5 takeaways from coronavirus whistleblower Rick Bright’s testimony

[homersapien 11,363]

(#1 and #4 are the most significant IMO)

 

By

Aaron Blake 

May 14, 2020 at 1:38 p.m. EDT

A Trump administration vaccine expert who says he was removed from a key role for raising concerns about the federal government’s coronavirus response — and its promotion of unproven drugs to treat the virus — testified Thursday before Congress.

Rick Bright became a whistleblower after being removed from his post as director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), which falls under the Department of Health and Human Services.

Here are some takeaways from Bright’s testimony.

 

1. ‘Lives were lost’ because of ‘inaction,' unheeded warnings

Bright said that early inaction by the government — particularly in the Department of Health and Human Services — had, in fact, cost lives.

"That inaction has put a lot of lives at risk in our front-line health-care workers” Bright said.

Bright has said that he pushed for ramping up production of medical equipment such as masks, but that it went unheeded for months after he was informed that officials didn’t think there was a “critical shortage” of masks.

“I pushed that forward to the highest levels I could in HHS and got no response,” Bright said. “From that moment, I knew that we were going to have a crisis for our health-care workers because we were not taking action. We were already behind the ball. That was our last window of opportunity to turn on that production to save the lives of those health-care workers, and we didn’t act."

Bright added that even today, the country is dealing with the consequences of that early negligence and that health-care workers are still more at risk than they should be.

“Lives were endangered, and I believe lives were lost,” Bright said. “And not only that: We were forced to procure these supplies from other countries without the right quality standards. So even our doctors and nurses in the hospitals today are wearing N95-marked masks from other countries that are not providing the sufficient protection that a U.S.-standard N95 mask would provide them. Some of those masks are only 30 percent effective. Therefore, nurses are rushing in the hospitals thinking they’re protected, and they’re not.”

 

2. Administration pushed vastly expanded use of unproven drugs

One of Bright’s key claims is that he was moved to another post after raising objections to the administration pushing the use of the malaria drugs chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine to treat coronavirus.

The administration allowed for the emergency use of the drugs to treat the virus, though later studies — which have yet to be peer-reviewed and were not randomized — suggest that the use of the drugs don’t help and can, in fact, have negative consequences. The FDA has now warned about the dangers of using the drugs.

“My concerns were escalated when I learned that leadership in the Department of Health and Human Services were pushing to make that drug available outside of this emergency use authorization, to flood New York and New Jersey with this drug,” Bright said.

Bright has cited his skepticism of the drugs for his removal from his post and said the administration wanted to make it easier for people to use them without extensive medical supervision — even people who might not even have the virus.

“I believe part of the removal process for me was initiated because of a pushback that I gave when they asked me to put in place an expanded access protocol that would make chloroquine more freely available to Americans that were not under the close supervision of a physician and may not even be confirmed to be infected with the coronavirus,” Bright said.

 

3. Pessimism about 12- to 18-month timeline for vaccine

President Trump has been effusively optimistic about not just treatments such as the chloroquines but about the timeline for a vaccine for the virus.

Shortly before Bright’s testimony Thursday, Trump even said, “I think we’re going to have a vaccine by the end of the year.”

That’s even more optimistic than the 12- to 18-month timeline that medical experts such as Anthony S. Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, have said is realistic for the vaccine. But Bright said that even a year to year-and-a-half timeline might also be overly optimistic.

“I still think 12 to 18 months is an aggressive schedule, and I think it’s going to take longer than that to do so,” Bright said.

 

4. We don’t have ‘a single point of leadership’ or ‘master plan’

As Trump increasingly criticized Fauci, Bright said the government needs to have more regard for it scientists -- and a more consistent message from the top.

He said that right now the response has been hampered by not having a “single point of leadership.”

“We need to install and empower leadership, and we need to unleash the voices of the scientists in our public health system in the United States so they can be heard and their guidances need to be listened to,” Bright said. “And we need to be able to convey that information to the American public so they have the truth about the real risk and dire consequences of this virus.

He added: "And we don’t have a single point of leadership right now for this response, and we don’t have a master plan for this response. So those two things are absolutely critical.”

Fauci has said in recent days that states that move forward with reopening their economies before meeting the guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are risking new outbreaks – which could set back the entire response.

