NaturalPedia > Fda Scientists

Quotes about Fda Scientists from the world's top natural health / natural living authors

 Email this page to a friend   |  Click here for FREE email alerts

page 1 of 2 | Next ->

"A few of the more disturbing reports from the fda scientists include: 18.4% have been asked to exclude or alter their information or conclusions in FDA reports for non-scientific reasons 40% of the fda scientists fear retaliation for voicing safety concerns in public ** 61% knew of cases where political appointees inappropriately injected themselves into FDA determinations or actions You can read the full press release, include a suggested course of action, at www.UCSUSA.org. "Before approving a drug, the FDA does no research on that drug." - Mike Adams, Natural Health Solutions (Get the book.)

"Since the mid-1990s a steady stream of fda scientists have fled the agency's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research when their consciences could no longer condone FDA approval of unsafe drugs. Without exception, each one has explained to Congress and the media that FDA is beholden to the drug industry, that FDA views the industry as its client, and that FDA does the industry's bidding by approving drugs as safe when the evidence reveals them to be unsafe (even to point of condoning death and serious injury)." - Jonathan W. Emord, The Rise of Tyranny (Get the book.) "In 2006, the Union of Concerned Scientists confidentially surveyed 997 fda scientists. Sixty-one percent responded affirmatively to the question of whether they knew of cases in which HHS or FDA "political appointees [had] inappropriately injected themselves into FDA determinations or actions." One-fifth responded affirmatively to the question of whether they had "been asked, for non-scientific reasons, to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information or [their] scientific conclusions in a FDA scientific document." - Jonathan W. Emord, The Rise of Tyranny (Get the book.)

"The FDA pressures its own scientists to approve dangerous drugs This revelation came to light thanks to a Freedom of Information Act request that turned up in a 2002 Human and Health Services study showing that nearly 20 percent of fda scientists say they have been pressured to approve drugs they thought were dangerous. An astounding two-thirds of fda scientists say they don't have confidence in the FDA's ability to do its job and protect the public. Clearly there is a rift at the FDA." - Mike Adams, Spam Filters for Your Brain (Get the book.)

"Three fda scientists advise against approval of Nu-traSweet and aspartame stating on the record that Searle tests are unreliable and are not adequate to determine the safely of aspartame. These fda scientists believe that aspartame is responsible for brain tumors and other major health concerns. July 15, 1981. In one of his first official acts, the new FE'A commissioner actually does the unthinkable; he personally overrules the Public Board of Inquiry's findings, ignores the recommendations of his own internal FDA team, and he personally approves NutraSweet and aspartame! October 15,1982." - Kevin Trudeau, More Natural Cures Revealed: Previously Censored Brand Name Products That Cure Disease (Get the book.)

"Today, close personal friendships are commonly seen among the fda scientists and the drug company scientists assigned to getting a company's new drug approved. Informal contact occurs daily, and formal meetings with drug company representatives occur over one thousand times a year.51 FDA scientists and occasionally FDA administrators admit to the pressure they feel to approve drugs and to do so quickly." - Dr. Timothy Scott, America Fooled: The Truth About Antidepressants, Antipsychotics and How We've Been Deceived (Get the book.)

"These fda scientists believe that aspartame is responsible for brain tumors and other major health concerns. July 15, 1981. In one of his first official acts, the new FE'A commissioner actually does the unthinkable; he personally overrules the Public Board of Inquiry's findings, ignores the recommendations of his own internal FDA team, and he personally approves NutraSweet and aspartame! October 15,1982. Searle files a petition to have aspartame approved as a sweetener in carbonated beverages and other liquids." - Kevin Trudeau, More Natural Cures Revealed: Previously Censored Brand Name Products That Cure Disease (Get the book.) "One of the first fda scientists to review the aspartame data states that "The information provided is inadequate to permit an evaluation of the potential toxicity of aspartame." She says in her report that in order to be certain that aspartame is safe further clinical tests are needed. July 26, 1974. Miraculously, the FDA grants aspartame approval for restricted use in dry foods. To this day no one knows how or why this approval was granted since the data was so inconclusive and suggested major negative side effects. August 1974." - Kevin Trudeau, More Natural Cures Revealed: Previously Censored Brand Name Products That Cure Disease (Get the book.)

"The fda scientists who evaluate applications are handicapped. They must use data submitted by the company seeking approval. While they can ask for additional information, or even require further trials, they cannot independently verify the data —the FDA is not empowered to conduct its own trials or tests. FDA officials rely on the corporation seeking approval to submit valid, truthful, pertinent, and complete data. The recent Enron and WorldCom debacles have shown corporations' willingness to manipulate information in the quest for profits." - Brent Hoadley, Ph.D., Too Profitable to Cure (Get the book.)

"The internal secret survey showed that the FDA does not adequately monitor the safety of prescription drugs once they are on the market, and the majority of fda scientists do not believe that the labeling decisions adequately address key safety concern. It also showed that an alarming percentage of fda scientists themselves were not confident that the final decisions adequately addressed the safety of drugs." - Kevin Trudeau, Natural Cures They Don't Want You to Know About (Get the book.)

"From a 2002 Human and Health Services survey asking fda scientists questions about the agency: Of those who responded, 66 percent said they lacked confidence in the agency's ability to "adequately monitor the safety of prescription drugs once they are on the market." *" Only 12 percent of the scientists surveyed were completely confident that the FDA labeling decisions adequately address safety concerns. <•* Nearly one in five scientists, 18 percent, said that they have "been pressured to approve or recommend approval" for drugs that they thought weren't proven safe." - Mike Adams, Natural Health Solutions (Get the book.)

"Despite the guideline's failure to address the FDA scientists' concerns — that "pain" as a symptom that something was going wrong was a symptom that came too late in the potentially fatal ischemic colitis process to do anyone any good — Lotronex would stay on the market. Three months later, after five patients died and dozens more were admitted to emergency rooms for ruptured bowels, Glaxo withdrew the drug from the market. Yet right away its reg affairs people began working on a way to get it back on the market, which they succeeded in doing by mid-2002." - Greg Critser, Generation Rx: How Prescription Drugs are Altering American Lives, Minds, and Bodies (Get the book.)

"FDA scientists fear retaliation for voicing safety concerns in public. ¦ ¦ -Union of Concerned Scientists Survey, July 2006 The Ephedra ban: FDA tyranny at its worst After reviewing the history of FDA action on Rezulin, it is worthwhile to examine the agency's contrasting actions on Ephedra. As you read this, ask yourself: Is the FDA really interested in protecting the public, or does it seem to act out of a different, hidden agenda? Ephedra is an herb that's been used in Chinese medicine for more than 5,000 years." - Mike Adams, Natural Health Solutions (Get the book.)

"Case Study: Irregularities marred evaluations of Monsanto's GM drug, recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH) Several claims made by fda scientists in defense of rbGH have not held up under scrutiny. For example, they said that bovine growth hormone does not increase substantially in milk from treated cows. The study they cited, however, shows a 26% increase in the hormone. Furthermore, those researchers injected cows with only a 10.6 mg daily dose of rbGH compared to the normal 500 mg bi-weekly dose used by farmers." - Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods (Get the book.) "In July 2006, the Union of Concerned Scientists and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility distributed a 38-question survey to nearly 6,000 fda scientists. Nearly 1,000 scientists responded, disclosing that 61% knew of cases in which "Department of Health and Human Services or FDA political appointees have inappropriately injected themselves into FDA determinations or actions," and 60% knew of cases "where commercial interests have inappropriately induced or attempted to induce the reversal, withdrawal, or modification of FDA determinations or actions." - Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods (Get the book.) "For instance, fda scientists at the Division of Food Chemistry and Technology and the Division of Contaminants Chemistry called for mandatory review, stating that 'every transformant should be evaluated before it enters the marketplace.'10 Dr. Samuel Shibko, Director of the Division of Toxi-cological Review and Evaluation, recommended 'a limited traditional toxicological study with the edible part of the plant,' as well as 'limited studies in humans' and in vitro geno-toxicity tests." - Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods (Get the book.)

