How Big Pharma Shapes Public Health? In-Depth Review of “Follow the Science” by Sharyl Attkisson

How Big Pharma Misleads, Obscures, and Prevails

Explore a comprehensive summary of Sharyl Attkisson’s “Follow the Science,” revealing how pharmaceutical companies influence medicine, government, and media. Learn about hidden vaccine risks, controversial drug approvals, and the urgent need for transparency in healthcare. Discover why critical thinking and informed consent matter more than ever.

Ready to uncover the truth behind today’s healthcare controversies? Dive deeper into the full article to learn how corporate influence impacts your health-and what you can do to protect yourself and your loved ones.

Genres

Health, Nutrition, Economics, Corporate Culture, Society Culture

Introduction: Learn how corporate interests and flawed systems impact your health and medical trust.

Follow the Science (2024) investigates the deep influence of the pharmaceutical industry on medicine, government, and media. It highlights how profit motives and high-level collusion have led to misinformation, ethical violations, and the suppression of critical voices. It encourages you to examine the sources of your health care information critically.

Sharyl Attkisson. Follow the Science. How Big Pharma Misleads, Obscures and Prevails. We live in an era where the very systems designed to protect public health may be doing more harm than good.

Despite record-breaking advancements in science and medicine, we’re witnessing a troubling surge in chronic illnesses, mental health disorders and once-rare diseases becoming commonplace. These issues often go unaddressed or even ignored by policy-makers, who seem more focused on preserving the interests of powerful pharmaceutical companies than on addressing the root causes of this health crisis. At the same time, we’re being bombarded with misleading information from trusted institutions, leaving the public in a state of confusion. As narratives around COVID-19 vaccines, drug approvals and other medical issues are shaped by powerful players, it becomes increasingly difficult to determine who has your best interests in mind.

In this environment, scepticism and critical thinking aren’t only justified, they’re necessary. In this summary, you’ll learn how public health agencies, pharmaceutical companies and government policies have shaped the current health crisis. You’ll explore vaccine safety, drug regulation and the controversies surrounding COVID-19, while uncovering how corporate influence and lack of transparency have eroded public trust in medicine. Let’s start by looking at how a national bioterrorism threat after 9-11 laid the foundation for these ongoing concerns.

Hidden risks in the race to prevent bioterrorism

Hidden Risks in the Race to Prevent Bioterrorism In the aftermath of 9-11, the US faced a heightened sense of vulnerability, leading to dramatic shifts in national security policies. Among these, one of the lesser-known but far-reaching consequences was the rapid expansion of bioterrorism preparedness measures, particularly involving vaccines. Fears that terrorists could use smallpox as a weapon prompted the government to roll out a mass vaccination program aimed at military personnel and healthcare workers. Although the initiative was intended to protect against bioterror threats, it quickly raised serious concerns about vaccine safety and government oversight.

While the smallpox vaccine had been critical in eradicating the disease in the US, it came with significant risks. Experts estimated that 1 to 3 individuals per million vaccinated could suffer fatal complications, such as heart inflammation. As the program progressed, adverse reactions began to emerge, but experts believed the true scope of harm was vastly underreported. For every documented case, potentially thousands more went unnoticed, keeping the full scale of harm hidden from the public. A striking example of this underreporting came with the death of NBC journalist David Bloom, who passed away from a blood clot after receiving both smallpox and anthrax vaccines while embedded with troops in Iraq. Initially, his death wasn’t linked to the vaccines, but further investigation raised questions about a potential connection.

Bloom’s case highlighted how many similar deaths or injuries may have been overlooked due to insufficient reporting. By mid-2003, as more side effects came to light, including cases of heart inflammation and civilian deaths, the vaccination program was quietly scaled back. The decision underscored the need for transparency and rigorous oversight in public health initiatives, particularly when lives are at risk. This relates to a broader issue within healthcare, the ethics surrounding informed consent in medical research. We’ll look at that in the next section.

The ethics of informed consent in medical research

The Ethics of Informed Consent in Medical Research Informed consent is a cornerstone of medical ethics, designed to ensure that patients understand the risks of participating in research before agreeing to participate. But not all research studies adhere to this principle. A striking example is the Support Baby Oxygen Study, a government-funded experiment conducted between 2005 and 2009. Aimed at determining the optimal oxygen levels for premature infants, the study revealed how the medical establishment can sometimes mislead patients about the risks involved, even those in highly vulnerable populations.

The study was conducted at 23 prestigious institutions, including Duke and Yale. The mothers of premature infants were told that the study would provide support and assistance, but they weren’t fully informed of the experiment’s true nature. In reality, the infants were randomly assigned to receive either high or low levels of oxygen, and medical staff were given intentionally manipulated readings to prevent them from adjusting the oxygen levels. As a result, the infants were exposed to serious risks, including blindness, brain damage and death. The study’s consent process was later deemed ethically deficient by the Office for Human Research Protections, which concluded that the risks, including death, were not properly disclosed to parents. Despite these findings, political pressure from academic institutions prevented any significant corrective action from being taken.

