Politicians, including Al Gore, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton etc., have an incredible knack for take credit for just about everything often even things they obstruct.
The media has an incredible knack for helping them by refusing to provide the best research on any given subject.
The media is giving Joe Biden another news cycle to talk about his "Cancer Moonshot" effort to find a cure; what they don't mention is that even though everyone would agree that curing cancer is a goal that we should be working toward; we already have an enormous amount of research available about how to dramatically reduce cancer and the ability to do it.
This mostly involves prevention of it from developing in the first place by recognizing many of the contributing causes of cancer. It won't take much searching the internet for evidence to indicate that a variety of things that can be reduced cause cancer and Joe Biden could take advantage of his high profile position to inform the public about it.
Of course that would interfere with large multinational corporations that make large profits from the pollution, tobacco, fatty food including red meat that contribute to cancer.
This is why the media and political establishment routinely gives credit to each other for all the things people at the grassroots or in the research community accomplish.
If they did a better job educating the public about the causes of cancer and based their policy decisions on them then they could dramatically reduce cancer without waiting for new research and at the same time they could provide adequate funding for future research on the condition that there aren't patents driving up the costs of medications and treatments. If they informed the public about how much more the pharmaceutical companies spent on marketing and lobbying than they do on research then it would be clear that the government is really funding a large portion of the research already which means there is no justification for the patents except that it is corporate welfare in return for campaign contributors, although they may use the wink and nod method so they can claim there's no Quid pro quo.
Besides as the following article clearly indicates the amount of funding the Obama administration is asking for isn't nearly enough to accomplish the goal he claims to be aiming for:
What Is the Point of Joe Biden's Cancer 'Moonshot'? 07/0/2016
The vice president has launched an effort to “end cancer,” but the White House is only asking for $1 billion.
DURHAM, N.C.—No one doubts the sincerity of Vice President Joe Biden’s “cancer moonshot” initiative. That’s the cause that Biden announced he’d pursue in October, when he decided not to run for president, and it’s one inspired by the life and death of his son Beau Biden, who died of brain cancer last year.
But is the plan even really a “moonshot”? After all, the Obama administration has asked for just $1 billion in funding for the initiative in this year’s budget—a budget that is already more aspirational than realistic—and top researchers have questioned the impact that amount can really have. (For reference, $1 billion is between a third and a fifth the cost of a new pharmaceutical.) In a visit to Duke University on Wednesday, Biden’s first since the budget’s release, he offered a glimpse of what he hopes to do. The vice president isn’t proposing a massive new government effort to fund or conduct research—like a second Apollo program—but rather, promising to cut through red tape and bring together various players to enable greater cooperation.
“The science is ready,” Biden proclaimed, a phrase he repeated a half-dozen times over the course of 80 minutes. “I believe we can make much faster progress—as an outsider looking in—if we seek greater collaboration, greater sharing of information. In short, breaking down some of the research that is trapped inside of silos, and share information with drug companies, and drug companies being willing to be more forthcoming in sharing information.”
The vice president suggested that what he lacks in scientific knowledge—he joked that he’d become an attorney because he wasn’t smart enough to be a scientist—he makes up for in his ability to marshal federal government resources and use his office to bring together disparate parties, a skill honed over four decades in Washington.
“Maybe the only thing I'll be able to do with any dispatch is be a convener and maybe help negotiate some of the transitions that have to take place,” he said. Biden said the president had told his Cabinet, “Do what Joe tells you.” ..... “Money is necessary and critical, but it's not the answer to do what we have to do,” Biden said, though he also claimed to have spoken with three philanthropists who wanted to donate $1 billion or more to cancer research. He said a common story he’d heard during meetings with hundreds of oncologists since embarking on the moonshot went something like this: There are two drugs made by two different companies that treat the same cancer, both somewhat effectively, but the clinicians think the pair would be most effective in concert—if only they could get approval. “The overwhelming inclination of all of you is if you combine the two it may be better, but getting that done is like, y’know, getting a nuclear deal with Iran, only we were more successful. The science is ready. We have to figure out a way to share information more.”
Biden also lamented the many parallel efforts to achieve the same goals that were going on in the cancer space. In some cases, there are several drug companies working on similar drugs to treat similar cancers—all spending huge sums, but not working with each other, all in hopes of reaping a windfall. Several participants spoke about the need to make it easier to let patients join clinical trials. And a common theme was the necessity of better sharing of crucial data that allows breakthroughs. There many troves of such information, but little mechanism for combining them. Biden, fresh from the World Economic Forum, offered one example. Complete article
The vice president has launched an effort to “end cancer,” but the White House is only asking for $1 billion.
DURHAM, N.C.—No one doubts the sincerity of Vice President Joe Biden’s “cancer moonshot” initiative. That’s the cause that Biden announced he’d pursue in October, when he decided not to run for president, and it’s one inspired by the life and death of his son Beau Biden, who died of brain cancer last year.
