Tag: big pharma

Paul “Vaccine Puppet” Offit BUSTED exposing the absolute FRAUD of the FDA’s vaccine “licensure” protocol

The man who put a deadly pig virus in the Rotateq Rotavirus vaccine and made millions off it (pardon the pun with his name), just got busted exposing the ultimate dirty vaccine fraud and vaccine failure. The puppet of the vaccine industrial complex is a scam artist of the highest and most insidious magnitude, but he loves to run his mouth about it all. This is the same dirty vaccine pushing schmuck who admitted that vaccines are a violent act.

Many parents today are concerned about the number of vaccines their children are scheduled to receive under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines. As a more cautious approach, some parents seek antibody titer tests — blood tests that measure a child’s existing immunity to specific diseases — to potentially avoid unnecessary vaccinations.

  • Paul Offit Dismisses Antibody Testing, But Ignores Valid Parental Concerns: In a CHOP video, Dr. Paul Offit argues that antibody titer tests are unreliable indicators of immunity and urges parents to follow the CDC vaccine schedule instead. However, his argument fails to address legitimate safety concerns and presumes, without evidence, that the full schedule is safe.
  • Scientific Contradictions and Vaccine Licensing Exposed: Offit acknowledges that antibody levels don’t always correlate with immunity — yet this is the very measure the FDA uses to license vaccines. This contradiction reveals a major flaw in the FDA’s approval process and raises questions about the scientific validity of current vaccine policy.
  • Evidence of Vaccine Failure Undermines Offit’s Position: Offit cites past measles outbreaks to justify vaccination but omits that a significant portion of cases occurred in fully vaccinated individuals. Historical data show that vaccine failure — both primary and secondary — was a driving force behind adding a second measles dose to the schedule.
  • Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest Raise Ethical Red Flags: Offit’s financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry — including profits from a Merck rotavirus vaccine — go undisclosed in the CHOP video. This, combined with CHOP’s industry partnerships, casts doubt on the objectivity of their messaging and underscores concerns about propaganda replacing informed consent.

Keep reading

DIABETES SHOCKER: JAMA published mind-blowing study conducted on diabetes drug that skyrockets patient’s risk of heart attack by 13%

Got heart problems? It’s probably one of two things, or both: Your diabetes medication or the Covid clot shot(s) you got. Do the research and you’ll see the science is there.

Millions of Americans rely on affordable diabetes medications to control blood sugar, but a major new study from Mass General Brigham has uncovered troubling findings about one of the most widely prescribed diabetes drugs in the U.S. – glipizide. According to research published in JAMA Network Open, glipizide is associated with a 13 percent higher risk of major cardiovascular events compared to newer alternatives, posing significant concerns for the long-term heart health of patients with Type 2 diabetes.

  • Popular diabetes drug glipizide linked to higher heart risk: A large-scale study of nearly 50,000 patients found that glipizide, a commonly prescribed sulfonylurea for Type 2 diabetes, is associated with a 13 percent higher risk of major cardiovascular events compared to DPP-4 inhibitors.
  • Not all sulfonylureas are equal: While glipizide showed the highest cardiovascular risk (9.1 percent over five years), other sulfonylureas like glimepiride (8.6 percent) and glyburide (8.4 percent) had smaller, less statistically significant risks — challenging the idea that all drugs in this class are interchangeable.
  • Real-world data strengthens findings: Researchers used electronic health records and insurance data from 10 U.S. sites to assess cardiovascular outcomes like heart attacks, strokes and heart failure, making this one of the most comprehensive studies of its kind.
  • Heart risks may stem from drug effects beyond the pancreas: Although glipizide primarily targets blood sugar, it may also impact heart receptors, potentially weakening the heart’s ability to protect itself under stress — though the exact mechanism remains unclear.