The support study illustrates how scientific advancement can sometimes come at the expense of patient safety, especially when vulnerable participants are involved. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency and informed consent in medical research, ensuring that ethical standards are upheld to protect patients. This concern also extends to other areas of healthcare, such as the approval process for new drugs, which we’ll cover in the next section.

The controversial approval of Aduhelm and its impact on public trust

The controversial approval of Aduhelm and its impact on public trust In 2021, the Alzheimer’s drug aducanumab, branded as Aduhelm, was introduced as a groundbreaking treatment for millions facing dementia. Marketed as the first drug targeting amyloid plaques, the suspected root cause of Alzheimer’s, it was expected to slow disease progression. But Aduhelm quickly became one of the most controversial pharmaceutical approvals, primarily due to incomplete data supporting its release. Clinical trials of Aduhelm were halted in 2019 after early results suggested the drug was ineffective.

Despite this, Biogen, its manufacturer, reanalyzed the data and collaborated closely with the FDA to push for approval. This raised concerns, particularly when the FDA issued a joint report with Biogen, an unusual move that led to widespread criticism of the agency’s impartiality. This unusual collaboration between a regulatory body and a drug manufacturer fueled concerns about conflicts of interest, and further scrutiny arose from both the scientific community and watchdog groups. The FDA Advisory Committee, which typically provides critical guidance, overwhelmingly opposed Aduhelm, citing insufficient evidence. Ten members voted against it, yet the FDA approved the drug anyway, sparking outrage in the medical community. The concerns didn’t stop with efficacy issues.

Aduhelm’s staggering annual cost of $56,000 threatened to burden Medicare and taxpayers significantly, raising economic concerns beyond the medical controversy. Additionally, reports surfaced linking the drug to severe side effects, including brain swelling and even patient deaths, although Biogen denied any direct connection, asserting that these incidents couldn’t definitively be tied to the drug. In 2023, the FDA approved another Biogen drug, Lekembe, under similar circumstances. Lekembe’s benefits were also marginal, yet it was priced at $26,500 per year, again raising questions about the FDA’s approval process and relationship with pharmaceutical companies.

The need for stricter oversight and transparency in drug approvals is urgent, particularly when public health and taxpayer dollars are at risk. Similar concerns extend to the government’s handling of vaccine safety. Up next.

Government control and the hidden risks of vaccines

Government Control and the Hidden Risks of Vaccines Vaccines have long been seen as essential tools in the fight against disease. Yet many aspects of their development, safety and regulation remain hidden from public view. While they’re vital for preventing outbreaks and saving lives, the conversation surrounding vaccine safety has often been dominated by corporate interests and government assurances, leaving critical ethical concerns unanswered. A major issue is the lack of transparency about potential vaccine risks.

Although serious side effects are rare, they can be devastating, ranging from brain damage to paralysis. This information isn’t always clearly communicated, once again undermining the principle of informed consent. Many individuals, particularly parents of vaccine-injured children, find themselves caught in a legal system that shields vaccine manufacturers from liability. The Vaccine Court, set up to handle these claims in the US, operates under strict limitations, offering limited recourse for those seeking justice. This imbalance leaves victims battling an uphill legal struggle, facing systems designed to protect the pharmaceutical industry over individuals. Historical precedents, such as the DPT vaccine causing brain injuries, remind us that even widely accepted vaccines can pose serious risks.

Yet public health officials and pharmaceutical companies have long controlled the narrative around vaccines, consistently downplaying or ignoring such concerns. The case of Hannah Poling, whose vaccine-related autism case was quietly settled by the government, raises questions about how much is being kept from public awareness, especially regarding vulnerable children. Looking at more recent events, the stakes grow higher. The COVID-19 pandemic brought these tensions into sharp focus.

Government promises about vaccine efficacy and safety were soon undermined by conflicting data and widespread misinformation. With top officials falling ill despite heavy vaccination campaigns, the cracks in the public health narrative began to show. What followed was a growing erosion of public trust, fuelled by missteps and mixed messaging from the highest levels of leadership. Next, we’ll examine how these failures in transparency and communication during COVID-19 shook the public’s confidence in the very institutions meant to protect them.

How public health misinformation undermined trust during COVID-19

How public health misinformation undermined public trust during COVID-19. In July 2022, when President Biden contracted COVID-19 twice, his infections brought to light a glaring issue, the confusion and misinformation surrounding the pandemic. Biden, along with other top officials like Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Rochelle Walensky, had assured the public that vaccines would prevent illness. Yet all had multiple infections, despite being heavily vaccinated, raising significant questions about the public health narrative.

One of the first key missteps was the guidance to isolate at home. Early data showed that a majority of COVID-19 hospitalisations involved people who had followed this advice. Governor Cuomo revealed that 66% of hospitalised patients had been sheltering at home, yet this revelation was largely ignored. Instead of advising people to spend more time outdoors, public health authorities persisted in promoting isolation, contributing to widespread illness. In the media, fear-based narratives were perpetuated, such as claims that the 2020 Sturgis motorcycle rally was a super-spreading event. Though studies later showed this was an exaggeration, the initial reports went uncorrected, further feeding public fear.

