Will our own media inform us of this abuse of influence? Of course not. We have to learn about it in the Times of India. 

“NEW DELHI: The image of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the US as an independent public health watchdog has taken a beating. An article in the latest issue of the British Medical Journal reveals how this leading national public health institute renowned the world over receives millions of dollars in industry gifts and funding, both directly and indirectly.
The CDC’s recommendations come with the disclaimer stating: “CDC, our planners, and our content experts wish to disclose they have no financial interests or other relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products … CDC does not accept commercial support. Several questions have been raised over the years about CDC taking money from pharma companies and vaccine manufacturers. In this context, the BMJ article questioned the science CDC cites, the clinical guidelines it promotes, and the money it is taking.

According to the article, in 1983, CDC was authorised to accept ‘gifts’ from industry and other private parties and in 1992 a legislation was passed by US Congress to encourage relationships between the CDC and industry through a non-profit, the CDC Foundation.

The CDC Foundation raised $52 million in 2014, of which $12 million was from corporations. The CDC itself in fiscal year 2014 received $16 million in conditional funding from sources such as corporations, individuals, and philanthropy, including the CDC Foundation. Conditional donations are earmarked for specific projects.

For example, in 2012, Genentech earmarked $600,000 in donations to the CDC Foundation for CDC’s efforts to promote expanded testing and treatment of viral hepatitis. Genentech and its parent company, Roche, manufacture test kits and treatments for hepatitis C. Incidentally, the CDC issued guidelines in August 2012 recommending expanded (cohort) screening of everyone born from 1945 to 1965 for hepatitis C virus though the science behind cohort screening has been questioned and much debated, stated the article.
As an example of the kind of conflict such donations were creating the article elaborated: “In 2010, the CDC, in conjunction with the CDC Foundation, formed the Viral Hepatitis Action Coalition, which supports research and promotes expanded testing and treatment of hepatitis C in the United States and globally. Industry has donated over $26m to the coalition through the CDC Foundation since 2010. Corporate members of the coalition include Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, OraSure Technologies, Quest Diagnostics, and Siemens—each of which produces products to test for or treat hepatitis C infection.”

Ever wonder what’s up with Tamiflu and why they push it so hard, and the scare tactics over pushing the flu vaccine (which actually causes increased susceptibility to disease, especially in older people)? From Jeanne Lenzer’s 2015 BMJ report:

“Oseltamivir for flu

Following criticism of the CDC and its foundation for accepting a directed donation from Roche for the agency’s Take 3 flu campaign (Step 3 tells the public to “take antiviral medicine if your doctor prescribes it”),2 the CDC posted an article on its website entitled, “Why CDC Recommends Influenza Antiviral Drugs.”8 The agency cited multiple observational and industry funded studies, including the recent meta-analysis by Dobson and colleagues,9 which it described as an “independent” study. However, the study was sponsored by Roche, and all four authors had financial ties to Roche, Genentech, or Gilead (the first two sell oseltamivir and Gilead holds the patent).10Despite its extensive list of studies, the CDC did not cite the systematic review and meta-analysis by the Cochrane Collaboration.11

The CDC told The BMJ that it didn’t include the Cochrane review because Cochrane “did not consider any data from uncontrolled observational studies of oseltamivir treatment. While such studies have inherent design limitations, they can inform clinical practice and public health, especially when data from RCTs [randomized controlled trials] are unavailable or have not been conducted among high-risk groups or hospitalized influenza patients, or because having a placebo group would be unethical since antiviral treatment is recommended for these groups.”

The US Food and Drug Administration issued a warning to Roche that it could not claim that oseltamivir reduces pneumonia or deaths since it has never provided evidence to the FDA to support that claim.2 Manufacturers are prohibited by law from making off-label claims about their drugs. However, doctors can legally recommend drugs for off-label uses. By funding the CDC’s Take 3 campaign, Roche and other companies are not claiming their antivirals will reduce pneumonia or death. CDC director, Frieden, however, did make the off-label claim, telling the public that it could “save your life.”2

Shannon Brownlee, senior vice president of the Lown Institute and former journalist covering the CDC, told The BMJ, “This looks like classic stealth marketing, in which industry puts their message in the mouths of a trusted third party, such as an academic or a professional organization.”

Then there’s the Coke debacle being exposed by U.S. Right to Know:

“Nevertheless, evidence gathered to date indicates that CDC staff provided political guidance to Coca-Cola, allowed Coca-Cola to lobby the CDC, and accepted contributions from Coca-Cola via the CDC Foundation, which has disclosed such contributions as recently as last year.”

Let’s not forget “CDC-SPIDER.”

How much does the “CDC Foundation” rake in every year?

Who are the “CDC Foundation’s” “donors?”

Who are the “CDC Foundation’s” corporate “partners?”

Categories: Activism, Lyme Disease