How Many Heads of CDC and FDA Worked for Pharma?

The answer is a lot, but good luck finding the data! If your loved one died of Thrombosis or another known side effect (stroke, spike proteins, etc.) of one of the many mRNA gene therapy doses marketed as “safe and effective,” this is the article you have been waiting for. We found that most of these agencies’ past and present heads are engaged in a revolving door operation and getting paid by all sides (a “pay later conflict of interest,” all with the approval of Congress). Congress also made it virtually impossible to sue these drug companies if you or a loved one suffers a wrongful death as well.

This article is intended to isolate and identify potentially biased heads and employees of the FDA, CDC, and other public health agencies who received money, royalties, or other benefits from the pharmaceutical industrial complex. Most of the information appears to have been buried by search engines, and ChatGPT feigns knowledge of any information unless it says nice things about Bill Gates. So this may not have everything, as a lot of information appears to have been scrubbed or buried by Google, Bing, and other Silicon Valley-based search engines.

Heed the warnings, research published in a prominent medical journal reveals that over 25% of the employees at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) alone who were involved in approving cancer and hematology drugs from 2001 to 2010 subsequently left the agency and are currently working for or consulting with pharmaceutical companies.

Accolades to Dr. Prasad!

The first study was conducted by Dr. Vinay Prasad, an assistant professor, and hematologist-oncologist at Oregon Health and Science University. It aimed to quantify the phenomenon commonly referred to as the “revolving door” between the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry. This revolving door has been a topic of discussion, and Dr. Prasad’s research sheds light on the extent to which it occurs. In this second study, by a personal injury lawyer, we go into politicians’ and their agencies’ legal ethics and the apparently perjurious statements they made.

As will be discussed, many of these government employee physicians are heavily connected with communist China-linked organizations and others hostile to the U.S. Also, most are engaged in revolving-door employment schemes between billionaire pharma, colleges, and federal jobs that survive off the family of U.S. taxpayers. In many cases, politicians have EXEMPTED them from disclosing their participation in what appear to be unethical entanglements and CONFLICTS of interest. (Totally illegal for a lawyer or a judge to engage in.) Of course, all these corporations donate billions to politicians, ensuring tax dollars keep flowing and the media narrative will be controlled.

How COVID-19 Swept Pharma Conflicts of Interest Under the Rug?

We were told by Fauci and virtually EVERY for profit media program that if you took the injection you would not get the virus, nor would you spread it.

“When you get vaccinated, you not only protect your own health and that of the family but also you contribute to the community health by preventing the spread of the virus throughout the community.” “[vaccinated people become] “dead ends” for COVID-19”

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/553773-fauci-vaccinated-people-become-dead-ends-for-the-coronavirus/

“It’s as simple as black and white. You’re vaccinated, you’re safe. You’re unvaccinated, you’re at risk. Simple as that.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrjMLONm-Bw

Later, after Pfizer was unable to hide the data for 75 years, their allies in the press declared that:

“Pfizer ‘vaccine‘ wasn’t intended to prevent transmission.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-pfizer-vaccine-transmission/fact-check-preventing-transmission-never-required-for-covid-vaccines-initial-approval-pfizer-vax-did-reduce-transmission-of-early-variants-idUSL1N31F20E

Of course, prior to the government changing the definition of “vaccine” (right after the documents they tried to bury were released), it could NEVER be called a vaccine unless it could “inoculate,” as will be discussed. Before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was skepticism across the board regarding the effectiveness of corporate executives and industry lobbyists as regulators within the industries that have brought them significant financial success.

This sentiment stemmed from concerns about potential conflicts of interest ranging from clinical trials, drug abuse, and other policies determining the allocation of tax dollars. The perception that these individuals would prioritize their personal gains over the public interest was accurate and not imagined.

What Happened? Why Were World-Famous Scientists Banned and Called “Anti-Vaccine” by For-Profit Media?

Public health officials like Dr. Anthony Fauci, former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and many scientists receiving confidential royalties from large pharmaceutical companies were unopposed. Everyone with a differing view and their hand out of the $till$, including world-renowned scientists and doctors, was labeled “anti-vaxxers.”

Pharmaceutical companies poured billions in advertising to social media companies, and social media companies banned accounts and added (often misleading) fact-check labels to any science that opposed mRNA or exposed child deaths from spike proteins. In a nutshell, that is what happened. Now, how it happened is open to interpretation. But in law, many of the people making these decisions would have been disqualified as “BIASED.”

The preponderance of the evidence suggests that potentially thousands of so-called public servants may have substituted their injection with saline to encourage taxpayers to take the real one. Some US teachers got busted later, with many British MPs potentially possessing fake vaccine cards as well. So that should tell you a lot!

Why Do Some Tax-funded Scientists Receive Confidential Royalties from Pharma?

The American people were shocked in disbelief when Anthony Fauci refused to tell Senator Rand Paul if he had received royalties for the mRNA “vaccines” he was pushing, and if so, how much.

Senator Paul: “Can you tell me if anyone on the vaccine approval committees ever received money from the people who make vaccines?”

Fauci literally stated: “People who receive royalties are not required to divulge them.” (Source.)

This utterly absurd system, where tax-funded scientists receive confidential royalties from Big Pharma, raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest and transparency. Scientists funded by public resources, such as tax or government grants, are expected to prioritize the public interest and uphold scientific integrity.

However, there can be several reasons why some tax-funded scientists may receive confidential royalties from pharma:

Intellectual property rights

If a tax-funded scientist develops a patentable technology, invention, or discovery, they may still retain the rights to their intellectual property. If a pharmaceutical company licenses or commercializes that intellectual property, the scientist may receive royalties as part of the agreement. Still, how is it fair that a doctor can profit off a drug that can kill people? Isn’t greed a potential threat to public safety? Anyone?

Collaboration and research partnerships:

Tax-funded scientists may collaborate with biopharmaceutical companies for research projects, clinical trials, or drug development. If these collaborations include agreements that provide royalties, the scientist may receive confidential payments based on the success or commercialization of the research outcomes.

Licensing agreements:

Tax-funded scientists may sometimes license their research findings, patented technologies, or other intellectual property to prescription drug companies for commercial use. Royalties can be part of the licensing agreement, and the confidentiality may stem from the business interests and understandings between the parties involved.

While it is essential to acknowledge that such arrangements exist between people like Dr. Fauci, ensuring transparency, proper management of conflicts of interest, and adherence to ethical guidelines is equally crucial. The government wants you to believe that funding agencies and research institutions have policies and disclosure requirements to address potential conflicts and maintain research integrity funded by tax dollars. They claim these policies aim to prevent undue influence and protect the public interest in scientific research.

So far, no one has been able to explain away all the secrecy and why it’s fair to allow a doctor like Fauci to use tax dollars to create his patents and make handsome profits. It’s a total racket, and Dr. Benjamin Rush would have a heart attack over this nonsense.

Why is it Ethical? Why Does Bill Gates Support This?

The issue of paying tax-funded doctors confidential payments, particularly in the context of transparency and public disclosure, is a complex ethical matter that can generate different perspectives. For example, a lawyer is trained to know this is entirely wrong. A bureaucrat trained since college to take advantage of the pharmaceutical industrial complex may think they are entitled.

To them, having an academic degree and attending or teaching schools that receive grants from companies like Pfizer is par for the course. But for an average person that is being forced to inject experimental drugs, they should know about this. The problem is, no journalist will cover this. It won’t get exposure. Pharma pays their salaries with billions in ad spend.

Major Ethical Dilemma that Can Never Be Fair?

Confidential payments to tax-funded doctors from drug manufacturers can raise concerns about conflicts of interest and transparency. Transparency is generally valued in public-funded research to ensure accountability and allow taxpayers to understand how their money is used. Public disclosure of financial relationships can help identify potential biases and conflicts of interest that may influence research outcomes.

However, there are arguments in favor of hidden payments, such as protecting intellectual property rights, encouraging innovation, and fostering collaborations between academia and industry. Confidentiality provisions can be included in contracts or agreements to safeguard proprietary information and maintain a competitive edge in the marketplace. Such arrangements may be necessary to incentivize researchers and industry partners to engage in productive collaborations.

Stakeholder Gates?

Bill Gates and other billionaires involved in these arrangements also raise eyebrows for a significant ethical dilemma. They would have us believe we must consider that different stakeholders may have differing perspectives based on their experiences, values, or goals. Bill Gates, for example, has been involved in philanthropy and initiatives focused on global health and reducing the world’s population. He funds collaborations between academia, industry, and nonprofit organizations. He uses these as instruments to pursue advanced medical research and development, including lab-grown foods and mRNA infiltrations into our food supplies.

Ultimately, his side argues that the ethical assessment of confidential payments to tax-funded doctors depends on the context, disclosure practices, and prevailing norms and regulations. These big government advocates think striking a balance between promoting innovation, protecting intellectual property, ensuring transparency, and managing conflicts of interest is a complex task that requires ongoing discussions and evaluation by stakeholders, policymakers, and the scientific community. Taxpayers and families have to take their word for it, despite adverse health outcomes like spike proteins, Thrombosis, and other conditions the FDA and CDC tried to help Pfizer hide for 75 years!

Civil libertarians like me see a web of conflicts of interests, double-dealing, and manipulation of the press that seriously damages public perception of FDA-approved government employees as a fifth column of public health tyranny with a handsome pharmaceutical product portfolio.

What is Legal Bias Under California Law?

Under California law, legal bias refers to prejudice or partiality based on specific protected characteristics in legal proceedings. Pharmaceutical patents like this, in particular, violate the principles of fairness, impartiality, and equal treatment. The above confidential funding and payments to doctors who are also marketing these products (de facto on behalf of Pharmaceutical firms) and forcing mandates on the public automatically make them hostile, biased witnesses. Their bias is due to the open and obvious conflict of interest even the lowest IQ person could clearly see here.

A judge would be automatically disqualified from hearing or ruling in such a scenario. But here, FDA-approved academics who are part of the so-called deep state can make billions, and you will be called a “conspiracy theorist” and have your social media accounts banned if you question such a scenario. Once we have a digital currency, like in Canada, your bank account can be seized, and you can lose all your “social credits.” In other words, your tax dollars are indirectly used to censor you and could be used to impoverish your family. How does that warning sound? Is it fair their need for privacy can outweigh our right to assess if the emerging evidence we were lied to was due to money and combined backroom deals?

California law prohibits legal bias in various contexts, including:

California CCP 776 Biased Witness Law

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 776 pertains to the impeachment of witnesses based on their bias. It allows a party in a civil case to introduce evidence that a witness has a bias or prejudice that may affect their credibility.

The section states:

“Except as otherwise provided by statute, a witness is not excused from answering a relevant question on the ground that he or she will be compelled to disclose an incriminating fact relating to the witness or to the subject matter of the proceeding, unless the court determines that the privilege against self-incrimination applies to the witness.”

In practical terms, this means that a party can question a witness about any potential bias they may have or any interests they may have that could affect their testimony. This allows the opposing party to challenge the witness’s credibility by presenting evidence of bias, which may undermine the weight given to the witness’s testimony.

Here, ChatGPT argues that heads and employees of CDC, FDA, and other tax-funded agencies who benefit handsomely from Pharma companies are A-ok because politicians appointed them after a hearing! AI urges that since politicians (many of whom also receive profits from the pharmaceutical sector and inside tips to buy or sell) approved and appointed these individuals, a biased national drug policy is not an issue.

We are told if we want to take drugs like Ivermectin to control symptoms instead of mRNA, we are “anti-vaxxers” and patronized as crazies who wish to take horse medicine. Since people like Rochelle Walensky, CDC director, exercise such control of the official legacy media and social media narratives, it is easy to see how adverse health outcomes could occur and be swept under the rug with help from other federal agencies, including the FBI. Walensky forced mandates of a vaccine that never inoculated or stopped the spread. She even got Covid herself despite being fully vaccinated with her FDA-approved mRNA jab.

This is similar to the old Soviet model, primarily focused on protecting party bosses in the Duma. It takes no stretch of the imagination to envision anyone disagreeing with these “experts” as a crazy will be regulated by the Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).

In effect, these federal employees receive large amounts of money from the same parties, one representing taxpayers in national drug control policy and the other party (pharma) giving these same people money to recommend CDC/FDA-approved status to experimental drugs, etc.

In effect, these people are hired as experts, except they get to represent divided interests:

• Personal Interests in Federal Agencies and pensions
• Personal Interests in royalties, profits, and insider tips from drug companies

It’s important to note that this section of the California Code of Civil Procedure explicitly addresses civil cases and the impeachment of witnesses based on bias. Although it is important to note that the criminal standard is different, we know Pfizer has been convicted of multiple felonies for lying about their drugs. (also barely covered by the mainstream press.)

In one case,

“…$152 million to pay back amounts spent on Neurontin by the federal Medicare program and 50 state Medicaid programs for the poor. In addition, Pfizer will pay a $240 million criminal fine, the second-largest such fine ever imposed in a health care fraud prosecution, the Department of Justice said.”

“… largest health care fraud settlement in history, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer must pay $2.3 billion to resolve criminal and civil allegations that the company illegally promoted uses of four of its drugs, including the painkiller Bextra, the U.S. Department of Justice announced Wednesday.”largest health care fraud settlement in history, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer must pay $2.3 billion to resolve criminal and civil allegations that the company illegally promoted uses of four of its drugs, including the painkiller Bextra, the U.S. Department of Justice announced Wednesday.”

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/pfizer-fined-23-billion-illegal-marketing-off-label/story?id=8477617

Changing Medical Definitions When Drugs Don’t Work?

Critics of FDA-approved medicines and tampering and changing medical definitions at whim are products of the silent but obvious partnership between billionaires, drug companies, and state actors who place their interests in those they swore to protect.

We know that once the government was FORCED to admit the COVID-19 “vaccine” did not “inoculate,” the CDC changed the legal definition of the vaccine. Now, they said, vaccines no longer need to inoculate. All they need to do is reduce symptoms. Of course, their allied “fact checker” said nothing was nefarious about this. Again, as the Twitter Files verified, the FBI, CIA, and other government officials worked hand in hand with the White House to get social media accounts BANNED if anyone spoke against these nefarious games.

“The CIA has been meddling in Twitter’s internal content moderation for years, according to the latest dispatches from Elon Musk’s “Twitter Files” — which also revealed “mountains of insistent moderation demands” from the Democratic National Committee, but not from the GOP.”

They say, in particular, that doctors and scientists who disagree with centralized control of medicine by the NIH and WHO are whackjobs and “junk scientists.” If they dared speak up about the unfair revolving door between government and industry-created regulatory capture, they could even have their medical license taken away by California’s Gavin Newsom.

Undue Influence on Public Health Medicine

Regulatory agencies are unduly influenced by the industries they are supposed to oversee. In this case, we know that billionaires support population control (or is it “disease control?”), like Bill Gates, essentially controls the information and the narrative. And so far, the information that is allowed is scant, scrubbed, and sparse, say many scientists who fear publicly denouncing these people, particularly the efficacy of potentially deadly, experimental mRNA injections.

The concern was that individuals who had previously worked in the private sector would prioritize the interests of their former employers or colleagues, potentially compromising the regulatory process and public trust. Moreover, the prospect of lucrative positions or financial rewards awaiting executives or lobbyists after leaving their regulatory roles further raised doubts about their impartiality and dedication to effective regulation. This perception led to questions about the integrity and independence of regulatory decision-making.

These concerns highlighted the need for transparent and robust regulatory systems to mitigate conflicts of interest and safeguard the public interest effectively. The debate surrounding the involvement of industry insiders in the regulatory process continues to be a topic of discussion, aiming to strike the right balance between industry expertise and unbiased decision-making.

FDA Heads Working for Big Pharma?

FDA Commissioner – Scott Gottlieb (2017-2019) – Pfizer Executive, GlaxoSmithKline, New Enterprise Associates

Yes, former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb did have ties to the pharmaceutical industry before his appointment. Before serving as the FDA Commissioner from May 2017 to April 2019, Scott Gottlieb worked as a venture partner at New Enterprise Associates, a leading global venture capital firm specializing in healthcare investments. Additionally, he held positions on the boards of several pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline.

Gottlieb recently stepped down from his position as the highest-ranking federal drug regulator to join Pfizer, the leading pharmaceutical company in the United States. This transition included a lucrative cash bonus with stock options, significantly increasing his income to over $330,000.

The departure of Gottlieb saddened CEOs of various major pharmaceutical companies. Executives at Novartis and Alnylam Pharmaceuticals expressed their gratitude for his contributions to the FDA, acknowledging that his absence would be felt.

During his tenure as the FDA head, Gottlieb implemented measures to reduce the number of inspections conducted on foreign and domestic drug manufacturers supplying medications to the U.S. market. He also expedited the approval process for experimental and generic drugs, raising concerns about the safety of these “newer and cheaper” medications. These policies directly impacted the financial performance of pharmaceutical manufacturers, favoring their bottom lines.

Gottlieb’s appointment at Pfizer is part of a series of moves reinforcing the industry’s influence in Washington. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Big Pharma’s spending on lobbying surpasses that of any other industry.

It’s worth noting that these affiliations with the pharmaceutical industry were disclosed and evaluated during the confirmation process for his role as FDA Commissioner.

FDA Commissioner – Jane E. Henney (1998-2001) – AstraZeneca Board

Born in Woodburn, Indiana, Jane Henney pursued her education and career with a focus on medicine and oncology. She obtained her undergraduate training at Manchester University and an MD from Indiana University School of Medicine. Henney furthered her expertise through postgraduate work at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, specializing in medical oncology. In 1976, she joined the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health, where she contributed to the Cancer Therapy and Evaluation Program.

Henney’s association with the FDA began in 1992 when she assumed the role of deputy commissioner for operations under Commissioner David Aaron Kessler. After a brief period at the FDA, she transitioned to the University of New Mexico, where she served as the vice president of the health sciences center. Following her departure from the FDA, Henney took on a position on the board of directors of the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca.

During her tenure as FDA commissioner, Henney made a significant decision that had a profound impact. She banned supplements and natural products containing lovastatin, effectively granting exclusivity of cholesterol-lowering compounds to pharmaceutical corporations. AstraZeneca directly benefited from this decision as it eliminated a low-cost, natural competitor to their statin medication, rosuvastatin.

In 2003, Henney was appointed senior vice president and provost for health affairs at the University of Cincinnati, furthering her career in academia and healthcare administration.

FDA Commissioner – Frank E. Young (1984-1989) – Bioventus Global, Cosmos Alliance, TissueTech Inc.

After leaving the FDA in 1989, Dr. Frank E. Young became Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health, Science, and Environment under Health and Human Services Secretary Louis Wade Sullivan. From 1993 to 1996, he served as Director of the Office of Emergency Preparedness and the National Disaster Medical System during the Clinton Administration.

2013 Dr. Young joined Braeburn Pharmaceuticals as Executive Vice President, Clinical and Regulatory Affairs. His primary focus was contributing to developing the new drug application (NDA) for Braeburn’s Probuphine (buprenorphine) implant. The FDA successfully approved this implant on May 26, 2016. Probuphine is the first buprenorphine implant for the maintenance treatment of opioid dependence.

Throughout his career, Dr. Young has provided valuable guidance to pharmaceutical companies on regulatory issues and clinical development matters. He was Interim Vice President for Clinical and Regulatory Affairs at Bioventus Global and later became an Adjunct Partner and Partner at Essex Woodlands in 2002. Additionally, he co-founded the Cosmos Alliance and held the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer positions.

Furthermore, Dr. Young served as the Executive Vice President of Clinical and Regulatory Affairs at TissueTech Inc. His significant responsibility involved leading the company’s transition from a regulated HCT/P company to a biologics company. Pursuing multiple NDAs, ultimately aiming for BLA (Biologics License Application) approval, achieved this transition.

FDA Commissioner – Arthur H. Hayes Jr. (1981-1983) – Editorial Boards of Clinical Pharmacology, Therapeutics, Rational Drug Therapy, and the Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, President of American Society of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics and the United States Pharmacopoeial Convention

Arthur Hull Hayes Jr., M.D., was born in Highland Park, Michigan, in 1933. He distinguished himself academically as a Rhodes Scholar and earned his M.D. from Cornell University in 1964. After completing his internship and residency and serving in the army for two years, Hayes began his career in clinical pharmacology at Cornell, where he received his medical education. From 1968 to 1972, he was a Pennsylvania State College of Medicine faculty member.

In April 1981, Richard Schweiker, the Secretary of Health and Human Services at the time, appointed Hayes to lead the FDA. During his tenure as FDA commissioner, Hayes navigated the Tylenol crisis, played a crucial role in approving the first orphan drugs, and implemented significant reorganizations within the agency, particularly in pharmaceuticals and biologics. Hayes left the FDA in September 1983 to become the dean and provost of New York Medical College. In 1986, he transitioned into executive positions within the pharmaceutical industry.

Throughout his career, Hayes served on the editorial boards of prominent publications such as Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Rational Drug Therapy, and the Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. He also held esteemed positions as the president of the American Society of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics and the United States Pharmacopoeial Convention. In recognition of his contributions, Hayes received honorary degrees from St. John’s University and New York Medical College.

It is worth noting that Mark Novitch, M.D., who served as the deputy commissioner from 1979 to 1985, temporarily assumed the role of commissioner on two separate occasions, totaling approximately 13-1/2 months, between the tenures of Jere Goyan, Arthur Hayes, and Frank Young.

Jere E. Goyan (1979-1981) – President and Chief Operating Officer for Alteon Inc. and other Big Pharma

Jere E. Goyan, Ph.D., is the first pharmacist to serve as Commissioner of Food and Drugs. Born in Oakland, California 1927, he pursued his education at the University of California-San Francisco and the University of California-Berkeley. In 1957, he earned his Ph.D. in pharmaceutical chemistry from UC Berkeley.

Goyan joined the faculty of the University of Michigan School of Pharmacy from 1956 to 1963 and then moved to the University of California-San Francisco School of Pharmacy, where he served as a faculty member and later became the dean in 1967. His area of expertise revolved around pharmacokinetics, a branch of pharmacology concerned with drug absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion in the body.

In October 1979, Jere Goyan was appointed Commissioner of Food and Drugs by Patricia Harris, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). He held this position until January 1981. Notable events during Goyan’s tenure at the FDA included identifying a connection between toxic shock syndrome and the Rely tampon, prompting the agency’s response. He also spearheaded an effort to make patient package inserts mandatory and led an investigation into widespread contamination of livestock and feed by polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

Following Ronald Reagan’s election as president, Goyan resumed his deanship at the University of California-San Francisco. He remained in that position until he transitioned to an executive role in the pharmaceutical industry. Throughout his career, Goyan received numerous honors, including the prestigious Remington Medal from the American Pharmaceutical Association, various lectureships, and honorary degrees from institutions such as the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and Science and the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy. Jere E. Goyan passed away in 2007.

FDA Interim Head – Alexander M. Schmidt (1973-1976) – University Hospital Consortium in Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois

Alexander M. Schmidt, M.D. served as the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (FDA) from July 20, 1973, to November 30, 1976.

Here is a summary of his biography and his contributions during his tenure:

Alexander McKay Schmidt was born in Jamestown, North Dakota, in 1930. He obtained a Bachelor’s degree from Northwestern University and earned his M.D. from the University of Utah in 1955. After serving in the army for two years, he joined the University of Utah College of Medicine faculty. In 1967, he became an administrator of the Regional Medical Program of the National Institutes of Health. Later, he was appointed to a deanship and faculty position at the University of Illinois College of Medicine in Chicago.

In July 1973, Schmidt was appointed Commissioner of Food and Drugs by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), Caspar Weinberger. During his tenure, the FDA pursued several significant initiatives, including the ban on red dye no. 2, increased focus on patient package inserts for prescription drugs, the early stages of the over-the-counter drug review, the development of comprehensive medical device legislation, the establishment of a policy board, and the formalization of administrative regulations. The agency also faced numerous congressional hearings that scrutinized its operations and policies.

Schmidt left the FDA in November 1976 and returned to Illinois. He became the vice chancellor for health affairs. He later served as the chair of the University Hospital Consortium in Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois, a consulting group for academic healthcare institutions. Alexander M. Schmidt passed away in 1991.

Heath and Human Services Bias?

Health and Human Services (HHS) – Alex Azar (2005-2007) – Eli Lilly Board

Current Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, Scott Gottlieb’s former boss, previously held the position of president at Lilly USA, the U.S. division of the pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly. When Azar’s appointment was announced, President Trump praised him as a “star for better healthcare and lower drug prices.” However, during Azar’s tenure at Eli Lilly, the company faced criticism for significantly raising the prices of its insulin brands, leading to a crisis and public outrage.

The phenomenon of individuals transitioning between high-level government positions and major corporations in the health industry is not unique to the Trump and Biden administrations. This “revolving door” practice has been ongoing for some time. With billions of dollars at stake, it has become more prevalent with more money and individuals moving between the White House and prominent corporations in the healthcare sector and beyond.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control) Heads Working for Big Pharma and Affiliates?

The National Institutes for Health (NIH) and World Health Organization (WHO) have been referenced as pet projects of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, headed by notorious population control advocate “stakeholders.” the CDC’s tendrils seem to be more focused on those relationships. In contrast, FDA appears to pull more toward big pharma directly. However, many experts assert that Bill Gates wants to use vaccines to sterilize children and reduce the “major global health burdens” of “overpopulation.”

Control of the Message Makes Investigating Pharma Corruption Difficult

Gates owns the ability to control the online narrative (Bing and ChatGpt AI), as well as fact checks. Indirectly, it isn’t easy to verify how much Gates wants to reduce humans or how he seeks to do so. Try searching for anything controversial, and you will be met what looks like pro-Gates propaganda and biased fact checks.

In any event, the revolving door with CDC heads is a bit more nuanced. But almost all roads lead from Ivy League Schools, far-left universities, professorships, jobs at CDC, and back into academia and the pharmaceutical industrial or progressive educational complex.

Gates/Google Connected WHO Now “Owns the Science” Policy?

The same applies to searches at Google since its partnership with the WHO, of which Gates is a primary stakeholder. Try searching for “natural immunity” superior over mRNA gene therapy, for example. The head of the WHO says of its partnership with Google, “We own the science.” (See Video here.)

“We partnered with Google,” Fleming said. “For example, if you Google ‘climate change,’ you will, at the top of your search, you will get all kinds of U.N. resources.”

She said the partnership began when U.N. officials were “shocked to see that when we Googled “climate change,” we were getting incredibly distorted information right at the top.”

“We’re becoming much more proactive. We own the science, and we think that the world should know it, and the platforms themselves also do,” she added.

CDC Director – Rochelle Walensky (2021-2023) – Chair NIH, Co-Director Medical Practice Evaluation Center at Massachusetts General Hospital

“In October 22, 2022, Dr. Walensky tested positive for COVID-19.”

On December 7, 2020, during the transition period, President-elect Joe Biden announced the expected appointment of Dr. Rochelle Walensky as the CDC director. This decision received widespread praise from doctors and public health experts, receiving royalties and payoffs from companies like Pfizer. As the position of CDC director does not require Senate confirmation (many legal scholars, including myself, argue this is unconstitutional), Dr. Walensky assumed her role on January 20, 2021. To address the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, on August 3, 2021, Dr. Walensky implemented a now-expired 60-day extension of a federal ban on evictions by landlords.

The extension specifically applied to “counties experiencing substantial and high levels of community transmission levels,” encompassing approximately 90% of the U.S. population based on the ban’s criteria. However, on August 26, as anticipated, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the extension unconstitutional, stating that only the U.S. Congress possessed the authority to impose such a moratorium. In the meantime, many landlords were forced to declare bankruptcy or sell in the face of her Marxist-style public health mandates.

