How sad to think that there are still people out there who are influenced by anything the NYT writes. The NYT is quite obviously a PR outlet. At least, when they’re not being told which stories to spin for the DS; at that point they are straight up propaganda outlets. People magazine has as much credibility as the NYT, the WSJ and WaPo. Garbage.
All the mainstream newspaper and TV channels are PR outlets. Full time.
Real news doesn't pay. Only propaganda pays (for the media).
Yes, citizen journalism is where it’s at. Use uncensored platforms like X to get the headlines and then use LLMs to go deeper. Skip Google (Google is evil too).
If X censors certain criticism of X or Elon Musk, I don't mind it. The company and its owner deserve at least that much privilege. Anyway, you have many other platforms available to criticize X and Elon Musk.
But AFAIK, X does not censor any opinions on health matters, economy, politics, war, immigration, abortion, DEI, and so on.
I’ll have to take your word about x vis a vis censorship. I was permanently banned in 2020 for challenging the (s)election and Covid protocols. I’ve never tried to go back. At one point I was informed I could have the immense privilege of being on x if I apologized. As I had never made an ad hominem attack or threatened anyone, I saw no need to apologize. What would I say? “Sorry y’all are so stupid?” “Sorry I’m right and you’re all sheep weezils?”
I’m pretty sure that even if I would apologize, which I won’t, (ever) my apology would not be acceptable.
Kimberly, the Twitter of 2020 and Twitter (X) of today are as different as day and night.
Twitter of 2020 was a hotbed of censorship. Then Elon Musk bought it in October 2022, renamed it X, and liberated it from the clutches of evil censors.
Hopefully, now you can simply go back and join X without any hassle.
Was banned from Twitter for making a true statement, repeated attempts to go back have failed. Musk hasn't done anything to bring back those censored for telling the truth, other than some high profile accounts, like Trump for example
I mean, I’m still banned. Am I supposed to appeal? Screw that. If Musk was serious about restoring the first amendment, he might have blanket “pardoned” everyone, then, if absolutely necessary, weed out the violent loons. Perhaps I don’t understand how the tech of it all works. And TBH, I no longer care. Before being permanently banned I was shadow banned and suppressed. (Sickening. Can’t stand and disagree? Kill all dissent. Weak and cowardly. ) Just the fact that the capability to suppress free speech, without concern of punishment, exists anywhere, means we do not have free speech.
Why don't they interview parents of autistic children! That's where they will see the truth and connect the dots! All this scientific splitting of hairs mean nothing if autism has increased along with the increase in vaccines!
We sued v. Thimerosal in 2002 in U.S District Court. We were railroaded by an act of Congress via the "Lilly Rider." Afterwards I published this which is still true today.
“Vaccines Are Unavoidably Unsafe” Don’t take my word for it. These are the words of Justice Scalia in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, LLC in a Supreme Court decision in 2011. Unfortunately, due to the protections afforded the vaccine maker in the National Childhood Vaccine Act of 1986, the Court ruled against a vaccine injured plaintiff in the case. How?
In the 1980s, children were having adverse reactions to the DTP (diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis) vaccine. Lots of lawsuits were being filed against docs and vaccine manufacturers. This caused the pharmaceutical industry to threaten pulling out of the vaccine market, and the alarm bells rang that the nation’s health and safety were at risk. Why were vaccine manufacturers getting ready to take their ball and go home? Because vaccines fall into a class of products considered “unavoidably unsafe.” I am not kidding you. This “unavoidable” word comes from the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act itself “products which, in the present state of human knowledge, are quite incapable of being made safe.”
In 1986, Congress decided on a way to compensate folks for these avoidable injuries and death. It is called the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. From 2001 until 2011 the program has compensated about 2500 families a total of $2 billion. There has been close to $4 billion paid to date since inception. But, that represents only a small fraction of those who actually brought claims to the Vaccine Court. You see, there is a 36 month window to bring the claim. There is no “tolling” granted for minors, unlike all the Civil Courts in the U.S. Guess what? Neurological injuries may not present in infants for long after 36 months. Furthermore, who knows how many cases were never brought by attorneys on behalf of a vaccine injured child, because the statute of limitations ran out?
