Tag: big pharma

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

Moderna’s mRNA Flu Vaccine Gets Unanimous Thumbs-Up Despite Risks, Low Efficacy

A federal advisory committee today unanimously voted to endorse Moderna’s mRNA flu vaccine — just months after rejecting the company’s application on the basis that Moderna had not performed an “adequate and well-controlled” clinical trial.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), which reviews scientific data on the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and other therapeutics on behalf of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), voted 9-0 in dual votes to recommend approval of the vaccine for the 50-64 and 65-plus age groups.

Today’s votes took place after several hours of presentations based on the findings of Moderna’s Phase 4 clinical trial data for its mRNA-1010 vaccine. The trial compared the efficacy of mRNA-1010 to that of a conventional, non-mRNA flu vaccine.

Daniel O’Connor, founder and CEO of TrialSite News, told The Defender today’s favorable votes “may reflect the committee’s view that the benefit-risk profile is acceptable.” However, the vote “does not erase the fundamental concerns surrounding this application.”

“Significant questions remain about comparator selection, study design and whether the reported efficacy advantage represents a clinically meaningful improvement for patients or simply a statistical advantage within the framework of the trial,” O’Connor said.

According to an FDA briefing document prepared in advance of today’s meeting, “no major deficiencies were identified” with the vaccine for adults 50 and over. Citing the clinical trial data, the document states that the mRNA-1010 vaccine had a 26.6% relative efficacy rate in adults 50 and over, with similar rates for adults 65 and up.

The mRNA-1010 vaccine also showed a higher immune response than Sanofi’s Fluzone vaccine, the document noted. According to Fierce Biotech, these results met all of the FDA’s “pre-specified criteria for success” and bolstered Moderna’s application for approval.

Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist for Children’s Health Defense, said today’s vote shifts mRNA-1010 safety monitoring to after licensure.

“VRBPAC meetings proceed to the beat of the rubber stamp. The unanimous vote guarantees a lot of really good questions of harm will have to be answered in the post-marketing period, when that harm manifests in the population,” Jablonowski said.

Moderna seeks traditional approval for the mRNA-1010 vaccine for the 50-64 age group and accelerated approval for the 65-plus age group.

Fierce Biotech reported that the FDA uses VRBPAC meetings to “seek outside counsel on tough or high-profile regulatory decisions.”

The FDA will make an approval decision on mRNA-1010 by Aug. 5 — and while the agency is not bound to VRBPAC’s votes, it “often follows the opinions” of its advisory committees.

Moderna’s stock was up over 4% in trading immediately after the vote, and up 3.50% at the close of market.

mRNA vaccine had higher rate of adverse events than conventional flu shot

Keep reading

HHS Terminates the COVID-19 Emergency Use Authorization Declarations Covering mRNA Shots, Drugs, and Biologics

Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services finally moved to terminate the COVID-19 Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) declarations that have been in place since the early months of the pandemic.

The termination is not immediate. HHS has established a transition period of up to 12 months for EUA drugs and biologics and 180 days for EUA medical devices. According to the agency, the phased wind-down is intended to avoid disruptions and allow manufacturers and healthcare systems time to transition away from the emergency framework.

These declarations formed the legal foundation for the authorization of COVID-19 mRNA injections, monoclonal antibodies, antiviral drugs, diagnostic tests, ventilators, personal protective equipment, and numerous other medical products deployed during the pandemic response.

Unfortunately, the deadly Pfizer and Moderna mRNA injections are already fully FDA approved, meaning this action will have little practical effect on their continued use. The emergency framework that enabled their rapid rollout is finally being dismantled, but the products themselves have already moved beyond it.

While today’s announcement marks the formal beginning of the end of the COVID EUA era, it does not produce the outcome many of us had hoped for, including but not limited to the removal of mRNA products from the market.

Keep reading

New Study Strongly Links Merck’s Gardasil HPV Vaccine to POTS, but Authors Downplay Signal

A new analysis of adverse events reported to the federal vaccine safety surveillance database after the HPV vaccine detected a strong safety signal for POTS, an autonomic nervous system disorder, in some people who received the shots.

The authors of the study, published last week in PLOS One, analyzed 77,909 reports associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) between 2006 and 2024.

They concluded that the signal for postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) warranted further investigation. However, they downplayed the significance of their findings, according to experts who spoke with The Defender.

Their discussion section dedicated only two sentences to POTS, even though the condition was the strongest signal identified by the analysis.

The authors underscored that a signal for POTS does not prove that it was caused by the shot, and said that a strong signal “does not necessarily translate into a large clinical or public health impact.”

Warning that when people hear about serious adverse events, it affects their “perception” of safety, the authors framed their paper as part of a process of identifying and addressing potential risks that “is crucial to maintaining high vaccination coverage.”

Cynthia Nevison, Ph.D., said this approach led the authors to be dismissive of their own results. “I always object in principle to papers that start out with the motivation of reducing vaccine hesitancy,” Nevison told The Defender.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Chief Scientific Officer Brian Hooker said the attempts to downplay POTS as a side effect of the HPV shot are “criminal and the paper is expertly crafted to hide this very obvious signal in order to repeat the default ‘safe and effective’ lie.”

He added that given VAERS underreporting, “we know that the pesky result they’re downplaying could represent 68,000 POTS cases nationwide and over 1 million serious adverse events total.”

Keep reading