On Wednesday, Project Veritas released the second part of their bombshell reporting in which an FDA executive revealed the financial incentives behind pharmaceutical companies pushing additional vaccines and boosters on the population, and how money from these companies can influence the agency to approve products.
The undercover video focuses on a conversation had with FDA Executive Officer of Countermeasures Initiative Christopher Cole, who revealed alleged financial ties between the FDA and the pharmaceutical companies that want the agency to approve their products.
"Well, there’s a money incentive for Pfizer and the drug companies to promote additional vaccinations," said Cole.
When pressed on just how much money these companies would get, Cole said, "it’ll be a recurring fountain of revenue."
"It might not be that much initially, but it’ll be recurring if they can, if they can get every person required at an annual vaccine, that is a recurring return of money going into their company," he added.
When questioned about whether the aforementioned financial incentive was the reason for toddler vaccines being pushed, Cole said, "I don’t think that’s the reason, but that’s obviously one of — that’s one of the benefits."
The conversation continued on to talk about user fees that were approved by Congress for the FDA.
"Basically we charge the industry millions of dollars in order to hire more drug reviewers and vaccine reviewers, which will speed up the approval process so they make more money," said Cole.
"There’s almost a billion dollars a year going into the FDA’s budget from the people we regulate," said Cole, just after the video cut away to Cole saying at a later date that the FDA’s budget is around $5.5 billion.
"I think sometimes the agency whitewashes the impact of the user fees," Cole admitted.
"They tone down the impact of the user fees on their operations, 'cause they know they’re dependent on the drug companies and the vaccine companies and these other companies for their agency to operate," he said.
"Well, the dirty stuff is never publicized," Cole said at a later date. "I mean, it’s, there’s more pressure, there’s more pressure to approve something.
Cole said most approvals are based on "actual data," but added that "So, they give you more money, yes, that’s great, and it increases the chance of approval."
"But, if the data’s not there, it comes and bites the reviewer in the a**," said Cole.
"Or they all approve it, and then, like, there’s adverse reactions, which we’d have to pull it off the market," said Cole, who added when asked if that happens a lot, "It’s happened, it happens a lot."
"And all these, like, organizations within FDA, they, like, started to see all this cash in their eyes. It’s like, 'oh, I need to grab some of that.' And I think we’ve gone too far on that," said Cole, who continued on to say the at the FDA has gotten "overzealous" on charging user fees "to other non-payroll expenses."
Cole said that he thinks the charging of user fees is "probably excessive," but added that the "industry doesn’t want to complain about it too much."
"But I think FDA is probably — I think they’re using it to cover other expenses that don’t necessarily tie in with the need of the user fees."
Cole said that there isn’t enough people in the FDA speaking out to say that the user fee price isn’t right, adding that "you don’t want to be that person."
"You’re not going to have a long shelf life in the agency if you’re always that person," Cole said.
He said that "you’re marked" if you speak out like that, adding that if you are marked as such, you’re "not going to get to certain levels in government."
"There’s not an incentive to speak out in government surprisingly. You would think there would be, but it’s not," said Cole. "It’s better just to just not say anything and ignore it."
Cole said that despite there being whistleblower laws and protections, "There’s no protection for someone who speaks up." Cole said "there’s easy ways to get around that."
"You’ll be marked from getting other jobs because another office is not going to want to hire you if you’ve spoken out about something right or wrong, they don’t look at what you’ve spoken out about," Cole said when asked what would happen.
Cole said the government is not looking to hire someone that will "rock the boat," rather they would like to hire a "safe person" who would turn. Blind eye.
The FDA’s press officer Abby Capobianco issued a statement to Project Veritas regarding the undercover interviews, stating that Cole does not work on vaccine matters and "does not represent the views of the FDA nor does he speak on behalf of the agency."
"User fees provide instrumental funding for the FDA’s independent review of medial products that make a difference in the lives of all Americans, without compromising the agency’s commitment to scientific integrity, public health and regulatory standards, patient safety, and transparency," she concluded.
Join and support independent free thinkers!
We’re independent and can’t be cancelled. The establishment media is increasingly dedicated to divisive cancel culture, corporate wokeism, and political correctness, all while covering up corruption from the corridors of power. The need for fact-based journalism and thoughtful analysis has never been greater. When you support The Post Millennial, you support freedom of the press at a time when it's under direct attack. Join the ranks of independent, free thinkers by supporting us today for as little as $1.
Remind me next month
To find out what personal data we collect and how we use it, please visit our Privacy Policy
