Tag: big pharma

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

Nerve pain medication gabapentin possibly tied to dementia, study says

A drug used to treat seizures, nerve pain and restless leg syndrome might be linked with increased risk of dementia, a new study says.

Regular gabapentin use appeared to increase risk of dementia by 29% and mild cognitive impairment by 85%, researchers reported Thursday in the journal Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine.

What’s more, the risk was more than doubled in people normally considered too young to suffer from brain aging, those 18 to 64, results show.

“The findings of this study support the need for close monitoring in adult patients prescribed gabapentin to assess for potential cognitive decline,” wrote the research team led by Nafis Eghrari, a medical student at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

“Moreover, this provides a foundation to further research whether gabapentin plays a causal role in the development of dementia and cognitive decline,” the researchers added.

Gabapentin has become increasingly popular for the treatment of chronic pain because it’s not nearly as addictive as opioids, researchers said in background notes.

But concerns have been growing that gabapentin might contribute to cognitive decline, since it works by suppressing communication between nerve cells, researchers said.

Keep reading

The Profit Motive Itself Makes the Best Case Against the FDA

One of President Trump’s campaign pledges was to allow Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to “go wild” as head of Health and Human Services. Some welcomed the idea, scarred by memories such as covid lockdowns and government mask mandates that lasted well beyond the arrival of the vaccines. Others, well aware of Kennedy’s conspiracism and anti-vaccine views, dreaded the news. Agencies under Kennedy, like the FDA, are charged with maintaining standards of medical safety and effectiveness. Does “go wild” mean freeing Americans to make our own health decisions — or ramming bad advice down our throats?

As if to address the concerns of both groups, Kennedy’s FDA announced in May that it approves covid boosters only for those over 65 or in other high-risk groups. The vaccine remains available to everyone, but insurers are no longer forced to cover the full cost (about $150). If you want to get the covid jab with your flu shot, you’ll need to decide if a few extra days of health are worth the price. Leftists wailing about “access” notwithstanding, Kennedy hasn’t “taken away” this vaccine.

The measure seems reasonable until one hears the rationale: Officials described the old guidance as “one-size-fits-all” and based on the assumption that Americans “are not sophisticated enough to understand age- and risk-based recommendations.” First, millions were forgoing the shots. Second, the main impact is on insurance companies, whose job it is to know whether covering shots or treatments is profitable for any given group.

This comes across as an attempt to flatter voters who should be wondering: Why is someone, who sues vaccine makers and has no medical or scientific background or experience, in charge of what vaccines are available and what health insurers can or can not cover?

We know the short answer: Donald Trump wanted to reward Kennedy’s support for his presidential campaign more than he cared about the health of his voters — and nearly every Republican Senator (including four M.D.s !) went along with it.

But this dumpster fire would be impossible if the government weren’t running the biomedical sector of the economy, rather than just protecting our freedom like they are supposed to.

Contrary to the notion that we need a government to ensure safe and effective drugs, there is ample evidence that the profit motive is necessary and sufficient for this purpose .

Keep reading