A poster asked which real issue I wished to discuss.. The smallpox vaccine was one of them. Did you miss that post?

 

No, they sure don't want to talk about that one.

 

As I mentioned above, cammando's daily posts attacking Obama have led me to view his threads in a Peter and the Wolf manner. I usually don't read them any more. But since I for some reason checked out this thread and both of you pushed on the small pox issue in this thread, I went to the small pox thread to check it out. I think that definitely needs to be investigated. I want to hear why we are going to produce a vaccine with a 3 year shelf life for something with such a small likelihood of occurring.

As I mentioned above, cammando's daily posts attacking Obama have led me to view his threads in a Peter and the Wolf manner. I usually don't read them any more. But since I for some reason checked out this thread and both of you pushed on the small pox issue in this thread, I went to the small pox thread to check it out. I think that definitely needs to be investigated. I want to hear why we are going to produce a vaccine with a 3 year shelf life for something with such a small likelihood of occurring.

 

Admittedly, the last time I looked into this issue was a while back. I thought that the intent had something to do with potential national security threats of germocide (or whatever the word is). Can't recall and haven't had time to look.

Is the statement, on it's own merit, false?

 

Based on the many people I know that currently live in government housing, that statement would most assuredly be false.

Because he is Obama?

 

Just a guess, mind you.

I stepped in a puddle and my sock got wet today. I guess I can blame the rain on Obama too. Smh

Admittedly, the last time I looked into this issue was a while back. I thought that the intent had something to do with potential national security threats of germocide (or whatever the word is). Can't recall and haven't had time to look.

 

Check out the link in the other thread. Wasting money on it is not the biggest problem in my opinion.

Based on the many people I know that currently live in government housing, that statement would most assuredly be false.

I'm talking about Obama's assertion, that we are lazy. My comment was tongue in cheek. That flies really well in this forum.

^ Sorry, misunderstood.

 

I would have to read the statement in context at make that determination. Something else that really flies well on this forum.

Read the article I posted in the smallpox scandal thread to get a better understanding of how this deal stinks with the burden placed on taxpayers..

 

Whew. Made it home from work and I've had a little time to read so here goes...

 

First, ST-246 isn't a vaccine, it's an antiviral drug, so talking about how many millions of doses of smallpox vaccine we already have is slightly disingenuous on the part of the authors of some of the articles I've read. A vaccine bolsters the human immune system so that the body can naturally attack viruses. An antiviral drug is designed to specifically target proteins within viruses to slow then inhibit their ability to develop. The drugs do different things and the antiviral, if successful, would be effective in containing the effects of an attack among people already exposed or suffered, when inoculation would no longer be effective. Just look at modern HIV treatment: we have no effective vaccine, but a person like Magic Johnson is a perfect example of what antiviral drugs can do for people with the disease.

 

Second, that's obviously not the problem here. The problem is that this contract was awarded on a no-bid basis to a company owned by a financial contributor to the Democratic Party. There's no denying it doesn't look good from that respect, especially considering that it was initially opened for bids. That said, I don't know any more than what was in these articles and, as contemporary trends in patents would seem to suggest, only one company could likely even manufacture ST-246. If that was the case, then what would be the benefit of offering this bid to another company? Did any other firm offer a similar drug but under a different patent? There are a lot of questions that I simply can't answer about the scenarios surrounding the award of this contract.

 

Finally, no-bid contracts are nothing new. Not only are they nothing new, but every single one is fraught with accusations of cronyism. No denying that it doesn't look good, but I don't know enough beyond the basics to make a real judgment. If nothing else, a sitting president should do more to avoid things like this in order to avoid any improprieties at all. It doesn't appear to be a straightforward deal from the outside.

Some may see this as picky, but sometimes the words used are incorrect. The bidding was open, but this one company was the only company to bid, correct?

Then why call it a no-bid contract? It should read that the contract went to the company to make the only bid. It seems petty, but it may then lead to the discussion whether the drug is needed or not.

Some may see this as picky, but sometimes the words used are incorrect. The bidding was open, but this one company was the only company to bid, correct?

Then why call it a no-bid contract? It should read that the contract went to the company to make the only bid. It seems petty, but it may then lead to the discussion whether the drug is needed or not.

 

Excellent point and not picky at all. It actually is pretty significant.

^ According to the LA Times, who first broke the story, it was actually a no-bid contract award and that initially a much smaller company had competed only to have the bids subsequently closed, though I don't know in what respect since this particular company owned the rights to its manufacture and I don't know if the other company did or if they were making a competing drug. The original LA Times article is the most comprehensive article I've found on the subject to this point. It was very good.

 

LA Times Article on Siga Technologies

Whew. Made it home from work and I've had a little time to read so here goes...

 

First, ST-246 isn't a vaccine, it's an antiviral drug, so talking about how many millions of doses of smallpox vaccine we already have is slightly disingenuous on the part of the authors of some of the articles I've read. A vaccine bolsters the human immune system so that the body can naturally attack viruses. An antiviral drug is designed to specifically target proteins within viruses to slow then inhibit their ability to develop. The drugs do different things and the antiviral, if successful, would be effective in containing the effects of an attack among people already exposed or suffered, when inoculation would no longer be effective. Just look at modern HIV treatment: we have no effective vaccine, but a person like Magic Johnson is a perfect example of what antiviral drugs can do for people with the disease.

 

Second, that's obviously not the problem here. The problem is that this contract was awarded on a no-bid basis to a company owned by a financial contributor to the Democratic Party. There's no denying it doesn't look good from that respect, especially considering that it was initially opened for bids. That said, I don't know any more than what was in these articles and, as contemporary trends in patents would seem to suggest, only one company could likely even manufacture ST-246. If that was the case, then what would be the benefit of offering this bid to another company? Did any other firm offer a similar drug but under a different patent? There are a lot of questions that I simply can't answer about the scenarios surrounding the award of this contract.

 

Finally, no-bid contracts are nothing new. Not only are they nothing new, but every single one is fraught with accusations of cronyism. No denying that it doesn't look good, but I don't know enough beyond the basics to make a real judgment. If nothing else, a sitting president should do more to avoid things like this in order to avoid any improprieties at all. It doesn't appear to be a straightforward deal from the outside.

 

Overriding and replacing negotiators who are attempting to get the best deal for the taxpayer? That's pretty extreme. "In April, after Siga's chief executive, Dr. Eric A. Rose, complained in writing about the department's "approach to profit," Lurie assured him that the "most senior procurement official" would be taking over the negotiations.

 

"I trust this will be satisfactory to you," Lurie wrote Rose in a letter.That's ridiculous!

 

There were also other companies wanting to bid.

Maybe these posts could be moved to the original thread instead of this one?

Did anyone read the actual quote and not just what was picked out and shown in the link?

 

The POTUS is referring to Congress. Individual Americans do not go out and recruit businesses to America.

Some may see this as picky, but sometimes the words used are incorrect. The bidding was open, but this one company was the only company to bid, correct?

Then why call it a no-bid contract? It should read that the contract went to the company to make the only bid. It seems petty, but it may then lead to the discussion whether the drug is needed or not.

 

Speaking in generalities here, but it's not out of the ordinary for bid specs to be so specific that only one (preferred) bidder can win the contract. It's also used in hiring, where a GS position's job description is written in such a way that only one (preferred) person meets the requirements.