Opinion - Through ‘radical transparency,' Kennedy can finally rein in Big Pharma
The health of America is in jeopardy. Doctors do not have access to the full safety and effectiveness data for the treatments we rely upon. Pharmaceutical companies control and hide information from their clinical trials, preventing health care professionals from making the most informed decisions to best treat patients.
The newly confirmed secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., can take immediate action as part of his prioritization of 'radical transparency' to aid his mission to 'Make America Healthy Again.'
In order to get a drug on the market, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has to determine that it is safe and effective for at least one specific use and patient population. Pharmaceutical companies sponsor and fund clinical trials to test their products, and the FDA analyzes the results when making an approval decision.
However, the pharmaceutical companies own the data from their trials, meaning that those outside the FDA cannot see the full results. Medical journals — the gold standard of medical knowledge for doctors — publish articles describing the results of drug trials. Yet the manuscripts that the peer reviewers scrutinize only include limited, selected summary pieces of information rather than the full data. Thus, clinical trial results published in peer-reviewed medical journals are not truly vetted.
This lack of transparency grants drugmakers incredible power over the decisions of doctors, patients and even governments through controlling the information they see.
From 1999 to 2014, pharmaceutical company Roche raked in $18 billion globally from Tamiflu, a drug to prevent and treat influenza, even though it offered minimal benefits and caused harmful reactions like vomiting. Roche achieved success based on hiding the results from their sponsored trials and promotion from the American Medical Association's journal JAMA Internal Medicine. After years of Cochrane Collaboration investigators hounding Roche, they got access to their trial data, and they were able to expose the scam in 2014.
In the early 2000s, an estimated 40,000 to 60,000 Americans died from the anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx, after pharmaceutical company Merck hid serious cardiovascular adverse events such as heart attacks and strokes. Different published articles in the New England Journal of Medicine did not disclose or downplayed Vioxx's risks. Merck had reported even more serious cardiovascular risks to the FDA. Fortunately, independent investigators like Drs. Jennifer Hrachovec and John Abramson were able to find the discrepancies in publicly available FDA review documents; however, the case reveals the dangerous consequences of poor transparency.
To get access to full trial data, people mainly file Freedom of Information Act requests to the FDA. These requests are inherently reactive, where investigators must petition and wait long periods of time and spend lots of money. For example, the FDA attempted to punt the request to release clinical trial information for Pfizer's COVID vaccine by determining it would take 75 years to release the data. Ultimately, a judge forced the agency to begin releasing data in 2022.
That result was better than many FOIA requests; the FDA has historically sided with industry to keep clinical trial data locked away. FOIA Exemption 4 allows agencies to protect commercially confidential information and trade secrets. The FDA has consistently accepted industry objections to requests to release clinical trial information under Exemption 4 when it is under no legal obligation to do so. The Supreme Court has ruled that FOIA exemptions are optional and do not prevent disclosure.
While Kennedy could direct the FDA to increase transparency by simply releasing more trial data requested under FOIA, he can go much further. He has the full authority to prospectively release clinical trial data (de-identified to protect trial participant privacy) for medical products upon FDA approval, and to retroactively release clinical trial data from previously approved products.
The Supreme Court has upheld that under the Federal Housekeeping Statute, federal agencies can disclose their 'records, papers, and property' as long as they are not violating other laws that explicitly bar certain disclosures like the Trade Secrets Act. Clinical trial data providing full results demonstrates safety and efficacy and decidedly does not constitute trade secrets. In fact, Congress instructed the Department of Health and Human Services to increase drug data transparency in the 2007 Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act.
During his confirmation hearing, Kennedy discussed his desire to bring the public health agencies under his purview to the gold standard, partly through ensuring 'that all the science is published with the raw data.' Ensuring medical decisions are informed by correct information is critical: The United States alone accounts for 60 to 80 percent of global spending on drugs. Americans are increasingly taking more medications, and the country suffers from far worse health outcomes compared to peer nations.
