Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: semimojo
--- "You made the claim that our return wasn't fair so I assumed you had some way to back that statement up."

You wrote of $400 million, "...this is the payoff for the taxpayers." That was your claim, and also not backed up.

If one argues that the Moderna mRNA product was and remains "safe and effective," then your claim gains weight. If one argues the Moderna mRNA product was and remains NOT "safe and effective," then my claim gains weight.

I claim at the root that the mRNA product is neither "safe" nor "effective" -- given the publicly documented infections as even Fauci and others have "claimed" -- so any argument about return on an investment becomes rather moot.

The cited $2.5 billion is greater than the cited $400 million by a factor of more than six JUST TO BREAK EVEN as an "investment." Adding in the claim of "safe and effective" versus neither safe nor effective suggests this discussion is about far more than just a "return to the taxpayers."

11 posted on 03/28/2023 8:30:52 AM PDT by Worldtraveler once upon a time (Degrow government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: Worldtraveler once upon a time
You wrote of $400 million, "...this is the payoff for the taxpayers." That was your claim, and also not backed up.

It was in the article.

The US received $400M in royalty payments for technology that was partially developed with taxpayer funds. What part of that is unclear?

If one argues that the Moderna mRNA product was and remains "safe and effective," then your claim gains weight. If one argues the Moderna mRNA product was and remains NOT "safe and effective," then my claim gains weight.

The effectiveness of the Moderna vaccine is irrelevant - Moderna paid us for the use of the technology and that payment was the return to the taxpayers. The royalty payment was for technology funded by the taxpayers and it doesn't really matter what Moderna used it for.

I claim at the root that the mRNA product is neither "safe" nor "effective" -- given the publicly documented infections as even Fauci and others have "claimed" -- so any argument about return on an investment becomes rather moot.

So why did you make one?

The cited $2.5 billion is greater than the cited $400 million by a factor of more than six JUST TO BREAK EVEN as an "investment."

You're conflating things. The article is about royalties as a result of NIH funding some research.

You claimed we didn't get a fair return on this investment.

You then brought up money that the government paid to purchase hundreds of millions of doses of the Moderna vaccine. You may think the government made a bad deal but it was a purchase of goods, not an investment.

Moderna delivered the vaccine doses we purchased so the deal was satisfied.

12 posted on 03/28/2023 9:09:20 AM PDT by semimojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson