Tag: nih

How the National Institutes of Health became a den of cronyism

For too long, the bureaucrats at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have been lining their pockets through clandestine agreements with big corporations, getting cozy with the very entities they are tasked with overseeing.  

In an era where trust in our public institutions is alarmingly low, this isn’t just a minor oversight; it’s an outright epidemic of corruption. Shockingly, over 55,000 royalty payments have been overlooked in the past decade alone. Each undisclosed royalty payment is a potential conflict of interest, undermining the credibility of our institutions and eroding the trust of the American people.  

The explosive revelations by Open the Books in 2022 shed light on this den of cronyism. It was uncovered that more than 2,400 NIH scientists pocketed a whopping $325 million in royalty payments in the last decade, with an average of $135,000 per person. Yet, the details of these sweetheart deals remain hidden in the shadows with vital information redacted from public view.  

Despite attempts to bring these details to light, the NIH refuses to disclose essential information, including the amounts of individual payments and the identities of the payers. 

In June 2022, my Republican colleagues on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and I sent a letter to NIH, demanding information about these royalty payments. But NIH is stonewalling, claiming they are above disclosing such details. It’s this kind of arrogance that fuels distrust and raises legitimate concerns about whose interests our government agencies are truly serving. 

When I directly challenged Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on royalties paid by vaccine manufacturers to members of the vaccine approval committees, Fauci argued the law protected scientists from revealing their royalties. The implications of these undisclosed payments extend far beyond simple bureaucratic secrecy. They cast a long shadow over the impartiality of our regulatory processes.  

Moderna’s royalty payments to the NIH, Dartmouth and Scripps Universities in the amount of $400 million will make it challenging for NIH scientists to treat Moderna objectively.  

The NIH’s potential profit from future royalties on Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine is the icing on this conflict-of-interest cake, raising grave concerns about the integrity of our regulatory processes. This is not merely about financial transparency; it is about ensuring public health decisions are made in the American people’s best interest, untainted by the prospect of financial gain. 

The lack of transparency surrounding these payments is downright alarming. Americans deserve to know who is paying whom, how much and for what. The current ordeal of accessing public inspection reports — jumping through bureaucratic hoops, facing delays and obfuscation — is an insult to the American people and a hotbed for corruption. 

Keep reading

Rand Paul’s Bill Would Require NIH Scientists To Disclose Royalties They Receive From Drug Companies

Over the past decade, scientists working at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have earned an estimated $400 million in royalties from third-party companies for medical treatments and innovations they’ve helped produce. The NIH often provides grants to these same companies and produces research on their products. Despite that, the agency has resisted disclosing how much its scientists are getting paid and by whom.

A bill moving its way through Congress would change that.

On Wednesday, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed the Royalty Transparency Act of 2024 by a 12–0 vote.

The legislation would require that royalties received by federal government employees be included in their financial disclosures and that those disclosures be made available online for the general public to view.

“This is just basic 101 of conflict of interest. We’re letting the billions of dollars that change hands over at NIH and between NIH and Big Pharma to be completely unscrutinized,” says Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.), the author of the legislation. “This is probably the first reform bill that actually has a chance to correct some of the things that are rotten in the system.”

The NIH’s lack of transparency about the royalties paid to its scientists has been a source of controversy for decades.

Keep reading

NIH panel to launch urgent investigation amid evidence Alzheimer’s can SPREAD between people: Nearly 8,000 Americans received injection that transmitted memory-robbing condition

An NIH panel is set to convene an urgent meeting amid fears thousands of Americans could be at risk of catching Alzheimer’s.

A bombshell UK study published Monday found evidence of at least five people ‘catching’ the memory-robbing disorder from a now-banned hormone treatment.

Health experts in the US — where nearly 8,000 children were injected with the therapy in the 1960s and 1980s — now fear cases may have gone undetected on this side of the Atlantic.

A spokeswoman for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) told DailyMail.com: ‘Given this new information, the committee will convene to discuss the issue and re-analyze data for any possible associations with Alzheimer’s or dementia-related conditions.’

DailyMail.com understands the meeting will take place in early February among the Public Health Service Interagency Coordinating Committee on Human Growth Hormone and Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease.

It was set up in the hours after the UK study was released and aims to re-assess US data for signs that patients developed Alzheimer’s disease.

It will also look at rates of early-onset Alzheimer’s, when the disease develops before the age of 65 years, among receivers of the faulty growth hormone treatments.

Minutes from previous meetings show the committee has suspected that at least one American died from Alzheimer’s in their 60s after receiving the jab as a child.

Keep reading

Inside NIH virus lab in Montana – that has eerie ties to Wuhan – where US scientists inject pigs and monkeys with EBOLA and other dangerous bio-agents

Photos and videos obtained exclusively by DailyMail.com show US government-funded researchers experimenting on animals at a controversial lab in Montana where risky virus research is carried out. 

