 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / August 2005They just finished doubling (corrupt) NIH funding over the last five years
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8866572/ Vanderbilt sees success in battle for NIH funding By Roy Moore Nashville Business Journal Updated: 8:00 p.m. ET Aug. 7, 2005 Vanderbilt University quickly has climbed the ranks of academic recipients of National Institutes of Health funding, but as overall growth for the federal program stalls, the Nashville school likely will see increased competition for D.C.'s dollars. Competition already is heating up as the federal government trims number of awards and applications soar. Kei Koizumi, director of the R&D Budget and Policy Program at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, says most institutes in the biomedical research field are looking at a success rate of one in four for their grant applications. NIH funding across Tennessee grew by just 2 percent last year, half the national average, federal figures show. The $410.6 million the state received includes research - the largest at $373.8 million - and training grants, fellowships and other awards. "It does become more of a zero-sum game," Koizumi says. "Some universities will be able to eat other people's lunch. Of course it means there's got to be losers, people who get less money, so it sets up a pretty intense competition." Vanderbilt has fended off that trend. Funding at the school soared 10.2 percent last fiscal year to $227 million, pushing the school up two spots to 15th place among academic centers. Such growth mirrors the free spending days between 1998 and 2003, bipartisan support of NIH's program doubled its budget. However, budget constraints have started cutting into future growth and this year's budget isn't expected to even keep up with inflation. The House has approved growth of 0.5 percent, while the Senate supports a 3.7 percent increase - differences that must be reconciled, Koizumi says. "They just finished doubling NIH funding over the last five years, so many in Congress feel they received the increase and now it's time to stake stock," says Angela Sharpe, deputy director for health policy at The Consortium of Social Science Associations. "Because of the budget deficits, there's not a lot of money available, in their eyes." NIH funding is key for researchers at universities. The program is the second-largest supporter of research and development in the federal government after the Department of Defense and is the single largest source of research and development funding for universities and colleges with medical schools. "Because federal funding is the driving force in advancing biomedical research in the U.S, a reduction in funds available for research could slow the development of promising scientific advancement," says Dr. James Leyda, director of corporate development at Cumberland Emerging Technologies. Koizumi calls the era of slower growth "the new reality" that will last as long as the deficits do, barring unlikely cuts to defense and entitlement programs or tax hikes. As the number of projects funded decline for a second consecutive year and the surge in the number of applications continues, the success rate will continue to fall. According to Washington, D.C.-based AAAS, NIH projects a success rate of 21 percent, the fifth straight decline from 2001's high of 32 percent. Despite this trend, Vanderbilt has seen remarkable success with the total number of awards rising 6 percent last year to 554. At Vanderbilt, faculty members develop their own proposals and apply for funds from various sources, including the NIH and National Science Foundation. The university has offices and infrastructure to support facility when applying for grants. NIH funding depends entirely on the quality of the research and Vanderbilt has aggressively recruited top scientists, says Michael Schoenfeld, Vanderbilt's vice chancellor for public affairs. Some brought their funding with them; others start projects that attract NIH funding. The school also has invested in facilities and worked to strengthen collaboration efforts between disciplines, such as its Alliance for Nanoscience for work in nanotechnology. Koizumi says construction of such biomedical research communities was common at universities, but schools now find filling those buildings with research projects harder than they expected. Now the hot space is biodefense, which is expected to see a 6 percent to 7 percent increase next year. Sharpe, whose D.C.-based organization supports social and behavioral scientists, says the smaller schools and social/behavioral scientists shouldn't lose out in the NIH funding fight. Instead, she believes funding will go the best proposals. That should benefit Vanderbilt, which has the infrastructure to ensure its seat at the table. But the school will likely face more competition as other research universities lobby vigorously for more funding. However, given the Department of Health and Human Services' recent fulfillment of a five-year commitment to double the NIH budget, a subsequent drop in the percentage of overall grant funding is not surprising. "We're very concerned about cutbacks. We probably won't see an actual cut," Schoenfeld says. "From year to year, even under the most pessimistic projections, funding for NIH will go up very slightly but the increase won't keep up with inflation." ****** More money for corrupt NIH teaming with conflicts of interest. Is that good business? TC > http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8866572/ Health Canada seems to have a culture of secrecy. Vital health information is often kept from the public. For example, reports have shown that the department knew of health risks posed by certain drugs, including Vioxx, but did not act upon this information. The entire drug approval process has since been revealed as biased toward pharmaceutical companies. Vioxx received fast track approval, which can be beneficial, but still, due to the cloak of secrecy and lack of transparency, it is not clear what the process was in these cases. At a recent health committee meeting, a Health Canada official revealed that in the late 1970s the department did not reveal known dangerous effects of smoking, despite public interest in such information. Has anything changed since then? We do not know, but probably unfortunately not. Medical errors cause the death of 24,000 Canadians each year. There are methods to help address this, again, things like Infoway, but the government seems to continuously fail to address the issues of transparency and accountability and refuses to allow the Auditor General to audit these foundations so that