If you've read my two articles in WeHoNews.com questioning the safety and effectiveness of the swine flu vaccine, you know how I feel about it.
I'd rather take high dose vitamin D to strengthen my immune system so I don't have to worry about getting the flu than get vaccinated with a potentially toxic vaccine. The vaccine was rushed into circulation even after the World Health Organization balked at the lack of confirmed safety data, saying, “With such a large amount of an experimental vaccine that contains mercury being distributed, keeping track of people that experience adverse effects will be difficult.”
What's important to note is that the FDA is once more not doing its job of protecting the public to the standards of modern science. The FDA has seriously compromised its own approval process with dangerous medications. Think Vioxx.
Not only did it dumb down on what possible problems the swine flu vaccine could cause, but it went further by advocated for vaccine manufacturers and promoting the sales of the swine flu vaccine while ignoring safety concerns about solidly documented problems that other countries do not ignore.
For FDA to sell vaccines goes further than the official definition of its role as protecting the public from danger.
A new analysis from Harvard University says that the H1N1 swine flu pandemic has been oversold, agreeing with British and French media that said last month that the H1N1 pandemic has been “hyped” by medical researchers to further their own cause, boost research grants, and line the pockets of drug companies.
Could there be a conflict of interest going on with administrative people at the FDA, the people who decide what drugs are allowed to be put into general distribution for our supposedly safe use?
The answer is yes!
Consider that on Dec. 22, 2009, Julie Louise Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H., announced that she was leaving her job as the director of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), where she had an active role in promoting vaccine sales. She has been named the president of Merck Vaccines for a salary likely to be 10 times what she made at the CDC.
For years, under the direction of Dr. Gerberding, the CDC has maintained an unbelievable position that Merck’s vaccines are so safe that we don't need to consider any possibility of side effects. She then actively promoted and sold Merck’s vaccines. This goes far beyond her job description at the CDC. So whom was she working for, anyway? Now we know.
We can ask the question, really, how can we indict her? What has she already done for her new employer while she was the deciding factor at the CDC?
When a 14-year-old girl named Jessica died following a cervical cancer vaccine injection made by Merck, Dr. Gerberding's CDC removed the onus from Merck by stating that the girl’s death was caused by her use of birth control pills. Poppycock!
Although I doubt it’ll ever happen, there's a solution to all this, of course: Pass a law that bans employees of the CDC, FDA, FTC, EPA, or USDA from ever working for the companies they regulate.
The administrators of government agencies that protect the people should not be allowed to go to work at the same companies they regulated and may regulate again. One study showed that 52 percent of FDA administrators go to and from drug company jobs in a true revolving-door, bedroom partnership.
Underline this relationship by looking on YOUTUBE for “Genetic Foods/Monsanto Revealed 3/3” and see how lawyer Michael Taylor quit his $300,000-a-year job working for Monsanto, where he wrote the paperwork to seek FDA approval for Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH), and then two years later went to work for $75,000 a year at FDA, where he approved his own BGH paperwork as senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA.
In cases in which this role exchange has been reversed, people go to jobs that pay many times what they earned working for the U.S. government as public servants. They've been bought and sold.
When there is any risk of conflict of interest, which we have seen over and over again in recent years in the FDA, FTC, and CDC, it's more logical to bet that corruption will occur, as that it won't. History shows that this is the case the majority of the time when money this big is in play.
Indeed, the lack of regulation of this kind of conflict of interest has allowed our government agencies to effectively become marketing arms for the pharmaceutical industry. Can this be changed?
I wish I had a better answer, but the answer is more than likely, it'll just remain the status quo.
Michael Mooney writes on health issues, focusing on research and access. WeHo News.