Who Cares For Your Health? Not Necessarily The Biopharmaceutical Industry... (Part 2)

A Key Player In The Sickness System - The Biopharmaceutical Industry.

The biopharmaceutical industry, without a doubt, has a vested interest in ensuring widespread consumption of its products. This interest manifests in various ways.

Understanding The Root Causes.

to comprehend the current state of modern medicine, a journey into history or, more precisely, a follow-the-money approach is essential.

In the 18th-19th centuries, medicine practiced diverse methodologies - herbalism, homeopathy, nutrition, chiropractic care, and more. However, in 1910, industrialists John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie commissioned Abraham Flexner, a Johns Hopkins graduate administrator and politician, to conduct a report financed by them. The evidently biased report assessed medical schools across the United States and Canada. Flexner advocated for a seemingly beneficial yet extreme reform in medical studies, emphasizing a focus on biology, chemistry, and clinical medicine.

Following Flexner's report, Rockefeller and Carnegie funneled hundreds of millions of dollars (billions today) into universities and medical schools willing to follow their lead. This financial support was directed toward programs and research predominantly centered on chemical drugs. A stipulation for this funding was the placement of their own trustees on the universities' boards of directors, ensuring adherence to the new focus. They established powerful lobbies through organizations like AMA (American Medical Association) to outlaw alternative practices as quackery. Soon, curriculum of medical schools shifted to a chemical drugs-oriented approach - the status quo ever since. Today, doctors don't just tend to prescribe drugs, they're forced to, bound by protocols.
This call by Rockefeller and Carnegie was a crucial component of a grand plan to exert complete dominance over all aspects of human society, securing unparalleled control and boundless profits. This is not some baseless conspiracy theory; these well-documented facts have been publicly available throughout the 20th century.

Are Chemical Medications Really Beneficial?

While some medications are undeniably life-saving or necessary in emergencies, evidence suggests that in matters of prevention and long-term maintenance, chemical drugs often pose more risks than benefits. The array of side effects associated with these drugs can complicate patients' conditions further. Moreover, the development of medicines is primarily profit-oriented, resulting in limited focus on rare diseases that may not offer significant financial returns.

Bribery, Manipulation, Distortion, Concealing, Litigations.

It's important to acknowledge that there are ethical and well-intentioned biopharmaceutical companies committed to public welfare. However, the numerous documented cases of malpractice and litigations paint a grim picture, eroding public trust and confidence in the industry.

Industry insiders often disclose off-the-record that companies hide or manipulate negative research findings. Studies financed by pharma allegedly produce false-positive results due to conflicts of interest. This is so severe that leading scientific journals now require disclosing funding sources and a declaration denying conflicts of interest.

A notable example is MERCK, the developer of the painkiller Vioxx. Despite discovering severe side effects in 1999, confirmed by a 2001 research published in JAMA, MERCK chose to ignore and conceal the findings, leading to a massive lawsuit settlement of $4.85 billion only after a recall when Vioxx was linked to a 200% increase in the risk of heart attack or stroke.

The widespread practice of biopharmaceutical companies bribing doctors to boost the prescription rates of their drugs is a well-established fact, often involving financial incentives such as sponsoring doctors' participation in expensive international conventions. Numerous cases highlight this unethical practice. In 2013, Johnson & Johnson faced a $2.2 billion penalty for illegally marketing drugs and offering kickbacks to physicians. Similarly, in 2019, executives from Insys Therapeutics were convicted for bribing doctors to prescribe opioids, contributing to the opioid epidemic in the U.S. These examples represent just a fraction of the documented cases.

Who Cares For Your Bloodworks?

While there is no concrete evidence, concerns persist that biopharmaceutical companies play a role in influencing the adjustment of normal ranges, potentially to promote the consumption of certain drugs. Notably, the Cholesterol range, has been a subject of debate despite scientific evidence debunking its direct correlation with heart or coronary diseases. The American Heart Association (AHA) has even removed such statements from its publications. Yet, companies still actively promote the use of Statin drugs, although they damage the liver and diminish muscle capacity to produce energy.
Similarly, the massive push for unnecessary glucose-regulating drugs continues, despite proven alternatives through nutritional changes.
In light of the various (sometimes severe) side effects of medications and prescribing other medications to overcome them, people often find themselves with large boxes, preparing pills for the week.

As a result of (sometimes severe) side effects, calling for even more medications, patients often find themselves with large pill organizers, preparing a plethora of pills for a week ahead.

Public Fury Over Marketing and Preferences.

Biopharmaceutical companies frequently initiate marketing campaigns to promote expensive and, at times, unnecessary drugs. A notable example is the recent campaign, flooding the global market with advertisements for herpes zoster immunization, an expensive option, not covered by most health insurances globally, with a questionable long-term efficacy. The aggressive, intimidating marketing tactics employed in this and other campaigns have faced widespread criticism.

The direct marketing of drugs to end-users, patients, and the potentially negative influence of companies in defining illness scope and characteristics have become subjects of public scrutiny and debate.

In recent years, biopharmaceutical companies have drawn public fury by significantly and unnecessarily hiking drug prices, sometimes by tenfold or more. Examples include Turing Pharmaceuticals' CEO Martin Shkreli, who outrageously raised the price of a crucial drug by 5000%, earning him the title of "the most hated person in America." Similarly,Valeant Pharmaceuticals CEO J. Michael Pearson, admitting in an interview that his commitment is to the shareholders and not to the consumers. Valeant raised prices of over 50 drugs, including a notorious 550% raise on the toxoplasmosis drug Daraprim.

Additionally, there are documented instances of leading scientists within companies altering drug development protocols, manipulating evaluations, reporting false results, and concealing information about drugs' efficacy compared to placebos.

Caring For Our Mental Health? Or Their Pockets?

The field of Psychiatry has faced severe criticism for its profit-driven practices, with psychiatrists admitting limitations in healing the ever-expanding list of defined symptoms, yet promoting trillions of dollars worth of drugs and continuously define new "symptoms" which "require" medications.
Roche, in particular, came under scrutiny for a massive campaign exaggerating the prevalence of "social fear" (clinical definition for shyness) in Australia, falsely claiming over 2 million sufferers when official numbers were 370,000. The campaign extended to the US and Europe, leading to a Roche executive acknowledging it went out of control.

Admitted by many psychiatrists, the latest psychiatric guide DSM-5, defines almost every normal emotional condition as a disease, highlighting the atrocious profit-focused conduct of the psychiatric industry.

The Fast Track To Profitability (and Death)

In 1988, the FDA introduced the fast track process, allowing companies to rapidly develop highly sought-after drugs under lenient conditions. This approach has resulted in a significant number of recalled drugs causing harm and even fatalities, along with an increased number of drugs carrying warnings for severe side effects.
Seemingly, a track for public benefit, while in practice serving the Pharmaceutical industry greedy cash flow.

I state again, not everything in this industry is bad and it certainly contributes to promoting healing and saving life. But the overall attitude is of a profit-oriented sickness system, thriving when more people are unwell.

Where Do We Go From Here?...

My personal recommendation is to make any effort to avoid chemical medications as much as possible, preserving their potency for situations that truly necessitate their intervention.
When your physician recommends a drug based therapy, consider all options in depth. Read, study, understand, listen to your inner voice, seek a second opinion from a trustable professional. In many cases you can avoid medications altogether. You don't need to be a doctor or a scientist to make informed choices about your health.
Awareness is step number one in assessing the true situation of our healthcare system and fostering the idea that you, and ONLY YOU, are responsible for your own true health and well-being.

From now on, when you consult with your doctor - DARE TO BE YOU!!!

(stick with me and you'll learn how).