But is the plan even really a “moonshot”? After all, the Obama administration has asked for just $1 billion in funding for the initiative in this year’s budget—a budget that is already more aspirational than realistic—and top researchers have questioned the impact that amount can really have. (For reference, $1 billion is between a third and a fifth the cost of a new pharmaceutical.) In a visit to Duke University on Wednesday, Biden’s first since the budget’s release, he offered a glimpse of what he hopes to do. The vice president isn’t proposing a massive new government effort to fund or conduct research—like a second Apollo program—but rather, promising to cut through red tape and bring together various players to enable greater cooperation.
“The science is ready,” Biden proclaimed, a phrase he repeated a half-dozen times over the course of 80 minutes. “I believe we can make much faster progress—as an outsider looking in—if we seek greater collaboration, greater sharing of information. In short, breaking down some of the research that is trapped inside of silos, and share information with drug companies, and drug companies being willing to be more forthcoming in sharing information.”
The vice president suggested that what he lacks in scientific knowledge—he joked that he’d become an attorney because he wasn’t smart enough to be a scientist—he makes up for in his ability to marshal federal government resources and use his office to bring together disparate parties, a skill honed over four decades in Washington.
“Maybe the only thing I'll be able to do with any dispatch is be a convener and maybe help negotiate some of the transitions that have to take place,” he said. Biden said the president had told his Cabinet, “Do what Joe tells you.” ..... “Money is necessary and critical, but it's not the answer to do what we have to do,” Biden said, though he also claimed to have spoken with three philanthropists who wanted to donate $1 billion or more to cancer research. He said a common story he’d heard during meetings with hundreds of oncologists since embarking on the moonshot went something like this: There are two drugs made by two different companies that treat the same cancer, both somewhat effectively, but the clinicians think the pair would be most effective in concert—if only they could get approval. “The overwhelming inclination of all of you is if you combine the two it may be better, but getting that done is like, y’know, getting a nuclear deal with Iran, only we were more successful. The science is ready. We have to figure out a way to share information more.”
Biden also lamented the many parallel efforts to achieve the same goals that were going on in the cancer space. In some cases, there are several drug companies working on similar drugs to treat similar cancers—all spending huge sums, but not working with each other, all in hopes of reaping a windfall. Several participants spoke about the need to make it easier to let patients join clinical trials. And a common theme was the necessity of better sharing of crucial data that allows breakthroughs. There many troves of such information, but little mechanism for combining them. Biden, fresh from the World Economic Forum, offered one example. Complete article
Discussion about not sharing information wasn't in the majority of the media reports about his "Cancer Moonshot" so most of the public don't know about it. If it was then more could be done to discuss how effective patents are, since they're a major part of the reason why different companies don't share information with each other. The government often subsidizes research without requiring that different companies share the information with each other or that they provide affordable health care coverage when they do develop improved treatments. Greater discussion of this might indicate that the current method of financing for profit clearly isn't even close to the most effective way to advance research or the health of the majority.
If grant or tax breaks for research were provided on the condition that they share information with each other then duplicate research could be significantly reduced and different researchers could learn much more from each other. Sacrifices made for the sake of research could also be reduced.
It doesn't take an advanced scientific education to understand the current system, where everything is patented and done in secrecy, isn't about the most effective way to advance research; it is about the most effective way to ensure that those at the top can control it; so that they can maximize profits at the expense of the public.
His son also did his share to take credit from the best researchers and he famously used his death for his own political purposes, even though anyone who points out the obvious might risk being criticized for being insensitive. The claim that Beau allegedly believed that Joe Biden would be the only one that could do a good job solving this countries problems so he urged him to run for president as part of a heroic death bed plea should be considered highly political and phony, although I don't mean to smear someone dying of cancer; however the people that used his death for political purposes are the ones showing real disrespect.
For a while years before Beau Biden's death he spoke out about how corporal punishment should be banned and helped pass a bill doing so in Delaware. This bill allegedly outlawed corporal punishment in the home and there were a lot of supporters for corporal punishment that were outraged claiming that it interfered with their right to raise their children as they saw fit. When the bill was passed supporters of it were of course pleased; however in response to the complaints they explained that this wouldn't be used to prosecute parents except in the most extreme circumstances.
This might have worked out quite well if they had allowed the researchers opposing corporal punishment to explain why it should be eliminated and how it has a negative impact on children behavior; however instead they let the politicians and media handle the majority of the coverage and it may not have had much of an impact at all. Sweden banned corporal punishment decades ago ahead of the majority of the world and this ban was accompanied by an educational effort by researchers that know about the negative impacts. They were able to drastically reduce or eliminate corporal punishment without much if any legal reprisals for those that used it. If they did this in Delaware than it could have been much more effective and the education could have spread to other parts of the United States reducing violence everywhere, even where there was no law banning corporal punishment.
This didn't happen and murder statistics may already reflect this, although hard conclusions based on a law only a few years old are premature. They didn't ban corporal punishment in Delaware schools until 2003 and in homes in 2014. In most cases statistics show that states using the most corporal punishment have the highest murder rates so presumably they might have gone down after it was banned in schools, but if anything they went up. Corporal punishment is just one of many contributing factors, even if it is probably the most important one other things like poverty, income inequality and abandoned inner cities also impact them. However a review of the research would almost certainly indicate that allowing those that knew more about it, instead of politicians that routinely take credit for the work of researchers, deliver the message would have improved educational opportunities for the public.