Popular diabetes drug linked to 13% higher heart attack risk in major study

The study, led by Dr. Alexander Turchin of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, analyzed data from 48,165 patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate cardiovascular risk. All participants were on metformin as their base therapy and were tracked over a five-year period.

Patients were grouped based on the second medication they began using: glipizide, glimepiride, glyburide (all sulfonylureas) or DPP-4 inhibitors (a newer drug class). The research drew from real-world health records and insurance claims data through the BESTMED consortium, making its findings broadly applicable.

Key findings include:

  • Patients on glipizide had a 9.1 percent five-year risk of major cardiovascular events, compared to 8.1 percent for those on DPP-4 inhibitors.
  • This amounts to a 13 percent relative increase in risk, including higher rates of heart attacks, strokes, heart failure hospitalizations, and cardiovascular deaths.
  • Glimepiride (8.6 percent) and glyburide (8.4 percent) also showed increased heart risk, but to a lesser and statistically less significant extent.

Dr. Turchin emphasized that a 13 percent relative risk increase is considered clinically significant, especially in a patient population already vulnerable to heart disease. These findings challenge the long-held medical assumption that all sulfonylureas function similarly and carry equal risk. Glipizide, while effective and inexpensive, may be more harmful to heart health than previously recognized.

Although the exact mechanisms behind glipizide’s elevated heart risk remain unclear, researchers suspect the drug may interfere with cardiac receptors and the heart’s protective responses during periods of reduced blood flow. Interestingly, glipizide doesn’t appear to affect these receptors more aggressively than other drugs in its class, making the specific cause of the increased risk still unknown.

This discovery reinforces the need for personalized medicine and informed decision-making between doctors and patients. Cost and familiarity should not be the sole factors in selecting a diabetes medication, especially when cardiovascular health is on the line.

In addition to medication, patients can reduce both blood sugar and heart risks through natural strategies, such as:

  • Eating whole foods that don’t spike blood sugar (e.g., vegetables, lean proteins, nuts).
  • Supplementing with nutrients like magnesium, fish oil, and alpha-lipoic acid.
  • Staying active, even through simple routines like daily walks.
  • Managing stress, which plays a crucial role in both blood sugar control and heart function.
  • Reducing inflammation using anti-inflammatory foods like turmeric and ginger.

Ultimately, this study is a wake-up call to reexamine common diabetes treatments. For patients and physicians alike, balancing effective glucose control with cardiovascular safety is vital for long-term health.

Tune your internet dial to NaturalMedicine.news for more tips on how to use natural remedies for preventative medicine and for healing, instead of succumbing to Big Pharma products, like dangerous diabetes drugs, that cause, spread and exacerbate disease and disorder, including heart attacks.

Keep reading

Mental Health “Experts” Expose Psychiatric Drugging Abuse by Their Own Industry

In keeping with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kennedy’s desire to review the effectiveness of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs), better known as antidepressants, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last week held a ten-panel “Expert Roundtable” focused on the safety of SSRI use during pregnancy. In a word, it was extraordinary.

While the roundtable was intended to focus on the risks/benefits associated with prescribing SSRIs during pregnancy, what really occurred was a truth session about the over-prescription and dangers associated with the use of antidepressants, the drugs questionable “efficacy” and the FDA’s shortcomings when it comes to transparency and honesty about antidepressants. In fact, the FDA Commissioner, Dr. Marty Makary, opened the roundtable discussion with a few brief comments giving the audience a glimpse into what used to be forbidden territory by bluntly stating “We’re losing the broader battle…in some respects we’re going backwards. The more antidepressants we prescribe, the more depression there is.” Right. Yes. Finally!

Despite decades of antidepressant use, nobody is getting better, and it appears that the majority of the roundtable “experts” not only agreed but had serious problems with the prescribing of SSRIs to anyone, least of all pregnant women.

