The unsettling alliance between the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and pharmaceutical giant Moderna beggars closer scrutiny. As reported by Peter Doshi in a recent British Medical Journal (BMJ) article, the FDA's lackadaisical rules have seemingly cultivated a comfortable arena for a revolving door culture. A prime illustration of this issue is the suave transition of physician-scientist Doran Fink from an influential public office at the FDA to a high-ranking position in Moderna, a company which he previously regulated.
I worked in regulated medical devices, for Kodak and later, Johnson & Johnson, for the better part of 12 years. That tenure ended nearly 30 years ago. The revolving door you "discover" and reference here, was evident back then. I vividly recall chatting with a colleague of mine, who was at the time, working in regulatory affairs--a huge and vital part of that industry, given the bureaucracy. I mentioned to her how it seems like a huge conflict of interest for senior-level executives to move back and forth between industry and the Feds. She was unconcerned. In fact, she thought it was a good thing! It allowed better "coordination" between industry and the Feds, thereby allowing for smoother submissions, and hopefully, faster approvals. Bottom Line: This is yet another example where the Great Covid Dumpster Fire has publicized, for the uninitiated or uninformed, the type of festering rot that has existed within the FDA, the CDC, and others, for absolutely decades.
In fairness, I actually understand how it might seem like a benefit for high-level people to "cross-pollinate" between an industry being regulated and the people doing the regulating. If, and ONLY if, the people in both positions are pure and above reproach, i.e., perfect. Otherwise, someone who knows where the bodies are buried will forget, on purpose, or hide the shovel he and his buddies used, or whatever. Conflicts of Interest are asking for trouble in those cases. And here we are...
It's good to be fair-minded enough to give serious consideration to all assertions presented during an argument. You've been intellectually honest and conscientious enough to examine conflict of interest from all points of the compass, and arrived at the inescapable conclusion that people behave like people.
I'm not mocking you in the way I phrased that. If anything, I'm mocking myself for a decades-long failure to acknowledge the universality of human behavioral psychology.
The ways that conflicts of interest destroy human undertakings and interactions are legion, insidious and scalable. A lifetime in business presents example after example of conflicts great and small, and they never end well for anyone but the carpetbaggers.
Part of the societal myopia around this issue arises from simple credulity, a credulity requiring no little effort to maintain. By this, I mean that managing cognitive dissonance requires rather a lot of work. That dissonance is imposed by the disparity between what people say and what they do. They say that their motives are egalitarian, but their actions present a signal of nothing other than pursuit of self-interest.
Nothing inherently wrong with pursuit of self-interest, but it must be clearly and openly identified as such, in order to be constructive.
Thanks for sharing your observations and experience. It's very helpful to understand correlation.
Your analysis is spot-on. Your kind words are much appreciated. (ETA: It dawns on me that I have, in many previous discussions of this type, with people who just do not appear to "get it," used the words, "We've only got people!" Great minds...)
"We've only got people" is a neat turn of phrase. It opens a door to what should be a sincere conversation.
It reminds me of how my elders and betters used to explain the pros and cons of collectivism and individualism in answer to my Utopian assertions. I plead "cranial density," as we used to waggishly refer to it. The standard nerd-humor led to silly jokes such as "the reason audiologists have ultrasound devices, is to capture the echo between the patient's ears" and "the reason clinical psychologists have densitometers in their treatment rooms is akin to geologists with ground-penetrating radar."
I suppose that my point is something like what I refer to as the "Tower Of Babel Syndrome," the confounding factor in trying to communicate in a language that invokes the pattern recognition within the person with whom one is trying to reach an understanding.
Looking back, I can now see that "Human Nature" is a concept that relies on a deep knowledge of how people respond to stimuli. My elders had a perspective based on long years of observing behaviors, but lacked the granular mechanical detail with which to penetrate my thick young skull.
So here I am, more than half a century after those conversations, older and more learned, but probably no wiser. Nevertheless, I now begin with the story of Pavlov and his dogs, which quite a few people are at least vaguely familiar with, when I try to explain the "nuts and bolts" of what we refer to as "human nature."
This is true throughout all federal, state, and local government. It is a matter of ethics, of which there appears to be very little throughout government. You are correct, until that changes, there will be a waning trust in government and the administrative state.
That is how bribes are paid- the government official does the quo, and the quid follows with a well paid job in the business after leaving public office.
It’s not only these agencies and ‘enablers’ (not regulators), but also intrinsic to the corruption are pseudo-charities which basically act as tax exemption money laundering groups with revolving doors and conflicts of interest as normalised.
I just read on Sharyl Attkisson’s site that new house speaker Johnson just hired pharma lobbyist Dan Ziegler to his staff. I hope this is not true but I believe she is an ethical journalist....
I worked in regulated medical devices, for Kodak and later, Johnson & Johnson, for the better part of 12 years. That tenure ended nearly 30 years ago. The revolving door you "discover" and reference here, was evident back then. I vividly recall chatting with a colleague of mine, who was at the time, working in regulatory affairs--a huge and vital part of that industry, given the bureaucracy. I mentioned to her how it seems like a huge conflict of interest for senior-level executives to move back and forth between industry and the Feds. She was unconcerned. In fact, she thought it was a good thing! It allowed better "coordination" between industry and the Feds, thereby allowing for smoother submissions, and hopefully, faster approvals. Bottom Line: This is yet another example where the Great Covid Dumpster Fire has publicized, for the uninitiated or uninformed, the type of festering rot that has existed within the FDA, the CDC, and others, for absolutely decades.
Touché -- and you saw it first hand 🤚🏻👍🏻
In fairness, I actually understand how it might seem like a benefit for high-level people to "cross-pollinate" between an industry being regulated and the people doing the regulating. If, and ONLY if, the people in both positions are pure and above reproach, i.e., perfect. Otherwise, someone who knows where the bodies are buried will forget, on purpose, or hide the shovel he and his buddies used, or whatever. Conflicts of Interest are asking for trouble in those cases. And here we are...
It's good to be fair-minded enough to give serious consideration to all assertions presented during an argument. You've been intellectually honest and conscientious enough to examine conflict of interest from all points of the compass, and arrived at the inescapable conclusion that people behave like people.
I'm not mocking you in the way I phrased that. If anything, I'm mocking myself for a decades-long failure to acknowledge the universality of human behavioral psychology.
The ways that conflicts of interest destroy human undertakings and interactions are legion, insidious and scalable. A lifetime in business presents example after example of conflicts great and small, and they never end well for anyone but the carpetbaggers.
Part of the societal myopia around this issue arises from simple credulity, a credulity requiring no little effort to maintain. By this, I mean that managing cognitive dissonance requires rather a lot of work. That dissonance is imposed by the disparity between what people say and what they do. They say that their motives are egalitarian, but their actions present a signal of nothing other than pursuit of self-interest.
Nothing inherently wrong with pursuit of self-interest, but it must be clearly and openly identified as such, in order to be constructive.
Thanks for sharing your observations and experience. It's very helpful to understand correlation.
Your analysis is spot-on. Your kind words are much appreciated. (ETA: It dawns on me that I have, in many previous discussions of this type, with people who just do not appear to "get it," used the words, "We've only got people!" Great minds...)
"We've only got people" is a neat turn of phrase. It opens a door to what should be a sincere conversation.
It reminds me of how my elders and betters used to explain the pros and cons of collectivism and individualism in answer to my Utopian assertions. I plead "cranial density," as we used to waggishly refer to it. The standard nerd-humor led to silly jokes such as "the reason audiologists have ultrasound devices, is to capture the echo between the patient's ears" and "the reason clinical psychologists have densitometers in their treatment rooms is akin to geologists with ground-penetrating radar."
I suppose that my point is something like what I refer to as the "Tower Of Babel Syndrome," the confounding factor in trying to communicate in a language that invokes the pattern recognition within the person with whom one is trying to reach an understanding.
Looking back, I can now see that "Human Nature" is a concept that relies on a deep knowledge of how people respond to stimuli. My elders had a perspective based on long years of observing behaviors, but lacked the granular mechanical detail with which to penetrate my thick young skull.
So here I am, more than half a century after those conversations, older and more learned, but probably no wiser. Nevertheless, I now begin with the story of Pavlov and his dogs, which quite a few people are at least vaguely familiar with, when I try to explain the "nuts and bolts" of what we refer to as "human nature."
Follow the money 💰 trail -- money talks and what comes out of the rear end of a bull, walks 🤦🏻♀️😤
Remember: There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice.
I have a teeshirt that says: We the People will not comply with tyranny!
This one: https://is.gd/e66UXT
It's perfect for these crazy times.
This is true throughout all federal, state, and local government. It is a matter of ethics, of which there appears to be very little throughout government. You are correct, until that changes, there will be a waning trust in government and the administrative state.
That is how bribes are paid- the government official does the quo, and the quid follows with a well paid job in the business after leaving public office.
.
Damn.
It’s As If The Unvaccinated
Have A Crystal Ball.
.
It’s not only these agencies and ‘enablers’ (not regulators), but also intrinsic to the corruption are pseudo-charities which basically act as tax exemption money laundering groups with revolving doors and conflicts of interest as normalised.
The FDA and CDC want us dead. Using crapsticks like moderna is just one way to get 'er done.
I will state it baldly- Fink was offered and accepted a bribe.
It's not just FDA:
https://www.opensecrets.org/presidential-administrations
Robert Conquest understood this very well:
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9174-the-behavior-of-any-bureaucratic-organization-can-best-be-understood
https://sharylattkisson.lt.acemlna.com/Prod/link-tracker?redirectUrl=aHR0cHMlM0ElMkYlMkZzaGFyeWxhdHRraXNzb24uY29tJTJGMjAyMyUyRjExJTJGcmVhZC1uZXctaG91c2Utc3BlYWtlci1taWtlLWpvaG5zb24taGlyZXMtcGhhcm1hLWxvYmJ5aXN0LXRvLWpvaW4taGlzLXN0YWZmJTJGJTNGdXRtX3NvdXJjZSUzREFjdGl2ZUNhbXBhaWduJTI2dXRtX21lZGl1bSUzRGVtYWlsJTI2dXRtX2NvbnRlbnQlM0RTaGFyeWwlMkJBdHRraXNzb24lMkJEYWlseSUyQk5ld3NsZXR0ZXIlMjZ1dG1fY2FtcGFpZ24lM0REYWlseSUyQk5ld3NsZXR0ZXI=&sig=2sp9yVsUkVgA63PM7Yus1soDZparQVdGnUa9aCwk5qnK&iat=1699284075&a=%7C%7C90057684%7C%7C&account=sharylattkisson%2Eactivehosted%2Ecom&email=Li0Yj3p3dY%2BfR57fexaPCOSGThMBE%2BQvWOXO8ld3odAq6PRU%3Abc%2BmkVYVkh8TPv7KlG%2F7eyYWzuuK%2FZsf&s=2285065b6687318c967c16357cf72f4e&i=1291A1458A1A26100
I just read on Sharyl Attkisson’s site that new house speaker Johnson just hired pharma lobbyist Dan Ziegler to his staff. I hope this is not true but I believe she is an ethical journalist....