However, when it comes to stealing credit for other people's work, Hillary Clinton and her campaign staff and surrogates, are doing a much more effective job than either the Biden's or Al Gore, even when she has actually worked against many of the initiatives she claims to support.
When the "Fight for 15" movement began she waited a long time to say anything; then when it was clear that it was gaining momentum instead of supporting it she came out in support of a gradual increase to 12 dollars an hour as what the media portrayed as a reasonable compromise.
If the workers accepted this and remained silent letting her fight for them; then I suspect they might have hit a filibuster in the Congress and Hillary Clinton could have at least gotten credit for trying. Instead they kept on going and succeeded in at least two states, California and New York.
Hillary Clinton went to a rally and tried to claim she fought for it all along.
How stupid does she think workers are?
Is she relying on the public remaining ignorant or complacent? If not, how can she get any support at all.
Amazingly when she was Secretary of State the state department lobbied Haiti not to raise the minimum wage from 31 cents an hour to 61 cents; but this was hardly mentioned by traditional media. News of this came out as a result of E-mails that were disclosed and reported in alternative media outlets.
Hillary’s State Department Pressured Haiti Not To Raise Minimum Wage to $.61 An Hour 01/18/2016
She also took credit for helping Haiti through the Clinton Foundation; what the media rarely ever mention is that the vast majority of the money raised for Haiti never made it to Haiti and there have been numerous protests against Clinton for this.
Additional E-mails also exposed her support for the Honduran coup; and while the refugees were coming to the United States she said they had to be sent back, often even if they faced persecution as a result of the coup she supported.
Then amazingly she took a little girl in her lap in Nevada telling her not to worry about her parents being deported, that she would take care of it, not mentioning her past support for deportation.
Amazingly, (I know using the word amazingly too often becomes redundant but it really is amazing how often the media get everything wrong about Hillary Clinton), anyone that researches it will find that she does similar things on just about every subject she takes a position on often flipping her position for the duration of the campaign. She supported many trade agreements including TPP, the Keystone pipeline, fracking and many other things before she opposed them and only opposed them as the election was approaching. She often says that the public needs someone that doesn't just come around at election time and make promises reneging on them once in office yet that is exactly what her track record indicates we can expect from her.
Her E-mails show that she lobbied for CAFTA in private, but took credit for voting against it after it was clear it would fail; she took credit for opposing banking deregulation as First Lady but then after taking donations from the banks voted for the same deregulation with a minor change.
She's having enough problems with her E-mails in constant investigations that often appear political, sometimes because they are; but the biggest problems with her record are the ones that get much less attention from the press. While they're reporting on the scandal in a way that seems partisan they're ignoring the content of the disclosed E-mails that are only being covered by alternative media outlets. Both the media and campaign contributors profit off of activities like the Honduran coup, free trade without worker or environmental protection, or suppressing the minimum wage.
The mainstream media routinely gives credit to the most incompetent politicians or each other in some cases for the things done by researchers or grassroots efforts; after all clearly it couldn't have been Al Gore who invented the internet if it was actually Brian Williams that was stealing the credit from the people that did the work.
Giving credit to Joe Biden for helping find the cure for cancer is even more ludicrous when considering many of his past blunders, including his early downfall after being caught plagiarizing a British politician ending his 1988 presidential campaign. Or when he said, "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened." –Joe Biden, apparently unaware that FDR wasn't president when the stock market crashed in 1929 and that only experimental TV sets were in use at that time, interview with Katie Couric, Sept. 22, 2008 Top 10 Joe Biden Gaffes
I've written numerous other articles that provide much more sources for research showing how preventing corporal punishment and other contributing causes to violence in Child abuse leading to escalating violence and Contributing causes to crime and how to prevent them
I have also provided an enormous amount of additional sources about routine hypocrisy in the Hillary Clinton campaign in the following articles:
With friends like Richard Trumka labor has problems
Regardless of Polls Bernie Sanders Supports Blacks much better than Hillary Clinton
Bernie Sanders wins foreign policy debate hands down despite propaganda
Hillary Clinton Is Using Children As Props While Her Record Betrays Them
Why would anyone consider Hillary Clinton if they knew this?
Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein or Revolt in the Streets?
Bernie Sanders Wins Least Violent States
Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy Experience is a disaster
Hillary Clinton sold out Honduras: Lanny Davis, corporate cash, and the real story about the death of a Latin American democracy, 06/08/2015,
Before Her Assassination, Berta Cáceres, a Honduran environmental activist, Singled Out Hillary Clinton for Backing Honduran Coup. 03/11/2016
do not understand why with so many wrongs, so many untruths, so many abuses, and mishandlings... Hillary has never been charged.
ReplyDeleteThose with connections seem to get away with just about anything; and the things she is investigated for are often trivial compared to the things she's not being investigated for, even though there are often enough disclosures to implicate her.
DeleteWhen working class commit minor offences against rich they prosecute when rich commit major offences against working class they sweep it under the rug.