Duke University to pay $112 million to US government after accusations of faking research for grants
DURHAM, N.C. — Duke University agreed to pay out millions in a settlement after the university was accused of falsifying research in order to get grant funds from government agencies, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
The settlement means that Duke University will not be found liable for the alleged violation of the False Claims Act, but the university will still have to pay $112.5 million to the United States government.
“This settlement sends a strong message that fraud and dishonesty will not be tolerated in the research funding process,” said EPA Acting Region 4 Administrator Mary S. Walker. “We will continue to take appropriate legal measures to ensure a fiscally sound system that protects grant funds.”
Each year, Duke University receives millions of dollars across hundreds of grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency, according to the USDOJ.
The U.S. government alleged that, between 2006 and 2018, Duke knowingly included fake data and statements in 30 grant claims submitted to the NIH and the EPA. As a result, the NIH and EPA paid out funds that they otherwise would not have.
The government specifically believes that there were falsified or fabricated results and statements in a Duke Airway Physiology Laboratory research technician’s research related to mice.
“Taxpayers expect and deserve that federal grant dollars will be used efficiently and honestly. Individuals and institutions that receive research funding from the federal government must be scrupulous in conducting research for the common good and rigorous in rooting out fraud,” said Matthew G.T. Martin, United States Attorney for the Middle District of North Carolina. “May this serve as a lesson that the use of false or fabricated data in grant applications or reports is completely unacceptable.”
Former Duke employee Joseph Thomas, the whistle blower who brought the allegations to the U.S. government, will receive $33,750,000 from the settlement.
Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption
"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine." "No one knows the total amount provided by drug companies to physicians, but I estimate from the annual reports of the top 9 U.S.-based drug companies that it comes to tens of billions of dollars a year in North America alone. By such means, the pharmaceutical industry has gained enormous control over how doctors evaluate and use its own products. Its extensive ties to physicians, particularly senior faculty at prestigious medical schools, affect the results of research, the way medicine is practiced, and even the definition of what constitutes a disease." - Marcia Angell, MD Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption See also: The Ethical Nag
Not Science, but Fraud Wearing a White Coat.
The FDA does not do independant safety studies, but instead, accepts study conclusions by vaccine makers. And often the raw data is not included, so there is no way for the FDA to verify if the stated conclusions match the data. Eli Lilly reported their conclusion that Thimerosal-containing vaccines are safe in spite of the fact that every study participant who received a Thimerosal-containing vaccine died.
When vaccine makers can't hide the data outright, they use statistical obfuscation to "hide the signal;" the evidence of harm. One way to do this is to remove from the study, participants who react bady, with the excuse the they had a pre-existing condition. Also, a study can be designed from the start to produce a desired outcome. One common technique is, instead of administering an inert (non-reactive) substance to the control group, they use another vaccine. Or they include the same toxic ingredients of the vaccine being tested and simply leave out the viral component and call it a placebo. Then, when the people in the control group have approximately the same number of adverse events as the people in the vaccine group, statisticians will say, "the vaccine did not increase the risk of getting the adverse event over placebo," and that is intrepreted as "the vaccine is safe." In other words, to vaccine makers, it's acceptable that 21 girls in the Gardasil group died, because 19 in the control group also died! But, the 19 in the control group may have died because they were injected with all the same aluminum as those in the vaccine group. See the fraud? It's criminal.
In addition, they will say that some of the deaths in the vaccine group were clearly not related to the vaccine because the deaths are listed as suicide or auto accident. But no one knows if the girls comitted suicide as a result of vaccine side effects, or fainted while driving as a result of vaccine side effects. Syncope (loss of consciousness) is now a known side effect and girls are warned not to drive immediately after the shot. But that warning was not given during the trial. So, perhaps the 40 deaths were indeed due to the shots received during the trial. Yet "scientists" assume they were not, and you are told the vaccine is "safe." And, yet another way vaccine-injury is hidden is by cutting off monitoring after a short time, such as 5 days. If a person dies on the 6th day after the vaccination, the death is assumed to be not related to the vaccination, and not reported in the study. And so, conditions that take longer to develop, such as autoimmune conditions, would never be reported in vaccine studies. The bottom line is that, they say their doing "science", but it's just fraud with a white coat.
Science for Sale: Medical Journal Ghostwriting
"One of the hidden secrets of the medical literature is that the named authors on a paper's byline, particularly in the case of clinical trials, are not necessarily the individuals who wrote the paper. It is not uncommon for pharmaceutical companies, or medical product manufacturers, to write their own papers and then find university professors to agree to be the named authors of the paper. The company employees are then invisible to the readers. Presumably, the suggestion that a certain medication or medical product is safe and efficacious will carry more weight if it comes from an unbiased source, often called a Key Opinion Leader, rather than a company representative. With ghostwritten papers it is hard to know where to draw the line between science and marketing.Because of its secretive nature, the true extent of this practice is unknown." Full article: A Three-part Series on Medical Journal Ghostwriting
Medical Industry Systematically Lying
"It is a problem for me that I am part of a profession that is systematically lying to people." -Dr Mark Donohoe
"When you have power you don't have to tell the truth. That's a rule that's been working in this world for generations. And there are a great many people who don't tell the truth when they are in power in administrative positions." -Dr. Dean Burk co-founder of the U.S. National Cancer Institute
A lie told each year by the CDC and repeated by doctors (to sell flu shots) is the number of deaths from flu. In 2001 the CDC said there were 62,034 deaths from flu. But 61,777 of those deaths were from pneumonia. In how many cases had flu been positively confirmed? Only eighteen! If the public knew that, how many people would line up for a mercury-containing flu shot? Source: Peter Doshi - BMJ Online (December 2005)
FDA Medical Adviser: 'Congress is Owned by Pharma'
Dr. Raeford Brown, a pediatric anesthesia specialist at the Univ of Kentucky Children’s Hospital and chair of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Committee on Analgesics and Anesthetics, has been openly critical of big pharma and the lack of proper oversight from the FDA. Despite many politicians beginning to speak out against big pharma, Brown does not think that anything will come out of it “because Congress is owned by pharma.” “The pharmaceutical industry pours millions of dollars into the legislative branch every single year,” he told Yahoo Finance. “In 2016, they put $100 million into the elections. That’s a ton of money.” "I’m really much more concerned because Congress is supposed to have oversight for the FDA,” Brown said. “If the FDA isn’t going to hold pharma accountable, and Congress is getting paid to not hold pharma accountable, then it really doesn’t matter who the president is because it’s really about Congress."
During the ‘17-’18 election cycle, Kevin McCarthy, now the House minority leader after midterms, received the second-highest amount of funds in Congress. The California-based politician received a total of $380,350 in campaign contributions, with a large sum coming from pharma companies such as Abbott Laboratories, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson , Eli Lilly, Amgen, and Merck. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the former speaker of the House, was ranked 10th among members of Congress. He received $222,070, seeing most of the funds coming from Merck. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas), a former congressman who almost upset Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in the 2018 midterms, was 18th on the list. O’Rourke, seen as a potential 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, received $171,255. Source: Yahoo Finance See also: Pharma Cash To Congress - Campaign Contribution Tracker