"NIH was receiving tens of millions of dollars from Pfizer on those royalty payments.”
Regulatory and professional betrayal: a series on taking back our power from public servants who have made a mockery of our trust.
Contents
What They Say They Do (NIH, ODS & DSHEA)
What They Actually Do
Context: Regulatory & Professional Betrayal
What to Do About It
Customizable Content You Can Distribute as Your Own
Regulatory & Professional Betrayal
We’ve empowered and entrusted regulatory and oversight bodies to act on our behalf. While these organizations were specifically intended to be independent of industry, the evidence clearly shows that we’ve ceded our power to organizations that are corrupted so thoroughly as to be no different from the corporate profiteers they’re beholden to. Organizations that we’ve empowered with our money and allegiance include the following. Clear, verifiable evidence of their betrayal is here and at the links below.
AHPRA — Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency
AMA — American Medical Association
CDC, ACIP & VAERS — U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention + Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices + Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System
ECHA & REACH — European Chemicals Agency + REACH Regulation
EPA — U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FCC — Federal Communications Commission
FDA — U.S. Food and Drug Administration
FSA — U.K. Food Standards Agency
FSMB, MCNZ— Federation of State Medical Boards + Medical Council of New Zealand
FTC — U.S. Federal Trade Commission
GMC — U.K. General Medical Council
Health (Australia) — Department of Health and Aged Care + Science and Industry Technical Advisory Group
HHS, CICP, NTP & DGAC — U.S. Department of Health and Human Services + Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program + National Toxicology Program + Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
MHRA — U.K. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
NIH, ODS, DSHEA — U.S. National Institutes of Health + Office of Dietary Supplements + Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (you’re here)
NHS — National Health Service of England
TGA, PBS, & PBAC — Therapeutic Goods Administration of Australia + Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme + Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee
UN — United Nations (includes WHO, UNICEF, IMF, the World Bank, UNESCO, UNRWA, UNHCR, IAEA) [source]
USDA — U.S. Department of Agriculture
WHO — World Health Organization
What They Say They Do (NIH, ODS & DSHEA)
NIH (National Institutes of Health) — “NIH’s mission is to seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability." [source] See also: HHS (above)
ODS (Office of Dietary Supplements) — "The ODS, part of the NIH, is the lead federal government entity addressing the scientific exploration of dietary supplements." [source]
DSHEA (Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act) — Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, Public Law 103-417. Congress finds that: [source]
(1) improving the health status of United States citizens ranks at the top of the national priorities of the Federal Government;
(2) the importance of nutrition and the benefits of dietary supplements to health promotion and disease prevention have been documented increasingly in scientific studies;
(3A) there is a link between the ingestion of certain nutrients or dietary supplements and the prevention of chronic diseases such as cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis; and
(3B) clinical research has shown that several chronic diseases can be prevented simply with a healthful diet, such as a diet that is low in fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium, with a high proportion of plant-based foods;
(4) healthful diets may mitigate the need for expensive medical procedures, such as coronary bypass surgery or angioplasty;
(5) preventive health measures, including education, good nutrition, and appropriate use of safe nutritional supplements will limit the incidence of chronic diseases, and reduce long-term health care expenditures;
(6A) promotion of good health and healthy lifestyles improves and extends lives while reducing health care expenditures; and
(6B) reduction in health care expenditures is of paramount importance to the future of the country and the economic well-being of the country;
(7) there is a growing need for emphasis on the dissemination of information linking nutrition and long-term good health;
(8) consumers should be empowered to make choices about preventive health care programs based on data from scientific studies of health benefits related to particular dietary supplements;
(9) national surveys have revealed that almost 50 percent of the 260,000,000 Americans regularly consume dietary supplements of vitamins, minerals, or herbs as a means of improving their nutrition;
(10) studies indicate that consumers are placing increased reliance on the use of nontraditional health care providers to avoid the excessive costs of traditional medical services and to obtain more holistic consideration of their needs;
(11) the United States will spend over $1,000,000,000,000 on health care in 1994, which is about 12 percent of the Gross National Product of the United States, and this amount and percentage will continue to increase unless significant efforts are undertaken to reverse the increase;
(12A) the nutritional supplement industry is an integral part of the economy of the United States;
(12B) the industry consistently projects a positive trade balance; and
(12C) the estimated 600 dietary supplement manufacturers in the United States produce approximately 4,000 products, with total annual sales of such products alone reaching at least $4,000,000,000;
(13) although the Federal Government should take swift action against products that are unsafe or adulterated, the Federal Government should not take any actions to impose unreasonable regulatory barriers limiting or slowing the flow of safe products and accurate information to consumers;
(14) dietary supplements are safe within a broad range of intake, and safety problems with the supplements are relatively rare; and
(15A) legislative action that protects the right of access of consumers to safe dietary supplements is necessary in order to promote wellness; and
(15B) a rational Federal framework must be established to supersede the current ad hoc, patchwork regulatory policy on dietary supplements.
What They Actually Do
“They failed in their basic duty.”
