Why Did The FDA Hide Vaccine Injuries?How Peter Marks' role in the COVID vaccine debacle exposed the flaws in America's toxic health bureaucracy
A frequent criticism of corporations (which I believe also applies to governmental bureaucracies) is that their organizational structure encourages sociopathic behavior. This is because members of these entities are shielded from legal or personal accountability for their actions, with any wrongdoings being attributed to the corporation as a whole. In contrast, the main form of accountability most members face is the pressure to advance the institution’s mission (e.g., make more money), leading to the proliferation of increasingly unethical methods to achieve that goal. To illustrate, consider this quote from Peter Rost, a former executive at Pfizer and one of the few pharmaceutical leaders to speak out against the industry:
In looking through what went awry with the COVID-19 response, while Fauci was commonly blamed for all that went amiss, I kept running into another less-known individual who, while hidden within the FDA bureaucracy, I believe was directly responsible for many of the mishaps that happened
This was because Peter Marks was: •The primary person who covered up the reports of COVID vaccine injuries (and instead repeatedly told the world they were “safe and effective”). •Kept on pushing the FDA’s chief vaccine scientists (who were very pro-vaccine) to accelerate and condense the approval timelines for the COVID vaccines (as those approvals were needed to legally implement Biden’s vaccine and booster mandates). Eventually, Gruber and Krause reported their were no more corners they could cut to further accelerate the COVID vaccine approvals, at which point they were removed from the COVID vaccine approval process and Marks took it over (at which point the unjustifiable approvals and mandates quickly followed). As such, I felt Marks should not be in the agency and four weeks ago put together a detailed summary of his gross malfeasance at the FDA throughout COVID-19 in the hopes his abhorrent conduct could become widely known. Last week, Marks announced his resignation in a spiteful letter that concluded with:
This, in turn, prompted Robert Redfield (Trump’s 2018-2021 CDC director) to make a Twitter account to state:
Note: Redfield, to my knowledge, is the only CDC director who went into private practice (he treats long COVID) after leaving the CDC (whereas in contrast most directors accept lucrative or prestigious positions following their tenure). Following Mark’s resignation (which many news outlets claimed was forced), many news outlets attempted to paint him as saint and a victim of RFK’s “war against science”
This gushing coverage of Marks, in turn, I would argue was due to his background. Specifically: •Prior to joining the FDA, Marks was an academic hematologist and oncologist with an “average and unimpressive publication history” (none of which related to vaccines, but one of which extensively discussed the global need for fully informed consent and stated “those that have only pretended to move [towards informed consent] will have the greatest difficulty”). •Prior to joining the FDA, he’d also worked for several years the pharmaceutical industry (although oddly, no information exists online as to which companies he worked for—although one was likely Novartis). •While at the FDA, he prioritized pushing through extremely expensive gene therapies (22 in total—most of which cost over half a million dollars), including some highly questionable ones (e.g., he overruled three FDA review teams and two top officials to push through a failed muscular dystrophy treatment which subsequently killed a patient). •Marks was seen as a global leader in commercializing this field (e.g., he helped direct Germany’s national program to develop gene therapies, his resignation shook the entire sector, and following his resignation, large drops occurred in the stocks of key gene therapy companies). Fake EmpathyRoughly
a century ago, a new industry which combined propaganda, marketing and
the emerging science of psychology was created by Freud’s nephew and
rapidly took off because of how effectively it shifted public opinion.
Since that time Public Relations
(PR) has been continuously refined and this invisible industry has
gradually gained a monopoly over pubic discourse and gotten a
stranglehold on our society. In
my eyes, one of the most critical points to understand about PR is that
the industry has made it much easier (and cheaper) to create a positive
perception by paying a PR firm to do that than it is to earn the
positive perception through one’s actions. Similarly, public policy has
shifted towards policies being determined by whether or not a PR firm
can sell them to the public rather than if the electorate supports them. Within medicine, one of the most common complaints patients have is that their doctors “don’t show empathy” towards them—a situation I believe ultimately results from the fact doctors have so little time with all the patients they see that the fundamental human capacity to be present to another’s experience gets overloaded and they instead default to interacting with their patient’s through an abstract script to get through the day. In turn, while I sometimes come across individuals (e.g., doctors or politicians) who have the capacity to quickly be present to large numbers of people, normally the only viable solution to this problem is to spend more time with each person. Unfortunately, the current insurance payment scheme incentivizes those short visits (which I believe is incredibly shortsighted as many chronic issues can only be solved with longer visits that cost much less than the innumerable short visits that take their place). As such, the medical industry chose to address this lack of empathy not by giving patients what they wanted (a doctor they felt connected to) but rather by creating the facade of empathy. This for example was accomplished by training medical students to robotically repeat “empathy statements” (e.g., repeating back what the patient said or stating “I’m sorry to hear that”), as in many cases, that indeed works. Note: due to how profitable medical students are, there has been a proliferation of medical schools which has required gradually dropping the standards for admission (as our declining education standards has led to a lack of qualified college graduates). Because of this, the profession recently relaxed some of core graduation requirements such as their first board exams being switched to pass/fail and the pass/fail in-person basic assessment of clinical skills (where physician “empathy” was evaluated) being permanently cancelled due to COVID social distancing. Most recently, I saw this on display in a viral video where a popular YouTube doctor (who’s taken a lot of pharmaceutical money) “debated 20 anti-vaxxers” and then received many variants of these two responses: •"I am deeply impressed by the incredible empathy and compassion Dr. Mike gave these people." •"I cannot believe how moronic and misinformed those people were; Dr. Mike is a saint for talking to them the way he did." Conversely, after I watched it the following points jumped out at me: 1. Many of the people selected to appear challenged vaccination by promoting extreme and hard to defend views, thereby making it possible to make viral clips of their statements to smear all criticism of vaccines (whereas in contrast individuals with extensive familiarity on many of the topics were not invited so that Dr. Mike’s “expertise” could go unchallenged). 2. His responses typically were a mixture of standard vaccine talking points (e.g, all evidence of vaccine injury presented to him did not count because “correlation is not causation”) followed by “empathetic” statements. 3. Because of the smooth hypnotic pace he used, false statements that went unchallenged were peppered in such as: •He asserted VAERS overreports vaccine injuries when in reality less than 1% of injuries make it into VAERS (as the government never wanted a publicly available injury database and once a law forced its creation, the government has worked for decades to undermine VAERS). •He
argued that “vaccine immunity is superior to natural immunity” (which
is false as vaccine immunity often creates a very narrow immunity
pathogens rapidly evolve a resistance to). Then as people started to
point that out, he pivoted to stating “vaccines do not put you at risk
of infection like an actual infection so they are superior due to the
lower risk entailed in become immune” and was not called out for moving
the goalpost from efficacy to safety. In short, his actions were a classic example of the (incredibly cruel) gaslighting many patients experience when, after being injured by a pharmaceutical, they are told the injury is entirely in their head. In some cases that’s done in a rude and confrontational way, but in many others, it’s instead done in a deceptive and compassionate manner which still traps you in the same box. Note: one noteworthy fact about this doctor is that in addition to “combating misinformation” throughout COVID, he also used his large platform to repeatedly advocate for social distancing and mask wearing—but like many other proponents of that doctrine, subsequently got caught flagrantly violating it (in his case at his birthday party where he was maskless and tightly packed amongst women he’d invited—after which he essentially refused to apologize for his hypocrisy). Mark’s “Empathy”At React19’s request (an organization which advocates for the vaccine injured), I went through hundreds of pages of meetings and emails React19 had with the FDA. Many of these were with Peter Marks or his staff and occurred at the same time Marks was aggressively pushing FDA scientists to expedite approving the COVID vaccines so they could be mandated (e.g., military mandates began the day after his approval) and telling everyone the vaccine was safe and effective. Throughout these documents, I noticed a few consistent patterns. First, Marks would frequently not responds to queries or data demonstrating any issues with the vaccine. Second, he would always stall and claim the FDA needed more time to conduct an analysis to determine if there was a specific safety issue with the vaccine (even though many of them were exceedingly obvious and could be definitely proven in less than a day). Third, when directly presented with data he could not run away from (e.g., because he was in a live meeting) he would continually come up with excuses to explain why the data did not count (some of which matched Dr. Mike’s) and hence could not be linked to the COVID vaccines. As you can imagine, this was extremely frustrating for the React19 members (which included physicians), and they spent a lot of