Did the CDC Cover-Up COVID-19 Vaccine Risks?
How big money from Big Pharma skews impartiality in drug trials.
Recent headlines have declared that mRNA shots supposedly don’t cause cardiac deaths in young people, but the CDC study cited is from a small sample and has major flaws that can be easily explained with the average AI chatbot.
Can the CDC be trusted? Critics are saying that the CDC has actively covered up COVID-19 vaccine risks, sparking further concerns about the ties between government agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and pharmaceutical companies.
Journalist Jeffrey Tucker noted:
As for the claim that the shots are “safe,” that was never believable. To say “we don’t know” would have been the only honest statement, simply because there was no record of experience with these vaccines. You cannot declare something to be safe when there is no actual evidence or possibility of evidence within the time frame. It might be or it might not be. That should have been unbearably obvious.
Criticism has been directed at the perceived close relationship between government regulators and private vaccine manufacturers, with accusations of prioritizing marketing objectives over public health considerations. The failure to disclose known risks to the public has been labeled as irresponsible and a disservice to people's well-being.
It is worth noting that pharmaceutical companies provide a significant portion of the FDA's funding, creating a potential conflict of interest.
Around 75% of the FDA's drug review budget comes from pharmaceutical companies' user fees, raising questions about the impartiality of regulatory oversight. Additionally, pharmaceutical companies often conduct their own studies on drug safety and efficacy, leading to a lack of external due diligence.
A 2023 study published in JAMA Internal Medicine revealed that approximately 90% of new drug applications submitted to the FDA included data from company-sponsored trials, highlighting the prevalence of industry-funded research within the regulatory process. Here is a quick summary:
Between 2018 and 2021, the FDA approved 210 new drugs, with 21 of them (10.0%) based on pivotal studies that had null findings for at least one primary efficacy endpoint.
These 21 drugs were approved for 21 unique clinical indications.
The reliance on industry-sponsored trials for new drug applications can create a conflict of interest within the regulatory process. When companies fund research on their own products, there is a risk of bias that may prioritize commercial interests over public health.
This conflict of interest can lead to the approval of drugs based on potentially misleading or incomplete data, ultimately putting patients at risk.
The negative impact on healthcare arises when drugs with questionable efficacy or safety profiles are approved, potentially leading to adverse effects on individuals who rely on these medications for treatment. Therefore, it is crucial for regulatory bodies like the FDA to carefully scrutinize industry-funded research to ensure the safety and efficacy of approved drugs.
Thus, allegations have surfaced regarding the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) potentially concealing risks associated with the COVID-19 vaccines. Concerns have been raised about the CDC's alleged suppression of information concerning the risk of myocarditis in individuals who received the vaccine, despite having prior knowledge of these potential adverse effects.
Doubts have been raised about the effectiveness and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines, with some pointing to the fast-mutating nature of coronaviruses and the limited long-term data available on the new vaccine technology. There are suspicions that widespread vaccination against one variant could inadvertently drive the virus to mutate further, potentially weakening the immune system's ability to combat the virus.
The enforcement of mandates and restrictions to boost vaccine acceptance rates has also led to a divisive climate where vaccinated individuals have been segregated from the unvaccinated. The aggressive vaccination campaigns, coupled with alleged lack of transparency from health agencies, have raised questions about the underlying motivations behind government actions during the pandemic.
As trust in government institutions faces scrutiny, these allegations underscore the challenges of balancing public health imperatives with transparency and accountability in decision-making processes. Calls for further investigation and reflection on governance structures that may have facilitated such practices have been emphasized.
These dynamics underscore the need for increased transparency and independent scrutiny in drug approval processes to ensure public safety and trust in regulatory decision-making.