When a little-known pharmaceutical company named Moderna was awarded $4.94 billion under Operation Warp Speed, the company suddenly wielded great influence over the regulatory bodies of the federal government. In fact, two high-level regulatory officials at the FDA took up new positions at Moderna just months after they granted Moderna a full licensure for their COVID-19 vaccines and booster shots. This corruption was brought to light thanks to an investigation by Peter Doshi, who published it in the British Medical Journal.
Moderna now employs former FDA employees who carelessly approved Moderna's dangerous mRNA experiments.
The first FDA vaccine regulator who went to work for Moderna is Dr. Doran Fink. Dr. Fink was a vaccine regulator at the FDA for more than 12 years; he was a “physician/scientist experienced in regulation and clinical development/licensure of vaccines and related biological products.” Back in 2010, Dr. Fink began his career with the FDA as a clinical reviewer. Soon, he worked his way up to becoming the Deputy Director of the Division of Vaccine and Related Product Applications within the FDA’s Office of Vaccine Research and Review.
When COVID-19 propaganda and lockdowns were in full force, Dr. Fink was up front pushing the experimental COVID-19 vaccines and all the lockdowns, isolation and coercion that went along with the program. He also helped designate which population groups should receive the shots first. He attended numerous FDA meetings arguing for the approval of the COVID-19 vaccines and an onslaught of new boosters. Dr. Fink headed up a senior leadership team for COVID-19 vaccine review and coordinated policies that subjugated, coerced, bribed and segregated individuals in order to increase vaccine uptake in the population. Most importantly, Dr. Fink engaged in a “senior level review” for the FDA’s emergency use authorization and licensure of the COVID-19 vaccines. He would go on to approve medical fraud, which included the Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.
After essentially granting Moderna a license to kill, Dr. Fink left his post at the FDA in December 2022. By February 2023, he started working for Moderna as the head of “Translational Medicine and Early Clinical Development, Infectious Diseases.” Now he helps the company come up with new, dangerous vaccine experiments that will one day be granted full FDA approval because Dr. Fink has tremendous influence over his colleagues at the FDA.
The second FDA official to take advantage of her government position and influence is Dr. Jaya Goswami. In March of 2020, Dr. Goswami worked as a medical officer at the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Her role was to oversee the development of the COVID-19 vaccine in record time. Her responsibilities included having “broad oversight over vaccines and biologics clinical development.”
Dr. Goswami ultimately got to determine whether the clinical data for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine met the regulatory standards set by the FDA. By January 2022, Dr. Goswami helped grant a full FDA approval for Moderna’s Spikevax. By June 2022, Dr. Goswami left the FDA and began a job with Moderna as the director of clinical development in infectious diseases. Now Dr. Goswami helps develop new mRNA vaccines, which are on the fast track for FDA approval, because she has all the right connections at the FDA.
Kim Witczak, a global pharmaceutical drug safety advocate and member of the FDA's Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee, spoke with The Epoch Times about the corruption at the FDA and the need for a cooling off period to stall the corruption between industry and government. "The recurring issue of the revolving door culture between industry and regulators has long been a concern and raises questions about regulatory impartiality," she said. "A troubling trend is the intentional career move of making a stop at a regulatory agency, with the real payoff occurring when they transition to drug company roles. While this might benefit the pharmaceutical industry, it poses risks to public health. The worry arises about potential bias in regulating practices, including being lenient in criticism or overlooking safety concerns.”