Through releasing clinical trial data upon approval, Kennedy can provide doctors and healthcare professionals with the information they need to truly determine if a drug is safe, effective and reasonably priced compared to alternative treatments. Research shows that pharmaceutical companies do not spend the most on advertising drugs that actually provide the most medical benefit, and drugmakers have a history of paying billions in fines for fraudulent behavior. As head of HHS, Kennedy can use his existing power to bolster transparency, protect patients and help 'Make America Healthy Again.'
Brandon Novick is the domestic program outreach assistant at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, where he conducts health policy research and educates federal policymakers on issues like Medicare, private equity in healthcare, and industry control of medical research.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
23 minutes ago
- CNN
Challenge to panel that recommends no-cost preventive health care is rejected by Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a task force that recommends preventive health care services that insurers must cover at no-cost, turning away the latest legal challenge to Obamacare to reach the high court. The opinion indicated that the panel's recommendations – including pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, a medication which vastly reduces a person's risk of getting HIV from sex or injection drug use – would remain in effect, some experts said. However, the case is being remanded to a lower court, where the recommendations could be challenged again. Though the appeal never threatened to take down the Affordable Care Act, it could have had a sweeping impact on millions of Americans and their access to preventive services. Keeping the cost of preventive care free makes it more likely that people will get screenings and other services that are aimed at detecting disease at an earlier stage. 'This is a big win for preventive services,' Andrew Twinamatsiko, a director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at Georgetown University's O'Neill Institute. 'Over 150 million people have been able to access preventive services because of this provision. So this decision ensures that they can keep accessing those services without cost sharing, which is good for health and for minimizing death and disease.' The Supreme Court ruled that members of the panel are 'inferior' officers, meaning they do not need to be appointed by the president. The ruling confirms Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and his predecessor in the Biden administration, had the ability to name the experts who sit on the panel. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the opinion for a 6-3 majority that included both liberal and conservative justices. The 16-member US Preventive Services Task Force, made up of volunteers, has since 1984 provided recommendations to the government about preventive services – like cancer screenings and statin medications to help reduce the risk of heart disease – that can improve Americans' health. As part of the nationwide health care law enacted 15 years ago during President Barack Obama's administration, those recommendations are used to determine which services insurers must cover without charge. At issue in the case were newer recommendations the panel made after the Affordable Care Act was enacted in March 2010. Preventive services recommended before then were not at stake, nor were certain immunizations and preventive care for women and children, which are recommended by other government entities. The more recent recommendations include lung cancer screenings for certain adults, hepatitis screenings and colorectal cancer screenings for younger adults, according to a brief submitted in the case by Public Citizen and several public health groups. Physical therapy for certain older adults to help prevent falls and counseling to help pregnant women maintain healthy body weights are also among the other newer recommendations. A leading health insurance industry group said policies won't change, at least for the time being. 'With this ruling, there are no impacts to existing coverage, and we will closely monitor the ongoing legal process,' AHIP, formerly America's Health Insurance Plans, said in a statement. The Supreme Court's ruling comes at a time when Kennedy has started exerting his authority over panels that offer health care recommendations for the public. Earlier this month, he removed all 17 members of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which guides the federal government's vaccine recommendations, and then added eight new ones. The move has sparked concerns that the new panel's recommendations could be more in line with the views of Kennedy, who has a history of vaccine skepticism. 'The big takeaway here is that the Task Force's recommendations are binding, just as the ACA's drafters intended,' Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan, posted on X. 