Tag: big pharma

The Crisis Creators – Why Behavioral Health Makes Everything Worse

If anyone hasn’t figured out yet where too much of America’s health problems begin, look no further than the behavioral health industry. It’s time to take a serious look.

While the federal government is in an all-out offensive to uncover fraud in State Medicaid programs, the real fraud lies in the psychiatric diagnosing that has gone unchecked for a hundred years and brought the nation to a mental health crisis.

Just this month alone, the Health and Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has begun a national campaign to reduce the use of psychiatric drugs by publishing “deprescribing” guidance and training for doctors for any number of the tens of millions of Americans who are taking Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) commonly referred to as antidepressants.

Here’s the truth. The modern mental health model of diagnosis and drug treatment is an enormous failure. People have been harmed for years using antidepressants, and go figure, the medical community admits it’s hard to get off prescription mind-altering drugs. The goal of the HHS Secretary is to finally make drugs one of many options for “treatment” of mental illnesses. But is that enough? Is that really the answer to over-prescribing?

It’s a fact. Americans can’t get the drugs without a mental disorder diagnosis, and the diagnoses are not based on science. In other words, there isn’t anything broken in anyone’s brain that can be medically measured…no X-ray, CAT Scan, blood or urine test can identify any of the alleged mental disorders. And, the fact is, if an abnormality was discovered in the brain, most likely a neurologist would be utilized…not a psychiatrist. Neurologists study brain disease, and psychiatrists study behavior. A very big difference that has been ignored in the modern mental health model.

Keep reading

FDA Ousts Another Top Official: Who’s Behind the Shakeup — and Why?

Tracy Beth Høeg, M.D., Ph.D., an epidemiologist and sports physician who supported studying — and reducing — the recommended childhood vaccination schedule, was fired by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Høeg was acting director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).

In a post on X last Friday, Høeg wrote that she “learned so much” and is leaving the FDA “with no regrets.”

And in an interview with MD Reports published shortly after her firing, Høeg said she first learned about the agency’s plans to fire her earlier in the week, through media reports.

On May 15, two unnamed FDA officials offered her the choice to resign or be fired. When she refused to resign, she was fired on the spot.

“I said I didn’t want to resign,” Høeg told MD Reports. “I said I’m not signing a letter of resignation if it’s not my choice.”

During her time at the FDA, Høeg was involved in several research initiatives broadly tied to the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda. According to The New York Times, this included work on an “intense investigation” last year that linked the COVID-19 vaccines to “at least” 10 child deaths.

Høeg also authored a report recommending that the number of diseases covered by the recommended childhood vaccination schedule be reduced from 17 to 11.

In January, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. implemented these recommendations. However, in March, a federal court issued a stay pausing adoption of the new schedule.

According to The Associated Press, Høeg was most recently involved in the FDA’s review of a petition to add new warnings to antidepressants about risks to pregnant women, “including fetal abnormalities that could lead to autism and other disorders.”

Keep reading

Trump Praises Liberal Billionaire Mark Cuban at White House TrumpRX Event, Says Kamala Harris Endorsement Was “a Big Mistake”

Mark Cuban, the liberal former Dallas Mavericks owner and Shark Tank co-host, made an appearance alongside President Trump at the White House on Monday to announce an expansion of the President’s TrumpRX website. 

Cuban’s online pharmacy, Cost Plus Drugs, along with Amazon Pharmacy and GoodRx, are set to list over 600 generic drugs on TrumpRX at lower costs for consumers. Cuban said 559 of the drugs come from his company.

“I’ve been the biggest proponent of TrumpRX.com,” Cuban said in brief remarks at the event. “Republicans want cheaper drugs. Independents want cheaper drugs. Democrats want cheaper drugs. And together, I think we’re going to do something special.”

However, Cuban has never supported Trump, frequently attacking him and supporting Kamala Harris in 2024.

One America News Network’s Daniel Baldwin asked the President about Cuban’s history as a Never Trumper, and Trump squashed the beef.

“he’s got a good company, and he’s going to do a lot of business with this,” Trump said, describing Cuban as “very gracious.” He continued, “I think I have a lot of respect for Mark, frankly, and I always have.”

Keep reading

Ozempic Face? Try Ozempic Pancreatitis: Inside the GLP-1 Profit Model

If you thought “Ozempic face” was bad, wait till you hear what it’s doing inside the body.

A massive study involving 16 million people found GLP-1 users had a 9.09 times greater risk of pancreatitis, 4.22 times greater risk of bowel obstruction, and a 3.67 times greater risk of stomach paralysis.

And if you’ve ever had pancreatitis, it is “quite a painful experience.”

What you’re hearing on the news about Ozempic is still too little, too late.

Here’s the story you’re not getting about Ozempic, the business model behind it, and why a growing number of researchers believe another pharmaceutical disaster is already unfolding in real time.

In early 2023, JP Morgan hosted its annual healthcare conference—a private, invitation-only event it describes as “the industry’s biggest gathering.”

The keynote speakers included the chairman of JPMorgan Chase, the CEO of Eli Lilly, and several managing directors of major healthcare venture capital firms.

The fourth keynote was Dr. Robert Califf.

His day job at the time: Commissioner of Food and Drugs for the United States Food and Drug Administration.

Hmm…

This wasn’t a public health symposium. It wasn’t an academic conference.

It was specifically designed for large investors, and its explicit purpose was to set the pharmaceutical industry’s financial priorities for the year ahead.

A pharmaceutical safety advocate named Kim Witczak obtained what she could from the conference’s public-facing website.

But what was being said behind closed doors?

Keep reading

How a Scientific Cartel Protects Fraudsters and Rakes in Billions of Taxpayer Dollars

I was 22 when my grandmother forgot me.

It took her 12 years to die from Alzheimer’s. It started with little things, like where her glasses were or what day it was. Soon she didn’t know who I was. For a while, she addressed me as her son, but then, as the disease ate away more of her mind, she forgot him too. Then I was the young, handsome version of her husband, until he too faded away. After a while, I was just a nice young man who came to visit her.

The rest of the time, she was afraid: waking up in an unfamiliar world, surrounded by people she’d never met, confused that she wasn’t back home in Minnesota, where she’d grown up. It hit my mom the hardest. She did everything she could to take care of her own mother, watching the brilliant, kind woman she knew rot into a husk of her former self.

My grandmother died on Christmas Eve. As sad as it was, it was a blessing for my mom, who was finally freed from her duty of watching the woman she loved the most waste away.

The Alzheimer’s Researcher Who Became a Poster Child for Academic Fraud

Sylvain Lesné, a neuroscientist at the University of Minnesota, published a paper in Nature in 2006 claiming to identify a specific amyloid beta protein assembly as the direct cause of memory impairment in Alzheimer’s. This reinvigorated the amyloid hypothesis at a moment when skepticism about it was ramping up. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) devoted $1.6 billion to projects that mention amyloids in 2022 alone, nearly half of all federal Alzheimer’s funding that year. Lesné was a star.

But there were rumblings. Numerous amyloid drugs made it to trials with billions invested by pharmaceutical companies. They failed repeatedly. A question arose in the pharmaceutical community: How can this be right? How can the trials keep failing if the underlying research is correct? 

In 2022, the Vanderbilt neuroscientist Matthew Schrag uncovered evidence that images in Lesné’s paper had been manipulated. Science magazine found more than 20 suspect papers by Lesné, with over 70 instances of possible image tampering. Nature retracted the paper in June 2024. Every author except Lesné signed the retraction. Lesné himself resigned from his tenured position at the University of Minnesota on March 1, 2025, three years after his fraud was exposed.

More news and details trickled out over time. Charles Piller’s 2025 book Doctored talks about the Amyloid Mafia, a nickname for a network that had prioritized novelty over replication and marginalized dissenters for decades. Anyone questioning the amyloid gospel was pushed out and watched their funding vanish.

When I first picked up that Science article, I hadn’t considered academic fraud as something that was real and widespread. As I thought about it more, I was filled with a deep, bitter hatred. For his own pride, greed, and acclaim, this man had doomed millions of people like my grandmother to slow, horrible deaths and millions more like my mom to agonizing years as caregivers.

Lesné resigned, but was still rich. None of his grant money was clawed back. The system that was supposed to catch this—peer review, university compliance, journal editorial boards—failed repeatedly for years.

Keep reading

Harvard-Trained MD Says ‘Coercive’ Vaccine Push Shattered Trust and Has Harris Voters Questioning the Experts

During an exclusive interview with The Western Journal this week, Dr. Monique Yohanan said Americans have a right to question the country’s vaccine schedule and must learn to advocate for themselves in medical settings.

Yohanan, who is director of the Center for Better Health at Independent Women, has an impeccable academic resume.

She received her medical degree from the Dartmouth/Brown Program and a Master of Public Health from Johns Hopkins. She did her residency in internal medicine at Harvard and a fellowship in geriatrics at Stanford.

In addition, Yohanan has held faculty appointments while maintaining active licensure and board certification in internal medicine.

Her CV, however, clashes with mainstream media narratives regarding vaccine skepticism. Those who pose questions about vaccinations are typically tagged as uneducated, misinformed, and are told to “trust the science.”

So why would someone with over 20 years of experience in clinical medicine, technology, and health policy speak out like this? Because she believes vaccination has become so politicized and deified that it’s harming patients.

“I feel like there’s a lot of dismissal of MAHA [Make America Healthy Again],” she said. “There’s a lot of dismissal of people who have questions about vaccines. There are people, historically, who framed the vaccine schedule as ‘You’re pro vaccine if you agree to every single vaccine, and that’s that.’ If you get all 27 shots and you shut your mouth and don’t say a word, then you’re a good person.’”

“And God forbid, you might say, ‘Well, I’m OK with my kid getting the shot for measles or for whooping cough, but do I really need the shot for hepatitis B?’”

Yohanan said that in California, “if you don’t get the shot for hepatitis B, your kid can’t go to public school.” And she’s correct. The state doesn’t even allow for religious or personal belief exemptions.

“That’s not a public health policy. To me, that is very coercive,” she added. “With COVID, what we had is so much, to me, of an overstatement of confidence that people started questioning everything, and so that’s where I come from, is that people are willing to have a more nuanced discussion.”

Yohanan also highlighted how California doctors are financially incentivized by Medicaid to get as many people vaccinated as possible.

Keep reading

‘You’ve Got to be Freaking Kidding Me’: U.S. Military Spends Over $700 Million for Ozempic and Other GLP-1 Weight Loss Meds

Military personnel criticize the hundreds of millions spent on weight loss medications as a misguided approach to addressing the obesity crisis in the U.S. Armed Forces.

A report from the American Security Project in 2025 revealed that approximately 68 percent—two out of three—of the military’s Reserve and National Guard forces are classified as overweight.

Subsequent to this report, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth expressed his concern on X, stating, “Completely unacceptable. This is what happens when standards are IGNORED – and this is what we are changing. REAL fitness & weight standards are here. We will be FIT, not FAT.”

Was the solution found in raising the bar for “REAL fitness & weight standards?” Perhaps they were. However, some startling revelations concerning weight loss have emerged, with RealClearInvestigations dubbing this disclosure the “Waste of the Day.”

Since 2021, the military has allocated nearly $726 million for Ozempic and other GLP-1 weight loss medications, with $274.6 million spent in fiscal year 2025, as revealed by spending records acquired by Open the Books.

This expenditure encompasses 102,597 individual purchases, all made through the Defense Logistics Agency for “troop support.” The majority of the funds were directed to the wholesale pharmaceutical company Cencora. Over a dozen varieties of GLP-1 medications were acquired, including Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Trulicity.

Many individuals—and taxpayers alike—who have served in the military are infuriated.

Lt. Ted Macie, a retired Navy Medical Service Corps officer, was appalled. He informed The Gateway Pundit that data obtained from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) indicate that obesity rates have surged in the military over the last decade.

From 2016 to 2019, an average of 13,863 cases of overweight and obesity were documented across all branches of service. This average rose to 21,969 between 2020 and 2023. Remarkably, there was a 190 percent increase during this period, with cases soaring from 12,249 to 35,531.

Keep reading

Psychiatry Won’t Pull Paper on Misleading Safety of PAXIL, Despite Massive Drug Settlement, Consumers Get “Expression of Concern”

A D.C. judge just sided with a long‑discredited Paxil study instead of the kids it was used to sell drugs to. GlaxoSmithKline has already paid $3 billion for fraud that included how it pushed Paxil for children and supported this very study, yet the article still stands in the medical record.  Those who rush to always defend psychiatry as “experts” of the human condition should really look at the bigger picture.

According to the lawsuit, that study falsely claimed Paxil was safe and effective for depressed teens, even though the company’s own trial data did not show real benefit and did show serious safety concerns, including suicidal thoughts and behavior. The case explains why lawyer George Murgatroyd went after the journal and its publisher for continuing to publish and sell the article, how the court’s ruling let psychiatry’s publishing system avoid full accountability once again, and how consumers were left with only a small warning label on the paper instead of the clear retraction many believe is needed.

At the center of this case is attorney George W. Murgatroyd III, a product‑liability lawyer who has represented families whose children died by suicide after taking Paxil. Murgatroyd sued the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the publisher Elsevier, arguing they were still “publishing, distributing, and selling a fraudulent scientific article” that misleads the public and endangers adolescent mental health, while charging readers to access it. He asked the D.C. Superior Court to treat that article as a deceptive practice under the District’s consumer‑protection law and to order a full retraction.

In March 2026, Judge Robert Okun dismissed his case. The judge did not say Study 329 was honest or reliable. Instead, he ruled that Murgatroyd lacked legal standing and that a journal article is not a “consumer good or service” under that particular law, so the court could not use that statute to force a retraction. In practical terms, the decision shields the journal and publisher: they keep the article online, charging for access, under the protection of free‑speech arguments rather than being treated like sellers of a defective product. For an industry already tied to a historic fraud settlement over this very drug and trial, it is another escape.

Murgatroyd’s work still produced one real gain for the public. After he filed his complaint, JAACAP finally attached an “expression of concern” to Study 329 in 2025, warning readers that serious issues have been raised about the article and that further review is underway. That warning label stays with the paper and marks it as disputed rather than trustworthy, a change that likely would not have happened without Murgatroyd pushing. In a landscape where a flawed study helped justify giving a risky drug to teens, naming him and his effort matters: he forced at least a small, visible sign of truth into the official record, even as the larger fight for justice and a full retraction continues.

Keep reading

COVID Vaccine Hearing Exposes Deliberate Blind Eye to ‘Overwhelming Evidence of Harm’

For four years, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) has wondered how US health officials could ignore “overwhelming evidence of harm” from the COVID vaccine.

“Now I know,” he says.

The truth is, health officials didn’t “ignore” safety signals. They buried them instead.

And now we have the receipts:

The US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations investigated what federal health officials knew and when they knew it—and dug out a timeline that would make any American furious.

This is not a fringe “conspiracy theory.” It was revealed by the government’s own investigation—and it’s a story they don’t want you to read.

According to VAERS, the US’s vaccine adverse event reporting system, more adverse events and deaths have been reported following COVID vaccines than from all other vaccines combined over the system’s 30+ year history.

More dangerous than ivermectin. More dangerous than hydroxychloroquine (which turned out not to be so dangerous after all).

It was 55 times more deadly than the flu vaccine (0.46 deaths vs 25.5 deaths per million doses).

And even more dangerous than Remdesivir, which earned the nickname “Run Death Is Near” after it wreaked havoc on the kidneys and livers of tens of thousands of COVID patients in the hospital.

But still the question remains. How did US health officials miss a safety signal this big?

Keep reading

MHRA study on covid vaccine injuries: The numbers buried inside it deserved rather more attention

One in seven. That is the proportion of people in the MHRA’s own actively recruited surveillance cohort who reported a medically serious adverse reaction following covid vaccination. Over half reported at least one reaction of any kind. The data were collected between 2020 and 2022. They were not published until September 2025, and only then because Cheryl Grainger, through a Freedom of Information  (“FoI”) request and subsequent Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) appeal, forced it out.

The paper that eventually appeared, in the journal Drug Safety, was not written as a safety paper. It was written as a description of the digital platform used to collect the data – a methods paper published five months after Dame June Raine left as chief executive, nearly three years after the data were locked. The actual adverse reaction rates are reported but not analysed. The one stratification that could determine whether those rates are real was not performed.

The numbers buried inside it deserved rather more attention.

What the Data Show

The Yellow Card Vaccine Monitor (“YCVM”) was the MHRA’s premium data source. It was one of four pillars of its covid vaccine safety surveillance strategy. Unlike the passive Yellow Card scheme, where people report voluntarily and sporadically, the YCVM actively recruited people and followed them up at set intervals. The MHRA itself described it as a tool to “rapidly detect, confirm, characterise and quantify new risks.”

Of the 30,281 individuals who reported receiving a vaccination, 15,764 (52.1%) reported at least one adverse reaction. 4,134 (13.7%) reported a reaction classified as medically serious under the MedDRA system. This is a regulatory classification that includes events deemed medically significant by an internal MHRA panel and is broader than the lay meaning of “serious,” but not a trivial threshold. It encompasses hospitalisation, disability, life-threatening outcomes and death, but also other events judged clinically important.

However, the 13.7% might include people who volunteered for the monitor becausethey had been injured. The MHRA did not exclude people signing up afterthey had their vaccine.

The key question is how representative this cohort was. Any voluntary cohort, even an actively recruited one, may over-represent people who experienced problems. Other active surveillance systems internationally have reported lower rates, though none has been free of similar methodological limitations. The true rate is unknown – which is precisely the problem.

The YCVM was meant to be designed to quantify risk in a way passive surveillance could not because of reporting bias. However, the key simple analysis to enable interpretation was not done. The question is not whether 13.7% is the true rate of serious harm. The question is why the MHRA did not do the work to find out what the true rate is.

The Cohort It Did Not Analyse

The paper reports 35.6% registered before vaccination and 47.5% after. A further group registered on the same day, but the paper does not quantify it. Even allowing for this, the categories as presented account for only 83.1% of the cohort, leaving 16.9%, over 5,000 people, unclassified. The paper does not explain the gap.

The pre-vaccination and same-day registrants are the key group. They signed up before or at the point of vaccination, not in response to a bad reaction. Their data is substantially less vulnerable to post-event selection bias, which is the main challenge to the headline figures. The criticism that people with bad reactions were more motivated to register does not apply to them. They were already in the system.

The obvious analytical step is to separate these registrants and compare their Adverse Drug Reaction (“ADR”) rates to those who registered afterwards. If the prospective cohort shows substantially lower rates, the selection bias interpretation is supported and you would want to say so. If the rates are similar, the overall figures are validated and you would want to say that too. If the rates are lower, then that is the rate that is of interest and should be published. In any case, the comparison is critical and should have been presented.

The MHRA did not present the comparison. In a 21-page paper with 13 tables, this stratification – the single most important analysis for interpreting the headline findings – does not appear. I have submitted an FoI request for this data.

Keep reading