CDC and FDA ‘altered’ Covid guidance and even ‘suppressed’ findings while under political pressure, bombshell report suggests: Whistle-blower employees say they feared ‘retaliation’ if they spoke up

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10759403/CDC-FDA-altered-Covid-guidance-pressure-bombshell-report-claims.html

  • Federal investigators interviewed top-level directors and managers at agencies
  • They also opened a hotline for employees to report ‘political interference’
  • Government Accountability Office uncovered widespread allegations of this
  • They raised fears that Covid guidance may have been ‘altered or suppressed’
  • GAO warned none of the agencies had systems in place for reporting allegations
  • Said they had failed to train staff in how to report and spot political interference
  • Follows allegations White House waged a war on science early in the pandemic 

CDC and FDA officials ‘altered’ Covid guidance and even ‘suppressed’ findings related to the virus due to political pressure, a bombshell report suggests.

Investigators from the watchdog Government Accountability Office (GAO) spoke to more than a dozen directors and managers who worked at the agencies behind the country’s pandemic guidance. 

They unearthed allegations of ‘political interference’ in scientific reports, raising fears that research was tampered with.

In its 37-page report, the GAO warned that neither agency had a system in place for reporting allegations of political interference. It also said they had failed to train staff how to spot and report this.

Whistleblowers said they did not speak up at the time for fear of retaliation, because they were unsure how to report the issues or believed leaders were already aware.  

This is just the latest in a growing patchwork of reports suggesting politicians influenced ‘scientific’ papers during the pandemic for their own ends.

On Tuesday, the Biden administration’s top medical adviser Dr Anthony Fauci declared the U.S. is now ‘out of the pandemic phase’ of Covid, citing low cases and hospitalizations.

But health experts were quick to question the claim — buried at the end of an interview with PBS’ NewsHour — suggesting he may have bungled his words and should only have said the nation was in a phase of ‘low hospitalizations’. 

In the early phase the White House was accused of waging a war on science, with then-president Donald Trump repeatedly pushing for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports to be amended to support his views, as shown in emails made public by congressional investigators last April.

The CDC is facing allegations that it altered and suppressed Covid guidance that was meant to save lives. (Stock image of its headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia)

+8
View gallery
The CDC is facing allegations that it altered and suppressed Covid guidance that was meant to save lives. (Stock image of its headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia) 
The FDA is facing the same accusations, following its approval of a blood plasma treatment early in the pandemic. Hospitals are no longer offering blood plasma to most patients because it provided 'little benefit'. (Stock image of their headquarters in White Oak, Maryland)

+8
View gallery
The FDA is facing the same accusations, following its approval of a blood plasma treatment early in the pandemic. Hospitals are no longer offering blood plasma to most patients because it provided ‘little benefit’. (Stock image of their headquarters in White Oak, Maryland) 
The Biden administration's top medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci has declared the United States is now 'out of the pandemic phase' of Covid-19 , as cases and hospitalizations associated with the disease remain low

+8
View gallery
The Biden administration’s top medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci has declared the United States is now ‘out of the pandemic phase’ of Covid-19 , as cases and hospitalizations associated with the disease remain low 

‘A few respondents from CDC and [Food and Drug Administration] FDA stated they felt that the potential political interference they observed resulted in the alteration or suppression of scientific findings,’ GAO investigators wrote in the report.

‘Some of these respondents believed that this potential political interference may have resulted in the politically motivated alteration of public health guidance or delayed publication of Covid-related scientific findings.’

The GAO report published last week looked into the two agencies, alongside the National Institutes of Health (NIH) — America’s top research institution— and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) — in charge of natural disaster response.

It’s The Biggest FDA Scandal In History: Interview With Whistleblower Linda Martin, Ph.D.

It’s The Biggest FDA Scandal In History: Interview With Whistleblower Linda Martin, Ph.D.

Speaking About News

Got Science? Are you sure?

