Bad News about Big Pharma

I suppose that if there’s any large industry supporting Tobacco Control, it’s probably Big Pharma.

In the first place, as far as I can see, Big Pharma is trying to convert the tobacco plant into a pharmaceutical product. If they succeed, you’ll get your nicotine fix in tablets which will cost 50 times more than cigarettes, and prescribed by the medical profession.

They probably want to do the same with alcohol and food. And that’s why the Pharma-funded healthists have extended beyond demonising tobacco, and started demonising alcohol and food as well. You demonise your competition, and tell their consumers that their products are killing them, and at the same time you start offering your own ‘safe’ product. Cigarettes might be killing smokers, but pharmaceutically-produced NRT (which contains nicotine) is ‘perfectly safe’.

It’s why they hate e-cigs. E-cigs are pretty much nicotine delivery systems. They’re nicotine inhalers. They’re as safe as NRT. But Big Pharma doesn’t manufacture them. The competition does. So e-cigs are now being demonised just like cigarettes.

They’re doing the same with herbs and natural medicines as well. Ask Rose.

And some of Big Pharma’s products, like Chantix/Varenicline, actually kill smokers. It’s why I have Pfuck Pfizer pic in the right margin. Because they can make smokers get so depressed that they commit suicide. (Maybe I ought to add such smokers into the Smokers’ Graveyard, as casualties not so much of smoking bans, but of smoking cessation products which some smokers try to use in response to smoking bans)

Over the past week, I’ve been reading more bad news about other pharma products: vaccines. I’m generally sceptical about anti-vax, because I had lots of vaccinations during the 1950s and 1960s when I was travelling all over the world to places where typhoid and cholera were endemic. Getting a TAB+C injection was an annual ordeal back then. But it did no long-term harm. But now I’m wondering whether vaccines were well-regulated back then, in ways that maybe they aren’t now.

“The pharmaceutical industry is so powerful,” he explained. “They give $5.4 billion a year to the media. They’ve gotten rid of the lawyers, so there is no legal interest in those cases. They have really been able to control the debate and silence people like me.“

Asked how things could get this bad, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. explained that in 1989 Congress granted Big Pharma “blanket legal immunity” when it comes to vaccines.
Big Pharma became a law unto themselves. They can put toxic ingredients in your vaccines, they can seriously injure your child – but you cannot sue them.

“What you have to understand is that the vaccine regimen changed dramatically around 1989. The reason it changed, Tucker, is that Congress, drowning in pharmaceutical industry money, did something they have never done for any other industry – they gave blanket legal immunity to all the vaccine companies.

“So that no matter how sloppy the line protocols, no matter how absent the quality control, no matter how toxic the ingredients, or egregious the injury to your child, you cannot sue them.

“So there’s no depositions, there’s no discovery, there’s no class action suits. All of a sudden vaccines became enormously profitable.”

The enormous profits in the unregulated industry meant Big Pharma companies raced each other to produce new and unnecessary vaccines to pump into newborn children – often dozens at a time.

“It became a gold rush for the pharmaceutical industry to add new vaccines to the spectrum.”

And if that wasn’t bad enough news, I came across this bombshell on Facebook yesterday.

According to recent statistics, approximately 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women will develop cancer in their lifetimes. This saddening reality is made worse when it is acknowledged that modern methods of ‘treating’ the disease are often ineffective and only make the symptoms of the disease worse. In fact, according to one Berkeley doctor, chemotherapy doesn’t work 97% of the time.

In the eye-opening video above, Dr. Hardin B. Jones, a former professor of medical physics and physiology at the University of California, Berkeley, discusses how ‘leading edge’ cancer treatment is a sham.

He has personally studied the life expectancy of patients for more than 25 years and has come to the conclusion that chemotherapy does more harm than good. The bone-chilling realization prompted Dr. Jones to speak out against the billion-dollar cancer industry.

“People who refused chemotherapy treatment live on average 12 and a half years longer than people who are undergoing chemotherapy,” said Dr. Jones of his study, which was published in the New York Academy of Science.

