Tag: big pharma

How Obamacare Pushes Big Pharma To Overcharge You For Prescriptions

As if our health care “system” wasn’t already complicated enough, here’s example No. 9,572.

I spent the better part of one year trying to ask a prescription drug provider one simple question about my prescription. Even as someone who works in health policy and with advocates on my behalf, I kept getting the run-around.

Unfortunately, as I found out firsthand, big conglomerates — in this case, CVS Health — make profits by keeping the system complicated, bureaucratic, and opaque. But (eventually) I found out there’s a simple solution: returning to good, old-fashioned cash transactions.

Mail Order Madness

The saga started last summer, when my physician prescribed a maintenance medication to prevent a recurrence of kidney stones. My doctor sent a prescription to CVS Caremark, requesting a 90-day mail-order supply of the drug. CVS is the pharmaceutical benefits manager (PBM) that administers my prescription.

When it arrived, I received the following note:

We filled your prescription with a smaller quantity than what your doctor prescribed. Your prescription plan has limits on the amount of your medication it will cover. We filled your prescription according to these limits. [Emphasis original.]

For the better part of 12 months, I communicated with CVS staff, trying to figure out the reasons for this decision. I also asked a representative from the District of Columbia’s Office of Health Care Ombudsman to investigate on my behalf. Every time my physician prescribed a 90-day supply of this medication, CVS Caremark sent me a 30-day supply of the drug, along with the same note described above.

A few weeks ago, I finally spoke with a CVS representative who could tell me the reason. While my prescription plan covered the drug, it did not cover it as a maintenance medication. This explained why CVS Caremark kept lowering the medicine supplied from 90- to 30-day supplies.

The representative informed me I could use an exceptions process, through which my physician could send a form to CareFirst (my insurer) providing clinical justification to use the drug for maintenance purposes. If approved by CareFirst, then CVS Caremark would honor the 90-day prescription, and provide me with a three-month supply of the drug going forward.

This annoyed me, because I had mentioned the exceptions process (which I know about from working in health policy) while speaking to CVS personnel last summer. That individual never provided me the information I had asked for, which could have saved me months of hassle.

I contacted CVS’ corporate office to ask two simple questions: why did the notices I received refer to “your prescription plan” — a wording that seems deliberately vague as to whether my insurer (CareFirst) or the PBM (CVS Caremark) made the coverage decision; and why didn’t those notices also include specific, written instructions on how request an appeal or exception for longer-term coverage of the drug?

CVS’s communications team sent back this response:

CareFirst is the plan sponsor, and CVS Caremark helps support the administration of the plan’s pharmacy benefit. This CareFirst plan relies on an expert third-party vendor, Medispan, to determine which medications are considered maintenance drugs versus acute. Because Medispan lists potassium citrate as a non-maintenance drug, it is subject to the CareFirst plan’s non-maintenance day supply limit of 30 pills. Members have access to an exceptions process, which is administered directly by CareFirst.

This response didn’t answer my questions about notice wordings. In fact, it suggests that a heretofore undisclosed third party (Medispan) made the decision that limited my prescription. Given CVS’s non-answer, a cynic would suggest the obvious yet unstated reason the notice omitted information about filing an appeal or exceptions request: If people knew about an exceptions process, they might use it.

Keep reading

RFK Debunks Sen. Warren’s Hypocritical Attack on His Supposed Big Pharma ‘Conflict of Interest’

Reuters and Washington Post have a new deceptive report out claiming that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has financially benefited from a settlement with a top pharmaceutical company. But they left the crucial context out that showed he personally received not a dime.

Democrats are never ones for context. They love to have reasons to pretend they are destroying corruption when they are really going after personal political opponents. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), for instance, had her warpaint and Tomahawk out as she screeched, “Is RFK Jr.’s son getting a cut of a $50 MILLION settlement that his dad could have influenced? I’m investigating.” Naturally, she needs something to investigate to avoid investigating Anthony Fauci and the pharmaceutical companies that pushed COVID vaccines that we now know, courtesy of Fauci‘s journal, were quite ineffective and sometimes injurious.

Kennedy responded to Warren and the lefty media outlets at the same time. “The Washington Post editorial board accuses me of a conflict of interest that might bias me against Big Pharma, whose interests they apparently seek to protect,” he posted on X, highlighting the irony of media and politicians rushing to defend monopolistic businesses. “The alleged conflict comes from money I supposedly made from a settlement in a lawsuit against Merck for injuries caused by its Gardasil vaccine.”

He emphatically stated: “The problem is that I never received a penny from the Merck Gardasil settlement, and neither has my son nor anyone else in my family.” So Warren et al. are smearing Kennedy with — surprise, surprise — lies.

Kennedy explained further, “Before taking office, I relinquished any interest in potential Gardasil fees back to the Wisner Baum law firm, which publicly confirmed this during my confirmation process. Yet @SenWarren, @Reuters, and @washingtonpost editorial board — in their ardor to protect Big Pharma — continue to push a false narrative that makes Big Pharma the victim and me the mendacious villain.”

For yet more interesting context, according to a Fox News report from last year, Warren received a whopping $5 million from Big Pharma during her 2020 presidential bid. And the Washington Post freaked out when Kennedy proposed limiting pharmaceutical ads. Always follow the money.

Keep reading

Pfizer Freezes Air Traffic Control Funds in Poland and Romania Over COVID Vaccine Contract Dispute

Pfizer has frozen funds owed to air traffic control agencies in Poland and Romania as part of a contract dispute over COVID-19 vaccine deliveries, according to a report published July 31 by Children’s Health Defense [1]. The freeze followed an April 1 ruling by a court in Brussels that ordered Poland to pay about $1.5 billion and Romania about $640 million, plus interest and fees, for vaccine doses ordered under a 2021 European Union contract.

Polish and Romanian authorities stopped accepting further deliveries in 2022, citing falling demand. Both governments have said they will appeal the ruling. The enforcement action has raised questions about the financial stability of the two countries’ air navigation agencies, which rely on the funds.

Contract Origins and Refused Deliveries

The contract was signed between the European Commission and Pfizer in 2021, and it obligated participating member states to purchase additional doses. By 2022, Poland and Romania refused scheduled deliveries as demand declined. Poland cited financial pressure from hosting refugees fleeing Ukraine. Romanian political scientist Dragos Moldoveanu said Romania ordered 120 million doses despite a population below 20 million and had one of the European Union’s lowest vaccination rates.

Pfizer filed suit in 2023 after the countries did not pay for doses they declined to accept. Earlier contract terms had already drawn criticism. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported in February 2021 that Pfizer was demanding countries put up sovereign assets as collateral for expected vaccine injury lawsuits [2].

Legal Enforcement and Appeals

Because the contract is governed by Belgian law, the case is being heard in Brussels. Polish public broadcaster TVP World reported that Poland asked the Belgian court to delay enforcement while it appeals, but the request was rejected.

Dutch attorney Meike Terhorst called the action “outrageous and unethical” and said it could endanger flights. Lukasz Wojdyga of the Warsaw Enterprise Institute said the creditor has a legal right to enforce the judgment but called targeting air-safety funding “disproportionate and irresponsible.” Both governments have said they will protect the financial stability of the agencies and keep services running.

Transparency and Contract Scrutiny

The dispute has revived scrutiny of the EU vaccine procurement. Brussels Signal reported the EU-Pfizer contract was worth 35 billion euros ($40 billion), one of the largest contract awards in EU history. Governments and Pfizer have declined to release contract terms, saying the information is commercially confidential [3].

The European Court of Justice ruled in 2024 that the European Commission violated EU law when it denied The New York Times’ request to review text messages between Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla [4]. In 2025, a court ordered the disclosure of concealed texts related to the deal [5]. European Parliament member Gheorghe Piperea said the contract “ought never to have existed” because the EU exceeded its treaty powers. Transparency activist Frederic Baldan said von der Leyen negotiated directly with Bourla through self-destructing Signal messages, and that a Belgian Federal Police anti-corruption report found sufficient elements to establish offenses. Baldan said the European Public Prosecutor’s Office moved to have the investigation annulled.

The scale of the purchases also drew criticism from public health writers. Michel Chossudovsky questioned how a vaccine that normally takes years to develop was launched within months [6]. Joseph Mercola and Ronnie Cummins noted that the trials’ only criterion of success was a reduction of moderate to severe symptoms, not prevention of infection [7].

Keep reading

The bone density fraud: How a flawed test and toxic drugs created a multi-billion dollar medical myth

The medical screening that labels healthy aging as disease

A 65-year-old woman learns from a DEXA scan that her T-score is -2.3, labeling her osteopenic. She leaves with a bisphosphonate prescription, told it will strengthen her bones. What she won’t hear: her bone density is normal for her age. The T-score system was never meant for clinical diagnosis. And the drug—originally developed to soften water in orange grove irrigation systems—works by poisoning the cells that keep bones resilient.

How normal aging became a disease

In 1994, a WHO study group proposed diagnosing osteoporosis at 2.5 standard deviations below a healthy 30-year-old’s bone density, calling the cutoffs “somewhat arbitrary.” These criteria were intended only for research. But the meeting was funded by Rorer Foundation, Sandoz and SmithKline Beecham—companies that would profit immensely from turning aging into a treatable condition. Today, 52% of white women over 50 qualify as osteopenic, and 28% as osteoporotic. Only 20% have “normal” bones.

The toxic history of bisphosphonates

Bisphosphonates were first used to prevent calcium scale in irrigation pipes. They work by poisoning osteoclasts, the cells that break down old bone. After three to five years, bone density rises, but the bone is brittle—old, weak tissue accumulates beneath new growth. Fracture rates often increase. Side effects include intestinal perforation, liver and kidney damage, atrial fibrillation, spontaneous fractures and irreversible jawbone degeneration. The FDA warns of severe bone, joint and muscle pain that may never resolve.

What the data actually shows

The T-score does not predict fractures. A 2019 study of 3,700 adults found that only 16% of fractures in women and 15% in men were linked to low bone density. Nearly 73% of women and 94% of men who broke a bone had normal scans. In 1996, the Swedish Council on Technology Assessment concluded that bone density cannot identify fracture risk and recommended against screening. Yet 18 million Americans carry an osteopenia diagnosis. A 2014 study found that repeating DEXA scans after the first provided no useful information over eight years.

The real causes of bone loss

Bone health requires more than calcium. Weight-bearing exercise signals the body to maintain bone. Astronauts lose up to 10% of bone density in six months. Acid-blocking drugs (PPIs) increase hip fracture risk by 26%. Fluoride in water produces structurally inferior bone. Environmental toxins like BPA, lead and mercury inhibit bone formation. Even soda consumption raises fracture risk.

The safe path to strong bones

Magnesium activates vitamin D for calcium absorption; deficiency itself is a risk factor. Vitamin D with K2 increases bone strength and reduces fractures. Vitamin C supports bone formation at the genetic level. Strength training produces bone that bends rather than breaks—unlike bisphosphonates, which increase density at the cost of quality.

Reclaiming bone health from the marketing machine

The current osteoporosis approach is a marketing triumph. A drug designed for irrigation pipes became standard treatment. The T-score, known for decades to fail at predicting fractures, still drives overdiagnosis. But patients can reclaim bone health through nutrition and exercise. The question is whether medicine will treat the patient or the arbitrary number on a scan.

Keep reading

Pharma Looks to Cash in on Psychedelics as Patients Seek Alternatives to Psychotropic Drugs for Depression

Eli Lilly’s multibillion-dollar acquisition of AtaiBeckley marks the largest pharmaceutical investment yet in psychedelic medicine, signaling a new phase for an industry once relegated to the margins of scientific research.

The deal, valued at approximately $2.8 billion upfront with up to $1 billion in additional milestone payments, gives Lilly control of AtaiBeckley’s experimental psychedelic therapies, including BPL-003, a fast-acting nasal spray containing N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT) being studied for treatment-resistant depression.

AtaiBeckley announced in October 2025 that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted BPL-003 Breakthrough Therapy designation, a status intended to accelerate development of treatments for serious conditions when early evidence suggests substantial improvement over existing options.

“Millions of people are still searching for relief and desperately need a therapy that works,” said Dr. Carole Ho, president of Lilly Neuroscience. Advancing AtaiBeckley’s therapies, she said, gives Lilly “a real chance to change that.”

The company’s purchase comes as pharmaceutical companies increasingly move into a field that has attracted growing scientific interest but remains controversial because of questions surrounding commercialization, access, intellectual property — and whether corporate development will preserve the therapeutic models that shaped psychedelic research.

A turning point for psychedelic medicine

The Lilly-AtaiBeckley acquisition follows another major pharmaceutical investment in the sector. In 2025, AbbVie agreed to acquire Gilgamesh Pharmaceuticals’ experimental depression treatment Bretisilocin (GM-2505) in a deal worth up to $1.2 billion.

Bretisilocin targets the brain’s 5-HT2A serotonin receptor, the same receptor involved in the effects of classic psychedelics such as psilocybin and LSD.

Together, the deals suggest that major drugmakers increasingly view psychedelic compounds as a potential new category of mental health treatments.

Rayyan Zafar, Ph.D., a neuropsychopharmacologist at Imperial College London and member of the Centre for Psychedelic Research and Neuropsychopharmacology group, said the Lilly acquisition could help move psychedelics closer to popular medical use by making them “de-risked” for mental health utilization.

Pharmaceutical investment could extend past drug development by encouraging dialogue about insurance coverage and healthcare infrastructure needed to deliver new treatments, Zafar said.

“Beyond psychedelic clinical trials, it could also help stimulate broader discussion around reimbursement pathways and stimulate other public healthcare systems to begin preparing for rollout,” he added.

Keep reading

Another MAHA Betrayal: Trump’s Nominee for CDC Director Calls mRNA Technology ‘Safe and Effective’

When asked at a U.S. Senate hearing whether she thinks mRNA vaccines are safe and effective, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director nominee Dr. Erica Schwartz replied, “I do believe that mRNA technology is safe and effective.”

Both the question and the answer show a serious lack of scientific understanding.

Here’s the scientifically accurate answer to the question: We don’t know the full safety profile of either of the two types of approved mRNA vaccines or the technology. First, It’s all too new. Second, we’re not even collecting the full data.

Read on for details.

According to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientists and other experts in the field, comprehensive safety data isn’t known until a new drug (including vaccines) has been on the market and in widespread use for 7-12 years.

Even now, we aren’t getting full information on safety profiles because the data isn’t even being collected in the comprehensive manner required for accurate analysis.

The established scientific process requires that all illnesses after vaccination be meticulously recorded regardless of whether a patient or doctor thinks the illness is actually connected to the vaccine.

Most doctors are not following the process. Some misunderstand. Others are willfully ignoring. And no authority is ensuring they do their job.

Doctors typically aren’t even asking their ill patients whether they had an mRNA vaccine (for COVID-19 or RSV), which one(s), and when. So they aren’t collecting that crucial data.

Most people, including physicians, don’t understand that patients being treated for any illness are supposed to be queried.

This means, for example, someone who comes to the ER with a retinal detachment should be asked if he had a COVID-19 vaccine, which one, how many, and when, and then the data should be reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

Same with someone who becomes sick with a rash, headaches, tendon rupture, stiff neck, depression or chest congestion. Everything.

Even when patients do tell a physician they think an illness might be vaccine-related, the physician frequently, improperly, determines on the front end that he doesn’t need to report the possible adverse event to the established database unless he thinks it’s connected to the vaccine. That’s not how the system works.

Keep reading

Cycles of Enthusiasm, Reversal, and Revival in Medical Practice

Remember that thing that we said was good for you, then we changed our minds telling you it’s now bad for you. And now? We’re changing our minds again…umm, maybe it is good for you again. 

Medicine that claims to be ‘evidence-based’ is never static. It changes. Sometimes quickly and sometimes slowly and so too do our doctor’s suggestions about what they think is right to keep us healthy. 

In that light, sometimes medical recommendations around screening, surgery, or treatments like drugs or vaccines follow a certain pattern: widespread Enthusiasm based on promising early evidence, a Reversal when rigorous trials reveal limited benefits or unexpected harms, and then a Revival driven by new interpretations, technological tweaks, manufacturer greed, or good old advocacy. Here are six examples of ERRing, which no doubt confuses patients and clinicians alike:

Tonsillectomy (Especially in Children)

Enthusiasm: For about 40 years, from the 1930s to the 1970s millions of tonsillectomies were done annually, often bundled with adenoidectomy and was viewed as a near-standard childhood rite. I am old enough to remember feeling envious when many of my friends in elementary school were getting their tonsils removed. This was the early 70s where tonsillectomy was one of the most common surgeries worldwide, routinely performed for recurrent sore throats, enlarged tonsils, or even preventive reasons. After all, better safe than sorry, right? Sure my brother and sisters and I went through bouts of sore throats but my mother, a nurse, didn’t buy into the tonsillectomy hype, so we all still have them. Here’s how that worked out…

Reversal: It wasn’t until the PARADISE study, (PAtient-centered outcomes Research and ADvanced Intervention for the Surgical treatment of Ears, Nose, and Throat diseases), a randomized trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1984 found the surgery might have some benefit for kids suffering recurrent and severe infections, but overall most kids improve spontaneously. Surgery-related complications which are rare were manageable. Soon tonsillectomies were history, falling by more than 50% in many countries and guidelines became highly restrictive.

Revival: In the 2000s it was recognized that obstructive sleep apnea could be treated with tonsillectomy so there was a major revival. Today about 500,000 tonsillectomies are performed annually on US children alone, and widely promoted for quality-of-life and neurocognitive benefits. Let’s just say, even today, doing tonsillectomies can be lucrative for those doing them, whether they are warranted or not. 

Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) for Menopausal Women

Enthusiasm: In the 1980s through early 2000s, systemic estrogen (often with progestin) was widely prescribed for menopausal hot flashes. Pharma-funded campaigns pushed HRT as an anti-aging elixir that could also help prevent heart disease, osteoporosis, and dementia. Observational studies and heavy pharmaceutical marketing positioned HRT as essential for women’s health. That was until real science stepped in. 

Reversal: One of the largest and best randomized trials ever conducted of HRT, the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), was published in 2002 and found increased risks of breast cancer, heart attack, stroke, and blood clots, with no net preventive benefit in older postmenopausal women with the exception of slightly reduced osteoporotic fractures. Prescriptions plummeted more than 50%, and guidelines shifted against routine use. There was a lot of major ass-covering and finger-pointing in drug company circles, but at least we had some high-quality science to point to. 

Revival: In the last five years, no doubt aided by Big Pharma trying to revamp markets, the WHI was ‘reanalyzed’ and women are now told that the benefits of HRT may outweigh risks if started near menopause for moderate-to-severe symptoms. Newer guidelines and women’s health advocates are now pushing individualized low-dose, short-duration HRT as firstline for symptom relief. Fair enough, but does that renewed enthusiasm go too far? I agree with those who are knowledgeable about the importance of a high -uality RCT like the WHI and think this revival is nonsense. Clearly there’s an unexploited market yet the estrogen pushers are just putting more lipstick on a pig.The very real harms related to breast cancer, blood clots, and heart attacks are not to be dismissed and journalists reporting on the HRT revival should do their homework and “Follow the money, honey.”

Keep reading

What the FDA Knew—and When: The Case for a Black Box Warning on SSRIs for PSSD

A recent article in the DailyMail focused on what many who take antidepressants are reporting as sexual dysfunction. Apparently, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI), antidepressants not only cause people to feel nothing – not good, not bad -they also are unable to experience sexual pleasure…and it could be permanent.

The problem, of course, is more than sexual dysfunction. The bigger problem is that there is a risk of the psycho/pharma industry making the reported sexual dysfunction a mental illness, rather than call it what it is: an adverse effect of the SSRI drugs taken as “treatment” for depression. After all that’s what the psycho/pharmaceutical industry does…finds ways to profit from people’s feelings, even when those feelings are caused by that industry.

In fact, it is of interest that the DailyMail article refers to sexual dysfunction as a “condition,” writing the “American Psychiatric Association (APA) to help psychiatrists diagnose conditions states ‘in some cases, SSRI-induced sexual dysfunction may persist after agent (SSRI antidepressant) is discontinued.’” AbleChild cannot stress enough that the reported sexual dysfunction associated with antidepressant “treatment” is an adverse effect of the drug…not a mental disorder and certainly not something that needs to be “treated” with another mind-altering, mind-numbing drug.

Unfortunately, the inability to experience sexual pleasure is referred to as Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction (PSSD) and these adverse antidepressant side effects are not new. An increasing number of people are reporting experiencing PSSD, with symptoms that include genital dysfunction, loss of libido, difficulty or inability to reach orgasm and feeling muted or no sexual pleasure.

Some refer to PSSD as “emotional blunting,” but AbleChild would argue that antidepressants have long been reported to leave people feeling nothing. The overall feeling that comes with the antidepressant “treatment” is emotional blunting. It would appear that the answer from the psycho/pharma industry is that if someone is depressed, that can be “treated” by providing mind-altering drugs that make a person feel nothing. The patient won’t be depressed. The patient will feel nothing.

Keep reading

Connecticut Health Department Releases Vaccine Propaganda Videos

Welcome to vaccine dystopia, Connecticut edition.

The Connecticut Department of Public Health has launched its “Protect Who Matters Most” campaign with four cutesy, Schoolhouse Rock-style videos designed to promote vaccination. The department claims the initiative provides “trusted, accessible, and engaging educational resources” to help families make informed decisions. In reality, it delivers slick propaganda wrapped in songs and cartoons.

The first video features a soft-voiced woman singing about the terrors of “life before vaccines,” when “the right medicine had not yet come.” She paints a frightening picture of diseases that “could stay with you” until the miraculous arrival of vaccines. The message is clear: vaccines are the safest, sweetest, and most wonderful invention ever created to “protect who matters most.”

Unless, of course, your child suffers a serious adverse reaction and dies.

But the video doesn’t tell you that.

Video 2, a hip-hop number, equates vaccinating your children with truly caring about them.

The not-so-subtle implication here is that anyone questioning vaccines — whether over known toxins, aborted fetal cells, or sheer volume (more than 70 shots on the schedule) — must not love their kids enough.

It raises the common concern of “too many shots too soon” but immediately glosses over it with a catchy chorus.

Side effects are minimized to a little fever, sleepiness, or a Band-Aid, completely ignoring the possibility of severe or life-altering reactions.

The Vaccine Safety and Approval video uses a cheerful cartoon treasure map to guide viewers from “early research stones” all the way to the sacred “tested temple” of vaccine approval.

It’s pure feel-good propaganda that skips any honest discussion of risks, limitations, or the real-world performance of certain vaccines.

Keep reading

Big Pharma Is Running Drug Trials in a Chinese Concentration Camp Zone

Trivia question: What do Botox, Ozempic knockoff Mounjaro, and the cancer drug Keytruda all have in common?

They were all partly developed using clinical trial data from China. Specifically, from Chinese military hospitals. And, in a bunch of cases, from Xinjiang. That’s the place where the CCP has locked more than a million ethnic Uyghurs in concentration camps.

The House Select Committee on the CCP just sent letters to five major drugmakers—AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer—demanding answers about their clinical trials in China. The numbers, pulled straight from ClinicalTrials.gov, are unnerving. Merck alone ran at least 40 trials at PRC military medical centers and 31 more in Xinjiang. AbbVie: 17 Xinjiang trials, 16 at military hospitals. Similar story with Pfizer, Eli Lilly and BMS.

Is this a problem? Well, Committee Chairman and Congressman John Moolenaar said that “data developed through clinical trials at those hospitals could fuel the CCP’s military biotechnology research.”

But let’s say you don’t care about the CCP’s bioweapons program. Maybe you care about ethics?

Xinjiang is where the CCP is running a genocide against Uyghur Muslims. So when a drug trial recruits “volunteers” from inside that system, the word “voluntary” is probably a euphemism. China’s trial system enrolls patients three to five times faster than America’s. That sounds efficient until you ask why. Getting meaningful informed consent tends to slow things down. Forced labor camps tend not to have that problem.

Keep reading