Posted on 08/04/2020 6:00:34 AM PDT by USA Conservative
The debate was labeled Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. vs Alan Dershowitz: The Great Vaccine Debate! This historic debate between Children’s Health Defense Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz happened few days ago but not one mainstream media giant decided to report about it!
On July 12, signs went up on anti-vaccine pages about a live debate between Robert F Kennedy Jr and Alan Dershowitz.
The debate opened with a previous quote from Dershowitz that said that the state has a right to compel people to be vaccinated, that there is no constitutional right not to be vaccinated, and that “the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor’s office and plunge a needle into your arm.”
Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohS4Ag4RGMQ&feature=emb_title
In the debate with Alan Dershowitz, Bobby Kennedy Jr. shared:
I think it is really important for our democracy to be able to have spirited, civil discussions about important issues like this. This is an issue that has been on the news 24 hours a day for the last four months and yet there’s no debate happening about this. It’s all repetition of orthodoxies and government proclamations and democracy functions only when we have free thought and information. Democracy is best often crafted in a furnace of heated, spirited debate.
The bombshell of the debate happened when Robert F. Kennedy’s son claimed that Dr. Tony Fauci and the Gates Foundation stand to make a hefty profit from the manufacture of the COVID-19 vaccine.
Kennedy said:
The problem is Anthony Fauci put $500 million of our dollars into that vaccine. He owns half the patent. He and these five guys who are working for him were entitled to collect royalties from that.
So you have a corrupt system and now they have a vaccine that is too big to fail. And instead of saying this was a terrible, terrible mistake, they are saying we are going to order 2 billion doses of this and you’ve got to understand Alan with these COVID vaccines these companies are playing with house money. They’re not spending any dime, they have no liability. Well if they kill 20 people or 200 people or 2,000 people in their clinical trials, big deal. They have zero liability. And guess what, they’ve wasted none of their money because we’re giving them money to play with.
The full debate below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfnJi7yLKgE&feature=emb_title The election of President Donald Trump raised grave concerns for the future of vaccination in the United States. Trump had frequently embraced—both before and during his election campaign allegations linking childhood vaccines to autism. Shortly before his inauguration, he met with Robert F. Kennedy Jr, one of the most prominent and vocal critics of vaccine safety and current US vaccine policy, who announced after that meeting that he would lead a presidential “vaccine safety commission” charged with investigating these topics.
When it comes to mandatory COVID-19 vaccines President Trump respects the opinion of its citizens.
Back in May President Trump said that the US economy will begin reopening even without a vaccine.
“Vaccine or no vaccine we’re back and we’re starting the process,” he said.
Trump once again insisted the coronavirus will somehow disappear even without vaccination, a prospect his own top health advisers have dismissed as unrealistic.
“I think we’re going have a vaccine in the pretty near future and if we do we’re going to really be a big step ahead, and if we don’t, it’ll be like so many other cases where you had a problem come in, it’ll go away at some point, it’ll go away,” Trump said.
He also indicated that vaccination won’t be mandatory. “Not everybody’s going to want to get it,” he said.
Watch the moment below: (can't copy the link)
Some Americans question the safety of vaccination.
More than one in 10 U.S. adults would turn down a coronavirus vaccine, according to recent polling.
Research from Morning Consult found 14 percent said they would not get vaccinated against COVID-19.
The age group most likely to turn down such a treatment were those between 35 and 44, at 18 percent.
While in political splits, Republicans were most likely to turn it down at 20 percent, followed by independents at 16, then Democrats at 7.
What is your opinion on this debate?
Scroll down to leave a comment below.
Then he should have been doing a disclaimer at the start of every task force briefing he took part in. I guess he’s his own boss and doesn’t have to worry about pesky medical ethics.
Even CNBC requires guests these days to reveal their positions if they tout a stock.
Let's entertain the conceit that you are correct. How does that diminish in any way his thesis that fauci has a huge conflict of interest owing to his patent ownership?
Does this conflict of interest not raise red flags with you?
fauci's fearmongering smacks of a door to door vacuum salesman going around spreading dirt on people's living room rugs, and then promising to come back next week with a vacuum that "really, really works, trust me, just give me a deposit first."
...how you can use taxpayer money to buy personal ownership of a non-existent product. I’ll wait.
________________________
I don’t have an answer, but I’m aware of something similar.
Someone I grew up with, who was highly educated up to PhD via government grants, worked all their life and is still working at age 80 for NIH, owns multiple patents, all derived from the work done while in government employ.