'BUT the scheme is constitutional only because Sec Kennedy can exercise near-complete control over Task Force recommendations. A mixed bag!' The task force structure was challenged by a Texas business, Braidwood Management, that objected on religious grounds to covering certain preventive services, including PrEP. Braidwood argued that, under the Constitution, task force members must be appointed by the president with Senate confirmation. At the very least, the company said, Congress needed to affirmatively vest the appointment power in the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Before 2023, the task force members were appointed by the director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, or AHRQ, an agency that is part of HHS. The case, on appeal from the conservative 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, created an unusual political dynamic. Though initially appealed by the Biden administration, President Donald Trump's administration has defended the task force since taking power this year – despite the president's years-long campaign to repeal the 2010 health care law. On the other side of the litigation, Braidwood was represented at the Supreme Court by Jonathan Mitchell, a veteran conservative lawyer who successfully argued against an effort in Colorado to remove Trump from that state's primary ballot during last year's election. The fight over Braidwood's religious objections to PrEP were spun off into separate proceedings. The dispute at the Supreme Court focused on the Constitution's appointments clause, which establishes the president and Senate's role in appointing and confirming officials that wield significant government power. The Trump administration argued that the task force members were 'inferior officers,' because they could be removed at-will by the HHS secretary and because the department appeared to have at least some oversight of the group's recommendations. But if that's true, Mitchell pointed out, then its members needed to be appointed by the secretary of the department, not the director of a subagency. The law is unclear on who actually appoints the board noting and notes only that the AHRQ should 'convene' the group. The Department of Justice said that, through a series of other congressional actions, the secretary effectively had the power to appoint the task force since the position oversees the AHRQ director. During the course of the litigation, then-HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra 'ratified' the earlier appointments during the Biden administration, but Braidwood argued that move wasn't enough to overcome the fact that the law doesn't specifically vest the power of appointment in his office. The 5th Circuit sided with Braidwood, ruling that members of the task force are 'principal officers' who must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Kennedy v. Braidwood was the fourth major appeal to reach the Supreme Court involving Obamacare since the law was enacted during Obama's first term and became a target for conservatives. In 2021, the high court ruled that conservative states challenging a key provision of the law did not have standing to sue because they were not directly harmed. The conservative court also rejected challenges to other provisions of Obamacare in 2012 and 2015.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Disposable vapes more toxic and carcinogenic than cigarettes, study shows
Illegal disposable e-cigarettes, also known as vapes, may present a greater danger than traditional cigarettes, according to a study from the University of California (UC) Davis. The research, published in the journal ACS Central Science, found that hazardous levels of several toxic heavy metals in illegal vapes could present a high cancer risk. Researchers used a special instrument to test the puffs from three popular vape brands — ELF Bar, Flum Pebble and Esco — that are not FDA-authorized for use in the U.S., but are widely sold by retailers. Rare Cancer Diagnoses Surge Dramatically Among Millennials And Gen X Three heavy metals — lead, nickel and antimony — were detected in all heavily flavored and lightly flavored devices that were tested. These metals are classified as carcinogens, potentially leading to various types of cancers, such as skin, lung and kidney, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Read On The Fox News App All vapors exceeded the cancer risk limits for nickel, which has been linked to cardiovascular disease, asthma, lung fibrosis and respiratory tract cancer, per NIH. Brett Poulin, senior study author and assistant professor at the UC Davis Department of Environmental Toxicology, told Fox News Digital that he was shocked at the levels of toxic metals. "When I analyzed the first samples, the lead concentrations were so high that I genuinely thought the instrument was broken," he said. "The levels far exceeded anything in our past data, or even the published literature." Your Favorite Alcoholic Beverage Could Be Linked To Deadly Form Of Cancer, Study Finds One of the brands tested exposes users to as much lead as smoking 19 packs of cigarettes, the researchers discovered. Additionally, most of the disposable e-cigarettes tested in the study were found to contain greater levels of metals and metalloids than older refillable vapes. At one point, Poulin said, he physically opened a device and discovered that it was using leaded copper alloys, which are metals made primarily of copper with small amounts of lead. "These materials leached dangerous levels of lead into the e-liquid, even without the device being used," Poulin told Fox News Digital. "It remains unclear whether this was an intentional design choice, a cost-cutting measure or a manufacturing oversight." There is no known safe level of lead exposure, according to Poulin. "This neurotoxin poses serious health risks, particularly to children and adolescents, who are especially vulnerable." Daniel Sterman, M.D., director of the Pulmonary Oncology Program at the NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, told Fox News Digital that the study "clearly" demonstrates high concentrations of metal. "There are several health risks of vaping that we enumerate for our patients and their family members, [such as] risks of various lung diseases, including asthma, COPD and lung cancer," said Sterman, who was not involved in the study. The doctor noted that while it is challenging to establish a direct link of causation between disposable vapes and cancer, he does see cancer patients who use