These are just two reports. But both paint a picture of Big Pharma that is much, much worse than anything I thought about the industry – and I didn’t have a high opinion of them anyway, as I set out above.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to Bad News about Big Pharma

  1. Timothy Goodacre says:

    Many of us love the aroma of good tobacco and will never give up our cigarettes, cigars, and pipes !

  2. Rhys says:

    If it helps any, you might want to take a look at this entry at snopes =

    Not that I’m a fan of big pharma, but this sounds pretty wonky.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Thanks for that. Always good to get a different opinion.

    • RdM says:

      Good call. It’s a passionate and evidently well-researched article.
      (But who guards the guardians… )
      Thanks for the comment.

      • The article in Snopes is a clear “straw man”, obviously put up by pharma interests as damage control. The article doesn’t mention the study cited in Frank’s linked video: “Chemotherapy does NOT work 97% of the time”

        The only wrong statement in the video is that the cited study is from 2004, not 1994 as Peter Glidden says. The study does in fact show that chemotherapy “does not work”, i.e. it had only a 2.3% impact on survival in Australia (table 1) and a 2.1% impact on survival in the USA (table 2):

        Click to access contribution-of-chemotherapy-to-five-year.pdf

  3. castello2 says:

    It is extra ugly here in the states.

  4. Vlad says:

    About vaccines, thing is babies get a lot more these days than in the past. Now, considering that vaccines do contain some nasty stuff (formaldehyde, aluminum and others) and that ‘dose makes the poison’ it’s very plausible that in a high enough number, vaccines can do damage. The way the authorities and Big Pharma react when anyone questions vaccines doesn’t help their side at all.
    Then there are vaccines like anti-HPV one which appear to be really dangerous and with a dubious rationale for existing in the first place.

    Big Pharma is against not only herbs but vitamins too. Read for instance about Linus Pauling, the 2 times Nobel prize winner, and vitamin C. In his book he calls the healthcare industry the ‘sickness industry’. He and a German doctor developed a theory that cardiovascular disease is in great part due to the lack of vitamin C in our diets. Humans are among the very few animals (along with guinea pigs) who can’t produce any vitamin C. So while scurvy is the final, fatal phase of vitamin C depletion, CHD is a form of sub-clinical scurvy that develops over time. Very interesting. They tested it on guinea pigs and it worked. You can imagine Big Pharma’s reaction. Where would they be without the billions they make out of statins, blood pressure meds and so on.

    • Tony says:

      Hi Vlad, I’m intrigued by your comments about HPV. Genuinely interested because I haven’t heard much about this. I could of course just Google it but is there a source you would recommend?

      • Frank Davis says:

        If you click on HPV in the word cloud in my right margin, you’ll get my postings on HPV.

      • Vlad says:


        Here are a couple of sources:

        My interest was piqued when I saw the news about girls seriously ill shortly after inoculation with this vaccine. To start with I didn’t get why such a push for this vaccine – cervical cancer is quite a rare disease. This vaccine acts against 2 principal strains of HPV virus (which has 100 or so strains) which supposedly causes cervical cancer. Many people are infected with HPV and for most of people it clears on itself. Its approval was fast tracked by FDA, so there’s no person ‘saved’ by this vaccine. The more I dug, the shadier it appeared to be. In this day and age when the move is towards individualized medicine, to line up all 11yrs old girls (and soon boys too) to get this controversial vaccine appears anachronistic to me.

      • Tony says:

        Many thanks Vlad and Frank. Plenty to study there.

  5. M. Cooper says:

    You would all be doing yourselves a big favour if you stopped talking about “big pharma”. The single issue loonies love talking about BIG tobacco, BIG oil and now BIG sugar and BIG alcohol (pardon the caps, but I am trying to write it in the way these people sound). There is no doubt a deal of profiteering in the pharmaceutical industry, but the way to discuss it rationally is not to co-opt the language of neo-proibitionist puritains. Added to that the “anti-vax” movement (if you can call stupidity a movement) is a piss poor source of verifiable informagtion.

    • Vlad says:

      First of all, Big Pharma is a legitimate term. Secondly, as opposed to the other Bigs, there’s something particularly egregious about Big Pharma: most of the times it gets people when they are at their most vulnerable, ie sick. So you can’t use the same yardstick to measure them. Thirdly, it offers many products and services that people don’t want and which Big Pharma shove down their throat in the name of health. (check ups, screenings, anti HPV vaccine and so on). The scientific rationale for them is sketchy at best, negative at worst. Fourthly, it doesn’t operate on the free market like the other industries, but we all pay for their profits via the health system taxes.

  6. jameshigham says:

    Informagtion – I’d like some of that.

  7. Clicky says:

  8. smokingscot says:

    Some good news. Stephen Williams (he of same sex marriage, hiding cigarette displays and plain packs fame – who lost his seat in 2015) did not win at his attempt to become the first ever West of England metro mayor.

    Came third after Tory and labour candidates.

    So no real prospect of a return of Smoke Free South West. Ace!

    Prior to last night he did mention he’d probably put himself forward as the Lib/Dem candidate for his old seat at the General Election.

    Kind of like a floating turd this 50 year old.

  9. Tom says:

    Bias in research: the rule rather than the exception?

    Discussing some of the causes and prevalence of bias in the fields of biomedical research
    As the primary purpose of scientific publication is to share ideas and new results to foster further developments in the field, the increasing prevalence of fraudulent research and retractions is of concern to every scientist since it taints the whole profession and undermines the basic premise of publishing.

    While most scientists tend to dismiss the problem as being due to a small number of culprits – a shortcoming inherent to any human activity – there is a larger issue on the fringes of deception that is far more prevalent and of equal concern, where the adoption of certain practices can blur the distinction between valid research and distortion – between “sloppy science”, “misrepresentation”, and outright fraud (1).

    Bias in research, where prejudice or selectivity introduces a deviation in outcome beyond chance, is a growing problem, probably amplified by:

    the competitive aspects of the profession with difficulties in obtaining funding;
    pressures for maintaining laboratories and staff;
    the desire for career advancement (‘first to publish’ and ‘publish or perish’); and, more recently,
    the monetization of science for personal gain.

    Rather than being “disinterested contributors to a shared common pool of knowledge” (2), some scientists have become increasingly motivated to seek financial rewards for their work through industrial collaborations, consultancy agreements and venture-backed business opportunities; even to the exclusion of concerns regarding the accuracy, transparency and reproducibility in their science. ————— and so on (at the weblink)….

    Just Google “bias in health research” and there are many articles written on this subject.
    There was a very recent MSM article about tens of thousands of “studies” pulled from medical journals recently for being biased and thus outright lies, manipulations and propaganda, but that article, I cannot find.

    • Smoking Lamp says:

      Regarding fraud, manipulation, and lies in medical journals; check out: “Faking Peer-Review” (Here are a few select excerpts):

      “A major cancer journal just retracted 107 papers for faking peer-review, bringing the total for that publisher to 450. How did this happen, and how do we prevent it in the future?”
      “Recently Springer, the publisher of Tumor Biology, retracted 107 papers published in that journal between 2012 and 2016 because of falsified peer-review. This is the largest retraction to date, and clearly represents a systemic problem. This brings the total retractions by Springer for fake reviews to 450. An exploration of what happened here provides some insight into the issue.”

      “How they faked peer-review
      The process of faking peer review was not new, and was rather simple. The authors of the submitted papers suggested reviewers, and helpfully included their e-mail addresses. The names of the suggested reviewers were real experts in the field, but the e-mail addresses submitted were fake and lead to a confederate. The confederates submitted glowing reviews of the papers and suggested publication.

      “Fixing the deeper problem
      In order to have science-based medicine, we need science, and we need science that has all the features I named above – high quality, honesty, transparency, and ethical behavior. Fraud and poor quality in science are a massive drain on limited resources. In medicine the problem is magnified because practitioners are making day-to-day decisions about how to treat patients based on that science.”

      Found at

      • Tom says:

        I think that is the one. I remember seeing it but forgot to bookmark the link and could not find it in my history clutter of links. Thanks for posting the link.

