• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mudguard

  • Rank
    Council Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Santa Clara, CA

Recent Profile Visitors

3,130 profile views
  1. How many non-profit research labs or facilities actually took a cancer therapy to market and sold that therapy to patients? I don't doubt that many of these therapies start out at an academic lab or a nonprofit research center's lab, but they don't develop the actual product that is sold. They just patent their discovery and license the patent to a for-profit company. You can't just get rid all the for profit drug, biotech, and medical device companies and expect that the non-profits can take up the slack. You'd have to try and build a massive replacement organization to replace all the for profit companies. Good luck with that. What about hospitals and doctors? Is it OK for them to make a profit, or should their profits also be capped at zero?
  2. Just read my posts again. If that is too much work, the TLDR point is that Mueller doesn't need to subpoena Trump to make his case because he already has everything he needs.
  3. I thought it was obvious from the context of my response that what I meant was that Trump wasn't going to admit to any wrongdoing during an interview with Mueller.
  4. Sure, but Mueller doesn't need Trump to say anything else to make his case. Anyway, Trump isn't going to voluntarily sit down for an interview, and I doubt Mueller is going to subpoena him for all the reasons I've already stated. We'll see how it plays out.
  5. Mueller doesn't need or expect Trump to confirm any potential charge that he's going to make. I know you all think Trump is a moron, but it's extremely unlikely that Trump is going to just admit to any sort of wrongdoing. If Mueller needs anything from Trump to make his case, then the case is on very shaky grounds, because there is no assurance that Trump will ever testify. Even if you compel Trump to sit down to an interview through a subpoena, Trump can simply plead the fifth. At that point, if Mueller actually needed Trump to confirm something to make his case, his case would be toast. Mueller's case needs to be rock solid with or without testimony from Trump.
  6. The subpoena isn't necessary because Mueller almost certainly has already made up his mind on at least the obstruction charge. Mueller doesn't need anything from Trump to make his case. Not having testimony from the subject of an investigation isn't an usual circumstance for a prosecutor. Criminals will often plead the fifth. Having Trump testify would be nice, but it's not necessary. If Congress refuses to act, the subpoena isn't going to accomplish anything. Mueller really only has two choices. He can pass along his recommendations to Congress and hope Congress impeaches and removes Trump, assuming that's his recommendation in his report, and/or he can attempt to indict and prosecute Trump at trial.
  7. Your overall point was pretty solid. Gleevec was indeed a game changer for the treatment of CML for many patients. And the drug company that patented it charged outrageous prices in the US because there was no competitive alternative. The price was jacked up so much that eventually, one year of treatment in the US costed over $100,000, and this for a small molecule drug that costs a couple hundred dollars to make. Yeah, the company should be able to earn some profits, but this level of pricing is obscene. I also agree with you that companies and scientists aren't trying to avoid finding cures. It's just really, really hard to develop cures, and even treatments for that matter. And even if a nonprofit discovers a cure or a potential cure, it's most likely going to be taken from the lab and developed to an actual product by a for profit company. Very few nonprofits if any (none come to mind) are set up to take a product from the lab and develop it into a product that can be sold in the market. It's hard for me to imagine a completely nonprofit based system working well. If the US tried to implement such a system, it would simply drive out all drug, biotech, and medical device companies out of the US. The idea is so impractical and unfeasible that it's not worth seriously considering.
  8. My understanding is that Mueller gives a report explaining his decisions to prosecute or not prosecute various charges to Rosenstein, or whoever is supervising Mueller's investigation when he completes his report. Then Rosenstein must pass along an explanation of Mueller's decisions to the House and Senate Judiciary committees (both parties get this). However, Rosenstein is not obligated to pass along the entire report. It's up to Rosenstein how much of the report he passes along. He could pass along the entire report to Congress, which then could make the report public, or he could just pass along a summary that he prepared. Rosenstein also has the authority himself to make the report public.
  9. At best, Mueller was only going to get one shot to interview Trump, and it appears that he won't even get that one chance. You can't reasonably expect the President to come in for multiple interviews, so you have to be as prepared as possible for your one shot. That means interviewing all the main witnesses and more or less completing the investigation by the time you sit down with the President. To be able to catch Trump in a lie, or to be able to recognize a discrepancy between Trump's testimony and another witnesses testimony, requires Mueller to have already interviewed the other witnesses and to already know all of the facts, and this would allow Mueller to know what to press Trump on. Mueller has already made up his mind regarding obstruction of justice by now. The interview with Trump would be nice to have, but it's not necessary. It's one of the main reasons why I never believed Trump was sincere about sitting down for the interview. Trump has nothing to gain from such an interview. Mostly, it would be an opportunity to perjure himself or dig the