Don’t let anyone tell you that vaccines don’t cause injury. They have, they do and they will do so in the future. For years, Thimerosal was used as a preservative in multi-dose vials. While still proclaiming it “safe”, vaccine makers “voluntarily” removed Thimerosal. It is still present in trace amounts and in flu vaccine. Thimerosal was never approved by the FDA, as the patents predated the establishment of said regulations. Worried?
With nearly 6,000 cases pending the USCFC held the “Omnibus Autism Hearings.” They decided not to make “autism” a “table injury.” How convenient. Since there would never be enough money to pay for all who claim an “autism” injury. But, there have been many cases compensated for “encephalopathy” as a diagnosis with reference to autism. You can read it for yourself:
For the record, I am not “anti-vaccine.” Both of my children were fully vaccinated. Unfortunately for us, our son was neurologically disabled by vaccines. It is indisputable, yet the government and the vaccine makers still think that there is a “greater good” to be served.
They may be right. But, let’s not fool ourselves. Vaccines can be made safer. It is about money.
I'm from the generation than went through the relatively mild symptoms of both Measles and Chicken pox, not knowing a single person that got seriously ill.
Indeed one single trip to the shops by car, represented a greater risk of dying than the couple of days of suffering slightly from Chicken pox.
When the jabs were being promoted it was about reducing days off work for working mum's.
Born in 1961, youngest of five and my mother couldn't remember if I'd had chicken pox. She assumed I had. It turned out I had not when I contracted it at age 53. The horror stories I read about having it as an older adult! DANGER!!! SERIOUS complications! Yes, it was nasty but I had no choice but to let it run it's unpleasant course. I took valacyclovir and was careful not to pick at the lesions, have no scars and nothing bad happened. Now at 64, I'm told I'll get shingles if I don't get the Safe and Effective Shingrix.
Everyone we knew when young had measles & not one person died. Apparently, at one time they used to throw measles parties to expose all to it (except those pregnant).
Conversely, my one offspring had all the requisite childhood shots (too bad I didn’t know then, what I now know) & had measles 3 times! I kid you not.
Pharma always exclaims that "the benefits outweigh the risks," in response to doubts about the safety and effectiveness of their products. Their claims are self-referential because they manufacture the promotional material that is the source for their own claims.
"Safe and effective" is a marketing slogan. It informs the public of nothing. They key element here is "liability." Phrma has zero incentive to protect the public. This is unconscionable in a justice system that provides due process constitutional protections.
It’s a cray world that one must declare, “I’m not anti-vax.” Any time I challenge the verse in a comment, I am angrily called one of those nutjob anti-vaxxers. I always inquire, what makes you think I am? Sadly, I am not & yet years of learning have enlightened me to the harms. I wish I have a do-over with my offspring.
Thanks for your efforts with AI training. AI is typically so biased in my experience, for example when I ask it to consider the injuries or harm from the mRNA campaign, the response is to classify any harm as "rare" even ignoring obvious recent research.
This might be the least biased system out there. 2 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars later it is nearing release. Let me know if you'd be interested in beta testing it in the near future and thanks for your interest!!
I've encountered very liberal-leaning (narrative supporting) AI tools that don't provide the kind of results you have.
I've seen in my own experience that there's no acknowledgement of an issue until *I* provide proof that X occurred or demonstrated competency in a field where it can't deny it. But inquiries into whether it will be used to modify it's reasoning with others demonstrates that it will not be used, thus keeping other people in the dark.
I've also seen others' interactions where the AI tool has been ORDERED to NOT assist people on certain topics. (Election integrity, for one)
This is a great example of A.I. being used properly, as a tool to help people organize data and think about information, instead of thinking that it can do all our thinking for us. It's still about and always will be about asking the right questions.
It could just be that I like what the A.I. said because I agree with it. That's why I consider it so important to keep trying to think for my self, for as long as I can manage it, until I succumb like everyone else. If you know what I mean.
