The FDA's War Against Humanity
By Elaine Feuer
DEEP TIES: The Revolving Door
Big Pharma’s Government Revolving Door: ‘Who Do They Really Work For?’ By Sydney Lupkin, Kaiser Health News, Daily Beast, January 25, 2018
Alex Azar’s job hop from drugmaker Eli Lilly to the Trump administration reflects ever-deepening ties between the pharmaceutical industry and the federal government. Read the entire article:
A Kaiser Health News analysis shows that hundreds of people have glided through the “revolving door” that connects the drug industry to Capitol Hill and to the Department of Health and Human Services.
Azar was confirmed Wednesday as HHS secretary, joining other former drug industry alumni in top positions.
Nearly 340 former congressional staffers now work for pharmaceutical companies or their lobbying firms, according to data analyzed by KHN and provided by Legistorm, a nonpartisan congressional research company. On the flip side, the analysis showed, more than a dozen former drug industry employees now have jobs on Capitol Hill—often on committees that handle health care policy.
“Who do they really work for?” said Jock Friedly, Legistorm’s president and founder, who called that quantity “substantial.” “Are they working for the person who is paying their bills at that moment or are they essentially working on behalf of the interests who have funded them in the past and may fund them in the future?”
In many cases, former congressional staffers who now work for drug companies return to the Hill to lobby former co-workers or employees. The deep ties raise concerns that pharmaceutical companies could wield undue influence over drug-related legislation or government policy.
"At a time when millions of Americans cannot afford to purchase the prescription drugs they require, we need a leader at the FDA who is prepared to stand up to the drug companies," Sanders said on January 26th, 2016. “Dr. Califf’s extensive ties to the pharmaceutical industry give me no reason to believe that he would make the FDA work for ordinary Americans, rather than just the CEOs of pharmaceutical companies."
Senator Bernie Sanders
Innocent Casualties Product Details
eBook: PDF, MOBI
File Size: 995 KB
Print Length: 204 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publisher: Elaine Feuer; Fourth Edition edition (May 2014)
The fourth edition of Innocent Casualties: The FDA’s War Against Humanity, written by Elaine Feuer, with 2012 Updates, exposes the FDA’s attempts to deny Americans access to nutritional products, including banning certain nutrients widely used in other countries and attempting to have vitamins classified as prescription drugs.
In 1989, the FDA stopped a promising AIDS nutritional therapy to protect the interests of the pharmaceutical companies. Innocent Casualties documents a government agency so radical that, in 1992, its agents burst into a doctor’s office – guns drawn – to seize vitamins and herbs.
In 2017, the orthodox medical establishment is still promoting misinformation about the safety and effectiveness of alternative treatments at the expense of public health. It is profit that is threatened, not science. Through research and eye-witness narrative, Elaine Feuer raises the question of whether the American medical establishment has evolved into an “undercover dictatorship.”
Chapter 2 Preview – Vioxx Recall
The FDA is finally being scrutinized by mainstream media and Congress as a result of approving Vioxx, Paxil, and various drugs for children without giving warning labels of the dangers.
Vioxx is the RX drug that has been in the news the most since 2004. Merck, the billion dollar pharmaceutical company, as well as the FDA, did not disclose the high risk of heart attacks or strokes which accompanied this arthritic painkiller. Dr Steven Nissen, interim Chairman of Cardiology at the highly regarded Cleveland Clinic, reported that Merck intentionally misrepresented an analysis of data from a follow-up review of patients involved in the clinical trial that resulted in pulling Vioxx from the market. Dr. Nissen warned: “It’s important that we inform people about this because patients who have taken the drug will need increased surveillance by their physicians and increased awareness of their risks in the year subsequent to stopping the drug. And that risk may extend beyond a year; we simply don’t know.”
In September 2004, Merck was forced to take Vioxx off the market after a three-year study demonstrated that Vioxx doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes in patients taking it for at least eighteen months.
A May 2006 study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal states that Vioxx may raise the risk of heart attacks for patients who took the drug for less than two weeks: More than 25 percent of 239 patients who had heart attacks did so in less than thirteen days of being on the drug.
There are thousands of lawsuits from people who claim to have adverse heart problems in 2005, and Merck was unable to counter the data that Dr. Nissen exposed. Merck’s attorneys insist that the one-year follow-up data should protect Merck from lawsuits filed by people who suffered heart attacks or strokes after they had stopped taking Vioxx. However, Nissen countered Merck’s claim: “What counts is the relative risk as you go forward, and the bottom line is there is a constant risk even after the drug is stopped.” A year after stopping the medication, Merck insisted that patients who took Vioxx in their clinical study had no greater risk of heart attacks or strokes than those who took placebos. Although there were twenty-eight heart attacks or strokes in the Vioxx group compared to sixteen in the placebo group, Merck claimed that those numbers were not statistically significant.
Dr. Nissen has patient data documentation which proves that Merck’s information is a total fabrication: “In the one year after Vioxx was stopped there was a 75 percent greater risk of having an adverse event. What this means is that, surprisingly, in the year following discontinuation of Vioxx the relative risk remained approximately as high as it was when people were actually taking the drug. That is very clear from the data. What is important is that the hazard stays constant even after you stop the drug.”
FDA’s Responsibility Re: Vioxx
Merck made billions in profits from Vioxx. The FDA knew for at least five years, while the drug was still on the market, of the deadly side effects. As a result, about 100,000 people had heart attacks, and 50,000 were fatal. The outrageous profits for Merck mattered more to the company than the deaths caused by Vioxx. Yet the FDA supported Merck and ignored the people’s safety — the FDA’s most significant role.