CDC Director – Anne Schuchat (Acting) (2018-2021) – Board GAVI, Vaccine Alliance, Board Swarthmore College

She is a member of the Board of GAVI (a Merck-associated group), the Vaccine Alliance, and the Board of Managers for Swarthmore College. She is an internist and epidemiologist. She worked for 33 years for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Dr. Schuchat retired as a Rear Admiral in the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps in 2018 and officially retired from the CDC in 2021. She holds degrees from Swarthmore College and Dartmouth Medical School and completed her internal medicine residency and chief residency at New York University’s Manhattan VA Hospital.

CDC Director – Brenda Fitzgerald (2017-2018) – Forced to Resign over Ethics in Medicine

In July 2017, Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald was appointed the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director by Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, succeeding Dr. Thomas R. Frieden. Concerns were raised about Dr. Fitzgerald’s conflicts of interest related to her financial holdings in opioid pharma producers accused of treating substance abuse problems. By December 2017, after five months in office, she had not divested from these holdings, which posed potential conflicts of interest. Democratic Senator Patty Murray questioned Fitzgerald’s ability to lead the CDC’s anti-opioid programs due to her financial stake in prescription drug monitoring programs.

CDC Director – Richard E. Besser (Acting) (2009) – President and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

Under his leadership, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation worked heavily with the left-leaning NPR. He effectively helped control the COVID-19 narrative pushed by pharma stakeholders and beneficiaries like Anthony Fauci. RWJF also has had a long-standing relationship with the Rand Corporation, a nonprofit research organization dedicated ,to public health, that argues it is not dedicated to big government and is “neutral.” This partnership may have facilitated surveys and studies aimed at assessing public opinion and perceptions related to health disparities, including the impacts of the pandemic on minority communities, all democrat party pet projects being driven by Critical Race Theory (CRT).

CDC Director – Dr. Julie Gerberding (2002-2009) – President, Merck Vaccines, CEO NIH

Dr. Gerberding served as the director of the CDC from 2002 to 2009. After leaving the CDC, she joined Merck & Co., Inc. in January 2010 as the president of Merck Vaccines. In this role, she oversaw the company’s vaccine division protecting public health. She is indeed an American infectious disease expert and was the first woman to serve as the director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). She is connected with the NIH and Merck, further showing the revolving door and potential for compromise regarding public health and human services.

CDC Director – Jeffrey P. Koplan (1998-2002) – Prudential Center for Health Care Research, [Communist] China Medical Board

In the late 1990s, Congress allocated $23 million to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for research on myalgic encephalomyelitis, also known as chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Concerns arose regarding the allocation of these funds, leading to an investigation conducted by inspector general June Gibbons Brown. The study revealed that $12 million of the allocated funds were not appropriately used for CFS research, and the CDC had provided inaccurate statements to Congress about their investment in CFS research.

Dr. Jeffrey Koplan, who was the director of the CDC at the time, defended the actions of the CDC by stating that while they were not legally prohibited from redirecting funds budgeted for CFS to other programs, they acknowledged the importance of complying with the intent of Congress and providing accurate information to Congress.

White House Officials?

Chief of Staff – John Kelly

It has come to light that former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly currently serves as a board member for the holding company that operates the largest shelter for unaccompanied migrant children. This position presents an opportunity for Kelly to receive an annual cash retainer estimated to amount to at least $100,000. Furthermore, the company he is affiliated with was granted a no-bid federal contract, potentially worth over $340 million, to manage the only for-profit shelter in the United States.

Internal Agency Rivalries with Pharma as the Winner?

The concern here is the CDC advisory committee personnel are encroaching on the FDA advisory committee. The FDA feels its jurisdiction regarding vaccines is an unlawful regulatory overlap, presenting another potential conflict of interest. The roles and responsibilities of both agencies are distinct, but there can be areas where their functions intersect. Here, the problem seems to be when one agency refuses to approve a drug, another employee (also receiving or will be receiving money from Pharma at their new job) at another agency will try and get something done benefiting pharma.

Other Ancillary Entanglements?

Some bureaucrats come from universities heavily funded and influenced by pharma, particularly Bill Gates’ foundations.

David Kessler, MD

From 1984 to 1990, David Kessler, M.D., served as the commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). His background as a bureaucrat appears to focus on healthcare-related issues in advertising. During his tenure as FDA commissioner, he was responsible for implementing several significant regulatory changes and initiatives, including introducing new food labeling requirements and trying to regulate tobacco products and certain drugs more strictly. Kessler also ran a teaching hospital and taught at Columbia Law School and Albert Einstein College of Medicine.

Janet Woodcock, MD

Known for her role as one of the primary government physicians fighting substance abuseWoodcock, Acting Commissioner of Food and Drugs, worked for the Veterans Administration Medical Center of the University of California, San Francisco, where she worked from 1982 to 1985.

Supposed Role of CDC

The CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) primarily focuses on public health and disease prevention. It provides guidance and recommendations for various health issues, including vaccines, based on scientific evidence and expert input. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is a panel of experts that advises the CDC on vaccine recommendations.

Supposed Role of FDA

On the other hand, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) is responsible for evaluating the safety and efficacy of drugs, vaccines, and other medical products. The FDA’s role includes conducting rigorous reviews of clinical trial data and granting approval or authorization for vaccines to be marketed and distributed. The internal deputy director, or acting director, wields great power. So this is a spot to look at for potential bias against the American people in favor of approving a dangerous drug.

Hidden Conflicts? Pharma Payments to FDA Advisers after Drug Approvals Spark Ethical Concerns

Hidden conflicts of interest and pharmaceutical payments to FDA advisers after drug approvals have raised ethical concerns. The agency is supposed to approve drugs the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has to cover. The issue revolves around potential financial relationships between FDA advisers and Big Pharma, which may compromise the objectivity and independence of the advisory process with the flow of tax-funded healthcare.

In some cases, FDA advisory committee members who participated in the review and approval of drugs have later received financial compensation, such as consulting fees, speaking engagements, or research grants, from the pharma whose products they evaluated. This raises questions about the potential influence of these financial relationships on the decision-making process and the perception of impartiality.

While FDA advisers must disclose potential conflicts of interest, including financial relationships, there are concerns that the current disclosure system may not be comprehensive enough to capture all relevant information. Many lawyers who understand bias argue that more transparency and scrutiny are necessary to ensure public trust in the FDA’s decision-making process.

There have been calls for stricter regulations, increased transparency, and improved conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements to address these concerns. Efforts to enhance disclosure practices, limit financial ties, and strengthen the vetting process for FDA advisers have been proposed to mitigate potential conflicts and maintain the integrity of regulatory decision-making.

It is important to note that these concerns do not imply wrongdoing by all FDA advisers, and the FDA continues to work toward transparency and accountability in its regulatory processes. Nonetheless, addressing and managing conflicts of interest is an ongoing challenge to maintain public confidence in the FDA’s ability to make impartial and evidence-based decisions.

Does the FDA get money from drug companies?

Yes, the FDA does receive funding from drug companies in the form of user fees. These fees, known as user fee programs, are intended to support the FDA’s regulatory activities related to reviewing and approving drugs, medical devices, generic drugs, biosimilars, and other products. The user fees are negotiated and agreed upon between the FDA and the industry, typically through legislation such as the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) and the Medical Device User Fee Amendments (MDUFA).