taxpayers can have assurances that they are getting value for their money. http://www.stevenfletcher.com/archives/000241.php > > http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8866572/ > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > http://www.stevenfletcher.com/archives/000241.php Robert, this isn't a competition between Canada and the US about which system is worse. Although, if it was, the US would win hands down. All the sh.t you post about Canada has made the mainstream press in Canada and has been discussed and debated publicly for years. The average voter up here knows all about it. All the sh.t I post about the US system is generally from more specialized US press. It doesn't make the mainstream TV networks and it doesn't get near the front page of the larger papers, thus it does not get publicly debated in the US. It barely gets a mention. The voter down there know very little about. That is why I feel it is important to post the American stuff in a forum where interested and hopefully intelligent Americans can be informed. You are wasting your time trying to make this an US vs. Canada argument. We know what is going on in our healthcare and pharmaceutical approval systems, you guys don't. TC > > > http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8866572/ > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Robert, this isn't a competition between Canada and the US about which > system is worse. Although, if it was, the US would win hands down. It's about a Canadian troll that could care less about the Canadian system. > All the sh.t you post about Canada has made the mainstream press in > Canada and has been discussed and debated publicly for years. The > average voter up here knows all about it. > > All the sh.t I post about the US system is generally from more > specialized US press. It doesn't make the mainstream TV networks and it It is all over the country written by the american press. You are simply a troll as it has nothing to do with you. > > > > http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8866572/ > > > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > It is all over the country written by the american press. > You are simply a troll as it has nothing to do with you. If I am simply a troll, why are you so strenously attacking me? If I am a troll, ignore me. Maybe I'll go away. Then again maybe I won't. And maybe your silly anti-canadian BS is what is keeping my educational posts in front of your fellow countrymen day after day in this ng. Here is an interesting exercise... let's see if you can actually add something other than anti-Canada vitriol to the discussion. My bet is that you can't. You have nothing that can fix the deep shame and loathing that you feel about the abject corruption in the NIH, therefore you strike out like a frustrated child in a sandbox. You've lost the argument before you've said a single word. So you strike out at an entire country. Now, ain't that the American way. TC > > > > > http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8866572/ > > > > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > If I am simply a troll, why are you so strenously attacking me? It is done with ease. Look up Canadian health screw-ups and how people are dying. If I am > a troll, ignore me. Maybe I'll go away. Then again maybe I won't. This is just a wild guess but I really don't think, you being a Canadian troll, would stop posting that crap if I asked you to. I will try to ignore your 500,000 posts about american health just I will try to ignore Tom's posts about iron. They are equal in number and flood this NG which is nutrition. And > maybe your silly anti-canadian BS is what is keeping my educational > posts in front of your fellow countrymen day after day in this ng. My anti-canadian stuff? Compare the number of posts. You state that Health Canada and the FDA are equal and that proves your point. Let's see here. 600,000 posts against FDA and NIH 0 posts about Health Canada That makes you a Canadian troll. > Here is an interesting exercise... let's see if you can actually add > something other than anti-Canada vitriol to the discussion. My bet is > that you can't. I am saying that you should open your big mouth on something that impacts your life as a Canadian. Opening your big mouth about the US does not. You want to call that anti-canadian? LOL You have nothing that can fix the deep shame and > loathing that you feel about the abject corruption in the NIH, > therefore you strike out like a frustrated child in a sandbox. We have the Candians leaving Canada might be able to fix it. > You've lost the argument before you've said a single word. So you > strike out at an entire country. Now, ain't that the American way. > > TC The Canadian way is to write about Americans. Get a life. > > > > > > http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8866572/ > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > It is done with ease. Look up Canadian health screw-ups and how people are > dying. Oh my god, the Canadian health system in NOT infallible? What a bombshell! > If I am > > a troll, ignore me. Maybe I'll go away. Then again maybe I won't. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > try to ignore Tom's posts about iron. > They are equal in number and flood this NG which is nutrition. Irrelevant, the NIH's are still corrupt. > And > > maybe your silly anti-canadian BS is what is keeping my educational [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 600,000 posts against FDA and NIH 600,001 and counting.... > 0 posts about Health Canada Health Canad is perfection..... compared to the American system that is. > That makes you a Canadian. And frikkin' proud, eh! > > Here is an interesting exercise... let's see if you can actually add > > something other than anti-Canada vitriol to the discussion. My bet is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > your life as a Canadian. Opening your big mouth about the US does not. > You want to call that anti-canadian? LOL We are not discussing Canada. We are discussing how corrupt the NIH is. Any comments on that? Didn't think so. And you call me a troll. > You have nothing that can fix the deep shame and > > loathing that you feel about the abject corruption in the NIH, > > therefore you strike out like a frustrated child in a sandbox. > > We have the Candians leaving Canada might be able to fix it. They are partaking in the massive money making corruption that goes on in the US. More power to them. The corruption we lose is the corruption you gain. > > You've lost the argument before you've said a single word. So you > > strike out at an entire country. Now, ain't that the American way. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The Canadian way is to write about Americans. > Get a life. Actually I never wrote about "Americans". I wrote about a world leader in scientific research which happens to be the NIH. TC > > It is done with ease. Look up Canadian health screw-ups and how people are > > dying. > > Oh my god, the Canadian health system in NOT infallible? What a > bombshell! What is infallible is that you will never right anything bad about Canadian health that impacts you. A troll to perfection. > > If I am > > > a troll, ignore me. Maybe I'll go away. Then again maybe I won't. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Irrelevant, the NIH's are still corrupt. So what? Who gives a sh.t? Are you going to make people care? > > And > > > maybe your silly anti-canadian BS is what is keeping my educational [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Health Canad is perfection..... compared to the American system that > is. A system that let's people die in order to save money by waiting as the last Canadian Supreme Court decision stated. A system that has cut back to the bare bone any medical research in which Canadian researchers are leaving Canada for the US. A system that has closed many specialists medical training in which the doctors are forced to go to the US for that training. A system that enslaves the healthcare employees that are forced to accept government contracts at low pay. A system that outlaws private healthcare because if it did exist the competition would kill an already dying system. Only North Korea and Cuba have similar systems, not even GB. A system that healthcare workers are fleeing in the thousands. A system that forces Canadians to seek healthcare in the US. A system that has abandoned it's hospital facilities to third world status. A system that has cut back on diagnostic instruments such as CT's and MRI's making waiting times in months for cancer patients. A system run by idiotic politicians and corrupt health ministers. A system with no accountability and answers to no one. The list is endless. You are lucky the US is there to help correct the Canadian crap imposed by idiotic politicians up there and bail you guys out. > > That makes you a Canadian. > > And frikkin' proud, eh! And you are so proud of the system you imposed and outlawed other systems that you can not or do not care that it is killing people. Your pride won't allow you to see that. Your pride won't allow you to see and change one single thing. If you ever come down with something chronic you better hope the US researchers, some from Canada here, can come up with something to treat you. You and other Canadians pretty much destroyed anything useful with your socialistic system up there that it is so dependent as other third world countries. > > > Here is an interesting exercise... let's see if you can actually add > > > something other than anti-Canada vitriol to the discussion. My bet is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > We are not discussing Canada. We are discussing how corrupt the NIH is. > Any comments on that? Didn't think so. And you call me a troll. Nobody gives a sh.t. Look at all your posts here. Who replies? > > You have nothing that can fix the deep shame and > > > loathing that you feel about the abject corruption in the NIH, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > in the US. More power to them. The corruption we lose is the corruption > you gain. Your pride will never allow it. Your system is going down because of that attitude. > > > You've lost the argument before you've said a single word. So you > > > strike out at an entire country. Now, ain't that the American way. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > TC Last I heard the FDA and NIH are American. You consider them world leaders because other countries like Canada have screwed up their entire health system. Don't bite the hand that feeds you and FDA, NIH is feeding Canadians. They are so cheap a.s as to even come close to having their own. Take pride in all the money that Canada is saving. It shows. > > > It is done with ease. Look up Canadian health screw-ups and how people > are [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > A system that let's people die in order to save money by waiting as the last > Canadian Supreme Court decision stated. Better than the US where 40% are at risk of dying without health benefits. > A system that has cut back to the bare bone any medical research in which > Canadian researchers are leaving Canada for the US. They stay to do useful but not ridiculously lucrative real research and they go to do lucrative but useless industry marketing research. You can have them. > A system that has closed many specialists medical training in which the > doctors are forced to go to the US for that training. Specialists that are not needed. You can have them. We, and you, need family doctors, GP's. Specialists are a dime a dozen. > A system that enslaves the healthcare employees that are forced to accept > government contracts at low pay. That is hilarious. As opposed to a system that allows doctors to hold their patients hostage and bankrupt them one by one. Doctors and nurses in Canada make a pretty good living here. they are just not multi millionaires who are satisfied with denying health care to forty % of their country men. > A system that outlaws private healthcare because if it did exist the > competition would kill an already dying system. Only North Korea and Cuba > have similar systems, not even GB. No, it outlaws it because the privateers will do what is easiest and most lucrative which will undermine the economics of the system as a whole. And remember, all Canadians have access to health care. > A system that healthcare workers are fleeing in the thousands. Thousands? Not really. Hundreds maybe, and that was a few years ago. That has pretty much gone down to a trickle of the greedier ones. You can have 'em. > A system that forces Canadians to seek healthcare in the US. Why would they seek healthcare in the US. It is available free of charge here. > A system that has abandoned it's hospital facilities to third world status. That's funny. Last time I looked they were as competent, as well equiped, and as well staffed as any medical offices in the world. Where do you get your information from? What a bunch of right wing propaganda. > A system that has cut back on diagnostic instruments such as CT's and MRI's > making waiting times in months for cancer patients. Not in my province. They've just recently acquired several of those instruments. > A system run by idiotic politicians and corrupt health ministers. As opposed to greedy corporations and their minions in the Senate and Congress. Six of one, half dozen of the other. > A system with no accountability and answers to no one. That is just plain silly. Not to mention wrong. > The list is endless. In your fertile imagination, it probably is. When you come back to reality, feel free to visit us and see what is happening in the real world in Canada, where the average life span is longer than in the US and where everyone gets access to a pretty darned good health care system. It's really neat to leave the hospital with a limb in a cast or a newborn child without having had to mortgage the house. > You are lucky the US is there to help correct the Canadian crap imposed by > idiotic politicians up there and bail you guys out. Yep, I just can't wait for the NIH people to advise our people on the right way to milk the taxpayers money into their own pockets. > > > That makes you a Canadian. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that you can not or do not care that it is killing people. Your pride won't > allow you to see that. Who exactly was killed? Give me a name and a city. What an imagination! > Your pride won't allow you to see and change one single thing. We are fully aware of the shortfalls in our health care system. They are routinely discussed in the press and in the House. None of it is hidden. > If you ever come down with something chronic you better hope the US > researchers, some from Canada here, can come up with something to treat you. [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > are so cheap a.s as to even come close to having their own. > Take pride in all the money that Canada is saving. It shows. They are leaders because they do more reseach than any other "scientific" establishment in the world. Too bad it is all a waste of money and scientists time. It's fundamental corruption renders it no more than a sad trough for public money to be sucked out of. TC > > A system that has cut back to the bare bone any medical research in which > > Canadian researchers are leaving Canada for the US. > > They stay to do useful but not ridiculously lucrative real research and > they go to do lucrative but useless industry marketing research. You > can have them. COMMENT: That's complete B.S. A lot of smart researchers come out of Canada, and the smarter they are, the faster they come out. Yes, do keep sending you best minds. Immigration really is the sincerest form of flattery. COMMENT: > > A system that has closed many specialists medical training in which the > > doctors are forced to go to the US for that training. > > Specialists that are not needed. You can have them. We, and you, need > family doctors, GP's. Specialists are a dime a dozen. COMMENT: The reason we both need GPs in Canada AND the US is that we refuse to pay them well in either place. This is related to the basic problem of how to document and bill for thinking, which is what GPs do, as opposed to procedures, which is what specialists do. A problem which has not been solved North or South. > > The list is endless. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > system. It's really neat to leave the hospital with a limb in a cast or > a newborn child without having had to mortgage the house. COMMENT: With the notable exception of Hawaii, life span in the US, FYI, is a pretty direct function of latitude, and I don't think it has to do with vitamin D. Most Canadians live pretty close to the 49th parallel, with their antennas pointed South. And if you take the average life expectancy of the 12 US states that border Canada, and add them up, you get numbers very close to Canada's--- somewhere in the vicinity of 77 years at birth (averaging male and female figues). So what is wrong with the Southern US? A lot of things, including a large and resistant underclass, and a very porous border with Mexico. Both of which are killers for any medical system. >It's really neat to leave the hospital with a limb in a cast or > a newborn child without having had to mortgage the house. COMMENT: Yes, and if we could somehow connect Canada's southern border with Mexico's via the 4th dimension, you'd find that a large fraction of those people leaving the hospital with casts and newborns, are speaking Spanish! And no, they won't have to mortage their houses; but after a time of paying for this, you the Canadian taxpayer will need to mortage YOURS. Hawaii, BTW, escapes this, since these undocumented folks cannot swim that far. Hawaii's average life expectancy is the US's highest: about 82. Its medicaid system is in fine shape. Do try to stick that data point into your argument right where it belongs. For a look at how ethnicity playes into this, you can take a look at a state I'm familiar with: Utah. Mean life expectancy there at birth is 79 which is about what it is for Caucasions there (who afterall, make up most of that state). Non-smoking Mormons do rather well, US healthcare or not. Compare with Canada. But life expectancy at birth in Utah ranges from 74 for African Americans and Native Americans, to 85 for Asians and Pacific Islanders. So there's a 9 year gap there, even when these groups move right to the middle of the US. No medical system can entirely cope with the residual effects of smoking, drinking, and socioeconomic class. But at least Utah doesn't have to cope with a Mexican border. I'd be curious if you can come up with comparable figures for life expectancy of ethnic groups in Canada. Do your "natives" make it to 74, on average? I'll bet not. SBH > > > A system that has cut back to the bare bone any medical research in which > > > Canadian researchers are leaving Canada for the US. [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > SBH You know that you've hit a real nerve with these shameless pharma apologists in this ng when they go nuts about where you are from and are completely unable to come up with anything to say about the content original post. Check and mate. TC > > > > A system that has cut back to the bare bone any medical research in which > > > > Canadian researchers are leaving Canada for the US. [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > > TC "Achieving the Steve; from polymath to ProtoGrunt in one small step." just say "canada". > > > > > A system that has cut back to the bare bone any medical research in which > > > > > Canadian researchers are leaving Canada for the US. [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > > just say "canada". Zee, the only way you will find any real relief is through research in the US such UCSD and other state and federal agencies paid by the US tax dollars. You will not find any help in Canada where they have abandoned you with your AE to statins. That