I know what you mean! You can always ask AI to steel man the opposite point. I don't think it is a thing to succumb to. I view it as something that augments cognition, like a sword, a pencil writing and storing words on paper, a calculator, a car, or computer program. Of course those are not nearly the level of AI--each does varying degrees of things to extend the control you have over reality using your own cognition, but it must be in your own control. AI can go far beyond your control in a new way, versus these other tools where you "become one" with them and use them as an "extension of yourself".
Definitely, the power of AI makes it possible to become lazy in ways that are bad, but with care and proper use, it can amplify one's own creative energy and match the intention of an individual in a way that is very great, directed, and under human control...which taps into the very thing that separates humans from animals.
I agree, naturally, but I still can't think about how the invention of fire and knives has weakened human teeth and jaws as a result of not needing to tear meat apart the way we used to.
Excellent article & use of AI. I think it is very important to share with readers how so many have been indoctrinated due to MA$$IVE money spent on MEDIA, campaigns, lobbyists, doctors, etc.
I began noticing about the time that Rfk jr, once hailed as “Hero of the Year,” on Time Magazine, he was suddently demoted. This came about the time that he began to question dangerous ingredients in medicines & vaccines.
Every single article I would bring up online re Rfk jr would begin, “the conspiracy nut, the anti-vaxxer, unfounded claims”… Then when that wasn’t enough negative press, they ramped it up to include utter defamation & character assassination: “anti-semitic, womanizer,” etc.
If you look who is behind these negative attacking articles, you find that big pharm pays BILLION$ to media ( NYT & other have sold their souls), BILLION$ to lobbyists, BILLION$ TO insurance companies, BILLION$ to doctors, BILLION$ to social media & influencers, ads, educational institutions…just to name a few.
Imagine if big pharm instead of trying to cover-up the harms & attacking & bribing people, that they worked on cures & truly trying to help people instead?
I have researched & found many articles discussing $$$ Pharm spends, but here , below, I asked AI just for an overview that I’ve not organized well, but at a glance, you can see.
Media Advertising -BILLION$ ANNUALLY
Television $4 billion+
Digital Advertising $3 billion+
Print Media $1 billion+
Radio $400 million+
(Billboards, etc.). $600 million*
Pharm to Lobbyists:
Total Lobbying Spending (1998 - Mid-2025): Over $6.36 billion
2024 Lobbying Spending: Approximately $387.47 million
Major Lobbying Group: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, spending over $31.72 million in 2024.
Political Campaigns:
The pharmaceutical industry contributed about $41.02 million to federal political campaigns in 2024.
Payments to Doctors:
Total Payments: In the U.S., it is estimated that doctors receive approximately up to $3 billion annually from pharmaceutical companies. This includes all forms of payments, such as consulting fees, speaking engagements, and research funding.
Consulting Fees:
-Estimated at $500 million to $1 billion annually. This includes payments for expert opinions and advisory roles.
Speaking Engagements:
-Roughly $300 million to $600 million annually. This covers honoraria and expenses for speaking at industry-sponsored events.
Research Funding:
-Estimated at $700 million to $1 billion annually. This includes funding for clinical trials and research studies.
Gifts and Meals:
-Approximately $200 million to $400 million annually. This includes meals, promotional items, and other gifts.
Educational Grants:
-Estimated at $100 million to $300 million annually. This covers grants for educational programs and CME courses.
Payments to doctors for vaccine injections:
Doctors typically receive an administration fee for each vaccine given, which can range from $15 to $30 per vaccine, depending on the vaccine and the healthcare provider's agreements with insurers.
-Total Vaccine Payments:
If we consider that millions of vaccines are administered annually, the total payments for vaccine administration could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. For example, if 100 million vaccines are administered at an average fee of $20, that would total $2 billion.
Impact of payments:
Influence on Prescribing Practices: Research has shown that financial relationships between doctors and pharmaceutical companies can lead to increased prescribing of certain medications, even when alternatives may be more appropriate.
Transparency and Regulation: Many countries have implemented regulations requiring disclosure of payments made to healthcare professionals. In the U.S., the Physician Payments Sunshine Act mandates that pharmaceutical companies report payments to doctors, which are then made publicly available.