 

5. Azar, Republicans cast Bright as a malcontent skipping work

As Bright offered one of the most significant rebukes of the federal coronavirus response to date, Republicans on the committee and members of the Trump administration sought to undercut his testimony and character. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, in particular, had strong words for Bright.

“Everything he is complaining about was achieved,” Azar said while standing next to Trump on the White House lawn. “Everything he talked about was done. He says he talked about the need for respirators; we procured respirators under the president’s direction.”

Azar echoed Republicans in the hearing who questioned why Bright has been absent from his new posting — a narrower one focused on testing and vaccines at the National Institutes of Health — in recent weeks.

“While we’re launching Operation Warp Speed,” Azar said, “he’s not showing up for work to be part of that.”

Bright said that he has been on leave while dealing with “very high blood pressure” — owing in part to the stress from recent events.

“I had a conversation with my physician about my hypertension and how we’ve been managing it over the last three weeks because this has been very stressful to be removed suddenly without explanation from my role and position as a life change for me,” Bright said.

Bright said he would make records related to his medical condition available.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/14/3-takeaways-coronavirus-whistleblower-rick-brights-testimony/

[Grumps 3,704]

It is sad that the attempts to mislead are so obvious. It makes me doubt the whole article. Poor writing. "Lives were lost"  (in the headline of #1) is not the same as "I believe lives were lost." (the actual quote according to the article). Little changes like that are dishonest. I hope that Bright's blood pressure comes down soon.

[SocialCircle 570]

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

(#1 and #4 are the most significant IMO)

 

By

Aaron Blake 

May 14, 2020 at 1:38 p.m. EDT

A Trump administration vaccine expert who says he was removed from a key role for raising concerns about the federal government’s coronavirus response — and its promotion of unproven drugs to treat the virus — testified Thursday before Congress.

Rick Bright became a whistleblower after being removed from his post as director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), which falls under the Department of Health and Human Services.

Here are some takeaways from Bright’s testimony.

 

1. ‘Lives were lost’ because of ‘inaction,' unheeded warnings

Bright said that early inaction by the government — particularly in the Department of Health and Human Services — had, in fact, cost lives.

"That inaction has put a lot of lives at risk in our front-line health-care workers” Bright said.

Bright has said that he pushed for ramping up production of medical equipment such as masks, but that it went unheeded for months after he was informed that officials didn’t think there was a “critical shortage” of masks.

“I pushed that forward to the highest levels I could in HHS and got no response,” Bright said. “From that moment, I knew that we were going to have a crisis for our health-care workers because we were not taking action. We were already behind the ball. That was our last window of opportunity to turn on that production to save the lives of those health-care workers, and we didn’t act."

Bright added that even today, the country is dealing with the consequences of that early negligence and that health-care workers are still more at risk than they should be.

“Lives were endangered, and I believe lives were lost,” Bright said. “And not only that: We were forced to procure these supplies from other countries without the right quality standards. So even our doctors and nurses in the hospitals today are wearing N95-marked masks from other countries that are not providing the sufficient protection that a U.S.-standard N95 mask would provide them. Some of those masks are only 30 percent effective. Therefore, nurses are rushing in the hospitals thinking they’re protected, and they’re not.”

 

2. Administration pushed vastly expanded use of unproven drugs

One of Bright’s key claims is that he was moved to another post after raising objections to the administration pushing the use of the malaria drugs chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine to treat coronavirus.

The administration allowed for the emergency use of the drugs to treat the virus, though later studies — which have yet to be peer-reviewed and were not randomized — suggest that the use of the drugs don’t help and can, in fact, have negative consequences. The FDA has now warned about the dangers of using the drugs.

“My concerns were escalated when I learned that leadership in the Department of Health and Human Services were pushing to make that drug available outside of this emergency use authorization, to flood New York and New Jersey with this drug,” Bright said.

Bright has cited his skepticism of the drugs for his removal from his post and said the administration wanted to make it easier for people to use them without extensive medical supervision — even people who might not even have the virus.

“I believe part of the removal process for me was initiated because of a pushback that I gave when they asked me to put in place an expanded access protocol that would make chloroquine more freely available to Americans that were not under the close supervision of a physician and may not even be confirmed to be infected with the coronavirus,” Bright said.

 

3. Pessimism about 12- to 18-month timeline for vaccine

President Trump has been effusively optimistic about not just treatments such as the chloroquines but about the timeline for a vaccine for the virus.

