A new whistleblower
-
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/22/hhs-ousts-vaccine-expert-as-covid-19-threat-grows-201642
Rick Bright, the director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, was transferred to a new, more narrow role at the National Institutes of Health this week, an HHS spokesperson confirmed. The move was more than a year in the making — Bright had clashed with department leaders about his decisions and the scope of his authority — but came abruptly, said five current and former HHS officials.
One person familiar with the situation said Bright was frozen out of his email and learned about the reassignment only when his name was removed from the BARDA website this weekend. As of Tuesday, Bright had not accepted the reassignment to NIH, where he was tapped to work on efforts to deploy point-of-care Covid-19 testing. Gary Disbrow, Bright’s former deputy, is now BARDA’s acting leader.
Bright told The New York Times on Wednesday that he believed his removal was because of his internal opposition to pursuing investments in malaria drugs as potential treatments for Covid-19, which President Donald Trump has touted without scientific evidence. Three people with knowledge of HHS' recent acquisition of tens of millions of doses of those drugs said that Bright had supported those acquisitions in internal communications, with one official saying that Bright praised the move as a win for the health department as part of an email exchange that was first reported by Reuters last week, although Bright's message was not publicly reported.
"If Bright opposed hydroxychloroquine, he certainly didn't make that clear from his email — quite the opposite," said the official, who has seen copies of the email exchanges.
-
He released a detailed statement himself - so fake news is probably not the right label. Deep state?
"Yesterday, I was removed from my positions as the Director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) and HHS Deputy Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response by the Administration and involuntarily transferred to a more limited and less impactful position at the National Institutes of Health. I believe this transfer was in response to my insistence that the government invest the billions of dollars allocated by Congress to address the COVID-19 pandemic into safe and scientifically vetted solutions, and not in drugs, vaccines and other technologies that lack scientific merit. I am speaking out because to combat this deadly virus, science -- not politics or cronyism -- has to lead the way.
"I have spent my entire career in vaccine development, in the government with CDC and BARDA and also in the biotechnology industry. My professional background has prepared me for a moment like this -- to confront and defeat a deadly virus that threatens Americans and people around the globe. To this point, I have led the government's efforts to invest in the best science available to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, this resulted in clashes with HHS political leadership, including criticism for my proactive efforts to invest early in vaccines and supplies critical to saving American lives. I also resisted efforts to fund potentially dangerous drugs promoted by those with political connections.
"Specifically, and contrary to misguided directives, I limited the broad use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, promoted by the Administration as a panacea, but which clearly lack scientific merit. While I am prepared to look at all options and to think "outside the box" for effective treatments, I rightly resisted efforts to provide an unproven drug on demand to the American public. I insisted that these drugs be provided only to hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 while under the supervision of a physician. These drugs have potentially serious risks associated with them, including increased mortality observed in some recent studies in patients with COVID-19.
"Sidelining me in the middle of this pandemic and placing politics and cronyism ahead of science puts lives at risk and stunts national efforts to safely and effectively address this urgent public health crisis.
"I will request that the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services investigate the manner in which this Administration has politicized the work of BARDA and has pressured me and other conscientious scientists to fund companies with political connections as well as efforts that lack scientific merit. Rushing blindly towards unproven drugs can be disastrous and result in countless more deaths. Science, in service to the health and safety of the American people, must always trump politics.
"I am very grateful for the bipartisan support from Congress and their confidence in my leadership of BARDA as reflected in the generous appropriation to BARDA in the CARES 3 Act. It is my sincere hope that the dedicated professionals at BARDA and throughout HHS will be allowed to use the best scientific acumen and integrity to continue their efforts to stop the pandemic without political pressure or distractions. Americans deserve no less."
-
The reflexive use of the title 'fake news' is indicative of how Trump uses it, meaning news unfavorable to him.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
The reflexive use of the title 'fake news' is indicative of how Trump uses it, meaning news unfavorable to him.
-
The reflexive use of the title 'fake news' is indicative of how Trump uses it, meaning news unfavorable to him.
@jon-nyc said in A new whistleblower:
The reflexive use of the title 'fake news' is indicative of how Trump uses it, meaning news unfavorable to him.
No, it means lies being reported as facts.
-
@jon-nyc said in A new whistleblower:
The reflexive use of the title 'fake news' is indicative of how Trump uses it, meaning news unfavorable to him.
No, it means lies being reported as facts.
@Larry said in A new whistleblower:
@jon-nyc said in A new whistleblower:
The reflexive use of the title 'fake news' is indicative of how Trump uses it, meaning news unfavorable to him.
No, it means lies being reported as facts.
It doesn't matter. One can't argue with a True Believer. Trump could cure cancer and many would gripe about why it took him so long.
SSDD.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@Larry said in A new whistleblower:
@jon-nyc said in A new whistleblower:
The reflexive use of the title 'fake news' is indicative of how Trump uses it, meaning news unfavorable to him.
No, it means lies being reported as facts.
It doesn't matter. One can't argue with a True Believer. Trump could cure cancer and many would gripe about why it took him so long.
SSDD.
@Jolly said in A new whistleblower:
One can't argue with a True Believer. Trump could cure cancer and many would gripe about why it took him so long.SSDD.
Similarly, he could take a massive shit on the front lawn, and some would commend him for his amazing fertilizer.
-
@jon-nyc said in A new whistleblower:
The reflexive use of the title 'fake news' is indicative of how Trump uses it, meaning news unfavorable to him.
No, it means lies being reported as facts.
@Larry said in A new whistleblower:
@jon-nyc said in A new whistleblower:
The reflexive use of the title 'fake news' is indicative of how Trump uses it, meaning news unfavorable to him.
No, it means lies being reported as facts.
You (and Jolly) need to read the piece again and see what exactly is reported as fact.
-
Me too. You have it wrong.
Reporting the fact that someone claimed something isn’t fake news even if the claim turns out to be false.
For example. If President Xi came out tomorrow and announced that his investigators have determined that the virus originated in a US lab, that would be huge news. And the story that Xi made the claim would not not be fake news.
In other words the claim would be the story, and that indeed happens (in my hypothetical)