Dr. Brian Hooker invites some of the leading voices in science and medicine to break down the studies and weigh in on the controversies so the rest of us have an opportunity to understand the science that drives public health policy and medical progress. Watch at link Below:

‘Doctors And Scientists’ With Brian Hooker, PHD. – CHD TV: Livestreaming Video & Audio (childrenshealthdefense.org)

CDC Has Not Been Transparent With the American Public on COVID

An article published this past weekend in The New York Times highlights a glaring problem with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and its policy recommendations related to the pandemic during the past two years. The problem has to do with lack of transparency regarding hospitalizations for COVID-19 and the effectiveness of vaccinations for the illness.1 2 The Times article, written by Apoorva Mandavilli, starts out:

For more than a year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has collected data on hospitalizations for Covid-19 in the United States and broken it down by age, race and vaccination status. But it has not made most of the information public. When the C.D.C. published the first significant data on the effectiveness of boosters in adults younger than 65 two weeks ago, it left out the numbers for a huge portion of that population: 18- to 49-year-olds…1 3

The article continues:

Two full years into the pandemic, the agency leading the country’s response to the public health emergency has published only a tiny fraction of the data it has collected, several people familiar with the data said.

The CDC has shared only a “tiny fraction” of its COVID data with the American public?

Former CDC Director Thinks Agency Should Let COVID Data Speak for Itself

According to CDC spokesperson, Kristen Nordlund, one of the reasons for the lack of data transparency is because “basically, at the end of the day, [the data is] not yet ready for prime time,” noting that the CDC’s “priority when gathering any data is to ensure that it’s accurate and actionable.”1 In an interview with Fox News, former CDC director Robert Redfield, MD confirmed this view, saying…

One of the things is that CDC has a tendency to look at data and make sure that they believe that data is accurate. They call it curating the data. So very frequently the data is out of sync to be able to be in real-time to respond.4

But Dr. Redfield suggested that he disagreed with this practice. He said that he believes whatever data the CDC collects should “absolutely get out there in real-time.” He added:

I think the best thing for CDC to do is to tell the American public the truth and let the data there. I’m sure the American public is intelligent enough to understand the explanations. I know there’s a concern that they have that the data may somehow be misinterpreted to determine the efficacy of the vaccines, rather than just tell people the truth.4

CDC Reluctance to Track COVID “Breakthrough Cases” Due to Fear of Contributing to Vaccine Hesitancy

Nordlund reportedly said that another reason for the CDC’s hesitancy to be more transparent was due to fear that its data might be misinterpreted–that information about the number of fully vaccinated people “breakthrough” SARS-CoV-2 infections, for example, could lead to concerns about the effectiveness of the COVID shots.1 2

Epidemiologist Jessica Malaty Rivera, MS, who was a member of the team that ran The COVID Tracking Project,5 dismissed the CDC worries about incomplete data being misinterpreted. She said, “We are at a much greater risk of misinterpreting the data with data vacuums, than sharing the data with proper science, communication and caveats.”

During the past two years, the CDC has frequently been criticized for its COVID and COVID vaccine data collection practices, its mixed and confusing messaging and a growing perception that the agency has not been fully transparent with the American public regarding the pandemic.6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Perhaps one of the clearest examples of the CDC’s failure to provide timely and accurate COVID-related information is the agency’s inability or unwillingness to adequately track the number of cases in which fully vaccinated (and boosted) individuals have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Because of this, it is not known how many “breakthrough cases” there have been in the United States. Consequently, there is no way to know for sure how effective the COVID shots have been in preventing the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID illness.

This represents a huge and fundamental scientific knowledge gap underlying the primary tool the U.S. government has aggressively pushed on the American people to deal with COVID. But this is only part of the problem. That other part has to do with the lack of reliable information regarding the number of people in the U.S. who have been hospitalized with COVID.