Dr. David Graham, a Senior Scientist who has worked for twenty years as an FDA Safety Expert, was interviewed on 60 Minutes in February, 2006: Dr. Graham blames the FDA for allowing such a dangerous drug as Vioxx to be marketed. According to Dr. Graham, who still works at the FDA, “There is a system in place now that will guarantee that unsafe drugs remain on the market.” FDA safety experts have no power, verses FDA agents who approve drugs. One half of the FDA’s funding comes from the major pharmaceutical companies, to speed up the process of developing their drugs. If an FDA safety expert raises questions concerning safety, FDA approval agents almost always ignore them.
In 2002, there was enough dangerous evidence that Merck added a label concerning the hazards re: Vioxx. By 2004, Dr. Graham conducted an FDA approved study on Vioxx, and Graham recommended that all high doses of Vioxx should be banned. Dr. Graham was then “pressured” by the FDA: He was maligned as a scientist and threatened via phone calls by high level FDA agents who pretended to be “whistleblowers.” (The telephone callers were identified by Graham’s attorney.) When questioned by the Senate Finance Committee, the FDA denied all of the above. Ray Martin, president of Merck, told members of the Senate that he took Vioxx off the market the moment he knew it was dangerous, claiming that his wife took it. Merck has lost $2.5 billion in annual sales from Vioxx, and there are about 50,000 lawsuits filed against Merck by former patients and their families. On July 17, 2008, Merck & Co. stated that it would fund the $4.85 billion settlement to resolve approximately 50,000 lawsuits related to Vioxx.
FDA’s Criminal Role Re: Vioxx
Ten of the thirty-two FDA advisory committee members voted to allow the continued sale of Vioxx, and all of them had previously acted as paid consultants for Merck. Twenty-eight percent of committee members and voting consultants disclosed substantial financial dealings from consulting agreements, contracts, grants, and investments with Merck. Nineteen percent of the consulting agreements were worth over $10,000, and 30 percent of the investments involved over $25,000. Twenty-three percent of the contracts and/or grants exceeded $100,000.
The FDA is as responsible as Merck Pharmaceuticals for allowing Vioxx to be on the market when it knew that the drug was extremely dangerous. The evidence demonstrates illegal conflicts of interest between FDA agents and Merck.
An April 24, 2006 report by the Government Accountability Office criticized the FDA’s motives which compromised drug safety – listing organizational dysfunction, bureaucratic politics, and ineffective enforcement over pharmaceutical companies. According to Dr. Graham: “In my opinion, the FDA has let the American people down, and sadly, betrayed a public trust. The one and only client of the FDA must be John Q. Public.” On 14 January 2009, FDA scientists sent a letter to President-Elect Barack Obama, stating that the FDA is “corrupt and distorted… placing Americans at risk” by censoring scientific debate within the FDA by its use of intimidating tactics:
“Managers have ordered, intimidated and coerced FDA experts to modify scientific evaluations, conclusions and recommendations in violation of the laws, rules and regulations, and to accept clinical and technical data that is not scientifically valid.”
So who is looking out for the public’s safety? Does anyone still think the FDA is protecting Americans from harmful or deadly products? As long as the drug safety scientists at the FDA continue to be intimidated and threatened, the FDA’s clients will continue to be the pharmaceutical companies. Given the deaths caused by Vioxx, there is no question that the FDA is in a war against humanity.
INNOCENT CASUALTIES CONTENTS
EVENING PRIMROSE OIL – “UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION
TRUE HEALTH’S AIDS TEST
THE MEDIA–AN INSTRUMENT FOR GOVERNMENT PROPOGANDA
INNOCENT CASUALTIES IN A WAR
FTC VS. INTERNATIONAL WHITE CROSS
THE FDA–AS DANGEROUS AS THE WORST DISEASE
AN UNDERCOVER DICTATORSHIP
ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEVICIENCY SYNDROME
FDA UPDATES 1998
FDA UPDATES 2012 CONTENTS
MONTETARY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST EXPOSED BETWEEN FDA, NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, AND PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES
FDA’S RESPONSIBILITY RE: VIOXX
FDA’S CRIMINAL ROLE RE: VIOXX
PAXIL SUICIDE ATTEMPTS
FDA PROPOSES NEW WARNINGS ABOUT SUICIDE BEHAVIOR IN YOUNG ADULTS WHO TAKE ANTIDEPRESSANT MEDICATIONS
IT’S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY
FDA SET TO APPROVE SALE OF MEAT AND MILK FROM CLONED ANIMALS
DIETARY SUPPLEMENT OF GMPS FINALLY RELEASED
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD
MARIJUANA FOR PAIN RELIEF
OZONE TREATMENT FOR METASTATIC BREAST CANCER
“SIMPLY PUT, CANCER CELLS DON’T LIKE OZONE”
ONCOLOGISTS DO NOT RECOMMEND CHEMOTHERAPY FOR THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS
THE POLITICS OF OZONE AND CANCER
U.S. HEALTH CARE: PROFITS BEFORE PEOPLE
HIV/AIDS 2012 UPDATES
DR. DUESBERG’S AIDS THEORIES: AMERICAN/EUROPEAN
SOUTH AFRICAN PRESIDENT THABO MBEKI DISPUTES AMERICAN HIV/AIDS HYPOTHESIS
SENATOR HATCH PROMOTES ROLE OF HEALTH SUPPLEMENTS
STOP FDA CENSORSHIP
“CITIZENS FOR HEALTH” ENDORSES HEALTH FREEDOM PROTECTION ACT
ARSENIC IN APPLE JUICE
FDA ILLEGALLY SEARCHES PRIVATE EMAIL ACCOUNTS OF ITS OWN SCIENTISTS
DR. BURZYNSKI’S CANCER THERAPY UPDATE
HOW TO REMOVE NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS AND ALTERNATIVE HEALTH CARE FROM FDA’S CONTROL