Warning: session_start(): Cannot send session cookie - headers already sent by (output started at /home/content/22/6607322/html/index.php:5) in /home/content/22/6607322/html/wp-content/plugins/seo-redirection/seo-redirection.php on line 11

Warning: session_start(): Cannot send session cache limiter - headers already sent (output started at /home/content/22/6607322/html/index.php:5) in /home/content/22/6607322/html/wp-content/plugins/seo-redirection/seo-redirection.php on line 11

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/content/22/6607322/html/index.php:5) in /home/content/22/6607322/html/wp-content/plugins/wp-super-cache/wp-cache-phase2.php on line 62
Big Pharma and FDA conspiracy: hiding facts about drugs and their dangers | Healing Talks
Published On: Tue, Sep 2nd, 2014

Big Pharma and FDA conspiracy: hiding facts about drugs and their dangers

big pharma fda

Big Pharma and FDA

Big Pharma and FDA conspiracy:
hiding facts about drugs and their dangers

By Adam Riva, Healingtalks Reporter
(Healingtalks) A Healingtalks exclusive correspondence with the FDA exposes how they are conspiring with the major drug companies (“Big Pharma”) to hide facts about the dangers of drugs they approve, creating a largely unaccountable and highly corrupt industry.

Big Pharma’s Rabbit Hole

When you follow the rabbit hole and investigate where the facts lead you, you may be led to the disturbing realization that there exists an orchestrated suppression of the truth by the pharmaceutical industrial complex and in collusion with our regulating bodies such as the FDA and EPA.  If it unsettles you, it should.
Without mincing words, there is a information conspiracy of epic proportions. While I am probably preaching to the choir, there might be some people in the congregation still rolling their eyes. The current whistleblowing on the CDC’s intentional coverup of vaccination dangers sheds light on the incestuous relationship between Big Pharma manufacturers and the CDC. The government suppressors routinely receive high paying jobs in the industry, and in a high-speed revolving door.
Amidst my own research for producing a documentary film entitled Nepenthe, I have come across some hugely damning evidence on the FDA and Big Pharma, some of which has not been reported anywhere else. The following is documents the correspondence I had with Sandy Walsh, Head of Media Affairs for the FDA. We can take notice of how Ms Walsh sidesteps each of my questions, not really addressing any of the core allegations.

Questions posed to FDA’s Sandy Walsh

Q1. On the more comprehensive screening of drugs:

Should the FDA assume a more comprehensive vetting process before allowing these harmful pharmaceuticals to enter the marketplace to provide a safer environment for the consumer? Are the 784,000 Americans who die annually an acceptable cost of doing business to benefit “the greater good?”

In an article entitled “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?” published in 2000 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Barbara Starfield MD, MPH highlighted that 106,000 people die annually in America directly linked to “non-error, adverse effects of medications.” In 2003, 5 medical doctors published “Death by Medicine” in which their estimate was 784,000 Americans die from medical errors and medications. Compared to the CDC’s list of top ten causes of death in America, heart disease being #1 and killing 631,636 annually, the statistics show that adverse reactions to prescription and non-prescription drugs is one of the most deleterious factors that face the American public. Should the FDA assume a more comprehensive vetting process before allowing these harmful pharmaceuticals to enter the marketplace to provide a safer environment for the consumer? Are the 784,000 Americans who die annually an acceptable cost of doing business to benefit “the greater good?”

Q2. On more tightly regulating pharmaceuticals:

Based on the following statistics, do you agree that FDA funding and resources would be more appropriately spent on regulating pharmaceuticals rather than vitamins and minerals?

The 30th annual report (2013) from the American Association of Poison Control Centers shows zero deaths from Multiple Vitamins. Also, there were no deaths reported whatsoever from Vitamin A, Niacin, Vitamin B-6, Vitamin C, Vitamin D, or Vitamin E. In reviewing the full spectrum of annual reports dating back to 1999, the AAPCC very clearly shows that vitamins and supplement have an impeccably safe track record. In 2012, for instance, there was only one alleged case of a vitamin death related to “other B Vitamins.” Assuming this 1 death was truly related to vitamins, how does this compare to the 106,000 deaths by prescription and non-prescription drugs mentioned in the previous question?

Q3. On third party verification of drug testing

With the untold amount of adverse effects and deaths that have occurred as a result of these unsafe drugs hitting the marketplace, does the FDA see it fit to disallow pharmaceutical companies to perform their own testing and instead require third-party verification? 

According to researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston in 2012, FDA records show that 1,734 drugs were recalled from 2004 to 2011.

FDA’s Response

The FDA’s safety assessment of medicines does not diminish after drugs are approved for marketing. Although the pre-market phase of study is very intensive, much work still remains to monitor approved drugs over time. No drug is risk-free, and it is not uncommon for new information to be discovered after a drug is on the market and being used by larger numbers of patients. Such information helps provide a better picture of drug risks, enables FDA to give health care professionals and patients the latest information on potential or newly identified risks, and strengthens FDA’s ability to safeguard patients against unacceptable risks.
In recent years, the FDA has taken many steps to enhance the quality, accountability, and timeliness of its post-market drug safety decisions. As a result, the agency now oversees the safety of marketed drugs with the same emphasis it has for pre-market drug review. These efforts include the development of important new scientific tools to enhance detection of potential drug safety issues that occur once a drug is on the market and new methods for planning, managing, tracking, and communicating about those issues.
The FDA monitors and reviews safety information throughout a drug’s entire life cycle, from marketing application through approval and after the drug is marketed, addressing any new safety issues that are identified. Adverse reactions may become apparent only after a drug is marketed and used more widely, under more diverse conditions (e.g., concurrent use with other drugs) or when the drug is prescribed for uses for which it was not approved (i.e., “off-label ” uses). In some cases, medication errors can occur because the name of the drug is confused with the name of another drug, so that the patient receives the wrong medicine. In other cases, factors that influence the selection, prescribing, preparation, or administration of the medication can lead to medication errors and adverse events. As new safety information related to a drug becomes available post-market, a multidisciplinary team reviews the data to evaluate whether there is an emerging drug safety concern.
Interpreting post-market safety data is complex, involving analysis and detailed review of a wide range of information, including spontaneous reports of adverse drug events, controlled clinical trials and epidemiological studies, active surveillance efforts, estimates of drug usage and adverse drug experience reporting rates, estimates of background rates of the adverse events, the pharmacology of the drug in relation to the identified safety concern, and other relevant information. Decisions about how to address a safety concern and interpret the available data often are a matter of judgment, about which reasonable and informed persons with relevant expertise may disagree. Experts within the FDA engage in robust and comprehensive discussions regarding potential drug safety issues, considering all points of view before making a decision on how to proceed.

What the FDA’s jibber-jabber response really means

The responding letter received from Sandy Walsh, Head of Media Affairs for the FDA is nothing but a superlative example of polished jibber-jabber or of what George Orwell referred to as “doublethink” and “newspeak” in his auspicious novel, Nineteen Eighty Four. Ms Walsh’s letter is certainly not atypical for an agency of our government which is so deeply corrupted that it must ever posture itself as the purest defenders of our public health, working at every turn to maintain the highest standards of truth, of science, to then protect us from harm. More really, they are hardest at work to prevent us from knowing just how much harm is being meted out and how much our health is being undermined, while ever following the directives of political higher ups who co-conspire with pharmaceutical cartels.

Related Articles


Related Video


About the Author

- Adam Riva is editor of DragonflyEffect.net, promoting personal transformation for global change. He is also a health freedom activist, public speaker, explorer of consciousness, and teacher on spirituality.

Free Newsletter

All Rights Reserved