A frequent criticism of corporations (which I believe also applies to governmental bureaucracies) is that their organizational structure encourages sociopathic behavior. This is because members of these entities are shielded from legal or personal accountability for their actions, with any wrongdoings being attributed to the corporation as a whole. In contrast, the main form of accountability most members face is the pressure to advance the institution’s mission (e.g., make more money), leading to the proliferation of increasingly unethical methods to achieve that goal.
To illustrate, consider this quote from Peter Rost, a former executive at Pfizer and one of the few pharmaceutical leaders to speak out against the industry:
It is scary how many similarities there are between this industry and the mob. The mob makes obscene amounts of money, as does this industry. The side effects of organized crime are killings and deaths, and the side effects are the same in this industry. The mob bribes politicians and others, and so does the drug industry … The difference is, all these people in the drug industry look upon themselves – well, I’d say 99 percent, anyway – look upon themselves as law-abiding citizens, not as citizens who would ever rob a bank … However, when they get together as a group and manage these corporations, something seems to happen … to otherwise good citizens when they are part of a corporation. It’s almost like when you have war atrocities; people do things they don’t think they’re capable of. When you’re in a group, people can do things they otherwise wouldn’t, because the group can validate what you’re doing as okay.
In looking through what went awry with the COVID-19 response, while Fauci was commonly blamed for all that went amiss, I kept running into another less-known individual who, while hidden within the FDA bureaucracy, I believe was directly responsible for many of the mishaps that happened
This was because Peter Marks was:
•The primary person who covered up the reports of COVID vaccine injuries (and instead repeatedly told the world they were “safe and effective”).
•Kept on pushing the FDA’s chief vaccine scientists (who were very pro-vaccine) to accelerate and condense the approval timelines for the COVID vaccines (as those approvals were needed to legally implement Biden’s vaccine and booster mandates). Eventually, Gruber and Krause reported their were no more corners they could cut to further accelerate the COVID vaccine approvals, at which point they were removed from the COVID vaccine approval process and Marks took it over (at which point the unjustifiable approvals and mandates quickly followed).
As such, I felt Marks should not be in the agency and four weeks ago put together a detailed summary of his gross malfeasance at the FDA throughout COVID-19 in the hopes his abhorrent conduct could become widely known.
Last week, Marks announced his resignation in a spiteful letter that concluded with:
I was willing to work to address the Secretary’s concerns regarding vaccine safety and transparency…However, it has become clear that truth and transparency are not
desired by the Secretary, but rather he wishes subservient confirmation of his misinformation and lies.
This, in turn, prompted Robert Redfield (Trump’s 2018-2021 CDC director) to make a Twitter account to state:
Secretary Kennedy and Commissioner MartyMakary have the responsibility to build their own team at the FDA to move our nation forward. It was extremely disappointing to see Dr Peter Marks’ vindictive comments towards Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. in his resignation letter. I firmly believe RFK will be the most consequential Health Secretary in our nation’s history.
Note: Redfield, to my knowledge, is the only CDC director who went into private practice (he treats long COVID) after leaving the CDC (whereas in contrast most directors accept lucrative or prestigious positions following their tenure).
Following Mark’s resignation (which many news outlets claimed was forced), many news outlets attempted to paint him as saint and a victim of RFK’s “war against science”
This gushing coverage of Marks, in turn, I would argue was due to his background. Specifically:
•Prior to joining the FDA, Marks was an academic hematologist and oncologist with an “average and unimpressive publication history” (none of which related to vaccines, but one of which extensively discussed the global need for fully informed consent and stated “those that have only pretended to move [towards informed consent] will have the greatest difficulty”).
•Prior to joining the FDA, he’d also worked for several years the pharmaceutical industry (although oddly, no information exists online as to which companies he worked for—although one was likely Novartis).
•While at the FDA, he prioritized pushing through extremely expensive gene therapies (22 in total—most of which cost over half a million dollars), including some highly questionable ones (e.g., he overruled three FDA review teams and two top officials to push through a failed muscular dystrophy treatment which subsequently killed a patient).
