for two years.”
Yep. Follow the money.
-
Here's how government and researchers work.
A bureaucrat wants to promote a narrative for his agency, so he develops a grant to "study" what they want to become their new problem that must be solved, and he needs justification.
Grant is put out to several entities to "research". As part of the research package the bureaucrat makes it clear that if this research shows what he is after, there will be even more grants for "further research". The entities know that if they disprove the bureaucrat this ends the grant, and places them in a position not to be considered for future grants.
A few honest entities will refuse to participate in order not to harm their reputation. Others will jump in and get on the lucrative money train of grant money.
You will of course argue this is not true, but it is. Follow the money.
Have you ever applied for a Federal grant? Do you know anyone other than yours truly who has?
-
Have you ever applied for a Federal grant? Do you know anyone other than yours truly who has?
I have several associates that have applied for grants. They made it clear that you play the game or get tossed out.
Let me ask you this, in your grants, have you ever provided data that is the opposite of what was being sought? If so, did they offer you more grants after that?
-
Hello, Big Pharma? I’m an eminent scientist with a team of eminent researchers. We’re looking for a grant to help you show the untrusting public how safe your vaccines really are.
We are offering to research the safety of your vaccines and present our findings wholly and transparently to the public. For this we will need access to all your development, trial and testing records and all communications records with individuals and groups both inside and outside your companies regarding the vaccines.
Awaiting your reply.
-
Outside researchers desperately need the help of bureaucrats in D.C. Where do you thing the money comes from? NIH, NSK, DOE and other federal bureaucracies fund most of the research done in the US.
Bullshit. Most Pharma research comes from
Pharma companies’ own revenues. Some will come from NIH, and some support comes from the federal research and development credit, but big pharma isn’t sitting by with its thumb up its ass waiting until it gets a grant from FedGov.
-
Have you ever applied for a Federal grant? Do you know anyone other than yours truly who has?
When you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Pharma research doesn’t revolve around some part-time teacher, part-time researcher with his hand out waiting for a grant before he lifts his finger to perform research.
-
Bullshit. Most Pharma research comes from
Pharma companies’ own revenues. Some will come from NIH, and some support comes from the federal research and development credit, but big pharma isn’t sitting by with its thumb up its ass waiting until it gets a grant from FedGov.
And that's why a lot of Pharma R&D has moved off shore. I've worked as a third party contractor/consultant for the two largest Pharma Co's and their R&D costs are huge.
-
Outside researchers desperately need the help of bureaucrats in D.C. Where do you thing the money comes from? NIH, NSK, DOE and other federal bureaucracies fund most of the research done in the US.
That is incorrect. About half of such research is privately funded. It’s been that way since around WWII. Prior to that time the bulk of medical and biological research was privately funded.
-
Outside researchers desperately need the help of bureaucrats in D.C. Where do you thing the money comes from? NIH, NSK, DOE and other federal bureaucracies fund most of the research done in the US.
So much for the "purity" of science.
-
I have several associates that have applied for grants. They made it clear that you play the game or get tossed out.
Let me ask you this, in your grants, have you ever provided data that is the opposite of what was being sought? If so, did they offer you more grants after that?
Conclusion: " More study of X is required..."
-
That is incorrect. About half of such research is privately funded. It’s been that way since around WWII. Prior to that time the bulk of medical and biological research was privately funded.
I don't know about half, that number is harder to pin down than I would have originally thought. However, most private money is for highly focused research. The only folks who fund true Blue Sky research are in the government institutes. I suspect I'm the only one here who's actually sat in study sections and decided who got money and who didn't.
-
I suspect I'm the only one here who's actually sat in study sections and decided who got money and who didn't.
I did it too. NSF and university grant panels. Total pain in the butt.
-
I don't know about half, that number is harder to pin down than I would have originally thought. However, most private money is for highly focused research. The only folks who fund true Blue Sky research are in the government institutes. I suspect I'm the only one here who's actually sat in study sections and decided who got money and who didn't.
I help companies claim the federal and state research & development credits. That provision came into law in 1981 because Congress saw a reduction in US R& D spending between 1967 and 1978. Congress wanted to help US companies leverage the cost of their innovation via this tax credit.
One limitation to the credit is that the company must be at financial risk for failure. That means no time-and-materials pricing on contracts, and no grants, governmental or otherwise.
Companies are absolutely spending their own money on research. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the federal R& D credit used by companies to reduce their tax liabilities will be about $12 billion in 2020.
-
I did it too. NSF and university grant panels. Total pain in the butt.
I didn't mind, and it was fun getting a bead on what was going on. It was also nice meeting my colleagues, though I imagine that aspect of it has gone out the window.
-
I didn't mind, and it was fun getting a bead on what was going on. It was also nice meeting my colleagues, though I imagine that aspect of it has gone out the window.
Why?