{"id":283354,"date":"2023-01-27T14:40:18","date_gmt":"2023-01-27T20:40:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=283354"},"modified":"2023-01-27T13:13:07","modified_gmt":"2023-01-27T19:13:07","slug":"fda-hiding-names-experts-reviewed-abortion-pill","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/fda-hiding-names-experts-reviewed-abortion-pill\/","title":{"rendered":"Is the FDA hiding the names of experts who reviewed the abortion pill?"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

Did the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) keep secret<\/a> the names of “experts” who reviewed the abortion pill for approval, while accepting clinical trials and published reports by known abortion insiders, some tied to the pill’s investors?<\/p>\n

Some have implied that they did, and this alleged\u00a0conspiracy of silence\u00a0has left some questioning whether the government agency might be trying to hide something, and whether there could be potential financial conflicts or personal motives for rubber stamping the rapid expansion of the abortion pill nationwide.<\/p>\n

As shocking as it might sound, even typically pro-abortion media outlets have noticed the FDA’s apparent willingness to keep the names of experts reviewing the abortion pill a secret.<\/p>\n

In a 2000 report on the abortion pill, the Orlando Sentinel\u00a0wrote<\/a>, “The pill’s 11-year journey to the United States included a cloak-and-dagger scheme to hide the identities of participants from anti-abortion activists, allegations of fraud, a dozen lawsuits, and a price tag of at least $50 million.”\u00a0The article<\/a> was ironically entitled “Secret Deals, Big Money and Abortion Politics.”<\/p>\n

“In a strange twist, the FDA acceded to Danco’s request that the name of its manufacturer be kept secret \u2014 and even shielded the names of the FDA researchers who had overseen the pill’s approval,” the Sentinel added.<\/p>\n

\"Walgreens<\/a><\/p>\n

That same year, the Washington Post\u00a0pointed out<\/a>\u00a0how the FDA \u201cbroke with precedent by not publishing the names of the experts who reviewed RU-486 [a.k.a. the abortion pill] for the agency.”<\/p>\n

In 2000, the Washington Post wrote<\/a> in another article that “FDA Commissioner Jane E. Henney said the agency broke with precedent by not publishing the names of the experts who reviewed RU-486 for the agency. In another first, it did not publish the name or location of the company that will manufacture the drug.”<\/p>\n

Fast forward to 2020, where in an\u00a0interview<\/a>\u00a0with early abortion pill advocates, Columbia University journalists located one of the FDA\u2019s\u00a0senior medical reviewers who \u201cchose to remain anonymous\u201d but\u00a0admitted<\/a>, \u201cIt\u2019s definitely not standard. It\u2019s not routine; you can look up almost every other drug that I was the primary medical officer for and my name would appear right there on the review.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd we did,\u201d noted<\/a> one of the journalists. \u201cHis name is listed on at least eight other FDA drug reviews. But no staff names are listed on the review of mifepristone.\u201d<\/p>\n

While the public may have no way of knowing whether those who reviewed the trials and studies had pro-abortion ties, what is known is that there are multiple conflicts of interest surrounding the abortion pill and related studies. Live Action News has documented many of these conflicts, including the fact that study authors touting the safety of chemical abortions have ties to the abortion industry<\/a> and have at times even been on the payroll of the abortion pill manufacturer<\/a>, Danco Laboratories (or\u00a0the generic version from manufacturer\u00a0GenBioPro<\/a>). As Live Action News previously<\/a> documented, incestuous funding from abortion pill investors has steadily flowed to individuals and organizations responsible for clinical trials of the drug.<\/p>\n

But Live Action News wasn’t the first to address these concerns.<\/p>\n

When the Family Research Council tracked the original abortion pill approval process, it noted how\u00a0FDA Commissioner<\/a> David Kessler, M.D., who chaired the 1996 Advisory Committee, was later given a lifetime achievement award by NARAL Pro-Choice America. Is the public to believe that there is nothing important to see here?<\/p>\n

FRC’s\u00a0report<\/a>, “Politicized Science: The Manipulated Approval of RU-486 and Its Dangers to Women\u2019s Health,” additionally pointed out that\u00a0Kessler was also among those within the Bill Clinton administration who pressured Roussel Uclaf to assign its American RU-486 (abortion pill) rights to the Population Council.<\/p>\n

The report found that “[e]ight of the 11 members ‘were either affiliated with an abortion organization or ha[d] made pro-choice statements in the past.'”<\/p>\n

The report’s author, Christopher M. Gacek, wrote that “the Advisory Committee\u2019s executive secretary was Philip Corfman, M.D., who served as an advisory committee member for the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Health Research and Policy, and currently sits on the board of directors for the pro-abortion Reproductive Health Technologies… where his web bio boasts of his role in the RU-486 approval.” Corfman went on to join the\u00a0board<\/a> of Physicians for Reproductive Health.<\/p>\n

The question that needs to be answered is whether it is possible that an FDA expert could also be associated with abortion organizations, investors of the abortion drug, or the groups that conducted the studies.<\/p>\n

And the answer, of course, is yes.<\/p>\n

A simple Google search reveals some possibilities:<\/p>\n