Shortly before Bright’s testimony Thursday, Trump even said, “I think we’re going to have a vaccine by the end of the year.”

That’s even more optimistic than the 12- to 18-month timeline that medical experts such as Anthony S. Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, have said is realistic for the vaccine. But Bright said that even a year to year-and-a-half timeline might also be overly optimistic.

“I still think 12 to 18 months is an aggressive schedule, and I think it’s going to take longer than that to do so,” Bright said.

 

4. We don’t have ‘a single point of leadership’ or ‘master plan’

As Trump increasingly criticized Fauci, Bright said the government needs to have more regard for it scientists -- and a more consistent message from the top.

He said that right now the response has been hampered by not having a “single point of leadership.”

“We need to install and empower leadership, and we need to unleash the voices of the scientists in our public health system in the United States so they can be heard and their guidances need to be listened to,” Bright said. “And we need to be able to convey that information to the American public so they have the truth about the real risk and dire consequences of this virus.

He added: "And we don’t have a single point of leadership right now for this response, and we don’t have a master plan for this response. So those two things are absolutely critical.”

Fauci has said in recent days that states that move forward with reopening their economies before meeting the guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are risking new outbreaks – which could set back the entire response.

 

5. Azar, Republicans cast Bright as a malcontent skipping work

As Bright offered one of the most significant rebukes of the federal coronavirus response to date, Republicans on the committee and members of the Trump administration sought to undercut his testimony and character. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, in particular, had strong words for Bright.

“Everything he is complaining about was achieved,” Azar said while standing next to Trump on the White House lawn. “Everything he talked about was done. He says he talked about the need for respirators; we procured respirators under the president’s direction.”

Azar echoed Republicans in the hearing who questioned why Bright has been absent from his new posting — a narrower one focused on testing and vaccines at the National Institutes of Health — in recent weeks.

“While we’re launching Operation Warp Speed,” Azar said, “he’s not showing up for work to be part of that.”

Bright said that he has been on leave while dealing with “very high blood pressure” — owing in part to the stress from recent events.

“I had a conversation with my physician about my hypertension and how we’ve been managing it over the last three weeks because this has been very stressful to be removed suddenly without explanation from my role and position as a life change for me,” Bright said.

Bright said he would make records related to his medical condition available.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/14/3-takeaways-coronavirus-whistleblower-rick-brights-testimony/

So far Brian Kemp is looking smarter than Bright and Fauci and Trump on this issue.  I understand the data can change, but right now it sure looks like Kemp is a good role model for opening back up: 

As of Wednesday, the seven-day moving average of new cases was 242, down from 773 on April 29. The seven-day moving average of deaths was 12, down sharply from 34 on April 29, according to the state health department. Hospitalizations in the state stood at 1,125 on Wednesday, a decline from the 1,500 figure on May 1, according to the Georgia Emergency Management Agency

[homersapien 11,363]

50 minutes ago, Grumps said:

It is sad that the attempts to mislead are so obvious. It makes me doubt the whole article. Poor writing. "Lives were lost"  (in the headline of #1) is not the same as "I believe lives were lost." (the actual quote according to the article). Little changes like that are dishonest. I hope that Bright's blood pressure comes down soon.

Good Grief.    I'm not sure if you're even serious. 

The title of the piece is "5 Takeaways From Coronavirus Whistleblower Rick Bright's Testimony."

(Let's specify that a takeaway is something significant that he testified to.)

Bright testified that he believed lives were lost.  So, how in hell could the takeaway that "lives were lost" be an "obvious attempt to mislead"?   That's an absurdly pedantic conclusion, even for you.

"Lives were lost" was not a stand alone assertion by the author, it was a takeaway from Bright's testimony, who testified that he believed lives were lost.

 

[Grumps 3,704]

19 hours ago, homersapien said:

Good Grief.    I'm not sure if you're even serious. 

The title of the piece is "5 Takeaways From Coronavirus Whistleblower Rick Bright's Testimony."

(Let's specify that a takeaway is something significant that he testified to.)

Bright testified that he believed lives were lost.  So, how in hell could the takeaway that "lives were lost" be an "obvious attempt to mislead"?   That's an absurdly pedantic conclusion, even for you.

"Lives were lost" was not a stand alone assertion by the author, it was a takeaway from Bright's testimony, who testified that he believed lives were lost.

