Replies

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.

--- "The effectiveness of the Moderna vaccine is irrelevant."

So the public investment in and return on a public investment which may not be safe or effective is irrelevant?

Hmm. And yet, only this last week, "Biden's DOJ is quietly trying to orchestrate taxpayer-funded bailout of Moderna."

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bidens-doj-quietly-trying-orchestrate-taxpayer-funded-bailout-moderna

You argue "Moderna paid us for the use of the technology and that payment was the return to the taxpayers." And now a taxpayer-funded bailout of Moderna can also be argued as "return to the taxpayer."

You've wandered into the rhetorical weeds on this one.

Here's some more "return to the taxpayer."

Moderna has argued that the federal government should be on the hook for any legal settlement because of a stipulation in its contract that protects the company from patent litigation. The government had stayed silent on the matter until last month, when Justice Department lawyers said that any liability that Moderna faces should 'transfer' to the United States government, citing a World War I-era law that protects federal contractors from patent disputes."

Source: https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/the-biden-administrations-strang-secret-effort-to-bail-out-moderna/

And as to the amount of money, "The pharmaceutical company Moderna, which has already received over $10 billion in taxpayer funds...."

Source: https://tennesseestar.com/economy/biden-administration-attempting-to-bail-out-moderna/admin/2023/03/23/

How does one calculate "return to the taxpayer?"

Especially if "the effectiveness of the Moderna vaccine is irrelevant?"