the devices. "Disposable vapes should be highly regulated by local, state and federal agencies, and restricted to those individuals 21 years or older," Sterman recommends. The doctor also called for the packaging on disposable vapes to clearly outline the many health risks, "particularly to teenagers and young adults." One of the primary limitations of the study was that only three disposable e-cigarette brands were tested out of the hundreds currently on the market. There are distinct differences in the metal leaching and profiles across all three brands, Poulin shared. "We still know very little about the metal content in the vast majority of untested disposable e-cigarette products," he said. "This gap in knowledge poses a significant public health concern, especially given the popularity of these devices." A spokesperson for the China-based brand, ELFBAR, told Fox News Digital that they refute the results of the study, claiming that they stopped shipments in May 2023. Click Here To Sign Up For Our Health Newsletter Due to ongoing trademark litigation, they are unable to market or sell products in the U.S., the company stated. "This market void has led to a surge in counterfeits, imitations and illicit variations misusing our brand name," the spokesperson said. "As such, we have every reason to believe the devices tested in this study are not genuine and were not manufactured by ELFBAR." The spokesperson acknowledged that smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death and disease worldwide, noting that the recent study "continues to undermine public understanding of smoking cessation." The other two brands tested in the study did not respond to requests for comment. Electronic cigarette use among adults increased from 4.5% in 2019 to 6.5% in 2023, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Men are more likely to vape than women, while 15.5% of young adults between the ages of 21 and 24 reported using e-cigarettes, the above source states. For more Health articles, visit The UC Davis study received support from the University of California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program Grant and the California Agricultural Experiment article source: Disposable vapes more toxic and carcinogenic than cigarettes, study shows
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A rundown of recent Trump administration vaccine policy changes
The Trump administration continued to reshape U.S. health policy in recent days with several moves that could change what vaccines people can get to protect themselves from common illnesses. Some of the changes are immediate, others are still being discussed, and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. must still sign off on some. Doctors' groups have expressed alarm at the moves made by Kennedy, a longtime anti-vaccine activist, and his appointees, who at times have ignored well-established science. Nearly 80 medical groups, including the American Medical Association, issued a statement backing vaccines against common respiratory ailments as 'among the best tools to protect the public.' 'We come together as physicians from every corner of medicine to reaffirm our commitment to these lifesaving vaccines,' the groups wrote. Here's what to know about some of the recent vaccine policy changes: Flu shots and thimerosal On Thursday, a vaccine advisory group handpicked by Kennedy recommended that just about every American get a flu shot this fall. But the group also said people should avoid shots containing thimerosal, a preservative used only in large multi-dose vials that has been proven to be safe. The ingredient isn't used in single-dose flu shots, the type of syringe used for about 95% of U.S. flu shots last season. Status: Kennedy must sign off on the recommendations. Read more AP coverage here. How to get a COVID-19 shot Universal access to updated COVID-19 shots for the fall remains unclear, even after Kennedy's vaccine advisers were shown data showing how well the vaccines are working. Kennedy changed CDC guidance last month, saying the shots are no longer recommended for healthy children and pregnant women — even though doctors groups disagree. And the Food and Drug Administration has moved to limit COVID-19 vaccinations among healthy people under age 65. Status: Upcoming advisory meetings, regulatory decisions and policies from insurers and employers are likely to influence access. Read more AP coverage here. Expanded warnings on COVID-19 vaccine labels At the request of the FDA, makers of the two leading COVID-19 vaccines on Wednesday expanded existing warnings about a rare heart side effect mainly seen in young men. Prescribing information from both Pfizer and Moderna had already advised doctors about rare cases of myocarditis, a type of heart inflammation that is usually mild. The FDA had asked the drugmakers to add more detail about the problem and to cover a larger group of patients. Status: Labels are being updated now. Read more AP coverage here. Changes considered for the childhood vaccine schedule On Wednesday, Kennedy's vaccine advisers said they would be evaluating the 'cumulative effect' of the children's vaccine schedule — the list of immunizations given at different times throughout childhood. The announcement reflected vaccine skeptics' messaging: that too many shots may overwhelm kids' immune systems. Scientists say those claims have been repeatedly investigated with no signs of concern. The American Academy of Pediatrics said it would continue publishing its own vaccine schedule for children but now will do so independently of the government advisory panel, calling it 'no longer a credible process.' Status: The examination is in its early stages. Read more AP coverage here. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
