Dr. Marty Makary

The two top vaccine career scientists at the FDA, Dr. Gruber and Dr. Krause, head director and deputy director of the Vaccine Research Center here at the FDA, were forced out by Dr. Marks. So, you know, sometimes you have to block out some of the noise where now he's taking, you know, a different view. I never met the guy, but that's... Those are the different ideas people have on people.

The two top vaccine career scientists at the FDA, Dr. Gruber and Dr. Krause, head director and deputy director of the Vaccine Research Center here at the FDA, were forced out by Dr. Marks. So, you know, sometimes you have to block out some of the noise where now he's taking, you know, a different view. I never met the guy, but that's... Those are the different ideas people have on people.

The two top vaccine career scientists at the FDA, Dr. Gruber and Dr. Krause, head director and deputy director of the Vaccine Research Center here at the FDA, were forced out by Dr. Marks. So, you know, sometimes you have to block out some of the noise where now he's taking, you know, a different view. I never met the guy, but that's... Those are the different ideas people have on people.

There's a lot of talented people who can do that job well. A lot of very smart people who are right now who are applying for that job.

There's a lot of talented people who can do that job well. A lot of very smart people who are right now who are applying for that job.

There's a lot of talented people who can do that job well. A lot of very smart people who are right now who are applying for that job.

We are not going to be shutting down ideas, ideas that may be different from my ideas. We should welcome that. Science is based on challenging, deeply held assumptions where there's no good evidence. what we call medical dogma. That is the scientific process. And so we shouldn't be shutting down other ideas. We should be inviting them.

We are not going to be shutting down ideas, ideas that may be different from my ideas. We should welcome that. Science is based on challenging, deeply held assumptions where there's no good evidence. what we call medical dogma. That is the scientific process. And so we shouldn't be shutting down other ideas. We should be inviting them.

We are not going to be shutting down ideas, ideas that may be different from my ideas. We should welcome that. Science is based on challenging, deeply held assumptions where there's no good evidence. what we call medical dogma. That is the scientific process. And so we shouldn't be shutting down other ideas. We should be inviting them.

And that's why we're going to be having roundtable expert panels, FDA expert panels on menopause and hormone replacement therapy on a whole host of topics.

And that's why we're going to be having roundtable expert panels, FDA expert panels on menopause and hormone replacement therapy on a whole host of topics.

And that's why we're going to be having roundtable expert panels, FDA expert panels on menopause and hormone replacement therapy on a whole host of topics.

Well, we have to do two things. Number one is we have to partner with industry and pharma to facilitate the process, to make it user-friendly and expeditious. We shouldn't be in a receive-only mode. We want American pharma companies to do well and companies that do business in the United States to do well. But the scientific evaluation needs to be independent.

Well, we have to do two things. Number one is we have to partner with industry and pharma to facilitate the process, to make it user-friendly and expeditious. We shouldn't be in a receive-only mode. We want American pharma companies to do well and companies that do business in the United States to do well. But the scientific evaluation needs to be independent.

Well, we have to do two things. Number one is we have to partner with industry and pharma to facilitate the process, to make it user-friendly and expeditious. We shouldn't be in a receive-only mode. We want American pharma companies to do well and companies that do business in the United States to do well. But the scientific evaluation needs to be independent.

And that's why today we're announcing we are removing industry members, pharma members from FDA advisory committees. I was shocked when I learned that employees of big pharma companies sit on FDA advisory committees as members of those committees. So we're going to be replacing them whenever statutorily possible with patients and family caregivers.

And that's why today we're announcing we are removing industry members, pharma members from FDA advisory committees. I was shocked when I learned that employees of big pharma companies sit on FDA advisory committees as members of those committees. So we're going to be replacing them whenever statutorily possible with patients and family caregivers.

And that's why today we're announcing we are removing industry members, pharma members from FDA advisory committees. I was shocked when I learned that employees of big pharma companies sit on FDA advisory committees as members of those committees. So we're going to be replacing them whenever statutorily possible with patients and family caregivers.

We are going to be inviting pharma companies to send representatives to the advisory committees, but they can sit with the rest of the public and watch and pose questions as the rest of the American public can.

We are going to be inviting pharma companies to send representatives to the advisory committees, but they can sit with the rest of the public and watch and pose questions as the rest of the American public can.