In April 2021, the CDC arbitrarily decided to stop tracking coronavirus breakthrough cases so that it could focus on tracking only breakthrough cases that resulted in hospitalization or death. The assumption was that this major change in policy would allow the agency to more accurately gauge the number of vaccinated people being hospitalized for COVID and, by extension, the overall number of people hospitalized for the illness.12

CDC System for Tracking COVID Hospitalizations in Need of Overhaul

But it has recently come to light that the system the CDC has been using to count COVID hospitalizations is deeply flawed. According to an article in Politico on Feb. 7, 2021 titled “Biden officials trying to recalculate U.S. Covid-19 hospitalizations,” the U.S. government has established a task force to work with “hospitals nationwide to improve COVID-19 reporting.” The task force wants hospitals to report the number of patients who are hospitalized because they have COVID and separate those from the patients who are hospitalized for other reasons but test positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus after being admitted.17 18

As reported by The Vaccine Reaction earlier this month:

What this suggests is that, in the past, U.S. hospitals have been counting people hospitalized for reasons other than COVID as COVID patients if they happened to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 after admission. This would have the effect of increasing hospital COVID case counts, making the effects of COVID on U.S. hospitals appear worse than they actually were. Remember all those media reports about how overwhelmed hospitals were with COVID patients? It now appears that at least some of that reporting may have been inaccurate, even grossly inaccurate.18

So not only do we not know how effective the COVID shots have been in real-world circumstances, we do not know how many vaccinated (or unvaccinated) people have been hospitalized for COVID–which means that we really do not know how many people have actually died of COVID, in general. It is no wonder the CDC has consistently found it so difficult to be forthcoming.


References

1 Mandavilli A. The C.D.C. Isn’t Publishing Large Portions of the Covid Data It CollectsThe New York Times Feb. 20, 2022.

2 Rumpf S. CDC Under New Scrutiny For Collecting Wide Variety of Covid-Related Data But Publishing ‘Only a Tiny Fraction’MSN Feb. 20, 2022.

3 Mandavilli A. Younger Americans Benefited Less From Booster Shots Than Older PeopleThe New York Times Feb. 4, 2022.

4 Fox News. CDC reportedly published ‘tiny fraction’ of COVID data. Feb. 21, 2022.

5 The COVID Tracking Project. Mar. 7, 2021.

6 Abutaleb Y, Sun LH. How CDC data problems put the U.S. behind on the delta variantThe Washington Post Aug. 19, 2021.

7 Feldmann L. The trouble with transparency: How pandemic is challenging the CDCThe Christian Science Monitor Aug. 5, 2021.

8 Fox M. Analysis: CDC fails to publish data needed to judge risk of breakthrough infection CNN July 28, 2021.

9 Pollard MS, Davis LM. Decline in Trust in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention During the COVID-19 Pandemic. RAND 2021.

10 Simmons-Duffin S. CDC is criticized for failing to communicate, promises to do better. NPR Jan. 7, 2022.

12 Cáceres M. CDC Intentionally Undercounting COVID-19 “Breakthrough Cases” in Vaccinated PersonsThe Vaccine Reaction May 23, 2021.

13 CBSN. CDC Lacking Data on Breakthrough COVID-19 InfectionsThe Vaccine Reaction Sept. 6, 2021.

14 CNVC. CDC Pressured to Track Breakthrough COVID Cases Among the VaccinatedThe Vaccine Reaction July 26, 2021.

15 Miltimore J. What is the True Vaccine Breakthrough Rate? The CDC Doesn’t Want You to KnowThe Vaccine Reaction Oct. 11, 2021.

16 Putka S. CDC Hasn’t Updated COVID Vax Breakthrough DataMedPage Today Nov. 11, 2021.

17 Banco E. Biden officials trying to recalculate U.S. Covid-19 hospitalizationsPolitico Feb. 7, 2022.

18 Cáceres M. U.S. Hospitals May ‘Recalculate’ How They Report COVID Cases. The Vaccine Reaction Feb. 13, 2022.

Original post from https://speakingaboutnews.com/its-the-biggest-fda-scandal-in-history-interview-with-whistleblower-linda-martin-ph-d/

Ingredient Lists: The FDA Admits They Can’t Do Their Job

Ingredient Lists: The FDA Admits They Can’t Do Their Job

How many times have you heard the argument that the ingredients in our food are safe to eat, simply because they are “Approved” by the FDA. I’ve heard this statement many times in the media recently, and I’m sure you have, too. I wasn’t going to let the opportunity slide to tell you what I really think when someone says that an ingredient has been rubber stamped by the FDA and is automatically safe to eat. 