These user fee programs require drug and device manufacturers to pay fees to the FDA for specific activities, such as the review of marketing applications or inspections of manufacturing facilities. The prices are meant to supplement the FDA’s annual budget and support the agency’s regulatory functions.

What Percentage of the FDA Health Care is Funded by Pharma?

At least 65%! According to the information available, regulatory activities for human drug use, including drug review and approval funding, accounted for approximately 33% of the FDA’s budget. Of this portion, about 65% of the financing of those activities was covered by industry user fees. This means that a significant amount comes from fees paid by pharmaceutical companies and other industry stakeholders.

Does the CDC Get Money from Drug Companies?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) can receive funding from various sources, including collaborations with pharmaceutical companies. While the primary funding source for the CDC is the federal government, there are instances where the CDC may receive funds or grants from private entities, including drug companies.

These collaborations can occur in different forms, such as research partnerships, grants for specific projects, or public-private initiatives addressing public health challenges. Pharmaceutical companies may support the CDC financially for research studies, vaccine development, epidemiological investigations, or other public health programs.

What Percentage of the CDC is Funded by Pharma?

We don’t know and are making a FOIA request. The concern presented by all these financial entanglements arises not just when there is potential overlap or interference between the roles of these two agencies. Both offices, FDA and CDC, have direct access to the White House Office and aspects of science policy. Ordinary people on the streets are denied this information, and search engines do an excellent job of making it hard to find. Maintaining a clear separation of responsibilities is essential to ensure that regulatory decisions are based on rigorous scientific evaluation and are not unduly influenced by other factors.

Rivalry Between Agency Heads and White House?

Let’s look at the director of the Office of Vaccines Research and Review at FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research and Dr. Philip Krause, deputy director of the office. They resigned in response to the Biden administration’s Draconian plans regarding COVID-19 booster shots.

How Many Pharma Lobbyists Are There?

As of 2021, there were 834 pharmaceutical lobbyists, and the industry had an average of three representatives per Congress member. It’s important to note that lobbying numbers can vary over time and differ depending on how lobbying is defined or tracked.

Pfizer and Its Stake

Most people are unaware that Pfizer has been convicted of multiple federal felonies surrounding representations about their drugs’ efficacy and honesty in advertising. According to congressional lobbying disclosures, Pfizer has allocated a significant amount of money toward federal-level lobbying in 2020, focusing on various issues, including trade, taxes, and policies related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Federal lobbying disclosure rules do not typically require companies to publicly disclose the specific details of their lobbying activities, including the precise nature of their requests to lawmakers and government officials. While lobbying disclosure reports provide information about the general issues and topics on which lobbying efforts were focused, they often do not offer specific details or actions requested.

Lobbying disclosure reports provide transparency by offering broad insights into organizations’ lobbying activities, including the issues they have engaged with and the resources allocated to lobbying efforts. However, the details and conversations during lobbying interactions are often not publicly disclosed.

It’s important to note that individual lobbying relationships and discussions between companies and government officials are generally treated as confidential and protected by various legal and ethical considerations, including privacy and attorney-client privilege. This allows for open and frank discussions between lobbyists and policymakers.

Suppose more specific information about the nature of lobbying activities is desired. In that case, it may be necessary to rely on additional sources, such as investigative journalism or leaks, to gain deeper insights into the specific interactions and requests made during lobbying efforts.

The disclosed lobbying priorities of Pfizer have centered around topics such as addressing the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, COVID relief proposals, and matters concerning clinical trials, vaccines, and therapeutics related to COVID-19. Additionally, Pfizer has lobbied on specific bills aimed at providing financial relief to businesses and individuals during the pandemic, including the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act (H.R. 604), the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (H.R. 6201), and the CARES Act (H.R. 748).

It’s worth noting that lobbying activities are everyday for many companies, including pharmaceutical manufacturers like Pfizer. Lobbying allows organizations to engage with lawmakers and policymakers to influence legislation and advocate for their interests. The disclosed lobbying efforts indicate Pfizer’s active involvement in shaping policies and legislation related to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its impacts on society and the economy.

AstraZeneca’s Stake?

Your information indicates that AstraZeneca increased its federal-level lobbying spending in 2020 compared to previous years. According to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, AstraZeneca is on track to spend over $3.7 million on lobbying efforts, the highest amount since 2013.

AstraZeneca employs a team of 21 registered lobbyists, consisting of in-house and contract professionals. Many of these lobbyists have prior experience working in government, which can provide them with insights and connections within the policymaking process.

Like Pfizer, AstraZeneca’s lobbying efforts encompass various issues that could impact the company as a multinational pharmaceutical corporation. These issues include trade, Medicare, and patent and trademark matters. However, given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, AstraZeneca’s lobbying disclosures for 2020 also emphasize their engagement in education, vaccine and therapy development, and legislative and policy changes related to the COVID-19 response.

Lobbying activities by pharmaceutical companies like AstraZeneca are standard and serve to advocate for their interests and positions on relevant policy matters. The disclosure of lobbying activities helps provide transparency regarding the interactions between corporations and the government, allowing the public and policymakers to be aware of the issues being advocated for and potentially influencing legislative and regulatory decisions.

Lobbying Efforts?

AstraZeneca’s lobbyists have engaged with various government officials and agencies, including those on Capitol Hill, the Vice President’s office, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It is common practice for drug manufacturers to communicate their perspectives and interests to policymakers and regulatory bodies.

In May, the US government pledged a substantial amount, up to $1.2 billion, to support AstraZeneca’s collaboration with the University of Oxford in developing a COVID-19 vaccine. AstraZeneca’s vaccine candidate has demonstrated an average efficacy of 70% in protecting against COVID-19 and is known for being more easily stored and transported than the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. It’s important to note that at the time of your information, the US government authorization of AstraZeneca’s vaccine was expected to occur after the approval of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

Political Contributions

Regarding political contributions, it is not uncommon for corporations to have corporate political action committees (PACs) that make financial contributions to political candidates and committees. AstraZeneca’s corporate PAC distributed over $766,000 to nearly 90 congressional candidates, other political committees, state or local candidates, and party committees during the 2020 election cycle. These contributions allow corporations to support candidates and political causes that align with their interests.

It’s important to consider that laws and disclosure requirements regulate lobbying activities and political contributions to ensure transparency in the political process. According to the statement provided by AstraZeneca spokesperson Brendan McEvoy, the company supports candidates from both parties who align with its perspective on public policies. These policies may include recognizing the value of AstraZeneca’s medicines, improving patient outcomes, enhancing the quality of care, and ensuring access and affordability of healthcare.

The company did not address specific questions regarding its lobbying practices and declined to comment on whether it would contribute money to President Biden’s inauguration. Regarding investments in AstraZeneca by congressional lawmakers, it is noted that the company has not been a trendy investment choice among them. However, Senate disclosure records indicate that Senator Capito’s husband bought and later sold AstraZeneca stock within a specific dollar range during 2017 and 2019.

