Dr. Marty Makary

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're stopping that for every committee where we can by statute, and we're replacing them with patients and family caregivers. And the idea is that... There should not be a cozy relationship. There should be a user-friendly process for industry, but not a cozy relationship. Because let's be honest, a lot of people in the United States feel that the system is rigged.

We're stopping that for every committee where we can by statute, and we're replacing them with patients and family caregivers. And the idea is that... There should not be a cozy relationship. There should be a user-friendly process for industry, but not a cozy relationship. Because let's be honest, a lot of people in the United States feel that the system is rigged.

We're stopping that for every committee where we can by statute, and we're replacing them with patients and family caregivers. And the idea is that... There should not be a cozy relationship. There should be a user-friendly process for industry, but not a cozy relationship. Because let's be honest, a lot of people in the United States feel that the system is rigged.

A lot of people feel that the relationship is too cozy between pharma and regulators. This is an agency that belongs to the American people. And so we can work with pharma and at the same time ensure that scientific evaluation process is totally independent. And on those advisory committees, the pharma and device members of those advisory committees will say that they're non-voting members.

A lot of people feel that the relationship is too cozy between pharma and regulators. This is an agency that belongs to the American people. And so we can work with pharma and at the same time ensure that scientific evaluation process is totally independent. And on those advisory committees, the pharma and device members of those advisory committees will say that they're non-voting members.

A lot of people feel that the relationship is too cozy between pharma and regulators. This is an agency that belongs to the American people. And so we can work with pharma and at the same time ensure that scientific evaluation process is totally independent. And on those advisory committees, the pharma and device members of those advisory committees will say that they're non-voting members.

But that is a sort of a close club of individuals that has a running dialogue and they meet and they become friendly. And it's okay to be friendly, but we need the scientific evaluation, the voting to be totally independent. And so people ask, Are you anti-pharma or pro-pharma?

But that is a sort of a close club of individuals that has a running dialogue and they meet and they become friendly. And it's okay to be friendly, but we need the scientific evaluation, the voting to be totally independent. And so people ask, Are you anti-pharma or pro-pharma?

But that is a sort of a close club of individuals that has a running dialogue and they meet and they become friendly. And it's okay to be friendly, but we need the scientific evaluation, the voting to be totally independent. And so people ask, Are you anti-pharma or pro-pharma?

And the reality is we're pro-pharma, but our evaluation has to be independent, and we cannot have any more indications for chronic pain written for a drug based on a 14-day study where the regulator then goes immediately and works for the company. That's the kind of thing that breeds distrust, and that's why people perceive

And the reality is we're pro-pharma, but our evaluation has to be independent, and we cannot have any more indications for chronic pain written for a drug based on a 14-day study where the regulator then goes immediately and works for the company. That's the kind of thing that breeds distrust, and that's why people perceive

And the reality is we're pro-pharma, but our evaluation has to be independent, and we cannot have any more indications for chronic pain written for a drug based on a 14-day study where the regulator then goes immediately and works for the company. That's the kind of thing that breeds distrust, and that's why people perceive

that this agency, the FDA, has been captured by industry, and it is not captured by industry. It is owned by the American people right now.

that this agency, the FDA, has been captured by industry, and it is not captured by industry. It is owned by the American people right now.

that this agency, the FDA, has been captured by industry, and it is not captured by industry. It is owned by the American people right now.

I don't know. We live in a free country. I do know some of these individuals, and they are good people. And they're all God's children. They're doing what the market incentivizes. But when it comes to their influence on the operations of the FDA, that is something that we cannot tolerate. We cannot have people who leave as regulators go to the industry. And we've thought about an ethics pledge.

I don't know. We live in a free country. I do know some of these individuals, and they are good people. And they're all God's children. They're doing what the market incentivizes. But when it comes to their influence on the operations of the FDA, that is something that we cannot tolerate. We cannot have people who leave as regulators go to the industry. And we've thought about an ethics pledge.

I don't know. We live in a free country. I do know some of these individuals, and they are good people. And they're all God's children. They're doing what the market incentivizes. But when it comes to their influence on the operations of the FDA, that is something that we cannot tolerate. We cannot have people who leave as regulators go to the industry. And we've thought about an ethics pledge.

We've thought about all kinds of things. It's non-binding because we live in a free country. You can't control someone after they leave an employer. But what we can do is create a culture here where people want to stay. We can ensure that people who leave don't have undue influence.