Not all the experts objected to SSRI use during pregnancy, though. One expert discussed the benefit of SSRIs during pregnancy mentioning both Fluoxetine (Prozac) and Paroxetine (Paxil) as viable “treatments.” Interesting enough, there is a warning for Paxil which reports “using this medicine while you are pregnant can harm your unborn baby.”

Both mind-altering SSRIs come with several possible adverse events including emotional lability, mania, personality disorder, abnormal thinking, depersonalization, paranoid reaction, psychosis, depression, intense dreams, sleep disturbance and suicidal thoughts and behavior, and suicide attempts.

And, finally, there is a caveat that reports “antidepressants may have a role in inducing worsening of depression.” Perfect. Take this mind-altering drug for depression that may actually worsen depression.

Many of the panelists raised issues about the FDA’s failure to provide the public with appropriate warnings about the exposure to serious risks and poor outcomes for babies associated with antidepressants. One panelist referred to the FDA as having “information problems” when it was reported that the Royal College of Physicians in England had made an official correction about the illegitimacy of the “chemical imbalance” while the FDA, Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institute of Health (NIH) have done nothing to inform the public that depression, nor any psychiatric disorder, is the result of a chemical imbalance. It always was a theory and has finally been thoroughly debunked.

It actually was a shocking, yet refreshing, discussion if only for its blatantly honest assessment of the drugging that is occurring in the US and abroad.  One panelist said, “we’re really good at getting people on drugs, but really bad at getting them off.” Truer words were never spoken and AbleChild has long advocated for a mandatory “exit plan” for all physicians prescribing psychiatric drugs.

Keep reading

FDA allows distribution of muscular dystrophy drug again after public criticism

After blocking a new muscular dystrophy therapy in order to investigate patient deaths, the Federal Drug Administration reversed course after criticism and restored hope to parents seeking a treatment to aid children affected by the debilitating disease. 

The FDA’s initial decision to freeze distribution of the therapy, marketed as Elevidys, following at least three patient deaths potentially connected to the therapy, stirred criticism from advocates for muscular dystrophy patients and from health policy experts. Added to the mix of criticism about the initial decision were the attacks and defenses of Dr. Vinay Prasad, the agency’s top biologics official, who supported progressive candidates and criticized several of President Trump’s key health policies in the past. 

The company that produced the therapy, Sarepta Therapeutics, initially resisted the freeze, but eventually paused shipments of its innovative product, opening its stocks up to a hammering that threatened to put the company’s future in serious jeopardy. According to financial analytics website companiesmarketcap.com, Sarepta’s market cap fell yesterday to $1.56 billion from $14 billion a year ago. Market capitalization, commonly called market cap, is the total market value of a publicly traded company’s outstanding shares — held by institutional investors and the public at large — and is commonly used to measure how much a company is worth.

The “Right-to-try”

The reversal of the pause aligns with President Donald Trump’s longtime advocacy for the right-to-try. During his first term, the president signed a new law giving terminally ill patients the opportunity to seek new or experimental treatments without obtaining the approval of the FDA, which had been required in the past. 

The FDA demanded on July 18 that Sarepta pull Elevidys from the market and halt all shipments to patients after reports of two deaths connected to the treatment. Elevidys is not an experimental drug, and was approved by the FDA under certain circumstances in 2024. It is a prescription gene therapy designed to treat patients with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, a genetic disorder that leads to the breakdown and decay of muscles over time and mostly impacts male children. 

Despite initially refusing to voluntarily pause shipments of the therapy, Sarepta eventually agreed to a “temporary pause” to allow “the necessary time to respond” to the FDA and to finish the “safety labeling supplement process.” 

The reaction was immediate. After the pause was announced, the Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy, a nonprofit organization dedicated to ending the disease by supporting research and advocating for care, criticized the decision. 

“These reports are profoundly upsetting and raise serious concerns for our entire community,” PPMD said in a statement. “Families who have fought tirelessly for access to this therapy, those who have already received it, and those who are in line to receive it are now left with more questions than answers.” 

Keep reading

RFK Jr. Blasts ‘Corrupt and Broken’ Vaccine Court System — Vows to Overhaul VICP and End HHS Cover-Ups for Big Pharma

U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. took a blowtorch to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)—commonly known as the Vaccine Court— calling it a corrupt and broken system that has abandoned vaccine-injured children and now functions as a shield for Big Pharma’s profits and government malfeasance.

The U.S. government gave vaccine manufacturers blanket legal immunity—then created a kangaroo court, rigged against parents and children, to supposedly “compensate” the injured. But instead of justice, Kennedy says victims face stonewalling, legal abuse, and a government hellbent on defending its own wallet.

And the numbers back him up.

To date, the Vaccine Court has paid out $5.4 billion to just 12,000 petitioners. But Kennedy notes that thousands more have been dismissed, delayed, or bullied into silence while their children suffer life-altering disabilities.

Parents report cases dragging out for over a decade, while Special Masters—essentially government-appointed judges—slash attorney fees, deny access to crucial vaccine safety data, and retaliate against expert witnesses who dare testify for the injured.

Keep reading

Thomas Massie’s New Bill Would Let People Sue Pharma for COVID Vaccine Injuries

Several years after the COVID-19 vaccine’s rollout, the only federal program that provides compensation for COVID vaccine injuries continues to process claims at a snail’s pace while rejecting most of those claims that it does decide.

As of June 1, only 39 people have received compensation from the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) for a COVID-19 vaccine injury. It has rejected another 4,338 claims. Some 9,423 people are still waiting for the federal government to even review their case.

The long wait times and high rejection rates have prompted some lawmakers to propose repealing the liability protections created by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, which prevents people from suing COVID vaccine makers in state courts and leaves them dependent on the CICP as the only possible source of compensation.

That includes Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), who introduced a bill last week to repeal the liability shields in the PREP Act.

“The PREP Act is medical malpractice martial law,” said Massie in a press release. “Americans deserve the right to seek justice when injured by government-mandated products.”

Passed as part of a defense spending bill in 2005, the PREP Act was intended to shore up companies’ willingness to produce novel “countermeasures” in the wake of a public health emergency like a pandemic or bioterror attack by shielding them from civil suits.

The law allows the Health and Human Services Secretary (HHS) to issue blanket liability waivers to countermeasures produced in response to a public health emergency. People injured from a covered countermeasure can pursue compensation through the CICP, but they can’t sue in state court.

In February 2020, then-HHS Secretary Alex Azar invoked the PREP Act’s liability shield for COVID-19 countermeasures, which covered then-yet-to-be-invented vaccines, masks, tests, and more.

Massie’s PREP Repeal Act would end those liability protections, thus opening up vaccine makers to personal injury lawsuits in state courts.

Advocates for the vaccine injured say any attention to their plight is welcome.

Keep reading

3 New Plaintiffs Ask to Join COVID Vaccine Injury Lawsuit Against Bill Gates

Three COVID-19 vaccine injury victims are asking to join a Dutch lawsuit against Bill Gates, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla and 15 other defendants, alleging they misled the public about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines.

The lawsuit was filed last year by seven COVID-19 vaccine injury victims, one of whom has since died.

According to a filing by the plaintiffs’ attorney, Peter Stassen, the three new victims “were healthy people” who began experiencing health problems after receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

“The applicants are of the opinion that the serious side effects that occurred after having the Covid-19 (mRNA) injections are the direct result of the content / composition of these Covid-19 (mRNA) injections,” the filing states.

Doctors have repeatedly refused to diagnose a link between vaccination and their injuries, Stassen said.

During a hearing today at the District Court of North Netherlands in Leeuwarden, Stassen also asked the court to approve five expert witnesses who will testify about the risks and dangers of the COVID-19 shots:

  • Catherine Austin Fitts, founder and publisher of the Solari Report and former U.S. assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
  • Sasha Latypova, a former pharmaceutical research and development executive.
  • Joseph Sansone, Ph.D., a psychotherapist who is litigating to prohibit mRNA vaccines in Florida.
  • Katherine Watt, a researcher and paralegal.
  • Mike Yeadon, Ph.D., a pharmacologist and former vice-president of Pfizer’s allergy and respiratory research unit.

Another proposed witness, Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., who agreed in January to testify on behalf of the plaintiffs, has since died. Boyle was a professor of international law at the University of Illinois and a bioweapons expert who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989.

Keep reading

How Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence-Based Medicine

I. Introduction

Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) is a relatively recent phenomenon. The term itself was not coined until 1991. It began with the best of intentions — to give frontline doctors the tools from clinical epidemiology to make science-based decisions that would improve patient outcomes. But over the last three decades, EBM has been hijacked by the pharmaceutical industry to serve the interests of shareholders rather than patients.

Today, EBM gives preference to epistemologies that favor corporate interests while instructing doctors to ignore other valid forms of knowledge and their own professional experience. This shift disempowers doctors and reduces patients to objects while concentrating power in the hands of pharmaceutical companies. EBM also leaves doctors ill-equipped to respond to the autism epidemic and unable to produce the sorts of paradigm-shifts that would be necessary to address this crisis.

In this article I will:

  • provide a brief history of EBM;
  • explain how evidence hierarchies work;
  • explore ten general and technical criticisms of EBM and evidence hierarchies;
  • examine the American Medical Association’s 2002, 2008, and 2015 evidence hierarchies;
  • highlight the corporate takeover of EBM; and
  • explore the implications of these dynamics for the autism epidemic.

Keep reading

Johnson & Johnson Lead Scientist and Executive Admit Baby Powder Contained ‘Cancer-Causing Heavy Metals’

The O’Keefe Media Group on Friday released undercover video of a Johnson & Johnson lead scientist and executive admit that baby power contained cancer causing heavy metals.

This is the second undercover video in OMG’s series exposing Johnson & Johnson.

Joshua Rys, a Regulatory Affairs Scientist who managed Johnson & Johnson’s baby products spilled the truth to an OMG undercover journalist.

“When I started, actually I started working on the consumer group. Johnson’s was one of my brands. So I managed all the baby products. So actually, when that all happened, I was working on that,” said Joshua Rys.

Rys continued, “It wasn’t actually the product itself, it was an impurity. So naturally talc comes from mines, and the mines don’t have, I guess, 100 percent accurate standards. So the heavy metals, it’s not the talc itself that gives you the cancer, it’s the heavy metals that are in there.”

David Altman, Executive & Senior Clinical Analyst at Johnson & Johnson, said, “This is not your father’s J&J… they don’t really give a sh*t about people.”

Keep reading

‘Their Rubber Stamp Is Reckless’: After AAP Endorses Weight-Loss Drugs for Kids, Prescriptions Soar

Prescriptions for GLP-1 weight-loss drugs for kids and teens grew substantially after the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in 2023 recommended them for childhood obesity, according to a new study published in the AAP’s flagship journal Pediatrics.

GLP-1 drugs, typically used to treat obesity or diabetes, include the blockbuster drugs Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro and Saxenda. Of those, only Wegovy and Saxenda are approved for children. However, several lesser-known GLP-1 drugs can be prescribed off-label for children.

Researchers with the health data and analytics company Truveta analyzed more than 310,000 health records. They found that prescriptions for GLP-1 drugs for children and teens ages 8-17 increased 65% immediately following AAP’s recommendation and another 5% per month after that, Axios reported.

The researchers found that before the AAP recommendation, the diabetes drug metformin was by far the most prescribed medication for weight loss in kids. However, after the new guidelines, prescriptions for semaglutide — the active ingredient in Wegovy and Ozempic — surged, and prescriptions for metformin dropped.

Keep reading