Dr. Fauci, one of the most prominent voices during the pandemic, made several contradictory statements, particularly about the lethality of COVID-19 and the efficacy of masks. While he initially downplayed the seriousness of the virus in scientific journals, his public statements painted a much more alarming picture. This inconsistency undermined public trust in health authorities. The miscalculation of COVID-19’s fatality rate also fuelled unnecessary panic. Health officials routinely exaggerated the death rate by omitting asymptomatic cases from their calculations, leading to inflated figures. Vaccination data also began to challenge the official narrative.

As more people became vaccinated, infection rates continued to rise, contradicting the initial claims of vaccine effectiveness. Additionally, natural immunity was consistently downplayed, even though evidence showed it provided stronger protection than vaccines for many individuals. The repeated failures in messaging and policy left the public questioning the reliability of health authorities. As misinformation spread from both government sources and the media, public trust in these institutions eroded, leaving many sceptical of the advice they were given.

Politics over science in COVID-19 treatment decisions

Politics over science in COVID-19 treatment decisions In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, a global scramble ensued to find effective treatments for the virus before vaccines were available. Hydroxychloroquine, a drug with a long history of treating malaria, emerged as a candidate after studies in China and France suggested it could help. But what followed wasn’t a straightforward evaluation of the drug’s potential. Instead, political and financial interests muddied the waters, creating confusion around its effectiveness.

Early on, the media began portraying hydroxychloroquine as dangerous, fuelled by an online report from the Veterans Affairs Department that linked it to increased deaths in COVID-19 patients. Despite this, other studies pointed to the drug’s possible benefits when used in the early stages of infection. This divide in the perception of hydroxychloroquine wasn’t based purely on science, but was deeply influenced by politics. With President Trump endorsing the drug, media outlets framed it as a miracle cure despite his measured statements. His support became a reason for some media outlets to discredit the drug. At the same time, a newer drug called Remdesivir, originally developed for Ebola, gained support from the public health establishment, even though it had limited benefits.

It was approved for emergency use by the FDA, while hydroxychloroquine was restricted to hospital use, limiting its potential for early intervention. Scientists like Dr. William O’Neill observed that politics had taken precedence over sound science, noting that many studies on hydroxychloroquine were halted due to fear generated by media narratives. Ultimately, these decisions may have favoured vaccine development over inexpensive treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, which were both sidelined despite evidence suggesting their benefits. The influence of pharmaceutical companies and conflicts of interest among health officials raised concerns about whether financial motivations were shaping public health policy. By following the money, it becomes clear that profit-driven interests may have dictated which treatments received support and which were dismissed.

The overlooked consequences of Long Covid and vaccine reactions

The Overlooked Consequences of Long Covid and Vaccine Reactions In the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, another significant health crisis has emerged, often referred to as Long Covid and Long Vax. These conditions appear to be linked to spike proteins and microclotting issues in the body, affecting millions of people worldwide. By early 2024, up to 25% of adults were already reporting signs of long-term illness, many of them vaccinated. But the vaccine’s potential role in exacerbating these conditions is often ignored in public discussions.

The illnesses, which surface long after the virus or vaccine is cleared, present a wide range of symptoms, from brain fog and muscle stiffness to severe complications like strokes and heart attacks. Doctors are often at a loss, dismissing these patients or misdiagnosing them due to a lack of guidance on testing and treatment. Fortunately, a small group of independent physicians is stepping in to fill the gap. Dr. Jordan Vaughan, an internal medicine specialist in Alabama, is one such doctor. His work focuses on microclots, tiny undetectable clots in the bloodstream that he’s found in hundreds of patients suffering from these long-term conditions. Using therapies like anticoagulants, Dr. Vaughan has successfully treated patients who were previously bedridden or severely impaired.

The root of the problem seems to lie in the spike protein, whether from the virus or the vaccine, which triggers abnormal blood clotting. This clotting disrupts oxygen flow to vital organs, leading to systemic health issues. Despite some emerging research, the broader medical community has been slow to acknowledge the problem. As independent doctors continue their work, there are signs that more attention is finally being paid to these conditions. But for those suffering, proper diagnosis and treatment remain elusive. Without cohesive action from the medical establishment, patients must seek out specialists who are willing to tackle these complex health issues head-on.

Conclusion

The main takeaway of this summary-to-follow-the-science by Cheryl Atkison is that health systems, while designed to safeguard, are often compromised by corporate influence, lack of transparency and conflicts of interest. From rushed drug approvals to incomplete vaccine safety data, powerful players in medicine and government have sometimes prioritised profits over patient well-being. But as more independent doctors and researchers challenge the status quo, there’s hope for a more transparent and accountable health system. By staying informed and questioning official narratives, you can play a role in advocating for better healthcare for all.