Note: Robert Malone recently showed that Peter Marks was not qualified to be a senior regulator and had minimal knowledge or background in molecular biology, immunology or vaccinology (and worse still, repeatedly chose to overrule the FDA scientists who did).
•Marks was seen as a global leader in commercializing this field (e.g., he helped direct Germany’s national program to develop gene therapies, his resignation shook the entire sector, and following his resignation, large drops occurred in the stocks of key gene therapy companies).
Fake Empathy
Roughly a century ago, a new industry which combined propaganda, marketing and the emerging science of psychology was created by Freud’s nephew and rapidly took off because of how effectively it shifted public opinion. Since that time Public Relations (PR) has been continuously refined and this invisible industry has gradually gained a monopoly over pubic discourse and gotten a stranglehold on our society.
Since so many backwards policies (e.g., medical ones) originate from PR campaigns, I’ve thus tried to expose the common tactics this industry uses (e.g., having “experts” spam a persuasive soundbite across every media platform), as when you can’t see it, those tactics exert a powerful subconscious pull on the listener, but once you are able to see them, they become immensely transparent and you begin to see through so many of the lies that are fed to us.
Note: I have long found it immensely aggravating how often public figures (e.g., politicians) will successfully repeat PR lines you can tell they clearly do not believe what they are saying as there is no conviction behind their words and frequently they will subsequently say or do things which clearly demonstrate they did not mean what they’d said at the time). Likewise, I have always greatly disliked how when corporations do something evil and get caught, and it will puts out a statement which begins with “we are deeply saddened by …” and then somehow are absolved of their culpability for what happened
In my eyes, one of the most critical points to understand about PR is that the industry has made it much easier (and cheaper) to create a positive perception by paying a PR firm to do that than it is to earn the positive perception through one’s actions. Similarly, public policy has shifted towards policies being determined by whether or not a PR firm can sell them to the public rather than if the electorate supports them.
Note: much of the PR apparatus depends upon having a total monopoly over information (so that nothing can challenge the absurd narratives millions are spent to make be entrenched in our society). One of most profound shifts in our society has been the ability of information to freely diffuse across social media, thereby breaking the monopoly on truth which used to be afforded to those PR campaigns and allow contrary narratives which challenge the absurdity of many of these PR campaigns to rapidly disseminate and dispel those campaigns (e.g., I’ve had numerous times where this Substack successful dispelled a multi-million dollar propaganda campaign and since I am just one of many people doing that, it’s not financially feasible for traditional PR campaigns to continue to control the narrative).
Within medicine, one of the most common complaints patients have is that their doctors “don’t show empathy” towards them—a situation I believe ultimately results from the fact doctors have so little time with all the patients they see that the fundamental human capacity to be present to another’s experience gets overloaded and they instead default to interacting with their patient’s through an abstract script to get through the day.
In turn, while I sometimes come across individuals (e.g., doctors or politicians) who have the capacity to quickly be present to large numbers of people, normally the only viable solution to this problem is to spend more time with each person. Unfortunately, the current insurance payment scheme incentivizes those short visits (which I believe is incredibly shortsighted as many chronic issues can only be solved with longer visits that cost much less than the innumerable short visits that take their place).
As such, the medical industry chose to address this lack of empathy not by giving patients what they wanted (a doctor they felt connected to) but rather by creating the facade of empathy. This for example was accomplished by training medical students to robotically repeat “empathy statements” (e.g., repeating back what the patient said or stating “I’m sorry to hear that”), as in many cases, that indeed works.
Note: due to how profitable medical students are, there has been a proliferation of medical schools which has required gradually dropping the standards for admission (as our declining education standards has led to a lack of qualified college graduates). Because of this, the profession recently relaxed some of core graduation requirements such as their first board exams being switched to pass/fail and the pass/fail in-person basic assessment of clinical skills (where physician “empathy” was evaluated) being permanently cancelled due to COVID social distancing.
Most recently, I saw this on display in a viral video where a popular YouTube doctor (who’s taken a lot of pharmaceutical money) “debated 20 anti-vaxxers” and then received many variants of these two responses:
•”I am deeply impressed by the incredible empathy and compassion Dr. Mike gave these people.”
