Jump to content

Tax filings reveal Biden cancer charity spent millions on salaries, zero on research


LongTimeFan

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 31
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Looking into the charity, it doesn't seem like the point was to use it to directly fund research.   http://www.jons-online.com/issues/2019/march-2019-vol-10-no-3/2324-the-biden-cancer-initia

It's funny how Biden can be both senile and a criminal mastermind all at once...   Also funny how you can complain about Biden not donating much to charity while supporting a guy who steals

I know someone who really did have a fake charity

There's nothing in this article that points to anything being illegal or even unethical.

 

They never claimed they would spend the money on funding cancer research. Literally the opposite according to the Interview above lol

 

Quote

JONS:  Can you describe the methods to achieve your mission?

 

Mr Simon:  The point of the Biden Cancer Initiative is not to fund projects, interfere with regulatory decisions, or to lobby. We do not give grants, we do not touch patient data, we are not a silo of genomic information. Instead, we’re looking for efficiencies that can be implemented and addressing cultural issues that might be slowing us dow­n— the brakes we are leaving on while we drive the car, so to speak. Our goal is to work with the different organizations to figure out how they can double what they’re doing. When problems arise, we’ll address it by assessing solutions that already exist. We want to enrich the possibilities to scale a ubiquitous solution to a local solution.

We focus on creating the solutions to the problems that we know already exist, elevating collaborations and new efforts that improve patient outcomes and save lives.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Charities tend to work in two different fashions. Some serve as a clearinghouse, people donate money to them and they in turn distribute those funds to various all ready established organizations, they're not trying to reinvent the wheel. Other charities, the Clinton foundation is one of them, collect money and then try to come up with innovative solutions to long term problems; before getting money, prospective recipients have to submit a plan of action of how their solution will work better than previous approaches that haven't been entirely effective. The Biden initiative was definitely the latter. Biden himself admitted that by pulling his name out of it was risking cutting it off before they really got started; he did so to avoid the conflict of interest of appearing to solicit contributions for later political influence. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, LongTimeFan said:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/tax-filings-reveal-biden-cancer-charity-spent-millions-on-salaries-zero-on-research

 

What? A Biden fake charity? Lets see your outrage.

Ex Pfizer executive makes $650,000 over 2 yrs.

You can't be this gullible. The whole point of this organization is to act as a fund raising vehicle (and organizing entity) akin to a high profile consultant service acting as a cancer think-tank. So yes, their whole purpose is not and never was research related! How astute of you to pull a fart out of the thin air and acknowledge this. 

 

SMH. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, No1TitansFan said:

Charities tend to work in two different fashions. Some serve as a clearinghouse, people donate money to them and they in turn distribute those funds to various all ready established organizations, they're not trying to reinvent the wheel. Other charities, the Clinton foundation is one of them, collect money and then try to come up with innovative solutions to long term problems; before getting money, prospective recipients have to submit a plan of action of how their solution will work better than previous approaches that haven't been entirely effective. The Biden initiative was definitely the latter. Biden himself admitted that by pulling his name out of it was risking cutting it off before they really got started; he did so to avoid the conflict of interest of appearing to solicit contributions for later political influence. 

You said this way better than me. Thank you. I do, however, fear for our country when you have people like @LongTimeFan than can be mislead so blatantly and willingly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, LongTimeFan said:

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
 

Overall, we rate Daily Mail Right Biased and Questionable due to numerous failed fact checks and poor sourcing of information.

Detailed Report
Reasoning: Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Some Fake News, Numerous Failed Fact Checks
Country: United Kingdom
World Press Freedom Rank: UK 35/180

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...