{"id":94492,"date":"2022-09-30T17:05:54","date_gmt":"2022-09-30T17:05:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/?p=94492"},"modified":"2022-09-30T17:07:52","modified_gmt":"2022-09-30T17:07:52","slug":"the-anatomy-of-big-pharmas-political-reach-ii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/the-anatomy-of-big-pharmas-political-reach-ii\/","title":{"rendered":"The Anatomy of Big Pharma\u2019s Political Reach (II)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Read the first part<\/a> of the article<\/p>\n

Backing the Big Four: Big Pharma and the FDA, WHO, NIH, CDC<\/strong><\/p>\n

I know what you\u2019re thinking. Big pharma is amoral and the FDA\u2019s devastating slips are a dime a dozen \u2013 old news. But what about agencies and organizations like the National Institutes of Health (NIH), World Health Organization (WHO), and Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC)? Don\u2019t they have an obligation to provide unbiased guidance to protect citizens? Don\u2019t worry, I\u2019m getting there.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The WHO\u2019s guidance is undeniably influential across the globe. For most of this organization\u2019s history, dating back to 1948, it could not receive donations from pharmaceutical companies \u2013 only member states. But that changed in 2005 when the WHO updated its financial policy to permit private money into its system. Since then, the WHO has accepted many financial contributions from big pharma. In fact, it\u2019s only 20% financed by member states today, with a whopping 80% of financing coming from private donors. For instance, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) is now one of its main contributors, providing up to 13% of its funds \u2013 about $250\u2013300 million a year. Nowadays, the BMGF provides more donations to the WHO than the entire United States.<\/p>\n

Dr. Arata Kochi, former head of WHO\u2019s malaria program, expressed concerns to director-general Dr. Margaret Chan in 2007 that taking the BMGF\u2019s money could have \u201cfar-reaching, largely unintended consequences<\/em>\u201d including \u201cstifling a diversity of views among scientists<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe big concerns are that the Gates Foundation isn\u2019t fully transparent and accountable<\/em>,\u201d Lawrence Gostin, director of WHO\u2019s Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law, told Devex <\/em>in an interview. \u201cBy wielding such influence, it could steer WHO priorities. It would enable a single rich philanthropist to set the global health agenda<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Take a peek at the WHO\u2019s list of donors<\/a> and you\u2019ll find a few other familiar names like AstraZeneca, Bayer, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Merck.<\/p>\n

The NIH has the same problem, it seems. Science journalist Paul Thacker, who previously examined financial links between physicians and pharma companies as a lead investigator of the United States Senate Committee, wrote in The Washington Post<\/em> that this agency \u201coften ignored<\/em>\u201d very \u201cobvious<\/em>\u201d conflicts of interest. He also claimed that \u201cits industry ties go back decades<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

In 2018, it was discovered that a $100 million alcohol consumption study run by NIH scientists was funded mostly by beer and liquor companies. Emails proved that NIH researchers were in frequent contact with those companies while designing the study \u2013 which, here\u2019s a shocker \u2013 were aimed at highlighting the benefits and not the risks of moderate drinking. So, the NIH ultimately had to squash the trial.<\/p>\n

And then there\u2019s the CDC. It used to be that this agency couldn\u2019t take contributions from pharmaceutical companies, but in 1992 they found a loophole: new legislation passed by Congress allowed them to accept private funding through a nonprofit called the CDC Foundation. From 2014 through 2018 alone, the CDC Foundation received $79.6 million from corporations like Pfizer, Biogen, and Merck.<\/p>\n

Of course, if a pharmaceutical company wants to get a drug, vaccine, or other product approved, they really need to cozy up to the FDA. That explains why in 2017, pharma companies paid for a whopping 75% of the FDA\u2019s scientific review budgets, up from 27% in 1993. It wasn\u2019t always like this. But in 1992, an act of Congress changed the FDA\u2019s funding stream, enlisting pharma companies to pay \u201cuser fees<\/em>,\u201d which help the FDA speed up the approval process for their drugs.<\/p>\n

