Gardner Harris

He created a funding bill for the FDA.

He sold it to the industry because Johnson & Johnson is the most powerful player in the industry.

And then he used Johnson & Johnson's vast lobbying network to sell it on Capitol Hill.

He saved the FDA.

And the FDA then paid Johnson & Johnson back in multiple, multiple ways.

One way was by not withdrawing Johnson & Johnson's dangerous metal-on-metal hip implants so that Americans were exposed to this dangerous product for more than a year after Australians, for instance.

They did not withdraw anything.

Johnson & Johnson's dangerous vaginal mesh.

So hundreds of thousands more women had their lives destroyed by this vaginal mesh that ripped apart their vaginal walls.

And FDA then issued a series of statements

sometimes seemingly out of the blue to help Johnson & Johnson in its legal problems.

For instance, in 2015, Johnson & Johnson lost its first baby powder case in federal court in North Dakota.

Now, FDA had not been paying attention to baby powder for decades.

Suddenly, out of the blue,

FDA issues a statement attesting to the safety of talc-based cosmetics, even though, of course, FDA hadn't tested any of these products in years.

It even issues an opinion about how wonderful opioids are on the eve of Johnson & Johnson's opioid trial in Oklahoma.

So what you see is an agency that is determined

and deeply invested in the safety of Johnson & Johnson and doing not only nothing to police this bad behavior, but actually enabling it.

It's a great question.

And unfortunately, there is not a good answer.