Images and video footage obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request and shared exclusively with this website show researchers sedating monkeys and pigs and giving them injections, as well as piglets housed in small and unsanitary cages.

While there is no suggestion any of the footage shows illegal activity, it gives an eerie glimpse into what goes on at the National Institutes of Health’s Rocky Mountain Lab (RML), which has come under scrutiny in recent months.

Last year, this website revealed that RML in Montana had been experimenting with SARS-like viruses a year before the Covid pandemic, and while that research has stopped, current projects involving other deadly pathogens with the potential to spark a new pandemic are still being carried out at the lab.

These include injecting pigs with Ebola and infecting monkeys with Covid-19 and studying how they react to Hemorrhagic Fever, which involves vomiting blood, internal bleeding, bleeding in the brain and from the eyes, nose and mouth. 

Keep reading

Top Federal Agency Promotes New Marijuana Research Center Amid Scientists’ Complaints About ‘Complex’ Study ‘Barriers’ Under Prohibition

A top federal health agency says it recognizes that there are ample concerns among scientists about how they’ve “encountered barriers that have hampered their research” into marijuana under federal prohibition, including “complex” federal regulations and inadequate supplies of cannabis.

That’s why the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is now seeking to resolve some of those challenges by standing up a Resource Center for Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, an official said in a blog post on Tuesday.

NIH posted a notice of funding opportunity late last month, explaining how it’s seeking an entity to operate the center through a cooperative agreement in order to “address challenges and barriers to conducting research on cannabis and its constituents.”

To help facilitate that process, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health’s (NCCIH) Patrick Still announced that the health agency will be holding a webinar on January 25 to provide potential applicants with technical assistance.

“There’s growing interest in potential therapeutic uses of cannabis and its constituents among both health care providers and the public,” Still, who is a program director for NCCIH’s Basic and Mechanistic Research branch, wrote. “Substances in cannabis have a variety of pharmacologic effects, and rigorous research is needed to understand their mechanisms of action and investigate their possible value in helping to manage health conditions.”

“However, investigators working in this field have encountered barriers that have hampered their research,” he said, pointing to feedback NCCIH received as part of a request for information last year.

“The barriers that many of them have mentioned include difficulty meeting complex federal and state regulatory requirements, problems obtaining cannabis products suitable for research, a lack of validated measures of cannabis use and exposure, and inadequate scientific infrastructure to support research studies,” Still wrote.

Keep reading

Fauci NIH lab infected bats with Wuhan coronavirus, obtained from zoo near Camp David, report

A15-minute drive from the Camp David presidential retreat, a low-rated zoo gave the National Institutes of Health several bats to infect with a coronavirus from the same Chinese lab that some federal agencies believe is responsible for the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, according to a new investigation and published research.

The White Coat Waste Project, which fights taxpayer funding of “wasteful government animal experiments,” said Monday it’s using Freedom of Information Act requests to get more details about the taxpayer-funded experiments documented in a 2018 paper in the journal Viruses.

Former National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci oversaw the NIH’s Rocky Mountain Laboratories in Montana when it did the research with bats from Maryland’s Catoctin Wildlife Preserve, whose Director of Animal Health Laurie Hahn is a former NIH “lead veterinary technician” for animal research.

The Viruses paper, authored by Montana lab researchers and Wuhan Institute of Virology collaborator Ralph Baric, of the University of North Carolina, determined that the “SARS-like WIV1-coronavirus” first isolated from Chinese rufous horseshoe bats could not cause a “robust infection” in the 12 Egyptian fruit bats from the zoo. Four were euthanized and tested.

Keep reading

46 Pages FOIAed Emails Between CDC Leaders, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Collins, and White House, NIH, HHS, Show They Knew About Vaccine-Induced Myocarditis and Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia, a Blood Clotting Disorder. Emails Over 80% Redacted.

Attorney Edward Berkovich submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stating, “I request emails sent by and received by Dr. Rochelle P. Walensky, Sherri A. Berger, and Kevin Griffis (all of whom are CDC personnel) on dates beginning February 1, 2021 through May 31, 2021, containing the word myocarditis.” DailyClout reported on the initial 472-page production from that FOIA on August 29, 2023.