was intentional on Canada's part to provide cheap health care and in providing heart operations for 10,000 dollars. They transferred all the money out of health care. > > > > > > A system that has cut back to the bare bone any medical research > in which [quoted text clipped - 115 lines] > care and in providing heart operations for 10,000 dollars. They transferred > all the money out of health care. COMMENT: Christ, this is what I have to put up with. Zee's got her hopes pinned on a well-funded NIH prospective study of statin effects at UCSD, which wouldn't have been funded at all if the NIH was as much in the pharm pockets as you all seem to think it is. And which (moreover) is a US study which wasn't funded in Canada, because Canada doesn't *spend* money for that kind of thing. They're into spending money on direct patient care, you know. :) I think Canada's buying Crestor for their people, at the moment. But it's *cheap* Crestor. Yum. And it was probably cheap Baycol, too, before Baycol got recalled. Maybe free socialized Baycol, grunt, grunt. Me no understand why all this not considered relevent. As for you, TC, I'm commenting on all the messages in the thread in the state in which I ran across it. Including your later ones. What, is it illegal to do this without saying something about the OP message? Sue me. If you want a statement from me for the record, about conflicts of interest at the NIH, then I can say it's like asking a preacher about sin. I'm against it. Okay? I've been attacking the FDA for their stupidity and corruption here for about a decade. Where have you been? I'm no friend of the NIH, either, but I was a little surprised to find they were being corrupted, too (I shouldn't have been, that was naiveté. I admit it). However, I wonder if you realize how little it matters that NIH people get pharma money? NIH people don't control most NIH grant money, and the reason for that is quite deliberate. Basically, it's so they aren't in a position like the narcocops, or the FDA, where they're controlling lots of money and are thus a TARGET for corruption. NIH grants, you see, go through a "peer review system," and that's exactly what it sounds like. NIH sends grant proposals (including SBIR grants like the one you're complaining out on this thread) out to be reviewed by scientists who don't work for the NIH, and then uses those scores, without corrections. These are just other guys in the field, who work anonymously, and without compensation (much like referreed jounal reviewers). There are WAY too many of these people to be subject to much corruption, unless drug companies could find out which drug-related grants were being reviewed where and by whom. In theory *that's* possible, but screwing with that by bribergy would be even more difficult and dangerous than jury-tampering, and I have yet to see any evidence that it's happened at NIH. If we DO find that that kind of thing has been going on, then the manure will hit the spreader down on the drug pharm, and much of US pharm research, private and academic, will be found standing behind the spreader, where one does not want to be. As for the idea of SBIR grants to businesses to help them defray the cost of drug or other technology development (many of which expenses are mandated by government regulation), that basically is a form of welfare like any other. You've heard of farm subsidies, oil industry subsidies, and so on? Socialism doesn't just give tax money away to individuals and non-profit corporations, you know. There's plenty of social wealth transfer done through for-profit corporations in Canada. Don't act like you've never heard of the idea. SBH > > > "Achieving the Steve; from polymath to ProtoGrunt in one small step." > > > > > > just say "canada". > COMMENT: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > socialized Baycol, grunt, grunt. Me no understand why all this not > considered relevent. > SBH What in gawd's name are you talking about? "Zee's got her hope pinned on..." For what? Golomb has nothing to offer me re recovery. Or prevention of cardiovascular disease. Neither does the NIH. What Golomb does has no effect on my statin injury. That it may for the thousands of statin injured in the States is beside the point. I am not going to "take" anything to get well. I am not getting MRId up the yingyang, I am not suing anyone. Got that! Why don't you ask once in awhile, instead of your continual team tryouts for the Vault to Conclusion record? Robert wrote: > <outrider@despammed.com> wrote in message > news:1123685010.887709.297720@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 143 lines] > transferred > all the money out of health care. COMMENT: Christ, this is what I have to put up with. Zee's got her hopes pinned on a well-funded NIH prospective study of statin effects at UCSD, which wouldn't have been funded at all if the NIH was as much in the pharm pockets as you all seem to think it is. And which (moreover) is a US study which wasn't funded in Canada, because Canada doesn't *spend* money for that kind of thing. They're into spending money on direct patient care, you know. :) I think Canada's buying Crestor for their people, at the moment. But it's *cheap* Crestor. Yum. And it was probably cheap Baycol, too, before Baycol got recalled. Maybe free socialized Baycol, grunt, grunt. Me no understand why all this not considered relevent. As for you, TC, I'm commenting on all the messages in the thread in the state in which I ran across it. Including your later ones. What, is it illegal to do this without saying something about the OP message? Sue me. If you want a statement from me for the record, about conflicts of interest at the NIH, then I can say it's like asking a preacher about sin. I'm against it. Okay? I've been attacking the FDA for their stupidity and corruption here for about a decade. Where have you been? I'm no friend of the NIH, either, but I was a little surprised to find they were being corrupted, too (I shouldn't have been, that was naiveté. I admit it). However, I wonder if you realize how little it matters that NIH people get pharma money? NIH people don't control most NIH grant money, and the reason for that is quite deliberate. Basically, it's so they aren't in a position like the narcocops, or the FDA, where they're controlling lots of money and are thus a TARGET for corruption. NIH grants, you see, go through a "peer review system," and that's exactly what it sounds like. NIH sends grant proposals (including SBIR grants like the one you're complaining out on this thread) out to be reviewed by scientists who don't work for the NIH, and then uses those scores, without corrections. These are just other guys in the