Moderna Stake

According to the information, Moderna began lobbying the federal government in 2019, with lobbying expenditures of $40,000 that year. In the first nine months of 2020, Moderna increased its lobbying spending to $180,000, focusing on educating policymakers about potential COVID-19 vaccines and related issues.

Moderna’s partnership with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) sets it apart from other companies. The NIH has invested $2.48 billion into Moderna’s vaccine, which the company claims is 94% effective against COVID-19. It’s worth noting that Moderna does not operate a corporate PAC and therefore does not make political donations through such channels.

While Moderna did not respond to requests for comment, it is mentioned that some of its executives have made personal contributions to political candidates. For example, Brian Sandstrom, Moderna’s vice president and associate general counsel, contributed $2,800 to Biden’s campaign and $1,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee during the election cycle.

It is also mentioned that Moderna faced scrutiny for potentially violating federal disclosure requirements related to the financial support it received for its patents. However, no further details or responses from Moderna were provided.

Other Politicians and Their Stake in Drug Companies?

According to your information from the Center for Responsive Politics, Pfizer has been a favored stock for members of Congress and their spouses to invest in. In 2018, 48 members or their spouses had investments in Pfizer to some extent.

It’s worth noting that members of Congress must disclose their financial transactions, including stock investments, as part of the Ethics in Government Act. This allows for transparency and helps identify potential conflicts of interest. Such disclosures provide the public with information on the financial interests of lawmakers and possible influences on their decision-making.

The Center for Responsive Politics collects and analyzes data related to campaign finance and lobbying, and their findings shed light on the financial interests and investments of members of Congress. Their data highlights the popularity of Pfizer as a stock choice among lawmakers during the year 2018.

The information you provided highlights the trading activities of several members of Congress in Pfizer stock, including Republican Senator David Perdue, Democratic Senator Tom Carper, and others. It indicates that Senator Perdue made multiple transactions involving Pfizer shares since 2015, including purchasing Pfizer stock in February, shortly before the company announced its COVID-19 vaccine development. Subsequently, Pfizer’s share price increased, and Senator Perdue sold his Pfizer stock in April, reportedly earning a significant profit.

Additionally, it is noted that Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, made a personal contribution to Senator Perdue’s Senate campaign in late 2019. According to Senate records, Senator Carper’s wife reportedly purchased a Pfizer stock.

The information suggests that some members of Congress have engaged in Pfizer stock trading, potentially raising questions about conflicts of interest or the appearance of impropriety. However, it’s essential to consider that stock trading by members of Congress is subject to federal rules and disclosure requirements to help shed light on potential financial interests and any associated contributions or actions.

Names of 22 pharma board members lead healthcare nonprofits?

Abbvie – Robert J. Alpern

Robert J. Alpern is a prominent figure in medicine and serves as the dean of the Yale School of Medicine. However, it’s important to note that the information you provided regarding his involvement with AbbVie is outdated, as of my knowledge cutoff in September 2021. Therefore, I cannot offer the most up-to-date information on his affiliations or compensation.

Conflict of interest policies are crucial in maintaining research integrity, clinical decision-making, and educational programs. Suppose Dean Alpern had a potential conflict of interest involving AbbVie. In that case, it is stated that he would recuse himself from any decision-making related to the company to preserve the independence and integrity of the institution.

Allergan – Nesli Basgoz

Nesli Basgoz, as of my knowledge cutoff in September 2021, is indeed an Associate Chief and Clinical Director of Massachusetts General Hospital’s infectious disease division and a professor at Harvard Medical School. However, I cannot provide the most up-to-date information on her affiliations, compensation, or share values.

Allergan – Michael Greenberg

Michael Greenberg is the Allen Discovery Center for Human Brain Evolution co-leader at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital. Michael Greenberg joined Allergan’s board in August 2018. It is important to note that I do not have access to the most recent updates, and I cannot provide the current status of his board membership or any changes to his biographical page.

Allergan – Peter McDonnell

Peter McDonnell is the Director of the Wilmer Eye Institute at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. According to the information provided, he receives compensation of $449,941 from Allergan, and his Allergan shares are valued at $735,307.

The spokesperson from Johns Hopkins University stated that the university has a robust conflict of interest policy, which requires the institutional review of service on outside boards of directors. They confirmed that Dr. McDonnell’s Allergan Board of Directors service was reviewed and approved by the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine by their conflict of interest policies.

Amgen – Brian Druker

Brian Druker is the Director of the Knight Cancer Institute at the Oregon Health & Science University. He joined the board of Amgen in 2018. Currently, no information is provided regarding his compensation or the value of his Amgen shares.

According to a university spokesperson, OHSU has been reflecting on its conflict of interest policies following the news of a nationally prominent researcher who failed to disclose corporate financial ties. The OHSU Integrity Office regularly educates and reminds employees, including faculty, clinicians, researchers, and others, about relevant conflict of interest policies and the importance of scrutiny and adherence to these policies.

Amgen – Tyler Jacks

Tyler Jacks is the Director of MIT’s David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research. His compensation from Amgen is stated as $343,998, and his Amgen shares have a value of $1,147,713. Neither his biography on the Jacks Lab website nor his faculty page on the Koch Institute’s site mention his board membership with Amgen. The Koch Institute did not respond to requests for comment.

Please note that the information provided is based on available data until September 2021. For the most current and accurate information on Brian Druker and Tyler Jacks’ affiliations, compensation, and any updates to their biographical pages, I recommend consulting official sources such as the Oregon Health & Science University and MIT’s David H. Koch Institute websites or recent publications and articles covering this topic.

Celgene – Julia Haller

Julia Haller is the ophthalmologist-in-chief at Wills Eye Hospital. She joined Celgene’s board in 2015. Her directorship at Celgene is not disclosed on her main biographical page on the hospital’s website. However, a spokesperson pointed out that her directorship was announced on the “Leadership” page of the website in the last paragraph. It is worth noting that an archive internet service showed that Celgene was not included in June 2018, the date of the previous archive saved.

According to a spokesperson from Wills Eye Hospital, they comply with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations regarding clinical research and industry relationships. They recognize the importance of scientific and professional independence in conducting research and providing care to patients.

Eli Lilly

Marschall Runge is the dean of the University of Michigan medical school and the executive vice president for medical affairs. He joined Eli Lilly’s board in 2013, and his directorship is not disclosed on his biographical page on the University of Michigan’s website.

A spokesperson from the University of Michigan does not view Dr. Marschall Runge’s service on the Eli Lilly board as a conflict of interest. They manage conflicts of interest and potential conflicts of interest through transparency and a formal approval process.

Gilead Sciences

Kevin Lofton is the CEO of Catholic Health Initiatives, a non-profit health system, and has been on Gilead Sciences’ board since 2009. However, his biographical page on the non-profit’s website does not mention his role and compensation from Gilead. According to a spokesperson for the non-profit, both the board and legal counsel have determined that Kevin’s appointment as an independent director does not represent a conflict of interest. They believe that Kevin’s broad experience in healthcare allows him to provide and gain insight into a complicated and evolving sector of the health field.