Mr. Berkovich recently received 46 additional pages, over 80% of which were fully redacted, involving other government entities such as the White House and Executive Office of the President, as part of this production. Of the 46 pages, only two pages were released without any redactions. Seven pages were partially redacted pages, and 37 pages were fully redacted. The redactions were “pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552 Exemptions 5 and 6.” According to the CDC cover letter accompanying this production:

  • “Exemption 5 protects inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency. Exemption 5 therefore incorporates the privileges that protect materials from discovery in litigation, including the deliberative process, attorney work-product, and attorney-client privileges. Information withheld under this exemption was protected under the deliberative process and presidential communications privileges.The deliberative process privilege protects the decision-making process of government agencies. The deliberative process privilege protects materials that are both predecisional and deliberative. The information that have been withheld under the deliberative process privilege of Exemption 5 are both predecisional and deliberative, and do not represent formal or informal agency policies or decisions. Examples of information withheld include recommendations, comments, opinions. The presidential communications privilege protects documents solicited and received by the President or his immediate White House advisers who have broad and significant responsibility for investigating and formulating the advice to be given to the President.“
  • “Exemption 6 protects information in personnel and medical files and similar files when disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The information that has been withheld under Exemption 6 consists of personal information, such as a telephone number. We have determined that the individual(s) to whom this information pertains has a substantial privacy interest in withholding it.”

In this FOIA production, the first set of emails are dated May 24-25, 2021, with the subject “Draft WH [White House] Script and Slides.” Abbigail Tumpey, former Associate Director for Communication Science for CDC’s Public Health Infrastructure emailed Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, CDC Director and ATSDR Administrator, with Sherri Berger, Deputy Director for Policy, Communications, and Legislative Affairs/Chief Strategy Officer; Robert (“Robbie”) Goldstein, MD, Massachusetts’ Commissioner of the Department of Public Health (DPH), a former Senior Policy Advisor at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), an infectious disease physician at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), and a faculty member at Harvard Medical School; Paul Fulton, CDC Press Officer; and Jason McDonald, a CDC spokesperson and Public Affairs Specialist CCed. These emails had a “draft press conf script and slides for [Dr. Walensky’s] review” attached. However, the 10 pages of the script and slides are fully redacted.

Keep reading

NIH Funds Study On Puberty Blockers, Hormones On Youth Despite Risk Of Sterilization

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is funding research on the effects of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormone treatment on youth despite acknowledgment from the grantee that these medical interventions can result in sterility.

A parent or guardian consent form from Children’s Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA), titled “Pubertal Blockers for Minors in Early Adolescence,” states, “If your child starts puberty blockers in the earliest stages of puberty, and then goes on to gender affirming hormones, they will not develop sperm or eggs. This means that they will not be able to have biological children.”

It goes on to read, “This is an important aspect of blocking puberty and progressing to hormones that you should understand prior to moving forward with puberty suppression.”  It adds that fertility can be maintained if a child takes puberty blockers but does not undergo cross-sex hormone therapy. Two different studies, however, have found that roughly 98% of children who take puberty blockers go on to take cross-sex hormone therapy. 

After the parent/guardian decides to proceed with pubertal blocker medication, the consent form requires the signature of both the parent/guardian and the child (patient).

Dr. Stanley Goldfarb is the director of an advocacy group called Do No Harm, which seeks to “protect healthcare from a radical, divisive, and discriminatory ideology.” He criticized the idea of a minor possibly signing away their ability to reproduce.   

Keep reading

NIH restarts bat virus grant suspended 3 years ago by Trump

Three years after then-President Donald Trump pressured the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to suspend a research grant to a U.S. group studying bat coronaviruses with partners in China, the agency has restarted the award.

The new 4-year grant is a stripped-down version of the original grant to the EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit research organization in New York City, providing $576,000 per year. That 2014 award included funding for controversial experiments that mixed parts of different bat viruses related to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), the coronavirus that sparked a global outbreak in 2002–04, and included a subaward to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). The new award omits those studies, and also imposes extensive new accounting rules on EcoHealth, which drew criticism from government auditors for its bookkeeping practices.

But EcoHealth’s embattled director, Peter Daszak, says his group is pleased: “Now we have the ability to finally get back to work,” he says.

Keep reading

NIH Guide Warns Against Describing Pronouns as ‘Chosen,’ Pushes Slew of 40 Different Options

An office within the National Institutes of Health published a guideline that outlines how professionals should use gendered pronouns to “affirm gender identity” for themselves and colleagues, warning that intentionally using the wrong pronouns is “equivalent to harassment.”

Fox News Digital reviewed the NIH Sexual & Gender Minority Research Office’s “Gender Pronouns & Their Use in Workplace Communications” guide, which provides more than 40 different pronoun examples, while also providing examples on how to avoid making pronoun “mistakes” in the workplace.

For professionals to “facilitate inclusive, affirming and welcoming” workplaces, the gender pronouns guide hashes out a series of different mistakes to avoid while using pronouns, including not describing pronouns as “preferred” or “chosen” as that allegedly implies “that gender identity is a preference or a choice, when it is neither.”

“Performative allyship,” when people only superficially show they are devoted to a cause, is also frowned upon, with the guide pointing to a hypothetical situation where an employer mandates all employees publicly share their pronouns.

Some employees, however, might not want to disclose their pronouns as they are not “ready to ‘come out’ and disclose their gender identity,” according to the guide, which was crafted in part by the NIH’s Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion.

Keep reading