The NIH is broken. Instead of having the best scientists fund the best science, it has mediocre… members fund the most… unambitious work… A single negative voice can tank an application, while a single vote of support can rarely sell it. This incentivizes scientists to be very quiet— not commenting on topical issues, even when the stakes are massive. When schools were closed for 18 months in the US, many scientists who claimed to care about poor, minority kids — after all they had NIH grants to tackle health disparities—went silent. They failed in their basic duty.
“Details of royalty payments to government scientists are kept as strictly held secrets.”
With the help of a watchdog group, we look at the issue of government scientists collecting royalty payments from pharmaceutical companies for discoveries made while working on your dime. Adam Andrzejewski: “Our data shows at OpenTheBooks.com that every single year, NIH doles out $32 billion in federal grant-making… that basically buys you the entire American health care space.” NIH accumulates great influence with the power to decide which scientists and projects get all those taxpayer billions… “Buys you a lot of friends, buys you a lot of allies, and there's great incentive to stay on the establishment narratives that NIH disseminates on public health policy.” And he says there’s reason to question who or what is influencing those policies. Under a 1984 law known as Bayh-Dole, government scientists have a unique arrangement. They can collect royalties from pharmaceutical companies for discoveries they make while working for us… Andrzejewski: “You have a government scientist funded by taxpayers, and they work in a government lab that's also funded by taxpayers. And when they have an invention, they have a special situation. The NIH, then licenses that invention [a drug, device, therapeutic of some sort]… And the private sector then pays royalties back to NIH. NIH then distributes those royalties on a split… back to the scientist. Details of those royalty payments to government scientists are kept as strictly held secrets… Senator Rand Paul tried to pry some of them loose when questioning Dr. Anthony Fauci…Fauci: “According to the regulations, people who receive royalties are not required to divulge them even on their financial statement, according to the Bayh-Dole Act.” … He told Congress more or less, "It's none of your business. I don't have to tell you these things," which is pretty surprising because it would seem to be important… Andrzejewski says the first Covid vaccine to get government approval was Pfizer’s, which happens to be part of an NIH royalty-sharing agreement… Does that mean NIH helped invent the vaccine and then licensed some of the technology to Pfizer Andrzejewski: “Yes… And so NIH was receiving tens of millions of dollars from Pfizer on those royalty payments.”
Full Measure, Conflicts of Interest
Public Pressure Demanded Congress Protect Our Rights to Supplements. That Protection Has Steadily Eroded.
The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) granted Americans broad access to dietary supplements, promoting personal choice and limiting government intervention in the supplement marketplace. It allowed supplements to be regulated as food rather than drugs, avoiding costly preapproval requirements. DSHEA’s passage was largely driven by public advocacy. Widespread consumer pressure, highlighted by memorable campaigns, helped secure the law’s passage to protect access to supplements. Despite DSHEA, there are continuing challenges from the FDA and legislative proposals that could impose stricter regulations on supplements, potentially limiting access. We need further grassroots action to oppose further restrictions and protect health freedom.
NIH Spent More than $1 Billion Without Conducting the Research it Was Tasked with Doing — “The federal government has burned through more than $1 billion to study long Covid… There’s basically nothing to show for it. The National Institutes of Health hasn’t signed up a single patient to test any potential treatments — despite a clear mandate from Congress to study them. And the few trials it is planning have already drawn a firestorm of criticism, especially one intervention that experts and advocates say may actually make some patients’ long Covid symptoms worse. Instead, the NIH spent the majority of its money on broader, observational research that won’t directly bring relief to patients. But it still hasn’t published any findings from the patients who joined that study, almost two years after it started.” See also: Betsy Ladyzhets, STAT: ‘Underwhelming’: NIH trials fail to test meaningful long Covid treatments — after 2.5 years and $1 billion
“NIH Scientists Tried to Conceal $710 Million Pandemic Royalty Payout” — “Data from the NIH revealed that the nation’s medical research agency and its scientists collected hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties for Covid-19 pandemic-related drugs and vaccines between 2021 and 2023. This information was initially kept secret by the NIH. It was made public by OpenTheBooks.com, an organization that aims to post all disclosed U.S. government spending.”
“NIH has known for decades that flu vaccinations do not reduce deaths among the elderly” but continues to advocate for them — “In 2005, the NIH launched an effort to do ‘the’ definitive study that would actually prove, for the first time, once and for all, that flu vaccines were beneficial to the elderly. The study, published in JAMA, was covered up but Sharyl Attkisson, at the time an investigative journalist for CBS, aired a report on it in 2006… She interviewed Dr. Thomas Reichert, a co-author of the study. She had originally agreed to interview the lead author, Lone Simonsen, but Simonsen’s bosses at the NIH blocked the interview. Dr. Reichert was independent of the US government and so Attkisson was able to interview him… ‘Over 20 years, the percentage of seniors getting flu shots increased sharply from 15% to 65%. It stands to reason that flu deaths among the elderly should have taken a dramatic dip … Instead, flu deaths among the elderly continued to climb.’” See also:
