Tag: big pharma

RFK Jr. investigating if drugs taken in Robin Westman’s transition played ‘a role’ in Minneapolis mass shooting

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. revealed Thursday that he has ordered an investigation into whether drugs that transgender shooter Robin Westman was taking during his transition could have played “a role” in his depraved violence.

“We are doing those kind of studies now,” he told “Fox & Friends” when asked if it was possible drugs taken during Westman’s transition played “a role” in him shooting up his former Catholic school’s first Mass of the year Wednesday.

“We are launching studies into their potential contribution,” he said in a response to a question noting that another recent school shooter, Audrey Hale, was also transgender.

The Health and Human Services secretary did not reveal if it was known what drugs Westman or Hale had taken, if any.

However, he noted a wider concern about Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) used to treat depression.

“Some of the SSRI drugs and some other psychiatric drugs might be contributing to violence,” he warned.

“Many of them have black-box warnings that warn of suicidal ideation and homicidal ideation. So we can’t exclude those as a culprit, and those are the kind of studies we are doing,” he said.

Such studies had been slowed by strict patient confidentiality rules, he noted — while stressing that his department had authority to go around them to investigate possible links between such medications and mental diseases

“There was no time in the past when people would walk into a church or a classroom and start shooting people,” he said. “It’s not really happening in other countries, it’s happening here. And we need to look at all of the potential culprits that might be contributing to that.”

Keep reading

Mass Killers May Be Telling Us Something — But Are We Listening?

In the wake of yet another mass killing—the tragic event at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis on August 27, 2025, where two children were murdered and 17 others injured—the public discourse often zeroes in on guns, manifestos, and societal failures.

But amid the clamor, a critical question seems to have faded from view: What role might legal and illegal drugs, and toxic exposures play in the volatile mix that drives some individuals to violence?

For years, reporters routinely probed the medical histories of perpetrators, revealing patterns of psychiatric drug use. Today, that line of inquiry has largely vanished, even as evidence mounts that certain medications carry warnings for suicidal thoughts and aggressive behavior, and environmental toxins disrupt brain function. Ignoring these factors not only overlooks potential triggers but also misses opportunities to prevent future tragedies through better data collection and analysis.

When Medications Were Front and Center

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, mass killings prompted immediate questions about the perpetrators’ mental health treatments, including any prescribed drugs. This was partly because many suspects exhibited clear signs of mental illness, and their medications often came under the microscope.

For instance, in the 1999 Columbine High School shooting, where Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 13 people, Harris had been prescribed the antidepressant Luvox (fluvoxamine), an SSRI known for potential side effects like agitation.

Similarly, in the 2005 Red Lake Senior High School shooting, 16-year-old Jeff Weise, who killed nine others before taking his own life, was on Prozac (fluoxetine), another SSRI.

Kip Kinkel, the 15-year-old behind the 1998 Thurston High School shooting in Oregon that left two dead and 25 injured, had also been prescribed Prozac.

These cases weren’t anomalies.

A compilation by advocacy groups like AbleChild lists over a dozen similar incidents, including the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, where Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people, had a history of mental health treatment and was prescribed antidepressants, though details on his actual compliance history was spotty.

In the 2012 Aurora theater shooting, James Holmes, who murdered 12 and injured 70, was under psychiatric care and had been prescribed sertraline (Zoloft), an antidepressant linked to manic episodes in some users.

Reporting at the time often highlighted these details, fueling debates about whether the drugs—intended to alleviate depression, anxiety, or bipolar disorder—could instead exacerbate violent impulses in vulnerable individuals.

This scrutiny aligned with emerging FDA warnings. In 2004, the agency mandated black-box labels on antidepressants, alerting users to increased risks of suicidal thoughts and behavior, particularly in young people. Some experts, like psychiatrist Peter Breggin, have long argued that SSRIs can induce violence and mania in a subset of patients, citing akathisia—a state of severe restlessness—as a potential trigger. A 2015 Swedish study of over 850,000 people found that antidepressants were associated with violent crime in 11,225 cases, though causality remains debated.

Keep reading

AAP Received Tens of Millions in Federal Funding to Push Vaccines and Combat ‘Misinformation’

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which is suing U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and has called for the end to religious exemptions, received tens of millions of dollars in federal funding in a single year, according to public records.

AAP, which represents 67,000 pediatricians in the U.S., received $34,974,759 in government grants during the 2023 fiscal year, according to the organization’s most recent tax disclosure. The grants are itemized in the AAP’s single audit report for 2023-2024.

Documents show some of the money was used to advance childhood vaccination in the U.S. and abroad, target medical “misinformation” and “disinformation” online, develop a Regional Pediatric Pandemic Network, and highlight telehealth for children.

However, not all of the money could be tracked through public records.

The federal grants are in addition to financial contributions the AAP receives from several major pharmaceutical companies, including Eli Lilly, GSK, Merck, Moderna and Sanofi.

Sayer Ji, founder of GreenMedInfo and co-founder of Stand for Health Freedom, said the joint funding that the AAP receives from taxpayers and Big Pharma “reflects a troubling alignment between its policy positions and the interests of its largest funders — both federal agencies and pharmaceutical corporations.”

Keep reading

What ACIP Wasn’t Shown

In June 2025, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) held its first meeting under the new leadership appointed by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. The public expectation was clear: that this newly appointed committee would restore rigor, independence, and critical examination of evidence before recommending routine use of new pharmaceutical products.

One of the most significant items on the agenda was whether to recommend Merck’s new RSV monoclonal antibody, Clesrovimab, for routine use in healthy newborns. Though marketed as a new product, it is nearly identical in structure and function to Sanofi–AstraZeneca’s nirsevimab, approved in 2023.

The committee ultimately voted 5 to 2 in favor of the recommendation. That vote followed a CDC presentation, which framed the safety data as reassuring, leading most members to conclude there were no outstanding safety concerns. 

But was that reassurance justified? And on what exactly was it based?

The Seizure Signal, and How It Was Presented

During its June 2025 meeting, ACIP members were shown a safety slide from the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), focusing on seizures after administration of nirsevimab. The data were split into two age groups: infants aged 0-37 days and those aged 38 days to under 8 months. Each group showed elevated risk ratios for seizures (3.50 and 4.38, respectively), but both were labeled “not significant.” No pooled analysis was displayed.

However, as Dr. Maryanne Demasi later reported, combining the two groups into a single cohort yields a very different picture: a nearly four-fold increase in seizure risk (RR 3.93, 95% CI 1.21–12.79, p=0.02), a result that is statistically significant. That consolidated signal was never presented to the committee.

The decision to stratify at 38 days – precisely the point in US schedules when routine infant vaccinations begin – had no clear biological justification, and by dispersing the signal across two smaller groups, it effectively erased the statistical significance.

A second design choice compounded the problem. The CDC’s analysis applied a self-controlled risk interval with only the first 7 days designated as “risk” and days 8-21 treated as the “control” period. Any seizure occurring on day 8 or later was thus counted against the background rate, even though such timing could plausibly reflect a product-related effect. Standard pharmacovigilance practice calls for testing multiple windows, not a single narrow cutoff.

These analytical decisions mattered. The vote to recommend clesrovimab passed 5-2. Had members been shown the pooled seizure risk alongside the consistent trial-level imbalances in nervous system events, shifting just two votes would have changed the outcome.

Finally, as Demasi emphasized, the concern is not confined to one brand. Given the structural similarity between nirsevimab and clesrovimab, the seizure risk is likely a class effect. This means the omission of the pooled analysis did not just obscure a statistical detail. It withheld information with direct implications for every RSV monoclonal antibody now in use.

These findings emerged only through independent reanalysis. Without Dr. Demasi’s work, they may have remained unknown – not only to the public, but even to ACIP members casting their votes.

Keep reading

Uncovering Medical Establishment Dark Secret Operations for Your Health Protection!

Medical establishment is one entity; and remember, you have to identify the real problem to be able to focus your attention on the solution. When seeing the “big picture” in relation to how the medical establishment operates (refer to image), you’ll have a definite vantage point when you would have uncovered its coordinated dark secret operations. 

From your research, the listed harsh realities from what you would have gleaned will serve as a launching point towards finding the solution for your health protection: Remember, the white hat you’re looking for is in the mirror!

The corruption and how it works

The money trails, the corrupt entanglement, dirty dealing, interlocking directorates married into unholy alliances… have been well-documented, but many fail to make the connections between the different cause and effect relationships and how they are affected. 

This can  be  likened  to the analogy of looking at separated pieces of jigsaw puzzle and not having the realization that they are somehow all connected and therefore not carrying out the task of joining up the pieces to see the big picture. 

This is how the corruption still continues and why the villains are allowed to get away with it undetected. 

In order to see how the corruption works, it is necessary to make the interlocking connections so that we can step back and see the ‘big picture’ of what’s really going on and why certain things occur. 

For example, covid was a lie. There was no covid, but it can only be seen as a massive medical fraud for power, profit and political gains when its pieces of the jig-saw puzzle are interlocked and you are able to see the big picture.

Bear in mind, a variation on a theme of the fake disease “script” with all its common-patterns could be ran again by scoundrels wanting to enforce mandates on us, as, for example, in the ongoing push for the global pandemic treaty by the WHO (World Death Organization) which has not been opposed by many countries. 

The sad thing is that Operation Warp Speed has still not been taken down… Don’t call the mRNA shots vaccines because that’s not what they are. They are, in fact, military industrial grade weapons…

After doing your research and seeing the “Big Picture,” refuse the masking, fake tests and so-called vaccinations at all costs.

Keep reading

50 Bizarre Side Effects of Common Medicines

Medicine saves lives every day, combating everything from infections to chronic pain. But the little-discussed reality is that adverse drug reactions are the third leading cause of death in the US, claiming over 250,000 lives annually.

Even more insidious, side effects can emerge months or years after starting—or stopping—a medication, long after you’ve forgotten about it, as seen with delayed tendon damage from antibiotics or bone issues from osteoporosis drugs.

These delayed reactions highlight how drugs can ripple through the body in unexpected ways, affecting organs and systems far beyond their intended target.

From hormonal havoc to bizarre behavioral shifts, here are 50 peculiar side effects that remind us: while medicine helps, it can also unleash chaos we never saw coming.

Keep reading

An Evidence-Driven Critique of the Allegedly Reassuring Study on Aluminum-Adjuvanted Vaccines

Yesterday, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. published a sharp and comprehensive critique of the recent study by Andersson et al., which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The study made headlines for claiming that aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines administered in early childhood are not associated with increased risks of autoimmune, allergic, or neurodevelopmental disorders.

Kennedy did not mince words. He described the study as “so deeply flawed it functions not as science but as a deceitful propaganda stunt by the pharmaceutical industry.” Among the many questionable features he identified, one stood out to me in particular. Kennedy wrote:

“These sleights of hand magnify the potential for allowing the authors to reach their absurd suggestion that higher aluminum exposure is somehow protective against asthma, allergies, and neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism.”

This sentence stopped me in my tracks because I had noticed the exact same thing. While Kennedy voiced this concern from the standpoint of public health advocacy, I approached the same issue from an academic and data-driven perspective. What I found not only aligns with his observation but adds further empirical grounding to it. In fact, this very point was at the heart of a formal comment I submitted to the Annals of Internal Medicine. The authors of the study responded — but, in my view, did not adequately address the core contradiction. In this short article, I lay out the full story, supported by the data, to show why this implausible pattern of protective effects cannot be ignored.

Keep reading

Origins of Medical Harm

The level of compensation doctors receive from Medicare is currently under renewed scrutiny; these standards are mirrored by health insurers. The quantity of reimbursement weighted to specialists is likely to shift towards primary care physicians. Reconfiguration of doctors’ fees is overdue, although they are determined by a secretive American Medical Association committee. 

Analysis and debate about the ongoing healthcare crisis emphasize misdirected funding rather than considering how to revitalize the ethics of medicine. The Hippocratic Oath clarifies the priorities essential for the mindset of a physician. Despite its primary warning, first, do no harm, damage done to patients is rampant. Resolution of this tragic dynamic appears insoluble. 

When decisions are made by any medical organization with financial interests, the primary impetus of the Oath is lost; the AMA’s control over payment schedules reinforces and exemplifies a corrupt institutional flaw. The harm done by the business of medicine needs to be evaluated and controlled.

The seemingly intractable conflict of interest undermining medical care is directly tied to a profit-oriented model in mitigating human suffering. Dispensing treatments with earnings in mind is a form of profitable planned obsolescence and ultimately a methodology that degrades patient autonomy and vitality. 

Although there is often consensus among critics of the healthcare system about its numerous faults, approaching the central issue of profiting from illness is virtually avoided. 

In an attempt to broach the topic of money and medicine, the AMA’s Journal of Ethics presents a self-justifying analysis. The following excerpt exposes how this inherently conflicted view of healthcare depends on the illness of the nation. 

Keep reading

The American Academy of Pediatrics: Mining Children for Profit

American healthcare is currently providing us with an excellent lesson in what capitalism looks like in the absence of a moral framework. The biggest losers are America’s children.

