|
FDA, a complicit partner in crimes and corrupt industry practices have resulted in an epidemic of preventable injuries and deaths.
VIII. FDA is the pivotal regulatory gatekeeper
entrusted with:
"protecting the public health
by assuring the safety and efficacy, of drugs, biological products, medical
devices, and our nation’s food supply" and "helping the public get
accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to
improve their health."
FDA’s
preeminent authority to determine whether a drug or device is approved is its
assumed scientific expertise and honest, independent review of safety and
performance data from scientifically valid, controlled clinical trials.
However, FDA has radically shifted its priorities.
Surveys of FDA scientists[1]
reveal widespread discontent with management for disregarding safety issues, for
persistent interference with their scientific evaluations, and fear of
retaliation for raising concerns about safety. A substantial number of respondents indicated that
FDA decisions were overly influenced by political interests (55%) or business
interests (40%). And over a third of respondents reported first-hand experience
of interference in their work in the past year. [2]
FDA's reviewing
process is no longer governed by scientific evidence: the process has been
corrupted under the influence of commercial expediency, which has led to the
approval of unsafe, harmful drugs, vaccines and medical devices.
Numerous
independent investigations by highly credible authoritative entities all
confirmed serious deficiencies in FDA’s scientific
base and organizational structure that severely undermine its ability to
fulfill its mission.
See,
Synopses of the 7
Investigative Reports Evaluating FDA Performance.
In 2006, the Institute of Medicine issued a
devastating report[3]
confirming significant interference with the FDA's scientific
work, compromising the agency's ability to fulfill its mission of protecting
public health and safety.
An unseemly record
shows that long after lethal effects of a drug were detected and thousands of
people died, FDA protected manufacturers by failing to take timely action to
protect consumers from further harm. The agency’s deviant policies have
precipitated an entirely preventable deadly epidemic:
- ·
FDA adheres to an irrational--95%-- certainty
standard before recognizing a lethal risk.

- ·
FDA-licensed prescription drugs are the fourth
leading cause of death in the US.[4]
[5]
[6]
- ·
Medical device recalls due to safety hazards
SOARED in 2012.[7] [8]
According to ExpertRECALL Index, which tracks FDA recalls,
more than 123 million medical device units were recalled in the second quarter
of 2012, and 82 million units were recalled in the first quarter.
Medical
devices include products such as ventilators, cardiac defibrillators,
pacemakers, replacement heart valves, coronary artery stents, knee
replacements, catheters, syringes, and gels used in ultrasound procedures,
dental implants, surgical clamps, and many more.
What
is more troublesome is: How did those devices pass FDA’s
approval process?
And does anyone track the number of people who have been harmed or died from
exposure to defective medical devices?
See, List
of
Prescription
Drugs Recalled for Safety Issues from US Market:
See, www.RxISK.org--a new interactive website
that seeks consumer input about adverse drug effects.
FDA’s mission to protect the public health from
unsafe and ineffective medical products has been undermined by its financial dependence on industry since passage of the
Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA 1992).[9] This legislation opened the FDA to
undue industry influence, allowing ready access to FDA officials behind closed
doors—thereby ensuring that industry’s interests would take precedence over
public safety. The result is measurable in human casualties due to medical products
that have not been adequately tested prior to their licensure.
To
ensure approvals, FDA stacks its advisory committees with members who have a
financial conflict of interest, and claims the agency is “prohibited from
giving the public any information contained in a financial disclosure.” [10]
"Lack of disclosure undermines
the credibility of the advisory committee process and undermines public trust
in the fairness of the regulatory process." Steve Nissen, MD.
“While the FDA allowed the three to
vote, the agency removed the voting rights of another panel member,
public-interest doctor Sidney M. Wolfe, because he had publicly criticized the
drugs' safety in newsletters published by his Public Citizen Health Research
Group.”
And
FDA delays taking action (often for years) after toxic drugs and defective
devices cause immeasurable harm. FDA procedures and actions demonstrate
that public safety is clearly not a priority for FDA’s decision makers. Their intervention
on behalf of manufacturers has resulted in hundreds of thousands of preventable
deaths every year.
