Rashida Tlaib Rebuttal to Joe Biden
LIVE NOW
https://youtu.be/CoOUgUHNEtU
Guarantee you everybody watching is pro-MAGA righty. Lefties don't even know this shit is happening,.
Did you hear Biden talk about a DARPA for health innovation?
It's called ARPA-H.
Here's some background.:
>The proposed agency is modelled on the US militaryās Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which sees programme managers grant funding to high-risk but potentially high-payoff projects ā instead of awarding funds based on peer-reviewed findings, as the countryās National Institutes of Health (NIH) does. Unlike DARPA-funded technologies, however, ARPA-H projects would require the same rigorous clinical testing and FDA approval as any other health product.
>ARPA-H will be housed within the NIH, but some are sceptical about whether the agency will produce the innovation Biden hopes for if it isnāt seated under the Department of Health and Human Services. Advocates for the agency have argued that NIH-funded research often fails to progress beyond the lab due to the NIHās reluctance to invest in risky, ambitious research.
https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features/arpa-h-biden-health-agency-cure-cancer/
Do you see that? It will be under the NIH. Like Fauci isn't powerful enough, we're going to give him his own DARPA. This is some shady shit that's about to instituted. You already know, Congress will pass this bullshit.
EYES ON ANONS
NIH page on ARPA-H: https://www.nih.gov/arpa-h
More Vaccines in āRecord Timeā Seen for $6.5 Billion Medical Lab
>Collins spoke to Bloomberg Law about why now is the right time for creating ARPA-H, how it will differ from other big ticket initiatives, and what are the next steps.
>The following conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Where does ARPA-H stand now in terms of getting off the ground?
Itās been well received so far by members of Congressāand of course, thatās crucial.
The appropriations folks are interested in looking closely at how they might be able to do this. This is probably the largest percentage increase for NIH in a long time, this $9 billion increment, of which $6.5 billion would be for ARPA-H.
But the timing seems right to people looking at the opportunity here, especially after the experience weāve had with Covid-19. We did a lot of those same kinds of ARPA-H things because we needed to for vaccines, getting those developed and tested in record time, and likewise for diagnostic tests.
So I think weāre ready for this. People see it as an opportunity to take this approach and extend it broadly across our portfolio covering lots of different diseases and applications. And itās great to be able to work so closely with the White House on this because this is a personal priority for the president.
How are big-ticket initiatives like Bidenās Cancer Moonshot playing into the administrationās plans for ARPA-H?
I guess I have been accused of being favorably inclined towards big, ambitious, bold initiatives.
All of these projects fit that mode. The Human Genome Project did too going back a little further. (Collins led the genome project when he was director of the NIHās genome institute.)
The ability to pull together teams of researchers who might otherwise not have coalesced, provide them with funding and rapid turnaround responses to new ways to steer the projectā thatās something that has served us well in certain circumstances. And this is a chance to apply it even more broadly across all diseases.
Most of NIHās success over all these decades has been a really solid, foundational basic science that we will continue to do. I worry a little bit that people will think we are downgrading the importance of that. Weāre not downgrading at all. But if thereās an opportunity to speed up and accelerate the clinical benefits of that foundation, then we should always try to do that.
If this is the kind of advance thatās going to make something happen for cancer, or diabetes, or heart disease, or rare diseases that otherwise is going to take a long time, we shouldnāt let anything get in their way.
How would ARPA-H decide which projects it can fund?
We are going to take a big page out of the DARPA experience (the Defense Department agency that ARPA-H is modeled after) where basically, the director of ARPA-H will need to have a lot of authority to decide what projects are going to be pursued.
Project managers, most of whom will come for a period of maybe three or four yearsābut not for lifeāwill arrive with their vision of what they want to do. Theyāll have to pitch the idea to the director and get the directorās acceptance of that. But thereās no study section built into this, thereās no advisory council that looks at a particular set of grant applications (the two layers of peer review).
continued here: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/pharma-and-life-sciences/nih-chief-collins-on-bidens-6-5-billion-research-center-plan
How crazy was it when the democrats starting USA! USA!
It's like a dude who lives in a pigsty (Dem party) cleans up for the one time a girl (non-political American catching the SOTU) comes over