Ethical Considerations: The acceptance of payments from pharmaceutical companies raises ethical questions about conflicts of interest and the integrity of medical advice. Some medical organizations advocate for stricter guidelines to limit these interactions.
This analysis is truly brilliant, and so succinct.
I have friends for whom the NYT is like the bible is for religious zealots -- they just can't even begin to consider that maybe it should be questioned. This really stretches friendships!
Steve, could you send the link for the AI that was used for this analysis? I want to try it. Thanks.
Jessica Steier's financial conflicts of interest are what stood out to me:
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Unbiased_Science_Podcast
Nice find. Now that is an awesome website. It's giving me some ideas...
Things will get really exciting then .
Wow!
Ditto!
Any mention of "misinformation" is disqualifying. It's shocking that scientists don't recognize the double speak.
Today's Big Pharma was yesterday's Big Tobacco. Same shady tactics to keep that money train moving.
Big pHARMa is huge in comparison to Big Tobacco...
... and today's congress is as corrupted, or more, as yesterday's; same shady tactics...
Absolutely!
How sad to think that there are still people out there who are influenced by anything the NYT writes. The NYT is quite obviously a PR outlet. At least, when they’re not being told which stories to spin for the DS; at that point they are straight up propaganda outlets. People magazine has as much credibility as the NYT, the WSJ and WaPo. Garbage.
Citizen journalism is where it’s at.
All the mainstream newspaper and TV channels are PR outlets. Full time.
Real news doesn't pay. Only propaganda pays (for the media).
Yes, citizen journalism is where it’s at. Use uncensored platforms like X to get the headlines and then use LLMs to go deeper. Skip Google (Google is evil too).
To add: I’m not certain X is completely uncensored, but that could just be me and my generalized and free-floating skepticism.
X is censored, because it has happened to me.
I think X is essentially uncensored.
If X censors certain criticism of X or Elon Musk, I don't mind it. The company and its owner deserve at least that much privilege. Anyway, you have many other platforms available to criticize X and Elon Musk.
But AFAIK, X does not censor any opinions on health matters, economy, politics, war, immigration, abortion, DEI, and so on.
I’ll have to take your word about x vis a vis censorship. I was permanently banned in 2020 for challenging the (s)election and Covid protocols. I’ve never tried to go back. At one point I was informed I could have the immense privilege of being on x if I apologized. As I had never made an ad hominem attack or threatened anyone, I saw no need to apologize. What would I say? “Sorry y’all are so stupid?” “Sorry I’m right and you’re all sheep weezils?”
I’m pretty sure that even if I would apologize, which I won’t, (ever) my apology would not be acceptable.
Kimberly, the Twitter of 2020 and Twitter (X) of today are as different as day and night.
Twitter of 2020 was a hotbed of censorship. Then Elon Musk bought it in October 2022, renamed it X, and liberated it from the clutches of evil censors.
Hopefully, now you can simply go back and join X without any hassle.
Was banned from Twitter for making a true statement, repeated attempts to go back have failed. Musk hasn't done anything to bring back those censored for telling the truth, other than some high profile accounts, like Trump for example
I mean, I’m still banned. Am I supposed to appeal? Screw that. If Musk was serious about restoring the first amendment, he might have blanket “pardoned” everyone, then, if absolutely necessary, weed out the violent loons. Perhaps I don’t understand how the tech of it all works. And TBH, I no longer care. Before being permanently banned I was shadow banned and suppressed. (Sickening. Can’t stand and disagree? Kill all dissent. Weak and cowardly. ) Just the fact that the capability to suppress free speech, without concern of punishment, exists anywhere, means we do not have free speech.
Yes! Google is hella evil. All meta products are. We are slaves to electronics. Gotta break the bonds.
I’m workin on it .
100% and then, we should still hold Citizen Journo's (CJs) to account as with ALL media AND politicians.
Truth and freedom require persistent vigilance!
Yay! Right on.
Couldn’t have said it better. What I can’t believe is that so many of my friends still believe that garbage. Hard to reprogram from it I guess.
Brilliant. Thanks for this!
Thanks for reading! Subscribe for more info, I'll send you a link to try it for free if you would like.