field, who work anonymously, and without compensation (much like referreed jounal reviewers). There are WAY too many of these people to be subject to much corruption, unless drug companies could find out which drug-related grants were being reviewed where and by whom. In theory *that's* possible, but screwing with that by bribergy would be even more difficult and dangerous than jury-tampering, and I have yet to see any evidence that it's happened at NIH. If we DO find that that kind of thing has been going on, then the manure will hit the spreader down on the drug pharm, and much of US pharm research, private and academic, will be found standing behind the spreader, where one does not want to be. As for the idea of SBIR grants to businesses to help them defray the cost of drug or other technology development (many of which expenses are mandated by government regulation), that basically is a form of welfare like any other. You've heard of farm subsidies, oil industry subsidies, and so on? Socialism doesn't just give tax money away to individuals and non-profit corporations, you know. There's plenty of social wealth transfer done through for-profit corporations in Canada. Don't act like you've never heard of the idea. SBH ____________________________________________________ SBH: 10; TC: 0 Again >COMMENT: >That's complete B.S. A lot of smart researchers come out of Canada, >and the smarter they are, the faster they come out. Yes, do keep >sending you best minds. Immigration really is the sincerest form of >flattery. Yes! That would explain why Canada is such a popular destination for immigrants. ;o) Oh and did ya hear the one about the brain-drain resulting in Canadian doctors moving to the United States? It is greatly improves the IQ of both countries. Ba-dum-bum! <cymbal> RBR > >COMMENT: > >That's complete B.S. A lot of smart researchers come out of Canada, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yes! That would explain why Canada is such a popular destination for > immigrants. ;o) How to get into Canada http://www.etext.org/Politics/Essays/get.into.canada Are you looking for the land of milk and honey, where you can have a much better life without even working? Then you are looking for CANADA. Even if you are just looking for a "Western" country, or want to get into the United States of America, Canada is a very easy stepping stone to these other countries. Why Canada? Canada has the most generous of all government benefit programs as well as being the easiest country to get into in the whole world. As a refugee or "landed immigrant" in Canada you can not run for political office or vote in provincial election, but other than that you are legally entitled to more government benefits than do their own citizens. (It is a pretty good idea when you do get to the country to join one of the mainstream political parties, as it will help you in the future to get high paying political appointments to various government departments and committees.) You can get free housing, free health care, free day-care (for your children,) free education, free money, free food, and all levels of government: federal, provincial and municipal, will fight each other to see who will give you the most. In addition there are religious organization who will give you free help, plus many government funded multicultural (ethnic) groups who will do everything possible to make your life there as easy and prosperous as possible. Ever if you are not a citizen, the government will give you money to start your own multicultural organization to help other people going to Canada. If you do get government funding to set up such a group, you decide what salary to pay yourself, limited only by the size of the government grant. Muslim Migrants in Canada - Victims of Undeclared Racism and Discrimination http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.com/immigrants.htm Canadian-style multiculturalism, the dream of American academics and the enemy of serious Canadians who care about politics and their own culture, is simple to define: immigrant ethnic minority groups, virtually all from the Third World, are not only not required to assimilate, but the taxpayers, in the name of "diversity" and "tolerance," are required to pay for maintaining their culture. Hence the plethora of ethnic - Chinese, East and South East Asian, Indian sub-continent, etc. associations, schools, cultural organizations paid by the taxpayers of Alberta or British Columbia - via Ottawa, of course, since the Canadian West is quite hostile to this. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14712 Bleak news for immigrants seeking better life in Canada On the other hand, the immigration system has come under the gun these days in the wake of new allegations of bribery and organised crime links involving judges appointed to the country's federal Immigration and Refugee Board. The scandal stemmed from a Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) affidavit unsealed last week that alleged two judges of the board had accepted bribes from a criminal organisation operating in Montreal and Ottawa in exchange for favourable rulings on immigrants ordered by the government to be deported from Canada. According to the RCMP affidavit, the members of the criminal organisation had collected bribes ranging between $10,000 and $12,000 each from immigrants under deportation orders and funnelled the money to the judges in question. As to be expected, the Immigration and Citizenship Minister Denis Coderre, is under increasing pressure to either scrap or overhaul the Immigration and Refugee Board as a way of getting rid of the corrupt judges. So far he has resisted, but the demand is persisting. http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2003%20Opinion%20Editorials/June %202003%20Opinion/14o/Bleak%20news%20for%20immigrants%20seeking%20better%20life% 20in%20Canada,%20Nihal%20Kaneira.htm > Oh and did ya hear the one about the brain-drain resulting in > Canadian doctors moving to the United States? It is greatly improves [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > RBR Just as long as you keep your politicians there, the ones who run the national Canadian health system. > > >COMMENT: > > >That's complete B.S. A lot of smart researchers come out of Canada, [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > Just as long as you keep your politicians there, the ones who run the > national Canadian health system. Bigot > > > >COMMENT: > > > >That's complete B.S. A lot of smart researchers come out of Canada, [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > Refugee Board as a way of getting rid of the corrupt judges. So far he has > > resisted, but the demand is