•”I cannot believe how moronic and misinformed those people were; Dr. Mike is a saint for talking to them the way he did.”
Conversely, after I watched it the following points jumped out at me:
1. Many of the people selected to appear challenged vaccination by promoting extreme and hard to defend views, thereby making it possible to make viral clips of their statements to smear all criticism of vaccines (whereas in contrast individuals with extensive familiarity on many of the topics were not invited so that Dr. Mike’s “expertise” could go unchallenged).
2. His responses typically were a mixture of standard vaccine talking points (e.g, all evidence of vaccine injury presented to him did not count because “correlation is not causation”) followed by “empathetic” statements.
3. Because of the smooth hypnotic pace he used, false statements that went unchallenged were peppered in such as:
•He asserted VAERS overreports vaccine injuries when in reality less than 1% of injuries make it into VAERS (as the government never wanted a publicly available injury database and once a law forced its creation, the government has worked for decades to undermine VAERS).
•He “compassionately” claimed the Federal vaccine injury compensation program existed to help individuals injured by vaccines and that they could sue a vaccine manufacturer if they were unsatisfied with the verdict—when in reality it is nearly impossible to have most injuries be acknowledged by that program and even harder to be able to sue a manufacturer outside of it).
•He argued that “vaccine immunity is superior to natural immunity” (which is false as vaccine immunity often creates a very narrow immunity pathogens rapidly evolve a resistance to). Then as people started to point that out, he pivoted to stating “vaccines do not put you at risk of infection like an actual infection so they are superior due to the lower risk entailed in become immune” and was not called out for moving the goalpost from efficacy to safety.
Note: there is also strong evidence vaccine side effects are often much greater than those from a natural infection (best demonstrated by how many more people have permanent complications from the vaccines than a COVID infection.
In short, his actions were a classic example of the (incredibly cruel) gaslighting many patients experience when, after being injured by a pharmaceutical, they are told the injury is entirely in their head. In some cases that’s done in a rude and confrontational way, but in many others, it’s instead done in a deceptive and compassionate manner which still traps you in the same box.
Note: one noteworthy fact about this doctor is that in addition to “combating misinformation” throughout COVID, he also used his large platform to repeatedly advocate for social distancing and mask wearing—but like many other proponents of that doctrine, subsequently got caught flagrantly violating it (in his case at his birthday party where he was maskless and tightly packed amongst women he’d invited—after which he essentially refused to apologize for his hypocrisy).
Mark’s “Empathy”
At React19’s request (an organization which advocates for the vaccine injured), I went through hundreds of pages of meetings and emails React19 had with the FDA. Many of these were with Peter Marks or his staff and occurred at the same time Marks was aggressively pushing FDA scientists to expedite approving the COVID vaccines so they could be mandated (e.g., military mandates began the day after his approval) and telling everyone the vaccine was safe and effective.
Throughout these documents, I noticed a few consistent patterns.
First, Marks would frequently not respond to queries or data demonstrating any issues with the vaccine.
Second, he would always stall and claim the FDA needed more time to conduct an analysis to determine if there was a specific safety issue with the vaccine (even though many of them were exceedingly obvious and could be definitely proven in less than a day).
Third, when directly presented with data he could not run away from (e.g., because he was in a live meeting) he would continually come up with excuses to explain why the data did not count (some of which matched Dr. Mike’s) and hence could not be linked to the COVID vaccines. As you can imagine, this was extremely frustrating for the React19 members (which included physicians), and they spent a lot of time trying to find something that could get through to him.
Fourth, he would repeatedly blame the serious issues the vaccine injured were having on medical system failing patients (but deflect when it was pointed out that those failures were due to a lack of injury acknowledgment or treatment guidelines from the NIH or FDA and that doctors who nonetheless treated injuries being targeted by medical boards).
Fifth, when pressed to define what would constitute acceptable proof of vaccine harm, Marks dodged the question.
Sixth, Marks (especially in meetings), whenever confronted with the horrendous experiences vaccine injured individuals went through used a large number of empathy statements to indicate that he “deeply cared” about the immense suffering those with COVID-19 vaccine injuries were going through.