Thanks, Max.
Generosity always makes me smile.
You would think the detractors would welcome an independent study by RFK jr if indeed the vaccines do not cause autism….
They don't want anyone to question the status quo.
Why don't they interview parents of autistic children! That's where they will see the truth and connect the dots! All this scientific splitting of hairs mean nothing if autism has increased along with the increase in vaccines!
The parents are blamed, shunned, denied, gaslit and traumatized.
Speaking from experience….i agree.
Great point. I use interviews with mothers as my data point. All the other stuff is just noise.
We sued v. Thimerosal in 2002 in U.S District Court. We were railroaded by an act of Congress via the "Lilly Rider." Afterwards I published this which is still true today.
“Vaccines Are Unavoidably Unsafe” Don’t take my word for it. These are the words of Justice Scalia in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, LLC in a Supreme Court decision in 2011. Unfortunately, due to the protections afforded the vaccine maker in the National Childhood Vaccine Act of 1986, the Court ruled against a vaccine injured plaintiff in the case. How?
In the 1980s, children were having adverse reactions to the DTP (diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis) vaccine. Lots of lawsuits were being filed against docs and vaccine manufacturers. This caused the pharmaceutical industry to threaten pulling out of the vaccine market, and the alarm bells rang that the nation’s health and safety were at risk. Why were vaccine manufacturers getting ready to take their ball and go home? Because vaccines fall into a class of products considered “unavoidably unsafe.” I am not kidding you. This “unavoidable” word comes from the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act itself “products which, in the present state of human knowledge, are quite incapable of being made safe.”
In 1986, Congress decided on a way to compensate folks for these avoidable injuries and death. It is called the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. From 2001 until 2011 the program has compensated about 2500 families a total of $2 billion. There has been close to $4 billion paid to date since inception. But, that represents only a small fraction of those who actually brought claims to the Vaccine Court. You see, there is a 36 month window to bring the claim. There is no “tolling” granted for minors, unlike all the Civil Courts in the U.S. Guess what? Neurological injuries may not present in infants for long after 36 months. Furthermore, who knows how many cases were never brought by attorneys on behalf of a vaccine injured child, because the statute of limitations ran out?
Don’t let anyone tell you that vaccines don’t cause injury. They have, they do and they will do so in the future. For years, Thimerosal was used as a preservative in multi-dose vials. While still proclaiming it “safe”, vaccine makers “voluntarily” removed Thimerosal. It is still present in trace amounts and in flu vaccine. Thimerosal was never approved by the FDA, as the patents predated the establishment of said regulations. Worried?
With nearly 6,000 cases pending the USCFC held the “Omnibus Autism Hearings.” They decided not to make “autism” a “table injury.” How convenient. Since there would never be enough money to pay for all who claim an “autism” injury. But, there have been many cases compensated for “encephalopathy” as a diagnosis with reference to autism. You can read it for yourself:
http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1681&context=...
For the record, I am not “anti-vaccine.” Both of my children were fully vaccinated. Unfortunately for us, our son was neurologically disabled by vaccines. It is indisputable, yet the government and the vaccine makers still think that there is a “greater good” to be served.
They may be right. But, let’s not fool ourselves. Vaccines can be made safer. It is about money.
The risk of harm overall is higher than the risk of acquiring a disease state.
The risk of long-term health problems from vaccines is higher than the risk from actual infections.
Acquiring a disease like chickenpox or measles is not a big deal. Measles was considered pretty benign in TV serials of the 1970s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5289k-dbOMY
I'm from the generation than went through the relatively mild symptoms of both Measles and Chicken pox, not knowing a single person that got seriously ill.
Indeed one single trip to the shops by car, represented a greater risk of dying than the couple of days of suffering slightly from Chicken pox.
When the jabs were being promoted it was about reducing days off work for working mum's.
What they didn't tell you is that even if vaccines are very safe and effective, it is usually better to get the natural infections.
Being safe and effective is not enough. Vaccines must also be better than the alternatives. Which they are usually not.
