Thanks! I still agree. I think people lived without that drug.

If it makes you feel any better….



If polio cases and deaths went way up the year we rolled out vaccines and if we were told we had to get updated polio “vaccines” every year that provide only a few months of protection and wouldn’t prevent infection or spread then I’d be against polio vaccines as well.

Did that happen?

Was there long-term (5-10 years, post phase-III trial) data for Polio vaccines prior to approval?

Are Polio vaccines sterilizing?

Are Polio vaccines single dose?

Do "they" mandate kids get vaccinated (multiple shots) for Polio?

Is there any risk of adverse events following vaccination against Polio?

How does excess mortality look in years surrounding Polio epidemics?

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/h...ch/08drug.html


The drug maker Pfizer earlier this decade manipulated the publication of scientific studies to bolster the use of its epilepsy drug Neurontin for other disorders, while suppressing research that did not support those uses, according to experts who reviewed thousands of company documents for plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the company.

Pfizer’s tactics included delaying the publication of studies that had found no evidence the drug worked for some other disorders, “spinning” negative data to place it in a more positive light, and bundling negative findings with positive studies to neutralize the results, according to written reports by the experts, who analyzed the documents at the request of the plaintiffs’ lawyers.

One of the experts who reviewed the documents,Dr. Kay Dickersin of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, concluded that the Pfizer documents spell out “a publication strategy meant to convince physicians of Neurontin’s effectiveness and misrepresent or suppress negative findings.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/b...ay%20afternoon.


AstraZeneca paid kickbacks to doctors as part of an illegal scheme to market drugs for unapproved uses,” Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of health and human services, said at the event in Washington. She saidthe company promoted drugs for unapproved uses by children, the elderly, veterans and prisoners.

AstraZeneca becomes the fourth pharmaceutical giant in the last three years to pay to settle federal investigations into illegal marketing of antipsychotic drugs, a lucrative category of medications that have quickly risen to the top of United States sales charts.

As a result of aggressive marketing, Seroquel has been increasingly used for children and elderly people for indications not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The drugs have caused rapid weight gain in children, and side effects including deaths have prompted warnings against giving the drugs to elderly patients for dementia.


The company, based in London, has been accused of misleading doctors and patients byplaying up favorable research and not adequately disclosing studies that show Seroquel increases the risk of diabetes.

Pay to Play, corporate America.

Corruption fears as it emerges creators of America's new psychiatric 'bible' received more than $14m from big pharma

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...ig-pharma.html

Good find. It’s already apparent that there is a huge push to put people on those drugs, as evidenced by the number of adults(and sadly, more and more commonly teens and children) who are prescribed these drugs. Imagine going back to the 70’s and telling people “in less than 50 years, millions of children will be on amphetamines and over 10% of adults will be on psychiatric medication(s)”. Yet that’s exactly where we find ourselves.



More than half of US physicians who helped create America's psychiatric 'Bible' received payments from big pharma, raising concerns about conflicts of interest.

An analysis published in BMJ found that physicians who worked on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - the DSM-5-TR - received a total of $14.2 million in payments from the pharmaceutical industry, which psychiatrists called 'an intellectual and clinical crisis.'

The researchers warned that it could lead to bias and physicians who are paid by drug manufacturers pushing ineffective treatments.

DSM-5-TR is a manual used to diagnose mental health conditions such as anxiety, depression, and bipolar - and it's long been considered the gold standard in defining and recommending treatments for psychiatric conditions.

The findings come amid broader concerns about industry influence on US policy, including food, defense, and medical guidance.

The researchers found that of the eligible 92 US-based physicians who worked on the manual, 60 percent received payments from the pharmaceutical industry, which totaled $14.2 million.

Because the DSM-5-TR has an enormous influence on diagnostic and treatment guidelines, the researchers warned that their findings 'raise questions about the editorial independence of this diagnostic manual.'

One anonymous psychiatrist quoted in the study said: '[T]he increasing influence of the pharmaceutical industry on psychiatric research and practice is leading to an intellectual and clinical crisis.'


The researchers also found that 70 percent of payments were allocated for research funding.

They pointed out that this was excluded from the APA's disclosure policy for the manual's previous edition, the DSM-5.

'As researchers, clinicians, policymakers, and leaders in evidence-based medicine have argued, guideline writers should be free of financial relationships with industry, especially those writers who are responsible for such an influential manual on psychiatric taxonomy,' the team wrote.