A 2018 Science<\/em> investigation found that 40 out of 107 physician advisors on the FDA\u2019s committees received more than $10,000 from big pharma companies aiming to get their drugs approved, with some banking up to $1 million or more. The FDA claims it has a well-functioning system to identify and prevent these possible conflicts of interest. Unfortunately, their system only works for spotting payments before advisory panels meet, and the Science<\/em> investigation showed many FDA panel members get their payments after the fact. It\u2019s a little like \u201cyou scratch my back now, and I\u2019ll scratch your back once I get what I want<\/em>\u201d \u2013 drug companies promise FDA employees a future bonus contingent on whether things go their way.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s why this dynamic proves problematic: a 2000 investigation revealed that when the FDA approved the rotavirus vaccine in 1998, it didn\u2019t exactly do its due diligence. That probably had something to do with the fact that committee members had financial ties to the manufacturer, Merck \u2013 many owned tens of thousands of dollars of stock in the company, or even held patents on the vaccine itself. Later, the Adverse Event Reporting System revealed that the vaccine was causing serious bowel obstructions in some children, and it was finally pulled from the U.S. market in October 1999.<\/p>\n

Then, in June of 2021, the FDA overruled concerns raised by its very own scientific advisory committee to approve Biogen\u2019s Alzheimer\u2019s drug Aduhelm<\/em> \u2013 a move widely criticized by physicians. The drug not only showed very little efficacy but also potentially serious side effects like brain bleeding and swelling, in clinical trials. Dr. Aaron Kesselheim, a Harvard Medical School professor who was on the FDA\u2019s scientific advisory committee, called it the \u201cworst drug approval<\/em>\u201d in recent history, and noted that meetings between the FDA and Biogen had a \u201cstrange dynamic<\/em>\u201d suggesting an unusually close relationship. Dr. Michael Carome, director of Public Citizen\u2019s Health Research Group, told CNN<\/em> that he believes the FDA started working in \u201cinappropriately close collaboration with Biogen<\/em>\u201d back in 2019. \u201cThey were not objective, unbiased regulators<\/em>,\u201d he added in the CNN<\/em> interview. \u201cIt seems as if the decision was preordained<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

That brings me to perhaps the biggest conflict of interest yet: Dr. Anthony Fauci\u2019s NIAID is just one of many institutes that comprises the NIH \u2013 and the NIH owns half the patent for the Moderna vaccine \u2013 as well as thousands more pharma patents to boot. The NIAID is poised to earn millions of dollars from Moderna\u2019s vaccine revenue, with individual officials also receiving up to $150,000 annually.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>Operation Warp Speed<\/strong><\/p>\n

In December of 2020, Pfizer became the first company to receive an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the FDA for a Covid-19 vaccine. EUAs \u2013 which allow the distribution of an unapproved drug or other product during a declared public health emergency \u2013 are actually a pretty new aspect: the first one was issued in 2005 so military personnel could get an anthrax vaccine. To get a full FDA approval, there needs to be substantial evidence that the product is safe and effective. But for an EUA, the FDA just needs to determine that it may be effective. Since EUAs are granted so quickly, the FDA doesn\u2019t have enough time to gather all the information they\u2019d usually need to approve a drug or vaccine.<\/p>\n

Pfizer CEO and chairman Albert Bourla has said his company was \u201coperating at the speed of science<\/em>\u201d to bring a vaccine to market. However, a 2021 report in BMJ<\/em> revealed that this speed might have come at the expense of \u201cdata integrity and patient safety<\/em>.\u201d Brook Jackson, regional director for the Ventavia Research Group, which carried out these trials, told BMJ<\/em> that her former company \u201cfalsified data, unblinded patients, and employed inadequately trained vaccinators<\/em>\u201d in Pfizer\u2019s pivotal phase 3 trial. Just some of the other concerning events witnessed included: adverse events not being reported correctly or at all, lack of reporting on protocol deviations, informed consent errors, and mislabeling of lab specimens. An audio recording of Ventavia employees from September 2020 revealed that they were so overwhelmed by issues arising during the study that they became unable to \u201cquantify the types and number of errors<\/em>\u201d when assessing quality control. One Ventavia employee told BMJ<\/em> she\u2019d never once seen a research environment as disorderly as Ventavia\u2019s Pfizer vaccine trial, while another called it a \u201ccrazy mess<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Over the course of her two-decades-long career, Jackson has worked on hundreds of clinical trials, and two of her areas of expertise happen to be immunology and infectious diseases. She told me that from her first day on the Pfizer trial in September of 2020, she discovered \u201csuch egregious misconduct<\/em>\u201d that she recommended they stop enrolling participants into the study to do an internal audit.<\/p>\n