hole he's in even deeper. Regarding the timing of a report from Mueller, I think at least a report on obstruction of justice will be done before the midterm elections, maybe in about 3 to 6 months. There doesn't seem like there is much left for Mueller to look at with respect to obstruction of justice. That he hasn't talked yet to Kushner or Trump Jr. may mean that the collusion report will come later, but it's possible that they'll be interviewed in the next couple of months, which might allow the collusion case to also be wrapped up before the midterms. Manafort's trial is set for July, so Mueller might still be hoping that Manafort flips before the trial is concluded. Depending on whether Manafort flips or not, Mueller may have all the information he needs by around August or September, and could possibly issue the report in anther 2 to 3 months. The collusion case is much more complicated though, so it could take longer. Mueller knows that his time to run the investigation without impediments may be limited. I doubt that he is going to drag out the investigation, and it makes sense for him to break the issues apart and issue reports as expeditiously as possible, hopefully before Trump can shut it down or interfere with it.
  10. Presumably, if Mueller was ready to interview Trump, then he must have been almost finished with the investigation. Interviewing Trump would be the final step of the investigation. It's unlikely to be something Mueller would do in the middle of the investigation. I am surprised that he hasn't yet interviewed Kushner or Trump Jr. yet. We'll see if those are done in the next month or so. My guess is that the investigation is wrapped up before midterms, but we shall see. I doubt that Mueller is going to try to subpoena Trump. If Mueller already has the goods on Trump, the grand jury testimony from Trump is unnecessary and would be just for show, which is not Mueller's style. He gave Trump an opportunity to explain himself and he declined. Too bad for Trump. If Mueller doesn't have the goods on Trump, it's hard to justify issuing the subpoena to do a fishing expedition.
  11. Rod Rosenstein is likely going to be fired before Mueller completes his report. Trump needs a stooge in place so that Mueller's report is never released to the public, and Rosenstein hasn't shown the kind of loyalty Trump demands from his stooges. Since the sit down interview with Trump doesn't look like it's going to happen, Mueller can wrap up his report relatively soon. This explains the massive increase in Rosenstein bashing by Trump surrogates in the media recently. They are giving Trump cover for the imminent firing of Rosenstein.
  12. If the warrant to search Michael Cohen doesn't go beyond the hush payments, I'm not sure it's going to have much effect on Trump. Maybe Cohen gets punished, but I doubt anything will happen to Trump. John Edwards was indicted and tried, but found not guilty, of campaign finance charges for money spent to hide his mistress during his 2008 campaign. Since Mueller passed this off, the issues with Cohen don't appear to be related to Mueller's case on collusion with Russia or obstruction of justice, which means it's unlikely that they are looking for documents related to money laundering for the Russians. Russian money laundering would provide a motive for the case on collusion, so Mueller wouldn't have passed it off if they were looking for this. I'm not sure how much fishing the FBI can do while they are searching Cohen's documents and computer files. Specifically, I don't know if the FBI can use a search warrant for looking for evidence of hush payments as a pretext to look for evidence of money laundering or other crimes. If the warrant isn't rock solid, or if the FBI agents overstep the bounds of the warrant or violate attorney-client privilege, it's possible that they could taint any other evidence of crimes that they uncover and render that evidence unusable at trial. Cohen is likely a vast mine of information, but they have to be very careful with how they go about extracting that information.
  13. It's not as simple as you make it seem. For example, clinical trials cost millions of dollars to run (often tens of millions or more) and can take many years to complete. Who is going to do the repeat studies? Are you going to do them sequentially? Simultaneously? Who provides the funding? Turning to academic studies, who is going to replicate the study published by a professor's lab? The same professor that originally published the study? Other professors? Where are these people getting the funding to go around repeating other people's studies? In academia, it's publish or perish, and funding is often tight in many labs. I'm pretty sure that it's extremely difficult to get a grant proposal approved if you simply state that your goal is to repeat someone else's or your own study. And a professor isn't going to get tenure by spending a lot of time replicating other peoples studies. Phd students aren't going to get much credit for replicating other people's studies either, especially if they end up getting the same results.
  14. Yeah, here's a related paper published in a peer reviewed journal by a Stanford professor that argues that most published research findings are false. It's pretty depressing. Unfortunately, there is no easy solution to this problem. Eliminating for profit pharma, biotech, and medical device companies would not solve this problem. It might help a bit in some respects, but it would cause all sorts of other problems. Getting back to the original question, I'm in favor of limiting profits but I'm not in favor of eliminating profits. I don't think nonprofits can adequately replace all the functions of the for profit companies. They each have their pros and cons.
  15. Raj Rajaratnam and the judge and jury that convicted the billionaire hedge fund manager for conspiracy and securities fraud and sentenced him to 11 years in prison must also not been aware of how the system works. The injustice!