Richard Whitley is the associate director for drug discovery and development for the University of Alabama, Birmingham’s Comprehensive Cancer Center’s pediatric oncology program. He has been on Gilead Sciences’ board since 2008. While his biography on the cancer center’s website does not reference his directorship position with Gilead, a spokesperson mentioned that Dr. Whitley chaired a task force focused on ensuring proper relationships with industry at the university. The spokesperson also stated that Dr. Whitley does not receive grants from Gilead, does not conduct Big Pharma research, does not conduct seminars or talks for Gilead, and makes appropriate disclosures in all publications and presentations.

GlaxoSmithKline

Laurie Glimcher is the President and CEO of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. She joined GlaxoSmithKline’s board in September 2017. Her Dana-Farber biography mentions her directorships for GlaxoSmithKline and Waters Corporation, which produces laboratory equipment. According to a spokesperson from Dana-Farber, they have a comprehensive conflict of interest policies that require annual reporting of all outside financial interests and relationships. They also require disclosure of related economic interests as part of any public presentation or publication of research data.

Jesse Goodman is the Director of Georgetown University’s Center on Medical Product Access, Safety, and Stewardship. He has been on GlaxoSmithKline’s board since 2016. His university biography does not disclose his corporate board seat with GSK. According to a university spokesperson, they have a Financial Conflict of Interest Policy in place, and Jesse Goodman has complied with this policy.

Johnson & Johnson

Mary Beckerle is the CEO of the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah. She has been a director at Johnson & Johnson since 2015. Beckerle’s biographical page discloses her directorship at J&J and her board position at Huntsman Corporation, which manufactures chemical products. According to a spokesperson for the cancer institute, Beckerle has formally disclosed these relationships to the University of Utah as required by university regulations.

Mark McClellan is the Director of the Margolis Center for Health Policy at Duke University. He joined J&J’s board in 2013 and served on the Alignment Healthcare board. Questions have been raised about a grant given to his center from the Food and Drug Administration, where his center was the only eligible institution to apply. Additionally, there have been concerns about his disclosure of affiliations in speeches, including a defense of high-cost hepatitis C drugs. The university spokesperson provided a link to a 2015 statement from Duke’s Board of Trustees, which highlights the need for administrators to seek approval before accepting appointments on external boards and the expectation that university leaders will serve on a maximum of one for-profit board.

A. Eugene Washington is the President and CEO of the Duke University Health System and the university’s chancellor for health affairs. He joined J&J’s board in 2012. His bio page on DukeHealth.org does not mention his role with Johnson & Johnson. The university spokesperson provided a link to the same 2015 statement from Duke’s Board of Trustees, which addresses the approval process for administrators serving on external boards.

Merck & Co.

Thomas Cech is the Director of the BioFrontiers Institute at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He has been on Merck’s board since 2009. As part of a conflict of interest management plan, Cech has agreed to disclose his relationship with the Merck Board of Directors in all presentations and publications of his research. He must also disclose this information to his students and work closely with the university’s Technology Transfer Office to protect intellectual property rights.

John Noseworthy is the CEO of the Mayo Clinic. He joined Merck’s board in 2017 and announced his intention to step down as chief executive of the Mayo Clinic at the end of 2018. The Mayo Clinic believes bringing patients’ voices to the table in the healthcare industry and anticipating major pharmaceutical industry trends that may affect patients is essential. They view Noseworthy’s nomination to the Merck board as an example of that effort.

Novartis

Charles Sawyers is the Chair of Memorial Sloan Kettering’s Human Oncology and Pathogenesis Program. However, it is not mentioned on his biographical page on MSK’s website, nor is his directorship at Novartis disclosed on the main page of his laboratory. The cancer center’s public affairs department provided no responses or additional information.

Pfizer

Dennis Ausiello is the Director of Massachusetts General Hospital’s Center for Assessment Technology and Continuous Health. He has been a director at Pfizer since 2006 and receives compensation of $375,000. His shares in Pfizer have a value of $1,858,001. Ausiello served as Mass General’s chief of medicine from 1996 to 2013.

In addition to Pfizer, Ausiello also sits on the boards of four other companies: Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Rani Therapeutics, Seres Health, and TARIS Biomedical. Three out of his five directorships are disclosed in his biography.

Partners HealthCare, which oversees Massachusetts General Hospital, implemented compensation limits for board membership in 2010. However, those limits were removed in 2013, and the institution now follows a case-by-case approach, ensuring that the compensation does not exceed fair market value.

Regeneron

Michael Brown is the Director of the Erik Jonsson Center for Molecular Genetics at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. He has been a director at Regeneron since 1991 and receives a compensation of $1,321,211. His shares in Regeneron have a value of $4,366,483. Despite multiple requests, the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center provided no comments.

Joseph Goldstein, the Chairman of the molecular genetics department at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, is also a director at Regeneron since 1991. He receives compensation of $1,307,211 and holds shares in Regeneron valued at $4,243,080. The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Huda Zoghbi, the Director of Texas Children’s Hospital’s Jan and Dan Duncan Neurological Research Institute joined Regeneron’s board in 2016. She receives a compensation of $463,656 from Regeneron, but her shares in the company have no value. According to a spokesperson, Zoghbi does not accept research funding from Regeneron for her lab, nor does she collaborate with them.

Rules

The disclosure rules and transparency requirements for stock trading differ between the House and the Senate, making it more challenging to conduct a comprehensive analysis of stock trading activities in the House of Representatives.

Conclusion – An Alarming Number of CDC, FDA, and Other Heads Have Clear Conflicts of Interest with Big Pharma, Universities, and the CCP!

Many more government employees receive money directly and indirectly from billion-dollar drug companies and even the PRC. Could this be why the evidence that COVID-19 was created in a Chinese lab in Wuhan with help from interventions by Anthony Fauci and his billionaire friends is being withheld and redacted by the White House? Why is the government refusing to release the 50 redacted pages of emails where Fauci discussed Wuhan and “Gain of Function” with his colleagues?

It’s essential to closely examine the details of these healthcare transactions and consider any applicable rules and regulations to determine whether ethical or legal concerns arise. After reading this, are you confident whether or not the drugs delivered to you and your family are safe? Now that you know these physicians and federal employees have created what is equivalent to a secret society of bureaucrats, are you ready to seek autonomy from these so-called public servants?

Do you have complete confidence in a system that tries to hide data and change definitions of “vaccines” so they no longer have to inoculate? Why would you ever want an academic, controlled by a system tied to our Communist Chinese adversaries, to decide what is pumped into your body? Are you ready to fight and guard against false fact-check labels and mass state-run media censorship in the coming months and weeks before the next election?

Will another lab-created virus strike just in time to force another vote-by-mail scheme? Will Gavin Newsom renew his unlawful executive order requiring an injection of a vaccine for a virus strain that no longer exists for children younger than 12? If you few adults left with common sense want to help me with a FOIA request to gain more information, I await in anticipation and can be reached at (213) 596-9642.

Citations:

• “Says Remdesivir is responsible for killing patients hospitalized with COVID-19.” – Politifact.
• Remdesivir Fails to Prevent Covid-19 Deaths in Huge Trial
• 26% of those prescribed Remdesivir for COVID died
• List of largest pharmaceutical settlements – Wikipedia