  10. waltc says:

    Chemo: i’d guess that for some % of some kinds of cancer in people who are relatively young and strong to begin with, it may well work. But my observation among friends age 50 and up is that they may, after a year full of miserable side effects and, on occasion, irreversible damage, be allegedly cancer free for a couple of weeks or months and then die anyway as the cancer roars back, stronger than ever. Which has led me to say of it that chemo is what they give you so death doesn’t seem so bad after all.

    Vaccines: back in the day there were far fewer and given at older ages and longer frequencies. Seems quite possible (additives or not) that some infant’s systems are simply overwhelmed by the sheer onslaught. But here’s something else I don’t quite get. Tho a doctor friend insists that the need for “herd immunity” requires the vaccination of all individuals almost as part of their civic duty, when I’ve remarked that if vaccines actually work, the unvaccinated who contract whatever the disease could not infect the others who have seemingly been protected (so therefore the “risk” is only to themselves) he resorts to a dismissive “I’m a doctor, I know best” and doesn’t provide an answer. Anybody got one?

    • Tony says:

      I claim no expertise or knowledge about vaccines but I think the explanation given is that having a vaccinated population will prevent an epidemic whilst not providing full individual protection. This is a mathematical argument along the lines of a birth and death process. For example in a human population, if couples average 2 children each then the population size remains the same. If they have three it grows fast and if one then it shrinks. So the idea is to reduce reproduction below the critical 2 offspring level.
      (Obviously I’m talking about cross infection and viral reproduction in the case of vaccines, not humans)

  11. Joe L. says:

    Maybe I ought to add such smokers into the Smokers’ Graveyard, as casualties not so much of smoking bans, but of smoking cessation products which some smokers try to use in response to smoking bans

    I think you absolutely should add the victims of smoking cessation products to the Graveyard, Frank. Their deaths would have never occurred if not for the current antismoking crusade. I will help find some for you. The non-smoking public needs to see all of the harm that has been caused by this evil.

    On that topic, I’m not sure that “The Smoker’s Graveyard” is the best title for your site. It can easily be misinterpreted as though their deaths were caused by smoking rather than antismoking laws and measures. However, I don’t have a more appropriate title to suggest. “The Antismoking Death Toll” is more accurate but doesn’t really have a good ‘ring’ to it.

  12. nisakiman says:

    Here’s an interesting little off-topic snippet I came across while reading the paper over morning coffee this morning: It was an article about a guy called Nick Ferrari, who recently demolished Diane Abbott on his radio talk show (I guess UK residents will know of him – personally I’d never heard of him until just recently).

    Ferrari recalls a lunch with Farage four years ago at a pub in Victoria, “where they cleared out the entire upstairs so that Nigel could smoke in between courses.

    It’s amazing what you can get away with when you’re a high profile politician.

    But does that mean that if you, for instance, hire one floor of a pub for a private party, the pub is not subject to the smoking bans? Or does it mean that Farage (and the pub concerned) was breaking the law?

    • Frank Davis says:

      I have similar questions about EU president Jean-Claude Juncker, who is by all accounts not only a smoker, but also a chain-smoker. So where does he do all his smoking?

      I very much suspect that the rules simply don’t apply to him.


      His hard-charging lifestyle has long been the stuff of legend in Brussels. A heavy smoker with a nose for wine, Juncker has had to fend off accusations about his drinking for years.

      Dutch Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem, a frequent Juncker critic who succeeded the Luxembourger as head of the Eurogroup, referred to him in 2014 as a “heavy smoker and drinker,” comments for which he later apologized. A Luxembourg journalist once quipped Juncker “doesn’t have a problem with alcohol but without it.”

    • Tony says:

      Boisdale restaurant is in Victoria and boasts a very civilised, legal, outdoor, covered smoking terrace upstairs. Maybe that was the venue?

      • nisakiman says:

        So why did they clear the whole floor ‘so he could have a cigarette in between courses’? If he was on the smoking terrace, they wouldn’t have had to do anything.

        • Tony says:

          Fair point. Maybe to give him some peace and quiet? But that’s not really his style.
          Indoors would have been illegal.
          I can’t believe I just wrote that. What an insane and thoroughly nasty country this is.

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.