Born in 1961, youngest of five and my mother couldn't remember if I'd had chicken pox. She assumed I had. It turned out I had not when I contracted it at age 53. The horror stories I read about having it as an older adult! DANGER!!! SERIOUS complications! Yes, it was nasty but I had no choice but to let it run it's unpleasant course. I took valacyclovir and was careful not to pick at the lesions, have no scars and nothing bad happened. Now at 64, I'm told I'll get shingles if I don't get the Safe and Effective Shingrix.
Everyone we knew when young had measles & not one person died. Apparently, at one time they used to throw measles parties to expose all to it (except those pregnant).
Conversely, my one offspring had all the requisite childhood shots (too bad I didn’t know then, what I now know) & had measles 3 times! I kid you not.
Pharma always exclaims that "the benefits outweigh the risks," in response to doubts about the safety and effectiveness of their products. Their claims are self-referential because they manufacture the promotional material that is the source for their own claims.
"Safe and effective" is a marketing slogan. It informs the public of nothing. They key element here is "liability." Phrma has zero incentive to protect the public. This is unconscionable in a justice system that provides due process constitutional protections.
Your clear ability to maintain a balanced view is admirable….
Blessings to you n yours.
It’s a cray world that one must declare, “I’m not anti-vax.” Any time I challenge the verse in a comment, I am angrily called one of those nutjob anti-vaxxers. I always inquire, what makes you think I am? Sadly, I am not & yet years of learning have enlightened me to the harms. I wish I have a do-over with my offspring.
Thanks for your efforts with AI training. AI is typically so biased in my experience, for example when I ask it to consider the injuries or harm from the mRNA campaign, the response is to classify any harm as "rare" even ignoring obvious recent research.
This might be the least biased system out there. 2 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars later it is nearing release. Let me know if you'd be interested in beta testing it in the near future and thanks for your interest!!
Yes, I would love to try that AI!
Nice to see one that hasn't been castrated.
It'll be out very soon. I'll likely be running a beta shortly, would you like to be included?
There is also brighteon.ai which is Mike Adams, health ranger's product.
Thanks, I will try that one.
You can go on today's health ranger podcast where he talks about it, where they got the information from, etc. and explains how to use it.
“ castrated “ such an appropriate term…..in these days.
Wow! This is radically different AI! I'm already subscribed - can I try it for free? Pretty please??
Very soon!
Wow, what AI tool are you using?
I've encountered very liberal-leaning (narrative supporting) AI tools that don't provide the kind of results you have.
I've seen in my own experience that there's no acknowledgement of an issue until *I* provide proof that X occurred or demonstrated competency in a field where it can't deny it. But inquiries into whether it will be used to modify it's reasoning with others demonstrates that it will not be used, thus keeping other people in the dark.
I've also seen others' interactions where the AI tool has been ORDERED to NOT assist people on certain topics. (Election integrity, for one)
Thank you for sharing this!
It's a custom system I made over 2 years. It will be public very soon, please follow and you'll be the first to know when it comes out!
This is a great example of A.I. being used properly, as a tool to help people organize data and think about information, instead of thinking that it can do all our thinking for us. It's still about and always will be about asking the right questions.
Thank you James, appreciate it!
It could just be that I like what the A.I. said because I agree with it. That's why I consider it so important to keep trying to think for my self, for as long as I can manage it, until I succumb like everyone else. If you know what I mean.
I know what you mean! You can always ask AI to steel man the opposite point. I don't think it is a thing to succumb to. I view it as something that augments cognition, like a sword, a pencil writing and storing words on paper, a calculator, a car, or computer program. Of course those are not nearly the level of AI--each does varying degrees of things to extend the control you have over reality using your own cognition, but it must be in your own control. AI can go far beyond your control in a new way, versus these other tools where you "become one" with them and use them as an "extension of yourself".
Definitely, the power of AI makes it possible to become lazy in ways that are bad, but with care and proper use, it can amplify one's own creative energy and match the intention of an individual in a way that is very great, directed, and under human control...which taps into the very thing that separates humans from animals.
I agree, naturally, but I still can't think about how the invention of fire and knives has weakened human teeth and jaws as a result of not needing to tear meat apart the way we used to.