In short, within ten minutes of the first meeting I watched that he had with React19, it was clear to me that Marks viewed those injured by the vaccines as acceptable collateral damage and that his only goal in dealing with them was to do whatever he could to make them go away so he wouldn’t have to deal with them or have them derail his vaccine campaign.
I believe this was demonstrated by one of their final [4/15/23] emails with him which went:
Hi Dr Marks and team.
We received alarming news that the FDA participated in a multi-day event with a significant focus of dismantling the “anti-vax movement” instead of fully evaluating the safety and efficacy of vaccination. You are quoted as saying you can’t believe the vaccines aren’t seen as anything but safe.
(After the honest conversation Germany’s government is having about Covid vaccine side effects nonetheless)
Is this true??
The lives and livelihoods sacrificed by the Covid vaccine program are the legs of which the Covid vaccine program stands. If you cannot properly support this population, the program will not succeed as you desire.
Of all the takeaways your team could have from the last two years is that this is all the “anti-vax movement’s fault?”
Imagine the GOOD you could have done to help ALL Americans, not just those who suffer from diseases that are politically convenient. After two long years of illness these families are physically, emotionally and financially decimated.
Dr Marks, Dr Richards, Ms McNeil, Dr Nair, Dr Woodcock: I can’t believe I trusted you to do the right thing.
Brianne Dressen
Co-Chair | React19.org
This email was in reference to a major vaccine conference (on April, 4, 2023) where Marks was a keynote speaker (as were other well-known figures like Peter Hotez). To quote a report from an undercover attendee, during a panel where Marks spoke with one of England’s chief regulators (alongside top scientists from Moderna and J&J):
Poland set the tone for the four-day conference in the first 10 minutes. In his mind, the COVID-19 pandemic was halted through the hard work of our regulatory agencies and the remarkable products borne of the mRNA platform.
The only failure came in the form of “inexplicable” vaccine hesitancy, a phenomenon driven by anti-vax pseudoscientists who are profiting from spreading baseless, fear-driven propaganda.
Combatting vaccine hesitancy, he said, is as big a challenge as protecting the world from the next deadly pathogen. Indeed, a significant portion of the events focused on strategies to dismantle the troubling “anti-vaxxer” movement.
Marks supported Poland’s position that the vaccine-hesitant are irrational, “It’s crazy that they don’t get how great vaccines are,” he said. “I am past trying to argue with people who think that vaccines are not safe.”
Note: during the React19 zoom meetings, Marks repeatedly implied otherwise (e.g., he stated “nobody is denying vaccine injuries may occur,” “nobody is denying adverse events can occur…nobody is denying the symptoms of what’s going on here,” “no-one is denying there are vaccine injury here. Nobody is denying that” “no-one is denying there are reports of neuropathy or potential of vaccine injury here. Nobody is denying that. But that vs a safety signal, that’s what we’re asking about”). Likewise, he repeatedly assured React19 they could trust the FDA (e.g., “We don’t have any secrets here.” “There is nothing I care about more than safe vaccines. No-one is trying to stonewall you…We don’t want to spread misinformation.” “Nobody is saying they’re not real it’s just saying that making definitive associations is very challenging.”).
In short, Marks provided a perfect illustration of the fake empathy that has infected medicine (and of course subsequently denied making these conference remarks).
Note: being a keynote speaker at the major conference for a pharmaceutical sector virtually guarantees the industry believes you will push along their products to the best of your ability. Similarly, I previously covered how Califf (Biden’s second FDA chief who was notorious for his pharmaceutical conflicts of interest) was the key note speaker at the annual invite-only conference JP Morgan Chase hosted for pharmaceutical investors (making it arguably the most important conference of the year). At that conference, Chase proclaimed that Ozempic and the new Alzheimer’s drugs would be some of the most lucrative drugs in history, and remarkably, immediately beforehand, Calif back-doored the approval of a highly controversial Alzheimer’s drug, while afterwards, the FDA began aggressively promoting Ozempic’s use in every age group.
The post Why Did the FDA Hide Vaccine Injuries? appeared first on LewRockwell.
0 comments on “Why Did the FDA Hide Vaccine Injuries?” Add yours →