persisting. http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2003%20Opinion%20Editorials/June %202003%20Opinion/14o/Bleak%20news%20for%20immigrants%20seeking%20better%20life% 20in%20Canada,%20Nihal%20Kaneira.htm > > > Oh and did ya hear the one about the brain-drain resulting in > > > Canadian doctors moving to the United States? It is greatly improves [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Bigot I am an immigrant myself. I am not bigoted toward immigrants. LOL. They probably have immigrants working for the NIH which you despise. If it were Health Canada then they would be fine. You look the other way while they kill people just as long as it serves your socialistic agenda. ESCONDIDO ---- Federal agents arrested a Border Patrol agent Thursday in Escondido who is suspected of being an illegal immigrant who was smuggling other illegal immigrants into the United States. http://www.alipac.us/article593.html > > > > >COMMENT: > > > > >That's complete B.S. A lot of smart researchers come out of Canada, [quoted text clipped - 134 lines] > > http://www.alipac.us/article593.html Bigot. > > > > > >COMMENT: > > > > > >That's complete B.S. A lot of smart researchers come out of Canada, [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] > > has > > > > resisted, but the demand is persisting. http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2003%20Opinion%20Editorials/June %202003%20Opinion/14o/Bleak%20news%20for%20immigrants%20seeking%20better%20life% 20in%20Canada,%20Nihal%20Kaneira.htm > > > > > Oh and did ya hear the one about the brain-drain resulting in > > > > > Canadian doctors moving to the United States? It is greatly improves [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Bigot. Jennings was proud of his Canadian citizenship, although it was occasionally a sore point with some critics. When Jennings spoke at the dedication of a museum celebrating the Constitution in 2003, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told him, "not bad for a Canadian." Jennings whispered back his secret: He had just passed a test earning him dual citizenship in the United States. "My decision to do this has nothing to do with politics," Jennings told The Associated Press at the time. "It has nothing to do with my profession. It has everything to do with my family." TC you report so much about the US that I suggest you make some money on it and become a US citizen like Jennings and do it for your family like he did. He was a high school drop out in Canada and comes to the US and makes something of himself. That would never have happened in Canada for him. Was Judge Scalia a bigot? > Jennings was proud of his Canadian citizenship, although it was occasionally > a sore point with some critics. When Jennings spoke at the dedication of a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Jennings whispered back his secret: He had just passed a test earning him > dual citizenship in the United States. COMMENT: I saw this on the rebroadcast of the Jennings inverview on Larry King last night. I'll miss Peter Jennings. In *his* case, the joke about his immigrating to the US rasing the average IQ of both countries, was true. He was a smart guy. Of course, this old Will Rogers joke about immigration is *often* true, because immigrants in most case are a highly selected lot--- on average wiser and tougher and harder-working than people who stay home. A country that generally draws immigrants from everywhere, will therefore benefit differentially by getting the first-round draft. This is how the US rose to its present status in the world-- for a long time we drew the cream of the crop from everywhere else, and still do. What president Bush has failed to understand, however, is that the key to making this mechanism work is that the bar to immigration has to be set somewhat high. If it's not difficult to immigrate, then there's no selection, and no "cream." If your immigrants have to get over 6000 miles of ocean, however, it becomes very interesting. For example Chinatown, Canada (which used to be called "Vancouver") is quite a bustling and amazing place; I expect great things of it. By contrast, Nogales, Arizona with its murdrers and its poverty, is not so nice, and the different climate is not the problem. Canada probably benefits by its relatively open-door policy, due to the fact that nearly all people who emigrate to Canada from the third world must either must figure out how to cross the continental US, or else a major ocean. That's a nice position to be in, and it gives a country a relatively hardy population (Hawaii benefits similarly, and I suspect that you see this directly in Hawaii's high life expectancy, higher than Canada's, and probably also in Canada's life expectancy, too, which is NOT simply due to its medical system, but may well be in spite of it). I think that if we in the US had obstacles on our Southern border sufficient to put us in the same position as Canada, we would benefit a lot from such Mexican illegals as managed to make it to the US anyway. IOW, I've nothing against Mexican immigration per se. It's EASY Mexican immigration that is hurting the US. SBH > > Jennings was proud of his Canadian citizenship, although it was occasionally > > a sore point with some critics. When Jennings spoke at the dedication of a [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > SBH Yeah, it is sooooo difficult getting on a boat or figuring how to get onto a plane. Gotta be a real genius to do that. TC > Yeah, it is sooooo difficult getting on a boat or figuring how to get > onto a plane. Gotta be a real genius to do that. COMMENT: You have to have enough money for the airline flight in. That's a year's salary in some places. You have to explain if the ticket is one way. If customs is doing its job, you will have to have ID, and a non-fake passport. You may have to pass some kind of health screen, and certainly will, if you want a long term visa. In some countries you may even need a visa for a short term stay. All to make sure we know exactly who you are and where you came from, if you should arrive and disappear. Or show up at a hospital delivering a 1 kg child and needing $100,000 of ICU care (in which case we have a little talk with your government about money, and perhaps stop refusing all visitor or travel visas of any kind to women of childbearing age, unless they post a big bond). You don't have to do, or have, any of this, if you just take a walk through the desert at night, and bypass customs altogether. SBH > Yeah, it is sooooo difficult getting on a boat or figuring how to get > onto a plane. Gotta be a real genius to do that. > > TC COMMENT: If you came in that way, we know who you are from