Ocasio-Cortez interpreta a la víctima después de que le informaron que ella está MAL

Esto es enloquecedor.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez está jugando a la víctima otra vez con su tarjeta de "esto es lo que significa ser una mujer en política".

Ella está acusando a un autor de Science Mag de degradarla porque es una mujer, cuando él solo le decía que estaba equivocada. No porque sea mujer, sino porque está INCORRECTA. Vamos a empezar desde el principio.

AOC fue parte de una audiencia el otro día, haciendo una pregunta sobre la inversión en medicamentos de los NIH de Aaron Kesselheim de Harvard. Aquí está el intercambio en cuestión:

AOC: “Would it be correct, Dr. Kesselheim, to characterize the NIH money that is being used in development and research as an early investment? So the public is acting as an early investor in the production of these drugs. Is the public receiving any sort of direct return on that investment from the highly profitable drugs that are developed from that research?”

AK: “No, in most cases there is – when those products are eventually handed off to a for-profit company, there aren’t licensing deals that bring money back into the coffers of the NIH. That usually doesn’t happen.”

AOC: “So the public is acting as an early investor, putting tons of money in the development of drugs that then become privatized, and then they receive no return on the investment that they have made.”

AK: “Right”

Su premisa es que el público invierte un montón de dinero en la creación de medicamentos a través de los NIH y luego las grandes compañías farmacéuticas se abalanzan y compran los medicamentos por unos centavos. Ellos, por supuesto, luego cobran de más y curan a los pacientes por estos medicamentos.

See Also: "People are going to have their opinions about whatever, and all I can deal with right now is what my heart says." - Gladys Knight defends decision to perform the National Anthem at the Super Bowl

Según el Dr. Derek Lowe, quien ha trabajado para varias de las principales compañías farmacéuticas desde 1989, esta premisa es errónea. Aquí es parte de lo que escribió:

I have written numerous times here about the NIH’s role in drug discovery (and that of academic science in general). And I have written many times about the persistent idea that pretty much all drugs are discovered either at the NIH or with NIH funds, whereupon Big Pharma comes in, scoops them up for beads and trinkets, comes up with a catchy name and goes off to reap the big tall stacks of cash. I would say that the exchange above reflects this view, albeit with a bit less vivid detail.

It’s wrong. I know that this picture of the drug-discovery process is just irresistible catnip to some people, but it’s wrong. Here’s why, and here‘s why, and here’s why, and here’s why, and here‘s why again. I’m not saying that there are no drugs that have been born in academic labs, of course – there certainly have been (for a look at one, try Lyrica/pregabalin). But as one of those links details (in an analysis of the 1998-2007 period), such drugs are definitely a minority. This fall I will (I hope) celebrate my 30th year of doing drug discovery research, and never once have I worked on a project where the chemical matter came from an academic lab.

Su punto es que la mayoría de los medicamentos son creados por las compañías farmacéuticas, no por la academia NIH. Entonces concluye con la parte, en parte, que puso a AOC en un tizzy feminista:

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez: it is absolutely your job to participate in hearings like the above, to question those appearing at them, and to look into such issues. But it’s also your job to know as much about these issues as you can. Right now, your knowledge of where drugs come from appears to be seriously inadequate. To be fair, you’re definitely not alone in that, but there’s no reason not to learn more.

Entonces, ¿cómo respondió AOC a esto?

This is what being a woman in politics looks like:

Disagreements aren’t labeled as differing opinions. They’re labeled as one’s knowledge being ‘inadequate.’

As a reminder, I’m not the one who testified about Big Pharma under oath to Congress.

It was an expert witness. https://t.co/hgpFoZsgWY

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) February 5, 2019

Oh puhleeze! Su análisis de su análisis de que su conocimiento de ser gravemente inadecuado es increíblemente inadecuado.

La razón por la que Lowe usó la palabra "inadecuado" no es porque sea mujer, sino porque está equivocada. No se trata de tener opiniones diferentes o genitales diferentes, ¡él le está diciendo a AOC que tiene sus hechos incorrectos! Esta es su industria. Ha estado involucrado en el descubrimiento de drogas durante décadas, incluso antes de que ella naciera. Él sabe de qué diablos está hablando.

¿Pero todo lo que ella obtiene de esto es que Lowe está hablando de ella?

Lo que esto realmente me dice es que no está dispuesta a escuchar los hechos y admitir que está equivocada, que es algo con lo que muchos demócratas tienen un problema. No, ella necesita encontrar "hechos" que respalden su agenda para impulsar a este país hacia Medicare para todos.