One innocuous-seeming (to the lay-person) paper from this esteemed scientist and Professor Emeritus no one outside the field ever heard of, resulted in an application that led to a piece of tech useful to a subsection of the commercial food industry. The scientist’s son, who up until now was a restaurateur, now owns a company that manufactures that bit of machinery. The company has private investors and the patent-holder(s) receive royalties.
This may be one of the perks used to keep brilliant people in government employment. While employed by government, a scientist discovers something and is allowed to patent the process. When the process results in something useful, the patent owner(s) receive royalties from the manufacturer of the result.
I’m not certain if the government retains an interest (likely) & also receives a portion of the royalties. There is a large, state university involved in the example above and the grants were likely also underwritten by private industry. I think _all_ the scientists (these projects are team efforts) involved may also receive royalties if their names are on the patents. Team leaders may receive ownership even if the work is largely done by ‘lesser’ members of the team.
As an interesting aside, the scientist’s spouse is head of the grant proposal department at the same university and is also, at 81, still working and considered an innovator in the grants proposal field. I know of instances where people termed *grants facilitators* receive remuneration when local governmental entities apply for and receive Federal government grants. This is written into the process.
You’d likely need to see the relevant agreements and translate the legalese, but it appears to be possible and perhaps common, if not quite as over-simplified as is being reported.
In reality, some of these royalties may be modest, but, over a lifetime of endeavor, the applications will appear and the multiple patents will produce steady revenue streams.
It is highly unlikely that a govt employee like fauci somehow gets a financial reward for awarding govt grant money.
The story is propaganda because no proof or evidence is cited. Just the Kennedy talking point.
Just because you’re crazy doesn’t mean you are wrong. Either he’s wrong or right on the patent issue. At this point, I’d think the truth is closer to his name is on the APPLICATION. That he is a co-applicant.
It is highly unlikely that a govt employee like fauci somehow gets a financial reward for awarding govt grant money.
The story is propaganda because no proof or evidence is cited. Just the Kennedy talking point.
Xxxxxx
My position also. No bureaucrat can patent like that. Kennedy nuts?
In your mind, you defend his idiotic contention by posting a list of patent applications, some approved some not, where the Assignee is the US Government. They're for HIV treatment methods and have nothing to do with Covid and are not vaccines and are not owned by Fauci.
You could have posted the name of your boyfriend and it would have been just as relevant to Kennedy's asinine claims. You are not very bright, no offense.
isn't he a notorious anti-vaxxer?
Kennedy, like most fanatics, is nuts. Somehow he thinks people will never verify outlandish claims. But then again we certainly have the same level of acceptance here on this site.
Where are the Republicans not screaming about this? Fauci and Gates conflict of interest? President needs to be talking about this.
I think back in 1986 Congress changed the rules that vaccine makers can no longer be sued if vaccines cause deaths, or other side affects. No accountability.
Interesting post.
Are you suggesting that the work-around for Fauci or Gates or anyone is that they hold a patent on a process that might be used in the production or use of a viable vaccine? Or something along those lines?
Or something along those lines
______________
Sort of.
I was bored one day and began searching out some of the people I grew up with. I ran across the scientist I mentioned and was impressed, so I broadened the search to family members. I posted what I found with redactions.
It seems apropos.
Also, I believe it could be patents on processes or products, such as enzymes or cell lines or such.
I am curious that both my old acquaintance and Fauchi are associated with NIH. Plus the major state University involvement and the serendipitous positions of spouses and the benefits accruing to family members.
I don’t have the legal or STEM qualifications to understand that much of what I read. Perhaps others can do deeper dives.
So many rabbit trails.....
I am not doubting you at all. I think there may be something like this going on. Fauci does have a number of patents. I do think he has a conflict of interests here, but I’m not sure how it could be discovered.
As an aside, during this CoVid time, my husband and I have been watching old movies that we’ve enjoyed in the past with some of our favorite actors. We watched “The Fugitive” with Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones a month or so ago. Ford’s character is a doctor that did clinical research. His wife was murdered and he hunted for the real criminal. It turns out that the guy who killed his wife worked for a pharmaceutical company that was about to release a new drug where one of Ford’s peers had swapped out clinical samples and Ford would be able to bring the cheating out in the open. It reminded me perfectly of all this CoVid nonsense.
because he invested in a company that owns the rights and has applied for the patent.
this is seriously unbelievable. There needs to be an investigation ASAP
Oh, the ol’ “highly unlikely” disclaimer...LOL
Check out who is wife is. Seriously.
Betting that is how he gets he receives the money for the vaccine being implemented.
It is not far fetched, at all, that any number of fauci’s existing patents become a component to another vaccine. They are adding all kinds of things to the vaccines.
I wouldn’t work so hard against what’s coming out. Try to find the truth first.
Rush has been talking about it! That’s a good start!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.