conflict of interest

Could an independent vaccine safety group save the U.S. from government corruption?

Posted by

0


Image: Could an independent vaccine safety group save the U.S. from government corruption?

It’s no secret that everything we’re told about vaccines by the mainstream media and major “health” organizations is a lie. Agencies like the CDC may be charged with protecting public health, but they continue to demonstrate that they are more concerned with upholding their archaic narratives and protecting Big Pharma’s profits than the American people. Is an independent vaccine safety organization the solution? The World Mercury Project team believes it could be the answer to corruption in U.S. government — and they might just be right.

As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. declared last year, the CDC is really nothing more than an “edifice of fraud,” and other federal agencies like the FDA, EPA and USDA aren’t any more respectable. The amount of power yielded by unelected government agency officials borders on unconstitutional, and in fact, evades the Constitution entirely (by design). The administrative power federal agencies have granted themselves is a force that Americans need to reckon with, if we truly want change.

There are many questions surrounding vaccines and vaccine safety, but federal agencies have made it clear that they cannot be trusted to give us real answers. Look no further than the admissions of guilt from CDC whistleblower Dr. William Thompson for proof of that. Thompson came forward, confessing that he and his colleagues destroyed evidence linking the MMR vaccine to autism.

Federal agencies abuse their power

There have been many, many whistleblowers over the years, who’ve been brave enough to come forward about the corruption, lies and deceit that have overtaken federal agencies across the board. While their testimonies have been greatly appreciated by those willing to listen, far too often they are simply ignored or publicly smeared by the mainstream media. In this way (among others), federal agencies are already operating at near-authoritarian level; those who expose them are hung out to dry, and there’s little room to question their self-imposed authority.

Sponsored solution from CWC Labs: This heavy metals test kit allows you to test almost anything for 20+ heavy metals and nutritive minerals, including lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, aluminum and more. You can test your own hair, vitamins, well water, garden soil, superfoods, pet hair, beverages and other samples (no blood or urine). ISO accredited laboratory using ICP-MS (mass spec) analysis with parts per billion sensitivity. Learn more here.

As Columbia Law Professor Philip Hamburger, author of the books The Administrative Threat and Is Administrative Law Unlawful?, explains that federal agencies are essentially modern-day royalty. “Administrative power also evades many of the Constitution’s procedures, including both its legislative and judicial processes. Administrative power thereby sidesteps most of the Constitution’s procedural freedoms. Administrative power is thus all about the evasion of governance through law, including an evasion of constitutional processes and procedural rights,” he writes.

USA Today notes that non-judicial administrative courts decide cases and impose penalties without a jury or even an actual judge — courts like the  Vaccine Claims/Office of Special Masters, which are run by unelected bureaucrats.

Hamburger says that the increase in power yielded by the administrative branch coupled with a decreasing emphasis on the importance of the legislative and judicial branches spells out “big trouble” for the U.S. as we know it.

Corruption influences major policy decisions

The expansion of administrative power is not the only problem plaguing the U.S. government agencies. Major conflicts of interest are a substantial problem in government offices like the CDC or FDA. World Mercury Project (WMP) notes that watchdog groups, legislators and even researchers have documented the growing problem of bias caused by conflict of interest within these agencies.

Ties to the very industry these agencies are supposed to regulate are perhaps the most glaring of problems; not only do the CDC and FDA often rely on external experts with financial ties to the pharma industry, members of their advisory committees often own stock in vaccine companies. How can we expect these agencies to be impartial when they clearly have something to gain by approving certain products?

Both the Office of Inspector General and the Committee on Government Reform have made note of this clear conflict of interest over the years. The Committee first outlined this problem nearly 20 years ago — and little to nothing has been done to rectify it. Conflict of interests, cronyism and corruption abound in administrative agencies, and no one is standing in their way.

These agencies also fail to actively look for adverse effects of vaccines. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a huge flop; as sources explain “no active effort is made to search for, identify and collect information, but rather information is passively received from those who choose to voluntarily report their experience.”

There are substantial limitations to the current monitoring system — but the agencies in charge of it have made no effort to make the VAERS system more complete. As few as one percent of vaccine-related adverse events are reported — and even then, the CDC reports 4,500 “serious” health events are declared annually.

As an agency charged with protecting the public, you’d think this should be more concerning. Instead, the CDC maintains “while these problems happen after vaccination, they are rarely caused by the vaccine.” Thousands of people are being harmed, while administrative overlords do nothing but collect stocks and kickbacks.

Independent science is the solution to government failure

The list of wrongdoings at the behest of the CDC and FDA is a lengthy one: WMP reports that the agencies are guilty of working to conceal unwanted outcomes during testing, ignoring whistleblowers and silencing them, relying on outdated information and publishing misleading safety studies and more. The FDA recently came under fire for hiding their findings about glyphosate in food, for example.

As WMP contends, “With the FDA and CDC having repeatedly demonstrated their prioritization of industry profits over public safety, the time is past due for creating an independent agency that takes vaccine safety seriously.” Independent science has always been the most trustworthy and reliable — why should an agency tasked with protecting public health be any different?

Stay up-to-date on the latest government controversies at Corruption.news.

Sources for this article include:

WorldMercuryProject.org

USAToday.com

NaturalNews.com

For all book lovers please visit my friend’s website.
URL: http://www.romancewithbooks.com

Conflict of interest in the practice of medicine

Posted by

0


A cardiologist who is a part-owner of the laboratory in a polyclinic where he practices routinely orders baseline lipid profiles and electrocardiogram for all his hypertensive patients during their first consult. Is the doctor in a conflict of interest?

Dr. Guia Crisostomo Tan, bioethics expert and ENT consultant with The Medical City, posed this question during the 44th Annual Convention of the Philippine College of Physicians held last May 4-7 2014 at SMX Convention Center, Pasay City, as she discussed the issue of conflict of interest in the medical community.