\u201cTo my complete shock and horror, Ventavia agreed to pause enrollment but then devised a plan to conceal what I found and to keep ICON and Pfizer in the dark<\/em>,\u201d Jackson said during our interview. \u201cThe site was in full clean-up mode. When missing data points were discovered the information was fabricated, including forged signatures on the informed consent forms.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

A screenshot Jackson shared with me shows she was invited to a meeting titled \u201cCovid 1001 Clean up Call<\/em>\u201d on Sept. 21, 2020. She refused to participate in the call. Jackson repeatedly warned her superiors about patient safety concerns and data integrity issues. \u201cI knew that the entire world was counting on clinical researchers to develop a safe and effective vaccine and I did not want to be a part of that failure by not reporting what I saw<\/em>,\u201d she told me.<\/p>\n

When her employer failed to act, Jackson filed a complaint with the FDA on Sept. 25, and Ventavia fired her hours later that same day under the pretense that she was \u201cnot a good fit<\/em>.\u201d After reviewing her concerns over the phone, she claims the FDA never followed up or inspected the Ventavia site.<\/p>\n

Ten weeks later, the FDA authorized the EUA for the vaccine. Meanwhile, Pfizer hired Ventavia to handle the research for four more vaccine clinical trials, including one involving children and young adults, one for pregnant women, and another for the booster. Not only that, but Ventavia handled the clinical trials for Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and Novavax. Jackson is currently pursuing a False Claims Act<\/em> lawsuit against Pfizer and Ventavia Research Group.<\/p>\n

Last year, Pfizer banked nearly $37 billion from its Covid vaccine, making it one of the most lucrative products in global history. Its overall revenues doubled in 2021 to reach $81.3 billion, and it\u2019s slated to reach a record-breaking $98-$102 billion this year.<\/p>\n

\u201cCorporations like Pfizer should never have been put in charge of a global vaccination rollout, because it was inevitable they would make life-and-death decisions based on what\u2019s in the short-term interest of their shareholders<\/em>,\u201d writes Nick Dearden, director of Global Justice Now<\/em>.<\/p>\n

As previously mentioned, it\u2019s super common for pharmaceutical companies to fund the research on their own products. Here\u2019s why that\u2019s scary. One 1999 meta-analysis showed that industry-funded research is eight times less likely to achieve unfavorable results compared to independent trials. In other words, if a pharmaceutical company wants to prove that a medication, supplement, vaccine, or device is safe and effective, they\u2019ll find a way.<\/p>\n

Knowing this, I recently examined the 2020 study on Pfizer\u2019s Covid vaccine to see if there were any conflicts of interest. Lo and behold, the lengthy attached disclosure form shows that of the 29 authors, 18 are employees of Pfizer and hold stock in the company, one received a research grant from Pfizer during the study, and two reported being paid \u201cpersonal fees<\/em>\u201d by Pfizer. In another 2021 study on the Pfizer vaccine, seven of the 15 authors are employees of and hold stock in Pfizer. The other eight authors received financial support from Pfizer during the study.<\/p>\n

As of the day I\u2019m writing this, about 64% of Americans are fully vaccinated, and 76% have gotten at least one dose. The FDA has repeatedly promised \u201cfull transparency<\/em>\u201d when it comes to these vaccines. Yet in December of 2021, the FDA asked for permission to wait 75 years before releasing information pertaining to Pfizer\u2019s Covid-19 vaccine, including safety data, effectiveness data, and adverse reaction reports. That means no one would see this information until the year 2096 \u2013 conveniently, after many of us have departed this crazy world. To recap: the FDA only needed 10 weeks to review the 329,000 pages worth of data before approving the EUA for the vaccine \u2013 but apparently, they need three-quarters of a century to publicize it.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

