The president's well within his bounds to cut off funding for Harvard. Frankly, I don't think we should be funding any of these universities, especially those with massive endowments like they have.
6 comments
Major US pharmaceutical company Johnson & Johnson exist in the UK too. Since 1925. Guess who is a major supplier to Britain’s hospitals: as they do so to this day, thus by definition have been doing so since a certain policy implemented by Labour PM Clement Attlee in 1948, which was praised by previous Conservative PM Winston Churchill: obviously, as by definition it was the latter who had planned the creation of the National Health Service during WWII. Question: A bust of which British PM is in the Oval Office of the White House currently resided in by the president you love so much: and said bust is in the Oval Office because he loves him so much? (check one):
[ ] Clement Attlee
[ ] Winston Churchill
Choose wisely, Seany-boy.
I've just finished to read Le Défi américain by Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber, published in 1967.
In it, the author explains how the USA managed to maintain economic supremacy, and one of the factors is R&D, especially in the fields receiving Fédéral funds.
Hell, even in the Antiquity rulers knew that funding scholars was a good thing.
As usual, the lack of internal consistency is staggering : Hannity pushed vaccine conspiracies and chooses to ignore the shady shit pharmaceutical companies get up to, like pushing opioids or putting asbestos in talcum powder.
The fact that somebody could be working for the simple betterment of humanity and its knowledge appears to be beyond his admittedly limited comprehension.
Hannity is also mistaken about research. The big pharmaceutical companies don’t do much open ended long term research, it’s expensive and incredibly hit or miss. 90% produces nothing and when it does work it as likely to find medication for some unrelated problem as not. Most of the research done by big parma is for cosmetics, does making this blush 10% redder make people look better and sell better? They spend 100s of millions on that sort of stuff because cosmetics are highly profitable, highly competitive and the FDA does force them to check that every change in the formula is safe.
"They're cutting cancer research. They're -- people are going to die." No. That's not how it works. That's where the private sector comes in.
Of course, if you suffering from a disease not profitable/sufficiently prominent in the public consciousness to be part of Big Charity… truly, a triumph for orphan diseases.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