The researchers also noted that physicians with financial ties to big pharma could skew results.

'Researchers have consistently shown that conflicts of interest lead to subtle but impactful pro-industry thinking and conclusions,' the team wrote.

They pointed to a 2016 review, which found that when meta-analyses of antidepressants included an author who worked for or with the drug's manufacturer, the study was 22 times 'less likely to have negative statements about the drug than other meta-analyses.'





Geee, I wonder what conclusions that “research” will reach.

Some years ago one of bayers meds was contaminated with hiv and th3y couldn't sell it in the states. So instead, they sold it overseas and many people got sick from it. And course nobody went to jail.

Yeah, that's the first post in this thread

It's why all products from pharmaceutical companies are bad.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC416587/


Pfizer, the world's largest drug maker, pleaded guilty on 13 May to numerous civil and criminal charges for illegally promoting the off-label use of gabapentin (Neurontin). It has agreed to pay a $240m (£136m; €200m) criminal fine and $152m to state and federal healthcare programmes. The fine is the second largest given in the industry.

Meanwhile, off-label sales of gabapentin continue to soar, despite evidence that the drug is not effective for some of the problems it is used to treat.

Dr Franklin's suit detailed how the company suppressed study results, planted people in medical audiences to ask questions intended to put gabapentin in a good light, lavished perks on doctors, used ghostwriters, gave generous “consultation fees” to “thought leaders,” and used psychological profiling of doctors in its successful bid to move gabapentin to so called blockbuster status (annual sales in excess of $1bn) (BMJ 2003;326: 620 [Google Scholar]). Dr Franklin said that off-label uses accounted for more than 90% of the drug's $2.7bn sales worldwide last year.

“A lot of people say it's a benign drug,” said Dr Franklin. “But it's dangerous when patients are [taken off other] drugs that are effective.”

Dr Matthew Keats, assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at Eastern Virginia Medical School, agrees, citing the case of a 16 year old man who committed suicide in May 2002 while taking gabapentin. “The shocking aspect of the story is that the manufacturer funded a study and knew as early as 1998 that Neurontin didn't work in bipolar disorder. But they didn't publish the results until two years later. Yet we still see it prescribed for bipolar disorder.”

The settlement is not a major setback for Pfizer, whose worldwide sales of gabapentin rose from $1.3bn in 2000 to $2.7bn in 2003.

The company's promotional efforts, Dr Franklin said, were “profoundly effective.” He added, “A huge majority of people taking [gabapentin] now are taking it for the wrong reasons.”

Yep.

They bad.

I hope nobody has Advil in their house!

https://www.drugwatch.com/topamax/lawsuits/


Families of babies born with birth defects began filing lawsuits against Janssen in 2011 — the same year the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) required Topamax’s makers to add a warning in the drug’s prescribing information highlighting the increased risk of cleft palate and cleft lip.

The new warnings were based on the FDA’s analysis of data from the North American Antiepileptic (NAAED) Pregnancy Registry, a surveillance effort that monitors the safety of seizure medications.The data showed that the risk of an infant being born with a cleft lip or palate was 21 times greater when a woman took topiramate during her first trimester of pregnancy.

At the time, Topamax had been on the market for 15 years without such warnings. From January 2007 through December 2010, pharmacies dispensed about 32.3 million topiramate prescriptions, and about 4.3 million patients filled topiramate prescriptions from U.S. pharmacies.

With information about drug risks, women and health care providers can consider other health care options, such as different epilepsy or migraine treatments, plaintiffs argued. By not warning them about the drug’s dangers, Janssen deprived them of this choice.

Lawsuits pointed to the fact that the company failed to issue adequate warnings despite evidence of increased birth defect risks. Plaintiffs maintained that cleft palate and cleft lip may require surgery and other costly medical treatment that could have been prevented if the drugmaker had not neglected its legal duty to warn about risks.

Topamax makers have also paid fines for improperly promoting the drug to treat bipolar disorder, drug and alcohol dependency, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and a number of other psychiatric conditions.

The drug’s only approved uses are for treating seizure disorders and preventing migraine headaches. Off-label promotion of pharmaceuticals is illegal.

A federal investigation prompted by whistleblowers revealed that the makers of Topamax paid doctors as much as $3,000 a day to accompany sales representatives on visits with other physicians to promote off-label use of Topamax. Court records show that one physician participating in the “Doctors-for-a-Day” program received $500,000 for 200 meetings with doctors.

