The FDA is not a Public service organization and they do not protect the public interest. The FDA did start as such and in the beginning they acted as a buffer between bad medicine and the public. That all started to change in 1992 when The FDA’s funding shifted from being 100% provided by the government to being provided by the big pharmaceutical companies that it is supposed to regulate. So much so, that today, 45% of the FDA’s total funding comes from the pharmaceutical industry and 65% of all funding for human drug regulating activities come from those who are to be regulated (here and here). However, it gets much worse. Frequently, the doctors who sit on advisory panels for drug approval are paid after the fact, lavishly and some times in excess of a million dollars by paying for such things as accommodations, honoraria, and consulting (here). Note, however, the post panel largess is only for those who vote to approve a particular medicine. In the realm of drug safety, we have entered a period where there isn’t any, and because of FDA approval and consent there are frequently few consequences for producing bad medicines. It is also interesting to note that most high ranking FDA officials with the power to control the approval process all come from a background in the pharmaceutical industry and nearly always go right back to executive level jobs in that industry after their “public service” (here, here, and here). Seriously, how is this not bribery even if it is after the fact. By this point doctors and government employees know the score. Approve our drugs and you get rich or don’t and get ostracized.
If we look at the drug approval rates over time we don’t have to go back very far to see a significant change. From 1994-1995, the rejection rate was 78% (here). By 2008, the rejection rate for new drugs was down to 66%. Then by 2015, that rate had fallen to 11%, And, if you remove multiple uses that rate falls to 4% rejection (here). Even when the FDA was fully government funded and really did do due diligence in medication testing and approval for every thalidomide they saved us from, they have missed something else and approved things that later proved dangerous or ineffective (here). A thinking person might ask, if more testing and much lower drug approval rates still occasionally missed a dangerous or ineffective substance, then what effect does shortened approval timelines and much higher approval percentage have on drug safety and effectiveness? According to new information from Yale, it appears that 1 in 3 new drugs approved from 2001-2010 ended up having significant safety issues (here and here). While this is the newest data available, I would wager a fair amount of money that as more drugs are more easily approved, those odds haven’t gotten any better.
On to this stage, all set up for corruption. We get a pandemic and in early 2020 we are told it will kill 2 million U.S. citizens (here). From this, we get Operation Warp Speed to develop a vaccine to fight the dreaded COVID. Sadly, the history of government backed rapid vaccine development is not a very encouraging one. The most recent occurrence in the United States was the swine flu vaccine of 1976 that was rushed through development and resulted in many people contracting Guillain-Barré syndrome, a severe neurological disorder (here). Then, there is the case in the U.S. during the 1960s. There were several rushed vaccines that produced worse illness than they prevented. Among them were a measles vaccine and one for RSV (here). To make matters worse, since 1988 no drug company can be held liable for any ill effects their products may have (here), which, in effect, removes any skin they might have in the game. This is a very very dangerous situation because pharmaceutical companies exist to make money and there is tons of it to be made in vaccines and absolutely no risk of losses, so long as the FDA approves their shot.
In this environment, under Operation Warp Speed, the FDA and Big Pharmaceutical rushed to develop a vaccine for COVID. Under normal circumstances, if everything goes perfectly, it takes 4 years, at minimum, to approve a new drug under FDA guidelines (here). The normal phase three vaccine trial is 36 months. We now, however, have three COVID vaccines in less than a year, using totally new technology. These are vaccines that carry no liability for their manufacturers, even if they kill a million people, because they were approved by the FDA, who is staffed by people from big pharma with dreams of returning to the industry to 6 and 7 figure salaries. Seriously, what could go wrong? They say that they are safe and effective, but are they? Since the development and testing window was so short (less than a year), how can they know that these new vaccines, based on mRNA technology, are safe ,especially in the mid and long term? The answer is they can’t and they honestly don’t know what the long-term repercussions are of these new vaccines. Enough time just hasn’t passed yet. It really doesn’t look very good for the vaccines. If we look at the CDCs reporting mechanism for vaccine injuries (here or here, if you want the data pulled for you), you will see orders of magnitude more reported injuries and deaths with the COVID jabs than all other vaccines combined since they started tracking such things. Myopericarditis, one of the most dangerous and sever possible side effect is now being reported at a rate of 1 in 1000. The Pfizer and Moderna shots are causing this astounding rate of myopericarditis (here) with the most at risk group being 12-17 year old boys (here). This is a condition that can kill, and that people have died from after receiving the jab. The worst part is, you are more likely to get myopericarditis from the vaccine than you are to die or even have a severe infection with COVID. This is one of the least at-risk groups for developing severe COVID, or even knowing they have it. Yet, the drum beats on, to force this new and relatively untested vaccine on everyone, even those who have recovered from a prior COVID infection, when all the research points to naturally obtained immunity being significantly better and longer lasting than the vaccines (here, here and here), including Fauci’s NIH (here). All the science says natural immunity is much better and lasts much longer than the vaccine. Knowing these facts, why would anyone who has recovered from the virus want to take the risks involved in vaccination?
As the drum beats louder and longer for vaccine mandates and shots, for more and younger children, doctors are starting to break ranks and argue against these policies, especially as the evidence mounts that these shots may be more dangerous than they are helpful. Doctor Jessica Rose has complied significant data on vaccine injuries and submitted a paper for review. However, she also has put together an excellent little slide show that lays out all the risks (here). The more I research, the more skeptical I become of the narrative and the more convinced I am that the FDA has shifted its primary function from protecting public health to protecting corporate bottom lines, and they really don’t care who they hurt or kill to do it. Remember, no matter who or how these vaccines hurt people, there is no incentive for the companies to be sure they are safe and every incentive to sell more. I don’t know about you, but I am not comfortable trusting my health to organizations that face no consequences if they get it wrong.
I really loved all of the links to stats and statistics. It makes it possible to connect the dots.