I suppose having a massive jaw could be useful
Great work, AI did a good job 👏 👍 👌 🙌.
Piss on these vaccine lovers.
$$ Vaccine Pushers $$ ?
Excellent article & use of AI. I think it is very important to share with readers how so many have been indoctrinated due to MA$$IVE money spent on MEDIA, campaigns, lobbyists, doctors, etc.
I began noticing about the time that Rfk jr, once hailed as “Hero of the Year,” on Time Magazine, he was suddently demoted. This came about the time that he began to question dangerous ingredients in medicines & vaccines.
Every single article I would bring up online re Rfk jr would begin, “the conspiracy nut, the anti-vaxxer, unfounded claims”… Then when that wasn’t enough negative press, they ramped it up to include utter defamation & character assassination: “anti-semitic, womanizer,” etc.
If you look who is behind these negative attacking articles, you find that big pharm pays BILLION$ to media ( NYT & other have sold their souls), BILLION$ to lobbyists, BILLION$ TO insurance companies, BILLION$ to doctors, BILLION$ to social media & influencers, ads, educational institutions…just to name a few.
Imagine if big pharm instead of trying to cover-up the harms & attacking & bribing people, that they worked on cures & truly trying to help people instead?
I have researched & found many articles discussing $$$ Pharm spends, but here , below, I asked AI just for an overview that I’ve not organized well, but at a glance, you can see.
Media Advertising -BILLION$ ANNUALLY
Television $4 billion+
Digital Advertising $3 billion+
Print Media $1 billion+
Radio $400 million+
(Billboards, etc.). $600 million*
Pharm to Lobbyists:
Total Lobbying Spending (1998 - Mid-2025): Over $6.36 billion
2024 Lobbying Spending: Approximately $387.47 million
Major Lobbying Group: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, spending over $31.72 million in 2024.
Political Campaigns:
The pharmaceutical industry contributed about $41.02 million to federal political campaigns in 2024.
Payments to Doctors:
Total Payments: In the U.S., it is estimated that doctors receive approximately up to $3 billion annually from pharmaceutical companies. This includes all forms of payments, such as consulting fees, speaking engagements, and research funding.
Consulting Fees:
-Estimated at $500 million to $1 billion annually. This includes payments for expert opinions and advisory roles.
Speaking Engagements:
-Roughly $300 million to $600 million annually. This covers honoraria and expenses for speaking at industry-sponsored events.
Research Funding:
-Estimated at $700 million to $1 billion annually. This includes funding for clinical trials and research studies.
Gifts and Meals:
-Approximately $200 million to $400 million annually. This includes meals, promotional items, and other gifts.
Educational Grants:
-Estimated at $100 million to $300 million annually. This covers grants for educational programs and CME courses.
Payments to doctors for vaccine injections:
Doctors typically receive an administration fee for each vaccine given, which can range from $15 to $30 per vaccine, depending on the vaccine and the healthcare provider's agreements with insurers.
-Total Vaccine Payments:
If we consider that millions of vaccines are administered annually, the total payments for vaccine administration could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. For example, if 100 million vaccines are administered at an average fee of $20, that would total $2 billion.
Impact of payments:
Influence on Prescribing Practices: Research has shown that financial relationships between doctors and pharmaceutical companies can lead to increased prescribing of certain medications, even when alternatives may be more appropriate.
Transparency and Regulation: Many countries have implemented regulations requiring disclosure of payments made to healthcare professionals. In the U.S., the Physician Payments Sunshine Act mandates that pharmaceutical companies report payments to doctors, which are then made publicly available.
Ethical Considerations: The acceptance of payments from pharmaceutical companies raises ethical questions about conflicts of interest and the integrity of medical advice. Some medical organizations advocate for stricter guidelines to limit these interactions.
This analysis is truly brilliant, and so succinct.
I have friends for whom the NYT is like the bible is for religious zealots -- they just can't even begin to consider that maybe it should be questioned. This really stretches friendships!
Steve, could you send the link for the AI that was used for this analysis? I want to try it. Thanks.
I will be releasing it for public use soon! Thanks Mark! Please follow for updates on progress.