There’s an implication out there that everything allowed in processed food – preservatives, artificial sweeteners, thickeners, stabilizers, emulsifiers – have gone through some sort of rigorous testing by the FDA proving they’re okay to eat – but in most cases they haven’t!

fdabuilding

Given the FDA’s mission to “protect the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy and security of…our nation’s food supply”, it would only make sense that they would be front and center in approving new food ingredients before they hit the market – however – this is not necessarily the case.In fact, the FDA is sometimes not even aware that a new ingredient has been introduced into our food. 

New food ingredients are often approved by the manufacturer themselves, and not by the FDA.

While there are some food additives that the FDA has approved before they hit the shelves, this has proven to be a burdensome process. The FDA claims that so as not to waste government resources, they will just let the manufacturer decide whether an ingredient is safe to eat or not.

That’s right – all an ingredient manufacturer has to do is hire their own experts to claim under “reasonable certainty in the minds of competent scientists that the substance is not harmful under the intended conditions of use” and the manufacturer may deem it as “GRAS”, which stands for “Generally Recognized as Safe”. This is the green light to start adding it to food products.

A manufacturer can then voluntarily send their GRAS determination to the FDA, but this is not mandatory. Even worse, if the FDA raises questions about an ingredient received in a voluntary GRAS notice, the manufacturer can just withdraw their noticeand still use the ingredient in food products! This practice is nothing short of alarming, and is allowing companies to skirt around the FDA and essentially put whatever they want into our food. 

This issue has become a monster that’s impossible to control. Back when Congress gave the FDA authority over food additives (in 1958), there were about 800 additives. Today, the number of known ingredients has swelled to about 10,000 and continues to grow. The National Resources Defense Council estimates that roughly 1,000 food chemicals have been secretly added without notification to the FDA, and say that GRAS should really stand for “Generally Recognized As Secret”. Even the FDA’s Deputy Commissioner, Michael Taylor, recently confessed:

“We simply do not have the information to vouch for the safety of many of these chemicals… we do have questions about whether we can do what people expect of us”

You can’t put your confidence in the FDA, when it comes to food additives. 

While some additives may be safe in small quantities, the FDA cannot regulate cummulative consumption when particular additives are being added to an insurmountable number of foods without any post-market oversight. For instance, even if you think you’re eating healthy you could easily be eating the ingredient carrageenan (that is linked to intestinal issues) at every meal: in your morning coffee and yogurt at breakfast, soup and deli-meat sandwich for lunch, and Lean Cuisine frozen dinner. What is the cumulative amount of carrageenan in this diet? No one is evaluating that. The FDA readily admits:

“We do not know the volume of particular chemicals that are going into the food supply so we can diagnose trends. We do not know what is going on post-market.”

The FDA is asleep at the wheel and the Food Industry is in charge.

The big food industry has proudly taken it upon themselves to approve food ingredients… and why wouldn’t they? It’s the perfect opportunity for them to create chemicals that help them to make products cheaper and quicker, without 3rd party oversight into their safety. In August, the Grocery Manufacturers Association (an industry group comprised of over 300 big food brands such as Pepsico, General Mills, Kellogg’s and Kraft) announced they are unleashing an initiative to “improve the process and increase transparency for making Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) determinations” and will “take the lead in defining a standard that will provide clear guidance on how to conduct transparent state of the art ingredient safety assessments…”. 

Who wants the Grocery Manufacturers Association to take the lead here? I know I don’t.