The Union Profiting from Childhood Sickness

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the major professional association of North American pediatricians, has overseen the rising rates of chronic illness and medicating of American children over recent decades. With 67,000 members in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, AAP distinguished itself during Covid-19 for its strident insistence that children’s faces should be covered and they should be injected with modified RNA vaccines, despite knowing from early 2020 that severe Covid-19 was very rare in healthy children. 

Funded by sources including Moderna, Merck, Sanofi, GSK, Eli Lilly, and other pharmaceutical companies, the AAP’s members are the cornerstone of the rapidly increasing pediatric pharma market in North America – by far greater than any other region. As a professional organization dedicated to ensuring income for its members, the AAP is like any similar professional association or union and acts in this manner.

The loss of trust in the medical profession since 2020 is fortunately removing the misconception that AAP-like medical societies were primarily altruistic, dedicated to the welfare of others rather than their members. The recent publication of AAP priorities, developed by its membership, should reinforce this loss of trust and so, despite its unusual callousness of approach, serve ultimately to strengthen public health by exposing more clearly the motivations of those profiting from rising illness.

Setting Priorities to Ensure Long-Term Profit

The AAP’s first stated priority is to remove parents from any authority when it comes to decisions on whether to inject their children with various substances produced commercially by its sponsors. While this should be ridiculous, it has some chance of succeeding as the ultimate beneficiaries, apart from pediatricians, are the same pharmaceutical manufacturers who heavily sponsor the election campaigns of most members of the US Congress.

Of relevance, promoting or abetting chronic disease in children ensures almost certain chronic disease through adulthood. The AAP is therefore helping to set up lifelong pharmaceutical consumers. Pharma companies are purely for-profit entities, and this is exactly what their CEOs and executives are charged by their shareholders with promoting. The AAP is simply acting as a very willing enabler.

The AAP considers that bodily autonomy is subservient to State-imposed requirements and that the post-World War II human rights of non-coercion and informed consent are subservient to the opinion of someone receiving money to perform an injection. Its approach coincides with the pre-War technocracy movement or medical fascism (in which a declared ‘expert’ decides on imposing healthcare measures rather than the patient themselves choosing it).

However, before discussing bodily autonomy and coerced medicine further, it is worth commenting on the priority list of the AAP overall, as it is fascinating, coming from a group that insists publicly on prioritizing the health of children.

Firstly, what is not there. Among the ten priorities of the AAP of which the elimination of parental rights or religious or cultural exemptions over vaccination of children is the highest, there is not a single mention of what are perhaps the three most prominent issues facing children today, and widely discussed publicly; increasing obesity and the epidemic of autism that the CDC heralds as of extraordinary proportions. While the AAP notes this problem elsewhere, it concentrates on identification and management rather than cause identification. Nowhere among its ten priorities is there any expression of interest in identifying and addressing the causes of rising chronic illness. The closest is a mention of lower costs for childhood insulin injections. The AAP’s priority list ignores diet and reducing levels of physical activity while actively promoting medicalization, seemingly oblivious to the quite catastrophic reduction in health status of the very populations they claim to be serving.

Unsurprisingly for a purely marketing organization, but inconsistent with a science-based healthcare body, the priorities include nothing regarding very obvious concerns of the impact of over 70 vaccinations, with their associated adjuvants and preservatives, now given to children by ten years of age. This number has grown from just a few 40 years ago in association with the deterioration in child health outcomes. The only interest expressed in vaccines is to remove choice from those concerned about such things, and force compliance. For a society of thinking, truth-seeking people this would be extraordinary.

Keep reading

Technocrat Sweep: US Health Officials, Tech Executives To Launch Data-Sharing Plan

Why would Technocrats care about your health data? When they see the public as a herd of cattle, they naturally move to “manage the herd.” RFK, Jr. earlier bragged that he wants all citizens to don wearable medical devices within four years, to collect mountains of data. This initiative is headed by AMY GLEASON, the Administrator of DOGE.

Amy Gleason worked at the predecessor of DOGE from 2018-2021 during the first Trump administration, where she played a key role on the White House Coronavirus Task Force’s data team managing critical pandemic data. She was named an Obama-era “Champion of Change” for her work in patient advocacy and precision medicine. She has emerged as a key Technocrat with her association with Elon Musk. Court records clearly show that Musk was never in charge of DOGE, but rather Amy Gleason.

Keep reading