time trying to find something that could get through to him. Fourth, he would repeatedly blame the serious issues the vaccine injured were having on medical system failing patients (but deflect when it was pointed out that those failures were due to a lack of injury acknowledgment or treatment guidelines from the NIH or FDA and that doctors who nonetheless treated injuries being targeted by medical boards). Fifth, when pressed to define what would constitute acceptable proof of vaccine harm, Marks dodged the question. Sixth, Marks (especially in meetings), whenever confronted with the horrendous experiences vaccine injured individuals went through used a large number of empathy statements to indicate that he “deeply cared” about the immense suffering those with COVID-19 vaccine injuries were going through. In short, within ten minutes of the first meeting I watched that he had with React19, it was clear to me that Marks viewed those injured by the vaccines as acceptable collateral damage and that his only goal in dealing with them was to do whatever he could to make them go away so he wouldn’t have to deal with them or have them derail his vaccine campaign. I believe this was demonstrated by one of their final [4/15/23] emails with him which went:
This email was in reference to a major vaccine conference (on April, 4, 2023) where Marks was a keynote speaker (as were other well-known figures like Peter Hotez). To quote a report from an undercover attendee, during a panel where Marks spoke with one of England’s chief regulators (alongside top scientists from Moderna and J&J):
Note: during the React19 zoom meetings, Marks repeatedly implied otherwise (e.g., he stated “nobody is denying vaccine injuries may occur,” “nobody is denying adverse events can occur…nobody is denying the symptoms of what’s going on here,” “no-one is denying there are vaccine injury here. Nobody is denying that” “no-one is denying there are reports of neuropathy or potential of vaccine injury here. Nobody is denying that. But that vs a safety signal, that’s what we’re asking about”). Likewise, he repeatedly assured React19 they could trust the FDA (e.g., “We don’t have any secrets here.” “There is nothing I care about more than safe vaccines. No-one is trying to stonewall you…We don’t want to spread misinformation.” “Nobody is saying they’re not real it’s just saying that making definitive associations is very challenging.”). In short, Marks provided a perfect illustration of the fake empathy that has infected medicine (and of course subsequently denied making these conference remarks). Note: being a keynote speaker at the major conference for a pharmaceutical sector virtually guarantees the industry believes you will push along their products to the best of your ability. Similarly, I previously covered how Califf (Biden’s second FDA chief who was notorious for his pharmaceutical conflicts of interest) was the key note speaker at the annual invite-only conference JP Morgan Chase hosted for pharmaceutical investors (making it arguably the most important conference of the year). At that conference, Chase proclaimed that Ozempic and the new Alzheimer’s drugs would be some of the most lucrative drugs in history, and remarkably, immediately beforehand, Calif back-doored the approval of a highly controversial Alzheimer’s drug, while afterwards, the FDA began aggressively promoting Ozempic’s use in every age group. Regulatory BlindnessThe full report of that conference gives a fascinating perspective into the cult-like mentality of vaccine proponents. For instance, most of the attendees were convinced anti-vaxxers were a grave danger to humanity that had no rational basis for their beliefs (and hence must be censored). Yet simultaneously, most of the vaccine proponents (including prominent regulators) had no familiarity with most of basic data on COVID vaccines or any ability to address basic questions any reasonable person would ask. Note: this is very similar to how an investigative journalist interviewed numerous subsequent leaders of the FDA during its war on DMSO and discovered each of them was essentially clueless on the existing science about DMSO (rather they mindlessly and aggressively regurgitated the FDA’s erroneous positions), which he found quite remarkable given both that they were expected to be the most knowledge scientists in America and that DMSO was by far the most controversial topic the FDA had to handle (and hence the one thing its leader should be informed about). Most remarkably, the undercover attendees discovered that asking basic and reasonable questions pro-vaccine individuals would be expected to ask red-pilled many other (vaccine supporting) attendees. Put differently, like many other cults, the logical inconsistencies in many of their viewpoints were so extreme they could not standup to gentle scrutiny (and as such the moderators always terminated those dialogs). This thus touches upon two important points. First, in the 1970s and 1980s, the pharmaceutical industry had not yet bought out the mainstream media (as it was not until 1997 that the FTC decided to legalize pharmaceutical television advertisements) and as a result, national news programs that highlighted serious issues with the American vaccine program were aired (all of which I compiled here). Initially, government and industry tried to address the rising vaccine skepticism by debating it, but before long, they realized all that accomplished was reducing trust in vaccines (as many of their positions were indefensible and thus could not stand up to public scrutiny). As such, to combat this, alongside a newly minted media embargo on any questioning of vaccines, a decision was made going forward to never debate knowledgeable vaccine skeptics under the rationale “their viewpoints are so abhorrent giving them a platform endangers public health.” Fortunately, Note: Peter Hotez (one of the world’s leading vaccine proponents) epitomizes this as his statements in favor of vaccination are so unconvincing and ridiculous (e.g., consider this infamous Joe Rogan exchange) they actively reduce trust in vaccination, and conversely, Hotez has adamantly refused to ever debate a vaccine skeptic, even when he was offered over 2.5 million dollars to. Secondly, it helps clarify why the FDA, NIH, and CDC were unable to acknowledge any vaccine-related injuries, offering crucial context to their otherwise surreal, Kafkaesque struggle to have these injuries recognized. For reference, an abridged timeline of what transpired is as follows:
Note: a more detailed summary of those events can be read here.