"FDA reports for non-scientific reasons 40% of the fda scientists fear retaliation for voicing safety concerns in public ** 61% knew of cases where political appointees inappropriately injected themselves into FDA determinations or actions You can read the full press release, include a suggested course of action, at www.UCSUSA.org. "Before approving a drug, the FDA does no research on that drug. Instead, the FDA evaluates studies handed to them by the pharmaceutical company that created the drug." - Mike Adams, Natural Health Solutions (Get the book.)

"But human nature is such that when a neighbor invites us over for a meal, we aren't apt to leave until we say, "Well, we will be sure and have you over soon." fda scientists know who pays for their meals. That was evident when Dr. Woodcock noted the discomfort she feels when she considers rejecting a company's drug. As she noted, it might mean an immediate loss of $150 million or more in development costs.53 Of course, $150 million is nothing compared to the potential loss to the industry that could result if the FDA declared antidepressants and antipsychotics unsafe." - Dr. Timothy Scott, America Fooled: The Truth About Antidepressants, Antipsychotics and How We've Been Deceived (Get the book.)

"A July 20, 2006, report by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), said that approximately one-fifth of the nearly 1,000 fda scientists who responded to a survey stated that they had been asked, for nonscientific reasons, to alter or exclude technical information or conclusions. And, one-fifth said that they have been asked explicitly by FDA decisionmakers to provide incomplete, inaccurate or misleading information to the public, industry, the media and government officials." - Dr David W Tanton, Ph.D., Antidepressants, Antipsychotics, And Stimulants - Dangerous Drugs on Trial (Get the book.)

"An astounding two-thirds of fda scientists say they don't have confidence in the FDA's ability to do its job and protect the public. Clearly there is a rift at the FDA. Drug safety scientists are at odds with drug approval zealots who will do anything to get drugs approved, probably because they financially benefit from arrangements with drug companies via investments, consulting fees, speaking fees and other such arrangements. This is just a glimpse at what's wrong with the FDA." - Mike Adams, Spam Filters for Your Brain (Get the book.)

"Reports from patients, hospitals, and physicians indicated that Lotronex caused ischemic colitis — constipation that was so profound as to become life-threatening — and led several fda scientists to recommend that the drug be recalled. But Glaxo believed that the side effects could be ameliorated with a recommendation for increased physician monitoring. In the midsummer of 2000, the company sent a team of "reg affairs" people to the FDA to make their case. They prevailed. Instead of recalling the drug, the FDA simply issued a medication management guideline." - Greg Critser, Generation Rx: How Prescription Drugs are Altering American Lives, Minds, and Bodies (Get the book.)

"The survey also revealed that 18 percent of fda scientists had been "pressured to approve or recommend approval for a [new drug application] despite reservations about the safety, efficacy, or quality of the drug." 36 percent of the scientists in the survey said they were only somewhat confident or not confident at all in the FDA's decisions regarding drug safety. Finally, when it came to drug effectiveness, 22 percent of scientists said they were only somewhat confident or not confident at all in the agency's decisions." - Peter Rost, The Whistleblower: Confessions of a Healthcare Hitman (Get the book.)

"That year, fda scientists reviewed more than 130 studies of the effects of rBGH on cows, rats, and humans and also concluded that the hormone does not affect human health. Critics called this conclusion an unprecedented display of conflict of interest: fda scientists had produced a favorable evaluation of evidence in support of a drug not yet approved by their agency." - Marion Nestle, Safe Food: Bacteria, Biotechnology, and Bioterrorism (Get the book.)

"There is evidence of heavy metals in GM soybean oil. 3. fda scientists also said that toxins in GM feed might concentrate in milk or meat. 4. GM DNA fragments were found in milk. 5. While very little research has been done on this, small amounts of Roundup may be retained in the body of animals and affect sperm quality. 6. The overuse of Roundup and Liberty herbicides on GM crops magnifies these types of risks." - Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods (Get the book.)

"Using the new methods, fda scientists tested the food samples but could not detect the StarLink gene in any of them. They also failed to find the StarLink protein in the foods, although the test was inconclusive in one sample. In the meantime, scientists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) tested the blood samples for evidence of immune responses to the StarLink protein; they found none. These resuits led the agencies to conclude that the reported illnesses must have been caused by something other than an allergic reaction to the StarLink protein." - Marion Nestle, Safe Food: Bacteria, Biotechnology, and Bioterrorism (Get the book.)

"It is now being reported and the fda scientists themselves actually admit that Vioxx alone has caused over 140,000 heart attacks, strokes and deaths. And the FDA is actually saying that it, as an agency, is virtually defenseless against a similar future catastrophe with another drug. Non-prescription over-the-counter drugs and prescription drugs are in fact deadly and are killing people. The American medical association itself admits that prescription drugs are now the fourth-leading cause of death in America." - Kevin Trudeau, Natural Cures They Don't Want You to Know About (Get the book.)

"The documents revealed that some fda scientists had been concerned about the lack of data on safety risks and thought the policy too favorable to the industry. Overall, the (ultimately unsuccessful) lawsuit concluded, "There is more than enough evidence to convince a reasonable man or woman that current FDA policy is unscientific, unwise, irresponsible, and illegal."42 Other critics attacked the idea of substantial equivalence as a basis for policy. " - Marion Nestle, Safe Food: Bacteria, Biotechnology, and Bioterrorism (Get the book.)

"Almost all cosmetics are colored, but until recently it was frequently impossible for fda scientists to detect specific colors and quantities employed. Now, with newly developed techniques, fda scientists are able to analyze finished products and to determine the colors and quantities used. Among the natural colors widely used in cosmetics are alkanet, annatto, carotene, chlorophyll, cochineal, saffron, and turmeric. Flavorings A wide variety of spices, natural extractives, oleoresins, and essential oils are used in cosmetics." - Ruth Winter, M.S., A Consumer's Dictionary of Cosmetic Ingredients (Get the book.)

"By then, even though the drug had been on the market for around one year and then off the market for eighteen months, there were over two hundred reports of serious complications and seven reports of deaths, deemed by fda scientists as probably linked to the drug. Given that only a tiny proportion of serious complications are ever reported to the FDA, it was possible that anywhere between two thousand and twenty thousand women had been made seriously ill, and perhaps scores had died due to complications associated with a drug whose benefits were the subject of serious scientific doubt." - Ray Moynihan and Alan Cassels, Selling Sickness: How the World's Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies Are Turning Us All into Patients (Get the book.) "For him that meeting sent a powerful signal to the young fda scientists present, and it was symptomatic of a much bigger malaise. He felt it was sending the message that "we don't argue with drug companies; we listen to their distortions and omissions of evidence and we do nothing about it."13 One of the senior officers at the meeting, Dr. Janet Woodcock, directly rejected Stolley's view. "The FDA wanted to determine a course forward, not to argue the details," she said." - Ray Moynihan and Alan Cassels, Selling Sickness: How the World's Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies Are Turning Us All into Patients (Get the book.)

page 1 of 2 | Next ->

FAIR USE NOTICE: The research quoted here is provided under the protection of Fair Use provisions and published by the 501(c)3 non-profit Consumer Wellness Center for the purposes of public comment and education. Authors / publishers may submit books for consideration of inclusion here.

TERMS OF USE: Read full terms of use. Citations of text from NaturalPedia must include: 1) Full credit to the original author and book title. 2) Secondary credit to the Natural News Naturalpedia as a research resource and a link to www.NaturalPedia.com

This unique compilation of research is copyright (c) 2008, 2009 by the non-profit Consumer Wellness Center.

ABOUT THE CREATOR OF NATURALPEDIA: Mike Adams, the creator of NaturalPedia, is the editor of NaturalNews.com, the internet's top natural health news site, creator of the Honest Food Guide (www.HonestFoodGuide.org), a free downloadable consumer food guide based on natural health principles, author of Grocery Warning, The 7 Laws of Nutrition, Natural Health Solutions, and many other books available at www.TruthPublishing.com, creator of the earth-friendly EcoLEDs company (www.EcoLEDs.com) that manufactures energy-efficient LED lighting products, founder of Arial Software (www.ArialSoftware.com), a permission e-mail technology company, creator of the CounterThink Cartoon series (www.NaturalNews.com/index-cartoons.html) and author of over 1,500 articles, interviews, special reports and reference guides available at www.NaturalNews.com. Adams' personal philosophy and health statistics are available at www.HealthRanger.org.