In response to the FDA\u2019s ludicrous request, PHMPT \u2013 a group of over 200 medical and public health experts from Harvard, Yale, Brown, UCLA, and other institutions \u2013 filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act<\/em> demanding that the FDA produce this data sooner. And their efforts paid off: U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman issued an order for the FDA to produce 12,000 pages by Jan. 31, and then at least 55,000 pages per month thereafter. In his statement to the FDA, Pittman quoted the late John F. Kennedy: \u201cA nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

As for why the FDA wanted to keep this data hidden, the first batch of documentation revealed that there were more than 1,200 vaccine-related deaths in just the first 90 days after the Pfizer vaccine was introduced. Of 32 pregnancies with a known outcome, 28 resulted in fetal death. The CDC also recently unveiled data showing a total of 1,088,560 reports of adverse events from Covid vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and Jan. 28, 2022. That data included 23,149 reports of deaths and 183,311 reports of serious injuries. There were 4,993 reported adverse events in pregnant women after getting vaccinated, including 1,597 reports of miscarriage or premature birth. A 2022 study published in Journal of American Medical Association<\/em> (JAMA<\/em>), meanwhile, revealed that there have been more than 1,900 reported cases of myocarditis \u2013 or inflammation of the heart muscle \u2013 mostly in people 30 and under, within 7 days of getting the vaccine. In those cases, 96% of people were hospitalized.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is understandable that the FDA does not want independent scientists to review the documents it relied upon to license Pfizer\u2019s vaccine given that it is not as effective as the FDA originally claimed, does not prevent transmission, does not prevent against certain emerging variants, can cause serious heart inflammation in younger individuals, and has numerous other undisputed safety issues<\/em>,\u201d writes Aaron Siri, the attorney representing PHMPT in its lawsuit against the FDA.<\/p>\n

Siri told me in an email that his office phone has been ringing off the hook in recent months. \u201cWe are overwhelmed by inquiries from persons calling about an injury from a Covid-19 vaccine<\/em>,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

By the way \u2013 it\u2019s worth noting that adverse effects caused by Covid-19 vaccinations are still not covered by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Companies like Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson are protected under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness<\/em> (PREP<\/em>) Act<\/em>, which grants them total immunity from liability with their vaccines. And no matter what occurs to you, you can\u2019t sue the FDA for authorizing the EUA, or your employer for requiring you to get it, either. Billions of taxpayer dollars went to fund the research and development of these vaccines, and in Moderna\u2019s case, licensing its vaccine was made possible entirely by public funds. But apparently, that still warrants citizens no insurance. Should something go wrong, you\u2019re basically on your own.<\/p>\n

The Hypocrisy of \u201cMisinformation\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

I find it interesting that \u201cmisinformation<\/em>\u201d has become such a pervasive term lately, but more alarmingly, that it\u2019s become an excuse for blatant censorship on social media and in journalism. It\u2019s impossible not to wonder what\u2019s driving this movement to control the narrative. In a world where we still very clearly don\u2019t have all the answers, why shouldn\u2019t we be open to exploring all the possibilities?<\/p>\n

And while we\u2019re on the subject, what about all of the Covid-related untruths that have been spread by our leaders and officials? Why should they get a free pass?<\/p>\n

Fauci, President Biden, and the CDC\u2019s Rochelle Walensky all promised us with total confidence the vaccine would prevent us from getting or spreading Covid, something we now know is a myth. In fact, the CDC recently had to change its very definition of \u201cvaccine<\/em>\u201d to promise \u201cprotection<\/em>\u201d from a disease rather than \u201cimmunity<\/em>\u201d \u2013 an important distinction.<\/p>\n

At one point, the New York State Department of Health (NYS DOH) and former Governor Andrew Cuomo prepared a social media campaign with misleading messaging that the vaccine was \u201capproved by the FDA<\/em>\u201d and \u201cwent through the same rigorous approval process that all vaccines go through<\/em>,\u201d when in reality the FDA only authorized the vaccines under an EUA, and the vaccines were still undergoing clinical trials. While the NYS DOH eventually responded to pressures to remove these false claims, a few weeks later the Department posted on Facebook that \u201cno serious side effects related to the vaccines have been reported<\/em>,\u201d when in actuality, roughly 16,000 reports of adverse events and over 3,000 reports of serious adverse events related to a Covid-19 vaccination had been reported in the first two months of use.<\/p>\n