Conflict of interest defined
The World Medical Association says conflict of interest is understood to exist “when professional judgment concerning direct patient care might be duly influenced by secondary interest.”

In the scenario introduced above, a physician’s ownership in facilities to which he refers his patients does in fact constitute a conflict of interest. This is because a secondary interest, in the form of increased income from increased services, creates a tension between the physician’s primary interest in their patient’s welfare and secondary interest of personal gain.

The American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine (ACP-ASIM) extends the concept to include the acceptance by physicians of gifts, hospitality trips, and subsidies of all types from health care industry that might diminish, or even appear to others to diminish, the objectivity of professional judgment.

“As documented by some studies, the acceptance of even small gifts can affect clinical judgment and heighten the perception and/or reality of a conflict of interest,” states the ACP-ASIM.

The Philippine College of Physician, on the other hand, identifies fee-splitting as a form of conflict of interest. Fee-splitting is a practice whereby a physician receives a financial return – either in the form or a compensation, incentive from another individual or institution, fees that are outside of professional fee – as a result of a referral or co-management. This practice, where the interest of the patient becomes secondary to economic gain, is not allowed by the society.

Other areas where conflicts of interest might arise include self-referral, drug dispensing in the clinic, commissions, gifts or any personal benefit, speaking engagements and research for pharmaceutical companies by physicians, gate-keeping functions such as that of HMO coordinators, holding administrative functions, and endorsement of consumer products.

Are all conflicts of interest unethical?
Dr. Tan explained that secondary interests are observed in areas where one has financial, administrative, academic or even emotional interests.

The challenge among the medical community is to recognize that conflicts of interest do, in fact, exist. Oftentimes, doctors deny being influenced by external factors in their patient care. This is where it becomes unethical, when there is a general denial that the problem exists.

Guidelines by medical societies on conflict of interests
In recent times, there had been a number of medical groups who have released guidelines in relation to conflict of interest. The American Medical Association Council of Ethical and Judicial Affairs issued guidelines for interactions with the pharmaceutical industry. The Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Associations of the Philippines Code of Ethics also mentions about conflict of interests. The International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) code of ethics has expanded beyond marketing practices to cover interactions with healthcare professionals, medical institutions and patient organizations.

Locally, the Philippine Medical Association in the Code of Ethics 2006 recognized that “the physician may be involved in organizations or enterprises including drug industries as a result of which, there are conflict in interest that involve the best interest of the patients.” Physicians should be transparent in his relations with organizations and enterprises. In particular, he should be especially careful to remain faithful to his primary duty to his patient.

External regulations from the government
Conflicts of interest are recognized even outside the medical community. The United States government has instituted measures to regulate it. Federal law prohibits physicians from referring Medicare or Medicaid beneficiaries to designated health services if the physicians or their immediate family members have ownership or investment interests in the entities or have compensation arrangements with the entities.

Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services require physicians to disclose to patients the physician’s ownership of or investments in hospitals.  The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission recommended that Congress require hospitals and other entities that bill Medicare to report physician ownership interests (direct and indirect) and that this information be posted on a public website.

The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation has published the Mexico City Principles for Voluntary Codes of Business Ethics in the Biopharmaceutical Sector, which promulgates a set of principles that address conflicts of interests.

Reasons for conflict of interest
The unethical practice that arises from conflicts of interest is rooted in the lack of understanding of professionalism. According to the bioethicists Pellegrino and Relman, “the distinguishing feature of a true profession is the effacement of self-interest.” Professionals are granted important privileges by society because of their social status. Doctors in particular are deemed competent, trustworthy and ethical and are working to benefit patients and society. As a consequence, professionals wield the power to set educational and ethical standards.

Another reason is being stuck in the early stages of moral development. Applying Kohlberg’s Stage Theory of Moral Reasoning, physicians who have unethical practice are stuck at the pre-conventional stage, where they respond to punishment or reward. Their actions are guided by personal self-interests.

Some physicians are at the conventional stage where small town thinking is emphasized. The doctor is unable to see the bigger picture, and all his actions are guided by what’s best for his family and peers without regard to the consequences of his actions on the larger society.

The highest stage of moral reasoning is the post-conventional stage, doctors embrace ethical principles and conscientious ideas. He recognizes that he is part of a much larger society, and he puts primary importance to the rights of his patients as his duty.

Other reasons for conflict of interest include the shift in the perspective of physician not as a service-oriented professional, but as an entrepreneur. This goes hand in hand with the individualistic approach to the practice of medicine, in contrast to seeing the medicine as a service to society.

What should be done to address conflicts of interest?
Dealing with conflicts of interests starts with declaring a doctor’s interests. Putting up layers of decision makers in issues where one has a conflict of interest would be a good strategy as well. A doctor who has conflict must inhibit himself from decision-making.

In European healthcare systems, it has been shown that a shift in compensation schemes from fee-for-service to salaried system led to decrease in unethical practices. A simple lifestyle, open declaration of personal principles and altogether avoiding situations that may give rise to conflicts of interest would help deal with the unethical practice.

The American Medical Student Association has developed a scorecard to assess policies for conflicts of interest in American academic medical centers. Various domains, such as financial relationships with industries or industry support for scholarships and funds among others, are evaluated. A general grading and mapping of institutions are then published to show the best performing and the worst performing institutions.

A call to action
In summary, Tan says that the medical profession, as a community, must act to address the problem of conflicts of interest as inaction leads to harming the integrity of the profession. Unethical practice leads to loss of esteem and trust, which contributes to moral decay of the society. Conflicts of interests may harm patients who receive unnecessary services, while society absorbs the excess burden of spending on these services.