Ousted US vaccine director files stunning whistleblower complaint

My understanding of a whistleblower is someone inside an organization who lacks the authority to deal with a problem and is forced to go outside his leadership chain to get attention focused on the problem. The director of an organization by definition cannot be a whistleblower.

2 Likes

Good thing he wasn’t blowing the whistle on the organization he was directing, then.

2 Likes

Thanks for the heads up. Just heard of the guy and someone is expecting me to persue

Go back and reread my post. A whistleblower is some inside and organization making a complaint about conditions/procedures in his organization. He is not a whistleblower.

Also, a leader should listen to his advisors, but is never obligated to answer to them or act as the advisor suggests.

1 Like

So you think the vaccine organization he directs is not a part of any larger organization?

You’re absolutely right, he was just a voiceless minion.

Medical opinions are about medicine. Direction of government is about political power. He has always been entitled to his opinion and expressing it to his superiors. His direction is political inasmuch as he wanted to overcome his superiors, and still does.

Hydrochloroquine seemed very promising after the French findings were announced, and physicians still use it; sometimes with dramatically favorable results. If Trump held it out as an element of hope, that’s political in a way, but it wasn’t “politically charged” until Dems made it an item of fierce contention, accusing Trump of being a fool, causing people to die, etc. It’s obvious even in here. But Trump also advocated social distancing, hand washing, development of a vaccine and other treatments. He touted the use of vents (as did everyone) .

He was removed because instead of being a medical person he was in his position to be, he decided to exercise political power, which is not his job.

What would you call it when a politician deliberately exposes the most vulnerable to infection sources like Cuomo did? Nothing calumnious about criticizing it.

3 Likes

They are precisely political. They’re not medical advice or judgments.

I wasn’t aware “Medical” and “Political” were our only two options. He is alleging violations of procedure (i.e. circumventing normal processes to give money to cronies).

1 Like

Cronyism definitely political

Everybody in Washington knows somebody of note, and the more important one is, the more well known are those he knows. What this guy did is use what he perceived to be relationships in order to make policy by force. Not his job and a terminable way to go about it.

1 Like

Dr. Bright was being directed by the administration to issue medical opinions contrary to his best professional medical judgement. For him it was all about medicine.

But when it is those very superiors that are pressuring him as he noted, that is when a whistleblower complaint is the only recourse.

Physicians under these circumstances try anything that is safe and has some chance of helping. But it is wrong to think that physicians are widely using this drug. It is approved only under an Emergency Use Authorization which carries no endorsement of effectiveness from the FDA.

Sometimes there are dramatically favorable results without using any treatment at all. HCQ may have nothing to do with it. Then again, maybe it will. I realize it is difficult to maintain a position of “I don’t know” in times like this where we all desperately want to know. And sometimes that desire can cloud our thinking. That is why we rely on science and controlled testing.

He did more than hold out hope. He pitched it like the expert deal-maker he is.

Be careful who you are lumping in with “the Dems”. Most of the highly visible Dems that I have seen objected on the grounds of faulty science.

He never said social distancing was gong to be a “game changer”. He never touted hand washing in the same way he promoted HCQ.

I would call it ignorant, and maybe stupid. And Cuomo is just one person. You said “the left”.

Well, that’s what he says. That’s not what his superior said. But regardless, if his opinion differed from that of his superior, it was his place to just let it go because they’re the administrators and he is not, or to resign if he felt his dedication to his version of science was so at odds with his own that it was intolerable to him.

So he “went political” in order to gain power over those who had power over him and force them to do his will instead of their own. And that’s what he’s trying to do right now. He’s a poor employee and probably was throughout this administration; possibly before. He apparently is now in a position where he has less opportunity to involve himself in substituting his executive decisions in place of that to whom it is legitimately delegated.

So he believes. Basically, he’s trying, through public or legislative pressure, and certainly through the media, to be superior to his superiors.

Nor has the FDA condemned its use. Its statement about it is noncomittal, just saying it’s not “proved” through all the ways things get formal approval. Remdesivir, which so many tout, is approved for Emergency Use only, as well.

2 Likes

That is a long way from any kind of endorsement for effectiveness.

If you want a more layman-accessible of the FDA position, read this from the FDA:

(bolding mine.)

Yes, they are on the same footing with regard to effectiveness, which is “unknown”. It is wrong to claim any more than that at this point in time.

No drug presently has “endorsement for effectiveness”. The FDA tacitly allows use of both hydrochloroquine and remdesivir as “emergency” treatments because both have shown some effectiveness and both have proved in “on label” use to be at least harmless enough to be used under physician supervision.

1 Like

Holy smokes you just layed out the most dangerous thoughts I have heard.
Precisely the scenario that the Whistleblower statute was created for.
Did you consider this guy’s superior is somehow compromised? Or is in charge because he is someone handpicked for his wrong opinion?
That scenario is why we have the statute. Which means people like Grassley has seen this scenario as more than theory. It was needed for a reason.
You give that zero possibility.
Then
You create a narrative to discredit him.
Consider this:
If this doctors motivation was ambition personally, he does not initially attack the course of Trump’s action.
Doing that means end of all he worked for in his life. People do that out of conscience. People do the opposite out of ambition

I consider he might be right. Given that Bright is trying to force his opinion on the administration by political means, I would guess he’s the one in the wrong until it’s proved otherwise.

You mean like Strzok, Page, Comey, McCabe? Lots of people think “what they worked for all his life” allows them license to step outside what they should be doing in order to get their way. That’s hubris, not conscience.

1 Like

We recognise exactly what it is via our Catholic faith.
" THERE IS NO GREATER LOVE THAN A MAN SHALL HAVE THEN TO LAY DOWN HIS LIFE FOR A FRIEND."
This guy was a top guy. Worked a lifetime to get there.
He gave up his professional life.
He isn’t going back. Going back is the only remedy. He cannot tell his story unless he asks to go back. But whistleblowers know they can never.
If it is getting “HIS way,” it is getting it, a split second before he leaps into a Volcano. He isn’t getting his job back, and if he did who wants to be the bosses enemy. This is a doctor. The moment you infuse him into a group of others you have," strong feelings" about, he ceases being human. Human is necessary to be the guy who lays down his life. Remember, a human being. With aspirations just like us.

The effectiveness referred to is only in-vitro. Nothing at all has been shown in humans. But the in-vitro response is justification enough for the kind of approval this drug has - that and of course, safety, which is well understood because of its long use for malaria.

I like how the actual reason for the complaint was just ignored by nearly everyone in the thread.

I’m pretty sure if Joe Biden was accused of something like this it wouldn’t have been ignored. Isn’t this the type of corruption we’re supposed to oppose? As a reminder:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.