One would think we\u2019d hold the people in power to the same level of accountability \u2013 if not more \u2013 than an average citizen. So, in the interest of avoiding hypocrisy, should we \u201ccancel<\/em>\u201d all these experts and leaders for their \u201cmisinformation<\/em>,\u201d too?<\/p>\n

Vaccine-hesitant people have been fired from their jobs, refused from restaurants, denied the right to travel and see their families, banned from social media channels, and blatantly shamed and villainized in the media. Some have even lost custody of their children.<\/p>\n

These people are frequently labeled \u201canti-vax<\/em>,\u201d which is misleading given that many (like the NBA\u2019s Jonathan Isaac) have made it repeatedly clear they are not against all vaccines, but simply making a personal choice not to get this one. Fauci has repeatedly said federally mandating the vaccine would not be \u201cappropriate<\/em>\u201d or \u201cenforceable<\/em>\u201d and doing so would be \u201cencroaching upon a person\u2019s freedom to make their own choice<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

So it\u2019s remarkable that still, some personal employers and U.S. states, like Massachusetts, have taken it upon themselves to enforce some of these mandates, anyway. Meanwhile, a Feb. 7 bulletin posted by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security indicates that if you spread information that undermines public trust in a government institution (like the CDC or FDA), you could be considered a terrorist. In case you were wondering about the current state of free speech.<\/p>\n

The definition of institutional oppression is \u201cthe systematic mistreatment of people within a social identity group, supported and enforced by the society and its institutions, solely based on the person\u2019s membership in the social identity group.<\/em>\u201d It is defined as occurring when established laws and practices \u201csystematically reflect and produce inequities based on one\u2019s membership in targeted social identity groups<\/em>.\u201d Sound familiar?<\/p>\n

As you continue to watch the persecution of the unvaccinated unfold, remember this. Historically, when society has oppressed a particular group of people whether due to their gender, race, social class, religious beliefs, or sexuality, it\u2019s always been because they pose some kind of threat to the status quo<\/em>. The same is true for today\u2019s unvaccinated. Since we know the vaccine doesn\u2019t prevent the spread of Covid, however, this much is clear: the unvaccinated don\u2019t pose a threat to the health and safety of their fellow citizens \u2013 but rather, to the bottom line of powerful pharmaceutical giants and the many global organizations they finance. And with more than $100 billion on the line in 2021 alone, I can understand the motivation to silence them.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The unvaccinated have been called selfish. Stupid. Fauci has said it\u2019s \u201calmost inexplicable<\/em>\u201d that they are still resisting. But is it? What if these people aren\u2019t crazy or uncaring, but rather have \u2013 unsurprisingly so \u2013 lost their faith in the agencies that are supposed to protect them? Can you blame them?<\/p>\n

Citizens are being bullied into getting a vaccine that was created, evaluated, and authorized in under a year, with no access to the bulk of the safety data for said vaccine, and no rights whatsoever to pursue legal action if they experience adverse effects from it. What these people need right now is to know they can depend on their fellow citizens to respect their choices, not fuel the segregation by launching a full-fledged witch hunt. Instead, for some inexplicable reason I imagine stems from fear, many continue rallying around big pharma rather than each other. A 2022 Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports survey of Democratic voters found that 59% of respondents support a government policy requiring unvaccinated individuals to remain confined in their home at all times, 55% support handing a fine to anyone who won\u2019t get the vaccine, and 48% think the government should flat out imprison people who publicly question the efficacy of the vaccines on social media, TV, or online in digital publications. Even Orwell couldn\u2019t make this stuff up.<\/p>\n

Let me be very clear. While there are a lot of bad actors out there \u2013 there are also a lot of well-meaning people in the science and medical industries, too. I\u2019m lucky enough to know some of them. There are doctors who fend off pharma reps\u2019 influence and take an extremely cautious approach to prescribing.<\/p>\n