A secret internal
FDA document (2006)[11] obtained by the Project on Government
Oversight reveals that senior officials at the Center for Device and
Radiological Hardware (CDRH) made a unilateral administrative decision—over the
objections of scientists—not to comply with FDA regulatory safeguards requiring
medical devices such as cardiac defibrillators, pacemakers, replacement heart
valves, and coronary artery stents to be tested according to good laboratory
practices (GLP) in nonclinical laboratory studies. That decision accommodates
industry’s commercial interests—but it puts patients' lives at risk.
“The decision by top CDRH officials to
not enforce the GLP regulation is stunning in its contempt for the protection
of patients and its indifference to standards that comply with federal
regulations. Their decision, which was made over the strong objections of CDRH
scientists, is no harmless blunder. It is a high‑stakes, unknown‑odds gamble
with the lives of patients. It was also made without public notice.”88
In
January 2012, a whistleblower
lawsuit[12] filed by 8 FDA
scientists, revealed that a vast iIlegal FDA spying operation had been
initiated under the Obama administration (2010) against scientists who blew the
whistle about medical device safety hazards to Congress—as is their legally protected
right. The relevant documents in this case are posted on the website of the National
Whistleblowers Center.
News
reports[13] documenting
a massive surveillance scandal in which FDA high ranking officials
illegally intercepted legally protected communication--including communication
with attorney-client privilege, communication with Congress and communications
with the Special Counsel--shine a light on the hostile culture within the
agency and the lawless tactics of intimidation that FDA executives deployed
when they sought to silence scientists who expressed concerns about the
licensing of unsafe devices. This is not an isolated case of
misconduct and abuse of power by FDA officials.
But the scale of the 2010 spying
operation—that was “explicitly authorized” by the FDA General Counsel’s office,
with full knowledge of FDA Commissioner, Margaret Hamburg—raises
this case to the Watergate level for its lawless abuse of power.[14]
No
one in the media questioned the President about the abuse of power by his
administrators who rode roughshod on legally protected safeguards.
Media
coverage of the FDA spying scandal failed to grasp the essential issues and the
magnitude of harm posed by unsafe medical products that carry the FDA seal of
approval.
FDA managers routinely overrule FDA’s own scientists’
objections to approval of products when they detect serious safety hazards.
Numerous FDA
scientists have collided with administrators about safety issues
.[15]
The FDA seal of
approval on unsafe medical products that injure and kill debases the essence of
medicine, undermines physicians’ ability to heal, and erodes public trust in
medicine. One Senator recognized the affront of FDA’s
arrogance and culture of lawless abuse of power. Senator Chuck Grassley made a Statement
from the Senate floor on July 17, 2012, in which he characterized FDA's
aggressive spying operation as befitting the Gestapo and the East German Stasi
rather than a consumer protection agency in a free country.
He accused
the FDA of having "forgotten that it works for the American public. This
is an agency that has gotten too big for its britches. Some of its officials
have forgotten who pays their salaries."[16]
But therein
lays the rub: the collision between FDA safety officers and FDA management is
largely the result of a legislatively initiated conflict of interest.
With
passage of PDUFA, FDA’s focus and priority shifted from protecting the
public health to speeding the review process by minimizing safety testing for
new patented drugs, devices, and vaccines. FDA administrators have been running
roughshod over its scientists, overruling their safety concerns to approve new
drugs, vaccines, and devices—regardless of their lack of clinical value—disregarding
evidence of fraud in plain sight.
FDA’s
budget in 2012 is $4.5 billion—of which
industry user fees comprise about $2 billion.[17]
A congressional report found that there
has been a sharp decline in FDA enforcement actions against pharmaceutical
companies since December 2001.[18]
In light of the unprecedented number of successful criminal and civil lawsuits
against pharmaceutical companies, FDA’s inactive enforcement is even more
astonishing.
See, Pharma's Rap Sheet: Civil & Criminal Settlements
After reviewing the
records, Dr. Jerry Avorn wrote the House Reform Committee: “In all of FDA’s once-proud recent history, I cannot
recall a time of greater concern about its work on the part of doctors,
patients, and policy researchers.”
The FDA has become
complicit in outright fraud.
FDA’s approval process for the Sanofi-Aventis’ antibiotic drug,
Ketek, the details of which were brought to light by several FDA safety
officers[19]
during congressional hearings and criminal prosecutions, reveals a pattern of
FDA approval that disregards scientific fraud and endangers public safety.[20]
Ketek was approved in 2004 less than one month AFTER one of the principal
US researchers in the trial was sentenced to 57 months in prison for falsifying
her Ketek data.
Another physician, in charge of the third-largest Ketek trial
site, was a cocaine addict who submitted his data to the F.D.A. the same month
that he was arrested while holding his wife hostage at gunpoint. [21] FDA inspectors recommended that 4 of
the 10 Ketek clinical trial sites be referred for criminal investigation.
In 2003, FDA managers had deliberately misled an
advisory committee when they presented Study 3014 but prevented an FDA scientist from
mentioning
the data integrity problems to the committee. Unaware of the fraud, the committee voted
overwhelmingly to recommend approval of Ketek based on invalid optimistic
data.
Reports of severe adverse reactions, including liver damage, and deaths, came pouring into
the FDA. Nevertheless, a pediatric experiment had been sanctioned over the
objections of the F.D.A.’s safety reviewers. The trial involved 4,000
infants and children, some as young as six months, who were recruited in more
than 12 countries for an experiment to assess Ketek’s effectiveness in treating
ear infections and tonsillitis—hardly justifying the risk of liver damage and
death.
Dr. Johann-Liang, an FDA safety
scientist, called for an end to the ongoing pediatric trials, stating “How does one justify balancing the risk of fatal liver failure
against one day less of ear pain?”
Dr. John Powers, another FDA
physician, testified that the trial should never have been approved. Initiation
of the trial was “inappropriate and unethical because it exposed children to
harm without evidence of benefits.”[22]
Dr. David
Ross, who had been the F.D.A.’s chief
reviewer of new drugs for 10 years, and is now the national director of
clinical public-health programs for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs,
explained his objections, by offering
a litany of complicit misconduct by FDA administrators that could be applied to
any number of other drugs:
-
“Because F.D.A. broke its own rules and allowed Ketek on
the market.

-
Because dozens of patients have died or suffered
needlessly.
-
Because F.D.A. allowed Ketek’s maker to experiment with it
on children over reviewers’ protests.
- Because F.D.A. ignored warnings about
fraud.
-
And because F.D.A. used data it knew were false to reassure the public
about Ketek’s safety.” [21]
“With an estimated 2 to 4 million serious injuries each
year, drug therapy stands as one of the most significant perils to health
resulting from human activity.”
Indeed, each year, FDA-approved
drugs kill more Americans than died in the Vietnam War and the 9/11 terrorist
attacks combined. No one counts the number of people killed by FDA-approved
defective medical devices, or the number or children killed or maimed by
FDA-approved, government-mandated vaccines.
No one tracks the
number of Americans who are killed by defective, FDA-licensed devices.
Vaccine-injured, brain damaged children are the pariahs that public health
agents don’t recognize.
Some
have said that the greatest threat to our safety is not terrorism. The FDA
currently poses the greatest threat to the health and safety of the American
people, far outweighing the threat of terrorist attacks or violent crime.
Vera
Sharav
This
is Part V of a series.
See,
Part I: America’s Healthcare
Crisis--The Whole System is Broken
Part II: What Do We Get for
All That Money?
Part
III: The Untouchable Third Rail in Healthcare- Vaccine Controversy
Part V: Vaccine Injury Compensation
REFERENCES
[1] In
1998, a survey of FDA scientists by Public Citizen revealed that FDA approval
standards had declined under pressure. The medical officers identified 27 new
drugs that had been approved within the previous 3 years that they thought
should not have been. See,
Public Citizen, 1998.
[2] In 2006, the Union of Concerned Scientists surveyed 5,918 FDA scientists about
the scientific integrity at the FDA.
Hundreds of scientists reported having been pressured by management to
approve a drug despite scientific-based reservations about safety.
“Scientific discourse is
strongly discouraged when it may jeopardize an approval. . . . Whenever safety
or efficacy concerns are raised on scientific grounds . . . these concerns are
not taken seriously." See,
Union of Concerned Scientists survey, 2006. See, follow-up UCS Survey, 2011.
[4]
A 1998 review estimated that more than 2.2
million hospitalized patients suffered an adverse drug reaction--of these
106,000 to 137,000 died. Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of
Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients: a Meta-Analysis of Prospective
Studies, JAMA, 1998.
|