 

Can you see the difference between these two statements?

"homer is an idiot."

vs.

"I believe homer is an idiot."

If I say "I believe homer is an idiot" and someone writes an article about what I said and the headline of the article is "homer is an idiot" then do you think the article is factual?

[homersapien 11,363]

27 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Can you see the difference between these two statements?

"homer is an idiot."

vs.

"I believe homer is an idiot."

If I say "I believe homer is an idiot" and someone writes an article about what I said and the headline of the article is "homer is an idiot" then do you think the article is factual?

Such an article about "takeaways" obtained from your interview is factual only in the sense it accurately presents your view. So, if the article in your example clearly states (in it's title) it's about "takeaways" from your testimony - i.e.: your opinion, then yes, it would be factual in that it accurately related your opinion.

Whether or not your opinion is factual, is an entirely different question.

Again, a "takeaway" is an observation of your opinion obtained in an interview or testimony, not a statement of fact (especially in this example .) 

That is exactly why your comment that the article "cannot be trusted" makes no sense.  The only aspect of the article that is subject to "trust" is whether or not it accurately reflected Brian Kemp's position, which it did.

[homersapien 11,363]

And if you notice, all of the "takeaways" in the OP were abbreviated points made by select words.  They weren't complete sentences.

This sort of "bullet point" style is what you might expect when creating "takeaway points".

He could have said as a takeaway that "Kemp thinks lives were lost" but that change the style of that takeaway point from all the others (bad parallelism).  So while you might prefer a different style, it doesn't make the style the author used "deceptive" unless you simply don't understand the style he did use.

[jj3jordan 2,051]

Sounds like he is a tad bit jealous that Fauci is getting all the face time.

[Grumps 3,704]

21 hours ago, homersapien said:

And if you notice, all of the "takeaways" in the OP were abbreviated points made by select words.  They weren't complete sentences.

This sort of "bullet point" style is what you might expect when creating "takeaway points".

He could have said as a takeaway that "Kemp thinks lives were lost" but that change the style of that takeaway point from all the others (bad parallelism).  So while you might prefer a different style, it doesn't make the style the author used "deceptive" unless you simply don't understand the style he did use.

You win. I don't understand anything you are trying to say.  Who said the article "cannot be trusted?" I understand quotation marks to mean the words in them are a direct quote. You understand it differently. Also, what does Brian Kemp have to do with the article at all?

[homersapien 11,363]

1 hour ago, Grumps said:

You win. I don't understand anything you are trying to say.  Who said the article "cannot be trusted?" I understand quotation marks to mean the words in them are a direct quote. You understand it differently. Also, what does Brian Kemp (typo) meant Bright have to do with the article at all?

"It is sad that the attempts to mislead are so obvious. It makes me doubt the whole article."

I am sorry that you "don't understand anything I am trying to say".   I thought I explained my position pretty well. 

I assumed we had a disagreement about appropriate style regarding presenting "takeaways", not a basic failure to communicate.  Guess I was wrong.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

"It is sad that the attempts to mislead are so obvious. It makes me doubt the whole article."

I am sorry that you "don't understand anything I am trying to say".   I thought I explained my position pretty well. 

I assumed we had a disagreement about appropriate style regarding presenting "takeaways", not a basic failure to communicate.  Guess I was wrong.

My takeaway is that it is Bright's opinion of the situation. I think it is a "Captain Obvious" article though. I mean it isn't telling us anything we don't really know.

The one thing that I question is why all of a sudden is chloroquine not effective or warranted for Covid-19. The NIH discovered it was effective for SARS-CoV which from my understanding is very closely aligned with the makeup of SARS-CoV2. Seems like they have had plenty of time to "hone" in this medication for an event just like this. 

[Grumps 3,704]

On 5/16/2020 at 9:54 AM, homersapien said:

"It is sad that the attempts to mislead are so obvious. It makes me doubt the whole article."

I am sorry that you "don't understand anything I am trying to say".   I thought I explained my position pretty well. 

I assumed we had a disagreement about appropriate style regarding presenting "takeaways", not a basic failure to communicate.  Guess I was wrong.

Thank you for finally using quotation marks correctly! 

[homersapien 11,363]

On 5/16/2020 at 1:22 PM, wdefromtx said:

My takeaway is that it is Bright's opinion of the situation. I think it is a "Captain Obvious" article though. I mean it isn't telling us anything we don't really know.

The one thing that I question is why all of a sudden is chloroquine not effective or warranted for Covid-19. The NIH discovered it was effective for SARS-CoV which from my understanding is very closely aligned with the makeup of SARS-CoV2. Seems like they have had plenty of time to "hone" in this medication for an event just like this. 

I don't think the NIH did any clinical trials, only in vitro experiments.

 

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01165-3

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I don't think the NIH did any clinical trials, only in vitro experiments.

 

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01165-3

 

They did more than just in vitro trials and states it was effective. My question is why didn’t they keep pursuing it. Maybe they thought it wasn’t an outbreak they were needed to be concerned with? I’m not saying we should be using it, it just seems as an about face on progress already made. 

 

[homersapien 11,363]

22 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

They did more than just in vitro trials and states it was effective. My question is why didn’t they keep pursuing it. Maybe they thought it wasn’t an outbreak they were needed to be concerned with? I’m not saying we should be using it, it just seems as an about face on progress already made. 

 

I haven't see anything about clinical trials by the NIH. Can you can link it?

[wdefromtx 3,159]

54 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I haven't see anything about clinical trials by the NIH. Can you can link it?

Here is what I saw they have done. Not clinical trials, it was in primates. But seems like they had done some research with the SARS-CoV. My non-medical mind is just curious as to why they didn't explore it further. But it could provide some reasoning as to why some doctors have found success with it. That isn't to say Trump should be touting it, but it if it is an option they should be looking into it since perhaps their previous research has given them a head start. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/

[aubiefifty 16,757]

On 5/14/2020 at 1:46 PM, SocialCircle said:

So far Brian Kemp is looking smarter than Bright and Fauci and Trump on this issue.  I understand the data can change, but right now it sure looks like Kemp is a good role model for opening back up: 

As of Wednesday, the seven-day moving average of new cases was 242, down from 773 on April 29. The seven-day moving average of deaths was 12, down sharply from 34 on April 29, according to the state health department. Hospitalizations in the state stood at 1,125 on Wednesday, a decline from the 1,500 figure on May 1, according to the Georgia Emergency Management Agency

according to the news today tejas is climbing with more cases............

[wdefromtx 3,159]

13 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

according to the news today tejas is climbing with more cases............

A lot of it is due to the increased testing. 

We just opened up gyms today and bars and clubs get to reopen on Friday at 25% capacity.

[SocialCircle 570]

4 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

according to the news today tejas is climbing with more cases............

As testing increases you should see more cases. The best gauge to see if re-opening is working or not is the number of those hospitalized with Covid-19 and the number of deaths per day with Covid-19. If these are not spiking then it was the right decision to start opening back up. If you see spikes in these two then it is time to rethink it. 

[homersapien 11,363]

22 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Here is what I saw they have done. Not clinical trials, it was in primates. But seems like they had done some research with the SARS-CoV. My non-medical mind is just curious as to why they didn't explore it further. But it could provide some reasoning as to why some doctors have found success with it. That isn't to say Trump should be touting it, but it if it is an option they should be looking into it since perhaps their previous research has given them a head start. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/

There are various clinical trials underway:

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-begins-clinical-trial-hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin-treat-covid-19

https://www.europeanpharmaceuticalreview.com/news/119677/phase-iib-trial-to-study-hydroxychloroquine-and-azithromycin-as-covid-19-treatment-launched/

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20040758v3

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/hydroxychloroquine-for-covid-19-what-do-the-clinical-trials-tell-us/

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-clinical-trials-report-card-chloroquine-and-hydroxychloroquine/

https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/comment/hydroxychloroquines-chloroquines-covid-19/

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

There are various clinical trials underway:

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-begins-clinical-trial-hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin-treat-covid-19

https://www.europeanpharmaceuticalreview.com/news/119677/phase-iib-trial-to-study-hydroxychloroquine-and-azithromycin-as-covid-19-treatment-launched/

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20040758v3

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/hydroxychloroquine-for-covid-19-what-do-the-clinical-trials-tell-us/

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-clinical-trials-report-card-chloroquine-and-hydroxychloroquine/

https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/comment/hydroxychloroquines-chloroquines-covid-19/

 

Good to know!! Thanks.