Category: Conflicts of Interest

Biological hazard sticker on the doors to cell culture laboratory. Biohazard is a biological substance that poses a threat to the health of living organisms, primarily humans.

Biosafety Labs, Public Safety, and Politics

Barbara Pfeffer Billauer Leave a comment

By Barbara Pfeffer Billauer

On May 25, 2023, merely six weeks before the Wuhan Biosafety lab lost its NIH funding amid the controversy of possible lab leaks and connection with COVID-19, the United States proudly opened the doors of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF), the 14th biosafety level 4 lab in the U.S., and the first here that is capable of handling large animals.

The purpose: to research highly contagious diseases affecting animals and humans, such as foot and mouth disease. The NBAF will also feature a Biologics Development Module (BDM) to develop pilot vaccines and other countermeasures, and accelerate technology transfer to industry.

The location of this lab? Manhattan. Don’t be alarmed; it’s only Manhattan, Kansas, albeit adjacent to Kansas State University.

Read More

Anonymous crowd of people walking on a busy New York City street.

‘We Want Them Infected’: An Excerpt from Jonathan Howard’s New Book on the COVID-19 Pandemic

The Petrie-Flom Center Staff Leave a comment

This excerpt from the new book titled “We Want Them Infected” is printed with permission from Jonathan Howard, MD and Redhawk Publications.  

By Jonathan Howard

On June 29, 2021, Dr. Harriet Hall penned an essay on the website Science Based Medicine titled “A New COVID-19 Myth?” in which she wrote:

A correspondent suggested I should have known that the pandemic was over months ago. That’s obviously a myth. But where did that idea come from?1

I knew the answer. Even before the first wave peaked, doctors suggested the worst was over and that measures to control the virus were more dangerous than the virus itself. This message was repeated regularly throughout the pandemic.

Read More

Washington DC, USA - FEBRUARY 10 2021: President Joe Biden delivers remarks to Department of Defense personnel, with Vice President Kamala Harris and Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III.

4 Years into the COVID-19 Pandemic: Where We Stand

Jennifer S. Bard Leave a comment

By Jennifer S. Bard

The White House is preparing to shut down their COVID Task Force this May, in conjunction with ending the public health emergency — the latest in a series of astounding and shortsighted decisions that put individual Americans at as great a risk from serious harm as a result of catching COVID-19 as at any stage in the pandemic.

By declaring the pandemic over by fiat, the government is giving up the fight when they should be redoubling their efforts. Not only is COVID still very much with us, but all existing methods of preventing infection have either been severely weakened by the virus’ mutations, or simply abandoned. Additionally, more is known of the harm COVID causes past the initial infection.

There is nothing vague or subtle about the “end” of a disease outbreak. Either cases actually disappear, as with seasonal influenza, or they are dramatically reduced through a vaccine that prevents further transmission, as happened with measles and polio. Neither event has happened here. Instead, like HIV, which continues to be an ongoing public health emergency, the virus continues to infect and mutate.

Read More

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Georgia, Atlanta USA March 6, 2020.

For Whom Does the CDC Think it Works?

Jennifer S. Bard Leave a comment

By Jennifer S. Bard

As weekly deaths from COVID in the U.S. soar into thousands, monkeypox continues to spread, and New York reports the country’s first case of paralytic polio since 1979, it is fair to question the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’s effectiveness and ability to achieve its mission to “to protect America from health, safety and security threats” and its pledge to “base all public health decisions on the highest quality scientific data that is derived openly and objectively” and “place the benefits to society above the benefits to our institution.”

Read More

A half face dust mask and HEPA filter over white background.

Being an Adult in the Face of Omicron

Jennifer S. Bard Leave a comment

By Jennifer S. Bard

To those who believe that the federal government is a benign force doing the best they can to fight the COVID-19 pandemic and keep us all safe, I have two words of advice: Grow up.

Neither the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), or Dr. Fauci should be anthropomorphized into a benevolent but perhaps out-of-touch parental figure. They are not.

As a matter of law, the government, in contrast to your parents, or school, or perhaps even your employer, does not have a fiduciary duty to protect your (or any individual’s) health and safety. As the Supreme Court said in Deshaney v. Winnebago Country Dept of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1980) and again in Castlerock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), individuals do not have an enforceable right to government protection unless the state itself creates the danger. Their duty, if it exists, is to the public in general, which can encompass many factors beyond any one person’s health.

Just knowing that the government, duly elected or not, has no obligation to protect you or your family should be enough to look at its pandemic guidance as minimum, rather than maximum, standards. It should also encourage you to be proactive in taking precautions beyond those “recommended,” rather than seeing these minimal standards as unwarranted restrictions that can be negotiated down.

Read More

Money.

Conflicts of Interest in the Hospital Sector: A Q&A with Rina K. Spence

Chloe Reichel Leave a comment

By Chloe Reichel

Brigham and Women’s Hospital recently made headlines when the Boston Globe reported that the hospital’s president, Dr. Elizabeth Nabel, held a seat on the board of Moderna, a Cambridge biotech company that is working to develop an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. The hospital has a major role in a national study of the vaccine.

The hospital maintained that safeguards were put in place to protect against conflicts of interest during the collaboration. Nevertheless, amid public outcry, Nabel stepped down from the board.

But this story is just one high-profile case of what is commonplace in the hospital sector. A 2014 research letter published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that 40 percent of pharmaceutical company boards of directors had at least one member who also held, at the same time, a leadership role at an academic medical center.

Read More

Doctors hold blood sample wearing ppe suit and face mask in hospital.

New Stark Law Waiver Opens Opportunity for Creative Physician Compensation and Benefits

Carmel Shachar Leave a comment

By Carmel Shachar

On March 30, 2020 the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced a partial waiver of some key elements of the Stark Law, a health care fraud and abuse law. The purpose of this waiver is to relax some of the fraud and abuse requirements around physician compensation during the COVID-19 pandemic to allow hospitals and physician groups to think creatively about meeting the needs of an overworked and stressed workforce. It also provides us an opportunity to consider the post-pandemic future of the Stark Law, long thought to be an impediment to innovative payment and delivery models.

Read More

Close up of a computer screen displaying code

What Google Isn’t Saying About Your Health Records

Adrian Gropper 1 Comment

By Adrian Gropper

Google’s semi-secret deal with Ascension is testing the limits of HIPAA as society grapples with the future impact of machine learning and artificial intelligence.

I. Glenn Cohen points out that HIPAA may not be keeping up with our methods of consent by patients and society on the ways personal data is used. Is prior consent, particularly consent from vulnerable patients seeking care, a good way to regulate secret commercial deals with their caregivers? The answer to a question is strongly influenced by how you ask the questions.

Read More

Couple sitting on a couch, leaning forward to have a serious conversation with a doctor or counselor

Genetic Testing: Is There a “Duty to Warn” At-Risk Family Members?

Shelly Simana Leave a comment

By Shelly Simana

Genetic information is quite distinguishable from much medical information due its familial nature and its unique ability to predict future health. The fact that genetic testing supplies comprehensive information about the genetic make-up of patients and their family members underlies the ethical and legal challenges faced by physicians and patients when deciding whether to disclose genetic information to family members. Failure to disclose information may “lead to harm, particularly when knowledge could result in avoidance, treatment, or prevention of a genetic condition or in significant changes to reproductive choices or lifestyle.” Due to the potential harm, one may ask herself if there is a legal “duty to warn” family members about the presence of defective genes, and if so, upon whom should it be imposed.

Read More