Medical journal authors who fiercely pursue transparency and truth \u2013 as is evident in The Influence of Money on Medical Science<\/em>, a report by the first female editor of JAMA<\/em>. Pharmacists, like Dan Schneider, who refuse to fill prescriptions they deem risky or irresponsible. Whistleblowers, like Graham and Jackson, who tenaciously call attention to safety issues for pharma products in the approval pipeline. And I\u2019m certain there are many people in the pharmaceutical industry, like Panara and my grandfather, who pursued this field with the goal of helping others, not just earning a six- or seven-figure salary. We need more of these people. Sadly, it seems they are outliers who exist in a corrupt, deep-rooted system of quid-pro-quo relationships. They can only do so much.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m not here to tell you whether or not you should get the vaccine or booster doses. What you put in your body is not for me \u2013 or anyone else \u2013 to decide. It\u2019s not a simple choice, but rather one that may depend on your physical condition, medical history, age, religious beliefs, and level of risk tolerance.<\/p>\n

My grandfather passed away in 2008, and lately, I find myself missing him more than ever, wishing I could talk to him about the pandemic and hear what he makes of all this madness. I don\u2019t really know how he\u2019d feel about the Covid vaccine, or whether he would have gotten it or encouraged me to. What I do know is that he\u2019d listen to my concerns, and he\u2019d carefully consider them. He would remind me my feelings are valid. His eyes would light up and he\u2019d grin with amusement as I fervidly expressed my frustration. He\u2019d tell me to keep pushing forward, digging deeper, asking questions. In his endearing Bronx accent, he used to always say: \u201cgo get \u2018em, kid<\/em>.\u201d If I stop typing for a moment and listen hard enough, I can almost hear him saying it now.<\/p>\n

People keep saying \u201ctrust the science<\/em>.\u201d But when trust is broken, it is necessary to be earned back. And as long as the legislative system, public health agencies, physicians, and research journals keep accepting pharmaceutical money (with strings attached)\u200a \u2013 and the justice system keeps letting these companies off the hook when their negligence causes harm, there\u2019s no reason for big pharma to transform. They\u2019re holding the bag, and money is power.<\/p>\n

I have a dream that one day, we\u2019ll live in a world where we are armed with all the thorough, unbiased data necessary to make informed decisions about our health. Alas, we\u2019re not even close. What that means is that it\u2019s up to you to educate yourself as much as possible, and remain ever-vigilant in evaluating information before forming an opinion. You can start by reading clinical trials yourself, rather than relying on the media to translate them for you. Scroll to the bottom of every single study to the \u201cconflicts of interest<\/em>\u201d section and find out who funded it. Look at how many subjects were involved. Confirm whether or not blinding was used to eliminate bias. You may also choose to follow Public Citizen\u2019s Health Research Group\u2019s rule whenever possible: that means avoiding a new drug until five years after an FDA approval (not an EUA, an actual approval) \u2013 when there\u2019s enough data on the long-term safety and effectiveness to establish that the benefits outweigh the risks. When it comes to the news, you can seek out independent, nonprofit outlets, which are less likely to be biased due to pharma funding. And most importantly, when it appears an organization is making concerted efforts to conceal information from you \u2013 like the FDA recently did with the Covid vaccine \u2013 it\u2019s time to ask yourself: why? What are they aiming to hide?<\/p>\n

In the 2019 film Dark Waters<\/em> \u2013 which is based on the true story of one of the greatest corporate cover-ups in American history \u2013 Mark Ruffalo as attorney Rob Bilott says: \u201cThe system is rigged. They want us to think it\u2019ll protect us, but that\u2019s a lie. We protect us. We do. Nobody else. Not the companies. Not the scientists. Not the government. Us<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Words to live by.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em>Author: Rebecca Strong<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

yogaesoteric
\nSeptember 30, 2022<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Read the first part of the article Backing the Big Four: Big Pharma and the FDA, WHO, NIH, CDC I know what you\u2019re thinking. Big pharma is amoral and the FDA\u2019s devastating slips are a dime a dozen \u2013 old news. But what about agencies and organizations like the National Institutes of Health (NIH), World […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[980],"tags":[1516],"class_list":["post-94492","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-about-perverse-masonic-manipulations-3480-en","tag-article_of_the_week"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94492","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=94492"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94492\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":94505,"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94492\/revisions\/94505"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=94492"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=94492"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=94492"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}