Company documents show that drug executives told physicians that their colleagues “can talk to you about things I can’t talk to you about,” Bloomberg News reported.

In 2010, under a plea agreement with the U.S. Justice Department, the manufacturers admitted to misbranding and illegally marketing the drug for unapproved uses and agreed to pay more than $81 million in fines.

Topamax bad, Advil bad

B-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma following intravenous BNT162b2 mRNA booster in a BALB/c mouse: A case report
"Two days following booster vaccination (i.e., 16 days after prime), at only 14 weeks of age, our animal suffered spontaneous death with marked organomegaly and diffuse malignant infiltration of multiple extranodal organs (heart, lung, liver, kidney, spleen) by lymphoid neoplasm."

"Our murine case adds to previous clinical reports on malignant lymphoma development following novel mRNA COVID-19 vaccination."


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10183601/

Same authors:

"Two days following booster vaccination (i.e., 16 days after prime), at only 14 weeks of age, our animal suffered spontaneous death with marked organomegaly and diffuse malignant infiltration of multiple extranodal organs (heart, lung, liver, kidney, spleen) by lymphoid neoplasm."

"Our murine case adds to previous clinical reports on malignant lymphoma development following novel mRNA COVID-19 vaccination."

Half of Vaccinated People May Never Stop Producing Spike Protein, Study Finds

“A clever scientific study by Brogna et al., just published, detected the presence of spike protein in Covid-vaccinated people six months after vaccination – and excluded the possibility of cross-contamination of experimental data with wild-circulating Covid infections……”

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...prca.202300048

https://www.igor-chudov.com/p/half-o...ple-never-stop

6 months is eternity.

Pharma bad.

Never buy, consume, or interact with any products made by pharmaceutical companies.

Ever.

Pfizer and Moderna vaxxes both have a small section of the SV40 virus in them as a contaminant from the process used to make the modRNA.


https://www.nature.com/articles/1205173
SV40 as a whole is known to cause cancer [link towww.nature.com(secure) and was accidentally included in polio shots.
"In 1994, PCR and protein studies suggested that SV40 DNA sequences and proteins were present in 29/48 (60%) USA human mesothelioma samples. "


PfizerVector from an EMA document.

It wasn't "accidentally included" in the Polio shots and you're comparing apples to orangutans.

Also, you're citing 1994.

Also, that paper reported the presence of SV40 was in peoplenotexposed to the vaccine.

PfizerVector from an EMA document.

Covid vaccines change the microbiome
For quite a while

"Via very complex metabolic processes, Anaerobutyricum hallii potentially plays a role in protecting the colon from cancer by depleting food carcinogens, this one was also less abundant even after 6 months."

"Flavonifractor plautii, a bacteria that increases with green tea consumption, directly suppresses IL-17 and here we see a persistent small decrease even after 6 months."

https://hiddencomplexity.substack.co...the-microbiome

The paper doesn't mention covid vaccines even once. It was a study of kids with leukemia

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41568-023-00584-4

WAT?? No chit lol... it demonstrates the harm of SV40..which is associated with the Covid ClotShot

"SV40" is not in the paper

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10184721/


Here, we present a case of an elderly female who received the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine and developed a high-grade sarcoma at the site of the injection.

Based on an extensive search, we describe the first case of rapidly progressive, high-grade undifferentiated sarcoma that seems to have a strong association with the Moderna vaccination.

She noticed the swelling two to four days after receiving her second dose of the Moderna vaccine within 1 cm from the prior injection site. Physical examination was remarkable for a 6 cm, circular, mobile, soft mass present in the right upper arm. MRI with and without contrast revealed a 5.2 cm soft tissue mass overlying the triceps region with irregular features concerning for malignancy. Fine needle aspiration revealed pathologic characteristics indicative of high-grade sarcoma. The patient ultimately had resection of the mass four months after the initial visit and was diagnosed as having grade 3, stage IIIA undifferentiated, pleomorphic high-grade sarcoma. Herein, we present a case demonstrating the development of high-grade sarcoma at the injection site in an elderly female patient within days of receiving the second dose of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine.

really..?

https://www.nature.com/articles/1205173

That's a completely different paper.

it's the one I linked in post #109

An immune evasion mechanism with IgG4 playing an essential role in cancer and implication for immunotherapy

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32819973/