Here's another source: http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...hecks-about-ebola-funding-army-ebola-trainin/ Democratic strategist Stephanie Cutter claimed recently that funding toward creating an Ebola vaccine was cut in half. "In fact, money towards the Ebola vaccine is basically cut in half to what it was," she said. "More cuts are coming under the congressional sequester." That’s true if you compare 2010 to the 2014 estimate, when vaccine research spending fell $37 million to $17.2 million, but not if you use other parameters.
You tried to claim all the figures they gave in the ibtimes article are since ObamaCare. Clearly wrong.
No, I did not. Apparently you also had a public school education. I was clearly referring to the hhs.gov link. barfo
Sigh. I was saying, the $91M figure in the ibtimes article was NOT included in the hhs.gov numbers. barfo
Clearly it was. This is very neat! http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/qa-experimental-treatments.html Did the NIH play a role in getting the experimental therapy to the two U.S. patients in Liberia? This experimental treatment was arranged privately by Samaritan's Purse, the private humanitarian organization, which employed one of the Americans who contracted the virus in Liberia. Samaritan's Purse contacted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), who referred them to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). NIH was able to provide the organization with the appropriate contacts at the private company developing this treatment. The NIH was not involved with procuring, transporting, approving, or administering the experimental treatments.
BusinessWeek did a very detailed article about how ZMapp was developed and the role of NIAID money in the product's development. This is the treatment used to treat the two american medical workers in Liberia, mentioned in my previous post. http://www.businessweek.com/article...zmapps-development-delayed-by-pentagon-agency No grant more than ~$1.6M and maybe $10M in total.
And here's a search of USASPENDING.GOV for all grants and contracts related to the search term "ebola." The sum of all of them, since 2001, is $127M. However, $40M of that signed in 2014. As I said, Mr. Allen is donating $100M (more than 2x that $40M) and J&J is committing $200M to ebola research. http://www.usaspending.gov/search?f...ull,"fyear":null}&sort_by=dollars&per_page=25
Your original point? If government wanted to eradicate Ebola, wouldn't they do some sort of Manhattan Project to do so? I mean, what's the point in spending paltry sums on it with limited (that's generous) success? The $1M type amounts given to Mapp were roughly the same as what the grants were for the silly projects (that also add up to tens of $millions).
Because the US government is in a budget crisis and has limited resources to fight minor threats to national security. Why hasn't the private sector invested in ebola research until recently?
Because it's not been perceived to be a bigger threat than other diseases. But the private sector invested in Ebola research all along. Mapp is a private company with private investors. Part of their Ebola cocktail came from a private company in Canada. It costs a private Pharma company $1B or more to bring a drug to market. The government felt it was soooo important they dished out a few 1/10th of 1% of the money required. Looks like nobody, public or private sector, made it a priority. Who cured polio: private or public sector? Private.
Mapp got government funding. So did the Canadian company. Why didn't the private sector foot that bill? Libertarians are always screaming about limited government but then they turn around and complain that the government isn't doing enough.
You think the treatment was developed on the $1M the govt. gave them yearly? Unrealistic. I don't scream the government isn't doing enough. It's doing way too much and not much of what it does is effective. How did polio get cured without a dime from government? That's the model for how Ebola would have been cured long ago.
You say things like this: And then contradict it like this: ...in the same post!!!! You criticize the government for not spending enough and then say it's spending too much. You can't have it both ways, man.
I didn't criticize the government for not spending enough. I criticize them for spending at all. When they do spend, I'd prefer it was effective. I have a hard time finding much that the government does well, other than spend money (write checks).