This was clearly a move to give the public a warm and fuzzy feeling about the safety of our food, without making any real progress and putting more power into hands of Big Food. According to the chief regulatory affairs attorney for the Center for Science In The Public Interest, Laura MacCleery, “That this is seen as a step forward neatly illustrates the dysfunction built into the current system. It is outrageous that FDA doesn’t already have the identity, much less the safety data, of all substances added to the nation’s food supply”. There is undeniable evidence of institutional corruption at the FDA, as they’ve allowed pharmaceutical companies to lobby for regulations that “serve their interests” and have minimized the role of the FDA. So, allowing the food corporations to take the lead in determining what ingredients are safe to eat is inexcusable.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has called out the FDA for its lax practices and asked them to strengthen their oversight of food ingredients. According to the GAO’s audit of the FDA in 2010 they found some huge problems with the way the FDA is running things. Although I think their entire report is required reading, I’ve summarized some highlights here for you.  

The FDA is not aware of many GRAS determinations:

“FDA generally does not have information about other GRAS determinations because companies are not required to inform the agency… once a company concludes that a substance is GRAS, it may market the substance, even if FDA finds that the notice does not provide a sufficient basis for GRAS… Without information about all GRAS determinations, FDA has less awareness of substances in the nation’s food supply and less knowledge of the potential cumulative dietary exposure of GRAS substances… (This) makes it difficult, if not impossible, for public health authorities to attribute a food safety problem to a specific GRAS substance…. FDA’s oversight of their safety would be improved if companies were required to make the agency aware of their GRAS determinations”.

Companies can hire their own experts to determine their product is GRAS and there are no conflict of interest guidelines in place:

“While FDA has issued guidance to minimize the potential for conflicts of interest among it’s own staff who look at scientific issues and the safety of GRAS substances, it has not issued any guidance on the subject for companies to use with their own scientific experts… Expert panels can be comprised of a company’s own staff or outside experts hired by the company… FDA has not issued any conflict of interest guidance.”

Companies are not held accountable or required to keep records of their GRAS determinations:

“FDA has not taken certain steps to ensure companies maintain proper documentation to support their GRAS determinations… it intended to conduct random audits of data and information maintained by these companies. However, according to FDA officials, the agency has not conducted such audits”.

FDA has failed to conduct ongoing reviews of GRAS substances, including those that raised concerns over 30 years ago:

“FDA last engaged in a systematic reconsideration of the safety of GRAS substances in the 1970s and 1980s.  This effort raised questions about the safety of almost three dozen GRAS substances…from about 1972 through 1982, the committee reviewed the safety of 422 substances directly added to food… In all, the committee questioned the safety of 35 of these substances… unless evidence was provided to FDA showing these substances safety, it expected FDA to revoke their GRAS status… As of December 2009, FDA had affirmed 17 of these 35 substances as GRAS…(and) FDA had not issued regulations on the remaining 18 substances and could not readily explain why, even though almost 30 years had passed”

The GAO concluded that there are GRAS ingredients currently on the market that may not be safe:  

“questions have been raised about the safety of numerous GRAS substances over the last 50 years and some have been banned as a result.  In the future, other substances now considered GRAS may also prove to be unsafe”.

For these reasons, I believe that we need to take responsibility for our own health and not rely on the FDA to protect us.

 This may not be news to you, but so many people are relying on these antiquated regulations – so we need to spread the word! Please share this post with your friends and family, and with anyone who tries to tell you that an ingredient is safe just because it’s “approved” by the FDA! 

Next time they say such a thing…you’ll be armed with the truth!

We must read the ingredient lists on the food we eat – if you don’t recognize the ingredient, put it down and run as fast as you can!

Xo,

Vani 

P.S. Are you jumping from diet to diet and nothing seems to work? Are you sick of seeing contradictory health advice from experts? In my new book, Feeding You Lies, I blow the lid off the lies we’ve been fed about the food we eat – lies about its nutrient value, effects on our health, label information, and even the very science we base our food choices on. I guide you through a 48-hour Toxin Takedown to rid your pantry, and your body, of harmful chemicals – a quick and easy plan that anyone