Likewise, this 10/04/21 meeting (which was one of seven Zoom calls React19 had with the FDA) for example illustrates Mark’s evasive behavior throughout the process:  Finally, React19’s experiences were not an isolated event. For example to quote Robert Malone:
Similarly, when Marks was confronted with data showing the COVID vaccines were contaminated with synthetic DNA fragments, rather than address a major quality control issue, he simply chose to launch a media campaign to suppress that concern. Note: the above quote was from a comprehensive summary of Peter Marks surprising lack of competency Robert Malone recently published. Mark’s ResignationFrequently when dishonest people get called out, rather than apologize for their behavior, they will double-down on it. As such, I hope this article provides some helpful context to full appreciate Mark’s resignation letter.
To be clear, Marks is taking credit here for rushing along the COVID vaccines (which was arguably the greatest regulatory mistake in history).
Note: monkeypox was never a threat to public health because it was incredibly difficult to transmit.
Note: the false mythology behind the smallpox and polio vaccines is covered here.
Note: in addition to the relatively small increase in measles this year, unlike Africa, measles deaths are almost unheard of in the United States (e.g., in 2019 a 37-year old man died from measles, and this year, a child with measles died from an erroneously untreated bacterial pneumonia).
Given that roughly 200 cases of measles occur each year in the United States, it would take approximately 50 years for a case of SSPE to emerge here.
Note: one of the particularly frustrating decisions the FDA made in 2021 (and which Marks took credit for) was to cut off most of the human use of umbilical cord blood stem cells (that when applied correctly, were immensely useful for a variety of challenging illnesses), which effectively killed that industry.
Note: the key point I cannot sufficiently emphasize in all of this was the degree of suffering and desperation in the vaccine injured patients who Marks “empathetically” stonewalled as he continued to push the COVID vaccines. ConclusionIn 1906, the FDA (with the full support of Congress) was created in response to massive public protests against adulterated food and drugs (e.g., rotting food partially preserved with food additives or counterfeit consumer products). The first head of agency, Harvey Wiley, was an extremely dedicated public servant who did everything he could to protect America’s health. However, despite initially having the full backing of the president and the courts, food industry lobbyists attempted every tactic imaginable, eventually taking over the Department of Agriculture and in time forcing Wiley to quit (as he felt he could do more for America’s health through public advocacy outside of the government). To my knowledge, Secretary Kennedy is the first public servant to be in a similar position to Wiley, but unfortunately, the corruption (which was in its bare infancy during Wiley’s time) has exponentially grown. As such, despite having both a political mandate and the president’s support, RFK Jr. still faces an uphill battle to Make America Healthy Again. Fortunately, a lot is going on behind the scenes and RFK is gradually untying the vast Gordian knot of corruption with in the H.H.S. (e.g., since it’s an exercise in futility to work against thousands of bureaucrats who actively try to sabotage you, he recently began letting go of 10,000 H.H.S. personnel who had not been serving America’s interests such as Anthony Fauci’s wife who remarkably served as America’s chief bioethicist during the unconscionable COVID vaccine mandates). Likewise, he is gradually addressing many longstanding issues every other regulator has passed on such as being the first Secretary in fifty years to clean up our unhealthy infant formula supply and closing the “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) loophole many use to put toxic substances in our food (which came about after Wiley proved the toxicity of those additives, then fought for years to take those additives off the market but instead they were eventually given “GRAS” status). Like Wiley, RFK Jr. is opposed by vast entrenched interests, and as such it is important to remember Wiley’s prescient warning that policies which bring health back to America can only be implemented if the public also advocates for them. We now have a once in a lifetime opportunity to do this, and I hope this article helps to illustrate a bit of what RFK is working against to Make America Healthy Again and create a system where our healthcare system is restructured to genuinely care about the people it serves. I thus sincerely thank each of you for what you’ve done to make this moment possible and the support you’ve given me which has allowed me to also be an advocate for a healthier world. To learn how other readers have benefitted from this publication and the community it has created, their feedback can be viewed here. Additionally, an index of all the articles published in the Forgotten Side of Medicine can be viewed here. You're currently a free subscriber to The Forgotten Side of Medicine. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment