By Janet Vargas - Independent Natural Health Researcher 30+ Yrs
With Guided and Selected AI Assistance
YOU WILL ALL DO WELL TO READ REAL FACTS ABOUT THESE 3 GOVERNING BODIES BECAUSE OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM. SORRY TO TELL YOU THE THIRD ONE (TGA) IS ACTUALLY AUSTRALIAN. ALL THESE THINGS GO ON "Behind Our Backs" SO IT'S FOOLISH TO PUT TOO MUCH TRUST IN THEM. OK?
My Search Questions are in RED to stand out for your Convenience.
I would like to have a List of Natural Health Advocates
who Caution people about the FDA as being Corrupt, thanks.
Prominent figures and health organizations frequently criticize the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These critics argue that the agency has deep systemic corruption, regulatory capture, and conflicts of interest with major food and pharmaceutical corporations.
The primary natural health advocates, independent researchers, and consumer watchdogs who publicly caution the market about the FDA include:
Natural Health Advocates & Independent Authors
- Dr. Joseph Mercola: A prominent natural health advocate and osteopathic physician who runs one of the most visited alternative health websites. He frequently publishes articles accusing the FDA of operating as a "rubber stamp" for the pharmaceutical and biotech industries.
- Mike Adams (The Health Ranger): Founder of Natural News. He focuses heavily on investigative reporting regarding food contaminants, heavy metals, and synthetic additives, routinely characterizing the FDA as a corrupt shield for corporate interests.
- Dr. Josh Axe: A chiropractor and certified doctor of natural medicine who regularly cautions his audience about the FDA's approval of synthetic food ingredients, chemical sweeteners, and pesticides, advocating instead for whole-food, ancestral diets.
- Gary Null, PhD: An author, radio host, and natural health advocate who has spent decades producing documentaries and books alleging institutional corruption, particularly concerning the suppression of natural therapies by the FDA and the AMA.
Medical Professionals & Whistleblowers
- Dr. David Graham: A senior drug safety researcher inside the FDA who became a prominent internal whistleblower in 2004. He testified before Congress that the FDA was "incapable of protecting America" due to its cozy relationship with drug manufacturers, specifically highlighting the agency's handling of the drug Vioxx.
- Dr. Peter Gotzsche: A Danish physician, researcher, and co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration. He authored Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare, heavily criticizing the FDA for relying on industry-funded clinical trials.
Institutional & Watchdog Organizations
- Public Citizen (Health Research Group): A non-profit consumer rights advocacy group founded by Ralph Nader. Their medical experts regularly publish critiques of the FDA, cautioning that the 1992 Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) essentially forced the FDA to treat pharmaceutical companies as "clients" rather than entities to regulate.
- The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI): An independent consumer advocacy organization that frequently challenges the FDA on food safety, corporate-backed food additives, and the lack of transparency in the "Generally Recognized as Safe" (GRAS) loophole.
If you are compiling a specific dossier or report on these critics, let me know if you would like me to:
- Detail the specific books, documentaries, or court cases associated with any of these names.
- Provide a breakdown of how the PDUFA user fee system works to fund the agency.
Dr. Josef Witt-Doerring is a board-certified psychiatrist and a former Medical Officer for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), where he specialized in reviewing the safety data and side effects of psychiatric medications. After working within the regulatory system, he grew deeply critical of how the FDA and academic psychiatry evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of these drugs. He subsequently launched a rapidly growing YouTube channel to educate the public on the severe risks of psychiatric medications—such as emotional numbing, persistent sexual dysfunction (PSSD), and severe withdrawal syndromes. Today, he operates the TaperClinic, a specialized medical facility dedicated to helping patients safely and gradually taper off psychiatric drugs while transitioning toward holistic, root-cause health solutions like metabolic care, nutrition, and psychotherapy. [1, 2, 3, 4]
If you are researching his work or the broader topic of psychiatric drug safety, let me know if you would like to:
- Explore the specific arguments he makes regarding FDA clinical trial lengths.
- Understand the protocols his clinic uses for safely tapering off medications.
- Look into other medical whistleblowers who share similar views on Big Pharma's influence. [1, 2, 3]
CLOSE TIES BETWEEN MONSANTO and FDA
The Funny Business in Work Appointments that are Not Very Funny!
The individual most famous for embodying the "revolving door" between Monsanto and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is Michael R. Taylor. [1]
While he transitioned back and forth between the corporation and the government multiple times, his most controversial move occurred in 1991 when he was appointed the FDA's Deputy Commissioner for Policy. He later returned to the private sector as Monsanto’s Vice President for Public Policy from 1998 to 2000, before returning to the FDA yet again under the Obama administration in 2009. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Another key figure in this exact timeline was Margaret Miller, a top Monsanto research scientist who transitioned directly to the FDA in 1989. [1, 2]
Report: The "Dodgy" Overlap and Regulatory Capture
The back-and-forth movement of Michael Taylor and Margaret Miller between Monsanto and the FDA is widely cited by consumer watchdogs as a classic case of regulatory capture—where a government agency tasked with protecting the public ends up being run by the very corporations it is supposed to regulate. [1]
The primary conflicts of interest surrounding their appointments include:
1. Writing the Report, Then Approving It (The Margaret Miller Case) [1]
In the late 1980s, Margaret Miller was a top researcher for Monsanto, actively working on the company's scientific submission to prove that Posilac (Bovine Growth Hormone / rBGH) was safe for commercial dairy cows. [1, 2, 3]
- The Conflict: Right before Monsanto submitted the safety report to the government, Miller left the company and was hired by the FDA as the Deputy Director of the Office of New Animal Drugs. [1, 2]
- The Outcome: Her very first job at the FDA was to review and approve the exact safety report she had just written while on Monsanto's payroll. Critics argue this meant Monsanto was effectively allowed to grade its own homework. [1, 2]
2. The Mandate Against GMO Labeling (The Michael Taylor Case)
Michael Taylor began his career as an FDA lawyer, left to work for King & Spalding (the law firm representing Monsanto), and then returned to the FDA in 1991 as Deputy Commissioner for Policy. [1, 2]
- The Conflict: During his 1991–1994 tenure at the FDA, Taylor oversaw the agency's foundational policy regarding Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and rBGH. [1, 2, 3]
- The Outcome: Under his watch, the FDA ruled that GMOs were "substantially equivalent" to natural foods and therefore required no special safety testing and no mandatory labeling. Furthermore, Taylor's policy actively prevented dairy companies from labeling their milk as "rBGH-Free," heavily penalizing companies that tried to advertise they were not using Monsanto's hormone. [1]
3. Rewarded with an Executive VP Role [1]
After successfully implementing federal policies that created a multi-billion dollar, unregulated market for biotech crops, Taylor left the government. In 1998, he was hired directly by Monsanto to serve as their Vice President for Public Policy. He spent 16 months shaping corporate strategy before the revolving door spun again, landing him back at the top of the FDA food safety division in 2009. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
The Whistleblower Pushback
This era was marked by intense internal pressure. Scientists inside the FDA, as well as international whistleblowers like Dr. Shiv Chopra at Health Canada, publicly testified that Corporate-Aligned Managers were Altering Scientific Data and bullying Safety Officers to force the approval of Monsanto products without proper long-term safety studies. [1]
Good Info thanks. Can you give me Similar Info about Corruption in the WHO?
Many Professional Health Advocates and Independent Researchers find them to be Corrupt also.
The World Health Organization (WHO) is a frequent target of criticism from independent researchers, medical journals, and parliamentary investigations, who argue that the agency has institutional corruption, severe conflicts of interest, and regulatory capture by private billionaires and pharmaceutical companies.
1. Private Funding and the Gates Foundation Capture
Originally, the WHO was funded almost entirely by democratic nation-states. Today, more than 80% of its budget comes from "specified voluntary contributions"—meaning private donors and foundations dictate exactly which diseases and programs the money can be used for. [1, 2]
- The Influence: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the second-largest overall funder of the WHO, frequently contributing more money than entire sovereign nations like the United States or the United Kingdom. [1, 2, 3, 4]
- The Critique: Leading public health experts and organizations like Doctors Without Borders (MSFT) have cautioned that this creates an autocracy where a single billionaire’s private corporate interests, technological preferences, and vaccine-centric ideologies dictate global health policy, bypassing democratic oversight and ignoring root-cause solutions like clean water, sanitation, and basic nutrition.
2. Institutional Secrecy and the Tobacco/Pesticide Ties
While the WHO publicly claims to fight corporate harms, internal investigations have repeatedly exposed cozy relationships with toxic industries.
- The Tobacco Cover-up: An internal WHO committee report revealed that the tobacco industry had successfully placed paid consultants inside the WHO as experts to secretly divert the agency's research away from the dangers of secondhand smoke.
- The Glyphosate Contradiction: In 2016, a joint meeting between the WHO and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) declared that glyphosate (the active chemical in Monsanto's Roundup) was "unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk" to humans through diet. This directly contradicted the WHO's own International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which had previously classified it as a "probable human carcinogen." Independent investigators pointed out that the chairman of the joint panel ran a research institute that had received a six-figure donation from Monsanto. [1, 2, 3]
If you are expanding your dossier to include international agencies, let me know if you would like me to:
- Provide the exact citations and report titles from the BMJ or the Council of Europe investigations.
- Break down the current top 5 private donors to the WHO and what specific programs they fund.
Do you have any Negative Information on the TGA in Australia?
Yes, Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) faces very similar criticisms from independent health researchers, medical journals, and consumer watchdogs as the US FDA and the WHO. [1, 2, 3]
Critics argue that the TGA suffers from structural conflicts of interest, a lack of institutional transparency, and a regulatory culture that prioritises the interests of pharmaceutical companies over consumer protection. [1, 2, 3]
The primary negative information and systemic critiques leveled against the TGA include:
1. Near-Total Industry Funding (The "User-Pays" Conflict)
The most prominent structural critique of the TGA is its financial reliance on the very companies it regulates.
- The Funding Metric: Roughly 93% to 96% of the TGA's entire operating budget is derived from industry fees, annual charges, and evaluation applications paid directly by pharmaceutical and medical device corporations. Only a tiny fraction comes from public taxpayer funding. [1, 2]
- The Critique: In an investigative report published in the prestigious British Medical Journal (BMJ), researchers highlighted that the TGA has the highest proportion of industry funding among major global regulators. Critics argue this turns the regulator into a service provider for corporate "clients" rather than a strictly independent watchdog. [1, 2]
- High Approval Rates: This commercial arrangement correlates with an exceptionally high approval rate; the TGA approves approximately 94% of all drug applications submitted to it. [1]
2. Lack of Transparency and Hidden Financial Ties
Independent health advocates frequently label the TGA as one of the most secretive regulatory bodies in the developed world regarding internal decision-making. [1]
- Secret Conflict Declarations: The TGA routinely utilizes senior medical specialists and advisory committees to evaluate drugs. However, the TGA treats the specific financial ties between these advisors and pharmaceutical companies as "personal information". Unlike peer-reviewed journals, these conflicts of interest are not routinely disclosed to the public. [1, 2, 3]
- Hidden Data: Historically, detailed assessment reports, full minutes of expert advisory meetings, and lists of refused or cancelled drug applications have been withheld from public view. [1]
3. Institutional Focus on "Industry Assistance" over Protection
Public health experts who have worked within the Australian system have criticized the agency's shifting cultural priorities.
- Committee Resignations: Former members of TGA advisory panels have publicly resigned, citing an organizational culture that favors "industry lobbying" and bureaucracy over aggressive enforcement against corporate misconduct. [1]
- Dismissing Consumer Complaints: Critics argue that when independent researchers or doctors log complaints regarding unethical drug promotions or unproven claims by manufacturers, the TGA frequently closes files with minimal action, serving as an ineffective deterrent against misleading marketing. [1]
4. Over-Reliance on Foreign Approvals
The TGA frequently utilises a "comparable overseas regulator" pathway to fast-track approvals in Australia. Critics argue this means the TGA often acts as a downstream rubber-stamp for decisions already made by the US FDA or the European Medicines Agency (EMA), inheriting any systemic biases, rushed timelines, or compromised clinical trial data originating within those foreign agencies. [1, 2]
The TGA's Official Defense
In response to these specific critiques, the TGA maintains that its funding model does not compromise its independence. They argue that: [1]
- Application fees are non-refundable, meaning the TGA keeps the money even if they reject a drug.
- The pharmaceutical industry has no say over how the TGA spends its regulatory revenue or enforces safety standards. [1, 2, 3]
If you are researching specific regulatory failures within Australia, let me know if you would like me to look into:
- The Pelvic Mesh Scandal (where the TGA was heavily criticized for its slow response to defective medical implants).
- The specific findings of the BMJ investigation regarding global regulator corruption. [1, 2]
__________________________________________________________________________________
In fact, guess how the FDA started in the first place?
Dark Origins of Big Pharma John D. Rockefeller's Empire Forgotten History
Note: I don't mean to be "a bearer of Bad News" Folks, like you, I don't like Commercial Conglomerates and/or Governing Health Bodies "Taking Advantage of Us" like DODGY Politicians, when they Should Be SERVING US - Not Themselves! And I wish to Protect You from Their Scheming LIES and Arrogance!
You can call this Consumer's Rights. Who wants to buy Dodgy Stuff that does not Benefit Our Health but Hinders it in no small way? That's why I am Stepping Up on Educating my Readers on Natural Health these days such as Real Foods; Wholesome Foods; Body Biochemistry; Sleep, Sunshine & Exercise; and how Our Body can look after itself most times when Adequately Cared for Etc
The Modern Medical Industry has hidden those Truths from Us with all their
Chemical MEDs and Methods of Treatments. Naturopaths,
Herbalists and Functional Practitioners know Better.