Let’s start by telling a little story. Recently, I was at a public event, and ran into someone at a table selling CBD oil (CBD is all the rage). I am interested in this subject and wanted to find out more. After the conversation, the only new thing that I learned was that this salesman wanted me to buy his company’s CBD oil. The moral of the story: A salesman who is trying to sell you something is probably not the best source of information about that thing. The problem at the root of this situation is a conflict of interest. The salesman only makes money by selling to me. He does not make money by giving me impartial, evidence-based information.
This conflict of interest problem is systematic on the subject of vaccines. Here are some specific ways this is the case:
The US Government’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) are the two main agencies that work on vaccines. These agencies work hand in hand with industry. Funding of these agencies is much as 75% of their budget in the form of “user fees”.” These user fees are derived from the pharmaceutical industry and vaccine sales. So here’s the conflict of interest: On the one hand the FDA and CDC are responsible for insuring the safety of vaccines, but on the other hand these agencies get their funding from the Pharma corporations that provide 75% of agency funding. Would an agency be willing to say that a Pharma product is unsafe, knowing that by doing so it would reduce its own funding?
US Government agencies, mostly the FDA or National Institute of Health (NIH) also hold as many as 155 patents that are related to vaccines, for which the US Government receives royalties. Guess what? These governmental agencies have an interest in increasing their funding, and this is best accomplished by increasing sales of the vaccines for which the US Government holds patents. Increased funding is not achieved by doing a thorough and impartial investigation into vaccine safety, which may result in limiting or even withdrawing vaccines, and thus reducing money received. And here is a shocking fact: There are government officials who directly benefit, financially, from vaccine sales.
The end result is that governmental agencies including the FDA, NIH, and CDC become “Captured Agencies.” That is, they operate “essentially as advocates for the industries they regulate,” neglecting their duty to act in the public’s interest. The CDC and FDA spend millions of dollars annually encouraging the public to get vaccines. But they spend very little on vaccine safety. They do not warn the public about the 400 deaths per year reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Such a warning might decrease vaccine sales, and thus agency revenue.
And here’s another way that conflicts of interest arise: The Revolving Door. To take one glaring example, Dr. Julie Gerberding was the head of the CDC and approved vaccines during a time when the schedule of recommended shots exploded from 12 to 72 immunizations for kids by the time they turn 18 years old. In 2009, she left the CDC and became president of Merck & Co Inc’s vaccine division. In her new position at Merck, she earns an estimated $10 million per year, a sum she has received annually since 2009. Do you think that Dr. Gerberding was a vigorous advocate for public health during her time as head of the CDC, or do you think that she may have bent the rules a bit to please Merck & Co.? Even a small tilt of the scale could have disastrous results on the health human beings in the US and around the world.
And there are hundreds of Julie Gerberdings out there, rotating between industry and government, with very little ethical oversight of the fact that money will corrupt their public decision making. As another example, consider the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). This is the governmental agency that decides whether or not to approve vaccines for the recommended schedule. Many participants are members of the industry that is regulated. Many are people who hold patents on the vaccines, either personally or through their employer. People on this panel only get paid if they increase vaccine profits. Will they be looking out for the people or will they be pushing vaccines as much as possible to make money for themselves?
Here is another area where a conflict of interest hurts the public. The US Government is supposed to protect the people. But under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (aka “Vaccine Court), if you are injured by a vaccine, you are not allowed to sue doctor or the maker of the vaccine. Instead, you must go to Vaccine Court where the US Department of Justice provides an attorney who will fights against your claim. It’s estimated that less than 1% of vaccine injuries are ever reported. And even less than that 1% ever result in claims in Vaccine Court. And yet there have been thousands of claimants and over $4 billion in damages paid out to injured parties by Vaccine Court. The conflict of interest is that the US Government sheds its role as protector of the people, and instead uses its resources to fight against vaccine injury claimants (the people, in other words) on behalf of itself and the pharma industry.
Many more examples exist.
- Medical journals get guaranteed ad revenues from Pharma, which means they are highly motivated to suppress any research that questions vaccines and thus hurts pharma profit.
- Research studies are almost always funded by industry. This puts a great deal of pressure on researchers to produce results that are favorable to industry.
- And here’s a frightening conflict of interest: Under a “Pay for Performance” model, some Doctors only get paid if they fully vaccinate all patients in accordance with the CDC’s schedule. They have no incentive to warn patients who may be susceptible to injury, and indeed cannot be liable if a patient is injured.
An example of a pay-for-performance model is the Michigan Blue Cross Blue Shield “Performance Recognition Program,” which uses “meaningful” payments to reward Blue Care Network HMO providers “who encourage their patients to get preventive screenings and procedures.” For vaccination, providers receive $400 for each eligible two-year-old who has received all 24-25 vaccines by that age (including flu shots)—but only if the provider manages to administer each and every shot to at least 63% of his or her patients. Pediatricians who achieve the 63% threshold stand to make an additional $40,000 in bonus payments for every 100 fully vaccinated two-year-olds. Industry gives doctors an incentive to push vaccination on patients. This turns the professional and moral obligation of the doctor towards the patient on its head, and makes the doctor push patients to do what will make the most money for the doctor. And remember, under the NCVIA, the doctor cannot be liable if a vaccine injures a child, so there is no dis-incentive to push vaccines. As a lawyer, I can assure you I’d be dis-barred if I gave bad advice to a client because someone else promised to pay me to give that bad advice. At a minimum, I’d be required to disclose the financial conflict of interest and obtain the full informed consent of my client in anything like this situation.
So who is looking out for the people? Since the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, it’s definitely not the US Government.
What is the solution? There are two big ones. It’s easy to say what they are, but hard to implement in the real world:
- An agency that is funded by the public (not industry) to monitor and improve vaccine safety. This should be a US Government institution that is fully transparent and free of conflicts. A lifetime ban on its members from ever working for industry on the one hand or vaccine claimants or trial lawyers on the other hand.
- Elimination of the NCVIA so that vaccine makers can be sued. This would put a big incentive on industry to make its products safer.
I realize that there are those of my friends who disagree with me on vaccines and accept the slogan that all vaccines are safe and effective all the time. You have the right to your beliefs. But even the most staunch pro-vaccine believer should also favor elimination of the obvious conflicts of interest noted above, and be in favor of doing work that makes vaccines safer. Removal of obvious conflicts of interest would go a long way to promoting safety in vaccines, which is a goal everyone should support.
Even Brian Deer, a fierce critic of Andrew Wakefield and “anti-vaxxers,” admits that there should be an independent agency that is dedicated only to vaccine safety, rather than both safety and promotion of vaccines. He said exactly this in a recent BBC documentary, “the Vaccine Wars.”
Deer’s words were: “There is a very valid criticism of CDC in that it is both a cheerleader, the preeminent cheerleader, for immunization and it also plays a major role in safety research. I think the only way to resolve that is for vaccine safety issues to be moved to a separate entity that does nothing but, if you like, find fault with vaccines.”
Very sensible words from one of the chief figures of the “Pro-Vaxxer” side. So if you want to know why I and millions of others are skeptical about vaccine safety claims, then consider these well-founded objections based on conflict of interest.
Autism Causation 