your passport. Then how are you going to get a job without being deported? You need high skills to get an H1B visa or green card, at least in this country. Since NAFTA, I rather think it's the same in Canada. SBH one of the responses i received from the group at ucsd regarding the statin study was that the robert wood johnson jr foundation provided most of the $$ for the study--obtaining moneys from the NIH for researchers looking at statin side effects was almost impossible--either the grant proposal reviewers were funded by pharm industry $$ or had received their reputations based upon research extolling the virtues of statins--neither group likely to fund a study to discount positive findings about statins. just another perspective--guess it all is dependent upon from which side one views the subject > one of the responses i received from the group at ucsd regarding the > statin study was that the robert wood johnson jr foundation provided [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > perspective--guess it all is dependent upon from which side one views > the subject That's a good point. The question I have is what research is Canada doing with this regard? The obvious answer is most of the government sponsored research in Canada is directed into looking at how long a patient can wait on a list before he dies. They eliminated most of their research in order to provide treatment care and still there is waiting. Canada spends the least per capita among all the developed countries and it shows. By the way this is the Johnson from Johnson and Johnson. Don't tell me this is not pharm money. That foundation is set up from the founder of J and J who made all his money from drugs. The UCSD is a pharm drug sponsored study. FDA panel says no to over-the-counter statin drugs; will the recommendation stand? Merck and Johnson & Johnson are working hard to make statin drugs available without a prescription. The thought is downright horrifying to those who know the true dangers of statin drugs -- muscle wasting, brain fog, even the risk of birth defects -- but it's just "business as usual" at Big Pharma. The pharmaceutical industry has been selling so many dangerous drugs to so many people for so long, that adding another over-the-counter medication to the mix didn't seem like such a big deal, apparently. > > one of the responses i received from the group at ucsd regarding the > > statin study was that the robert wood johnson jr foundation provided [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > many people for so long, that adding another over-the-counter medication to > the mix didn't seem like such a big deal, apparently. It was Robert Wood Johnson Jr. who devoted his life to turning the innovative but small family business of Johnson & Johnson into the world's largest health and medical care products company. During World War II, Robert Jr., served as a brigadier general, and from then on, became known as General Johnson. When General Johnson returned to his company, his passion for free enterprise, customer satisfaction, employee rights, and corporate responsibility became apparent as he managed the company's expansion and international growth. He paid a minimum wage for Johnson & Johnson employees that was beyond union expectations. And he created a famous credo to prioritize his company's responsibilities. It stated that a company's first responsibility was to its customers, followed by its workers, management, community, and company stockholders, in that order. Though often displaying fierce determination as a business leader, General Johnson demonstrated intense compassion for those less fortunate. History shows he made a variety of accomplishments in several fields, including politics, writing, and sailing. However, the man who made Johnson & Johnson a household name wished to be remembered most as a philanthropist. His concern for hospital efficiency and patient care led to advocacy for improved education for doctors and nurses, and specialized training for hospital administrators. By the time of his death in 1968, General Johnson left most of his wealth, $1.2 billion, to establish The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. In doing this, he created one of the world's largest private foundations. > FDA panel says no to over-the-counter statin drugs; will the recommendation > stand? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > many people for so long, that adding another over-the-counter medication to > the mix didn't seem like such a big deal, apparently. COMMENT: It's worth noting that we have an over the counter statin NOW. It's called red rice yeast (the red coloring of Peking Duck), and it contains mevastatin (Mevacor), which was originally a natural product, like penicillin. At 4 capsules a day you can get pharmacologic doses of the stuff and lower your cholesterol quite a lot. I haven't heard much screaming and carrying on about this stuff yet, probably because it sounds so benign. RED RICE YEAST, THIEF OF MEMORY! Doesn't sound like a best seller. "Peking Duck Cause You to Lose Your Mind, Say Traditional Chinese." Riiiiight. As for statins causing "brain fog" it's must be very rare if it happens. A lot rarer than brain fog from OTC antihistamines or OTC beer. Stop the hysteria, folks. Sheesh. SBH You must be a blast at parties. :o( RBR >> >COMMENT: >> >That's complete B.S. A lot of smart researchers come out of Canada, [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] >Just as long as you keep your politicians there, the ones who run the >national Canadian health system. > >COMMENT: > >That's complete B.S. A lot of smart researchers come out of Canada, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > RBR COMMENT: Will Rogers effect. A joke old before you were born. >> >COMMENT: >> >That's complete B.S. A lot of smart researchers come out of Canada, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Will Rogers effect. A joke old before you were born. Aw c'mon, you didn't find it a little bit funny at least? . ;o) RBR ""From year to year, even under the most pessimistic projections, funding for NIH will go up very slightly but the increase won't keep up with inflation." How does the subject line square with this from the article? This science group is our best defence against corperate greed andd it's support should be increased to the levels previous years. One major reason corperated funded and controlled research has grown is because government support has deminished and the corperations are quite happy to fill the gap at the nih and universities. Independent research is only possible with independent public funding. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.