* * * * *
The film:
This is a
documentary by a well-respected senior cardiologist about medical and
business ethics and the ways in which both public health and public
finances are being damaged by their abandonment. At no point is there
a single mention of any “forbidden pandemic topics” and the
scale of any ethical problem in the Pharmaceutical sector is
measured by the impressive total of the fines ($33 billion and
counting) imposed on companies in the sector, by American courts
alone in recent years.
Dr Aseem Malhotra's
First! Do No Pharm can be downloaded from this link:
https://cerealkillers.gumroad.com/l/nopharmfilm
Following premiers
in Leicester Square, London, and at the US Congress, the film is
downloadable for a fairly modest fee, which is preferable to a “pay
per view” platform where potential reference material is concerned.
There is no limit on the number of times it can be viewed and once
downloaded it’s very hard to see how it might be censored by any
lawful means. It is shocking to find that we live in a world where
this should even be a factor where such an important, professional,
expert and deeply ethical production is concerned, but that’s where
we are and that is proof of a problem in and of itself.
Several different
kinds of established and novel drug and other medical interventions
are studied and what emerges from this is “regulatory and
legislative capture” (by which is meant the establishment by
medical-orientated industries of control over those regulatory and
professional bodies and even laws intended to keep those industries
working within the public interest and not against it). It further
follows (and indeed also emerges) that medical journals and the
whole process of publishing scientific papers following “peer
review” has been captured likewise. Which means that any attempt to
question or criticise new “research” or novel drugs and
treatments has now been rendered difficult to the point where even to
make the attempt constitutes career suicide.
This seems not just
scandalous, but also utterly quite incredible, because it means that
the business model of all the medical industries (and possibly others,
but this is not addressed) is based on scientific fraud, and that the
scientific journals are nearly all accomplices to this fraud. Then
something else emerges in the film which, within about
three sentences, makes all of this not only believable, but entirely
credible:
The business model
of the scientific journal sector was reformed and redefined by the
“controversial” (to use milder language than the satirical paper
Private Eye ever did) publishing oligarch and lifelong authoritarian
socialist Robert Maxwell! And that business model makes
the scientific publishing sector dependent on the sale of reprints of
scientific papers to the very companies which sponsored or
commissioned the authors’ research. There is no profit, not even a
break-even point, in publishing any paper and especially any critical
response to a sponsored paper which the research-sponsors do not
like. And they are strongly inclined to “not like” anything which
might adversely affect the licensing and sale of medical treatments
or other products. (I note that it is remarkably hard to criticise
offshore wind-turbines, for example.)
That a scientific
publishing sector made in the image of a notorious pension-fund
fraudster should be involved in a situation where it can be claimed
that 70% of all new published scientific papers are fraudulent is not
only wholly believable but sadly inevitable. Had the scientific
publishing sector been based on the business model of Dick Turpin,
Black Tom and Shock Oliver, one might have expected the publication
of any scientific paper to be attended by the thunder of galloping
horses, cries of “stand and deliver” (your paper, in a lecture
theatre, of course) and the fizz-crack! of flintlock horse-pistols.
The treatments and
drugs investigated include stents and statins, the painkiller
“Vioxx”, anti-depressants (as a class, really), monoclonal
antibody treatments for Alzheimer’s Disease and weight-loss drugs
(also as a class.) As well as scandalous behaviour over trials for
these drugs and treatments, (even the captured regulators do not get
to see all the trial data if the sponsoring company wants to withhold
it), the film notes a complete lack of any attempt to trial any of
these drugs against even other similar drugs, let alone
cost-free non-drug interventions such as lifestyle and diet changes.
Throughout the film and from several corners of the world, real-world
evidence that such interventions can work is presented, and it is
quite clear that no healthcare system in the world can continue to
ignore such simple solutions in favour of hugely-expensive, “pill
every day for life” treatments whose risks and benefits have never
been honestly established, without exhausting the ability of the
national economy to support it.
Measured
criticism of the film:
This is all well and
good, but before I get to my list of “further reading” (I know
it’s a film, but there are books that need to be
read, too) I feel obliged to pick up on a grave risk which those
involved in the making of this film seem to have missed, and that
concerns the manner in which the weight-loss drugs mostly work. They
variously inhibit the movement of food through the alimentary canal,
especially the stomach (so the patient is physically prevented from
eating very much) and/or they disable the “reward function” in
the brain (so the patient feels no urge to eat, and experiences no
joy if they eat or do anything else). The film-makers were very
concerned about both things, because the latter seems likely to make
very many patients dangerously depressed and both approaches lead to
an equal loss of muscle mass to match any loss of body fat. There are
all sorts of known health benefits to loss of body-fat (up to a
point, beyond which it becomes a pathology in its own right), but
there are no known health benefits to substantial loss of muscle mass
and in the case of patients over fifty years old, that lost muscle
mass will be very hard to replace, assuming the patient is ever
allowed to stop taking the weight loss drugs. Many of the ways in
which old people die involve a lack of strength: they are more likely
to fall and less able to get back on their feet if they do, they may
find themselves unable to rise from their bed or armchair and thus
expire. The film makers are properly worried about this and advocate
controlled weight loss through better diet and exercise
rather than forced starvation, to consolidate muscle mass rather than
lose it, so why do I think they are not worried enough?
Well, it’s like
this: the weight loss drugs which stop food leaving the stomach
effectively duplicate the impairment of the alimentary canal
following wartime German medical treatment of patients with
bayonet-inflicted stomach wounds. These patients are more visible to
the eye of history than anyone in American or Commonwealth service
who “benefited” from such surgery in world war two, because
German officers in particular were expected to stay in uniform and
perform “non-combat duties” (which could actually mean chasing
resistance workers) basically until they died. And almost none of
them survived for more than two years, most seem to have died within
eighteen months. German army surgeons had two choices: patient gets
the surgery or he dies. This is not the case with the weight-loss
drugs, which are about to pushed upon tens, perhaps hundreds, of
millions of people who have not been bayoneted, in the absence
of good data to show that patients will live beyond the period of the
manufacturer’s drug trials, which seems to have been half the time
it took German officers to die from their surgery.
Because the patient
is being limited to a small intake of food, regardless of whether the
food is nutritionally good or bad, and given that even major
essential nutrients such as protein are being assimilated in
insufficient amounts to even maintain muscle mass, almost all of the
less obvious but vital nutrients are going to be kept out of the
patient’s body, too. They may not all die with precisely the same
symptoms, but if these drugs are taken for many months, patients may
well die in droves and I cannot see a way of preventing this without
banning drugs which indiscriminately inhibit food intake or uptake.
Further
reading:
(Even the makers of
the film need to try reading these, assuming that have not already
done so.)
Five Chimneys
by Olga Lengyel
For those who think
they know all about “Big Pharma” and the worst it might do, here
is a first-hand account of the worst which Bayer, the original Big
Pharma company (which is still amongst the most powerful Pharma
companies), actually did as soon as it was handed control of large
areas of state policy:
This is available on
Kindle, or at least it was. Here is a link to my review, which should
link to where the book can be bought from:
https://mswritingshowcase.blogspot.com/2023/05/book-review-of-five-chimneys-by-olga.html
And for those who
cry “that’s all we need to know” when they discover that
there’s money
behind a perverse political agenda: there is no such thing as “all
we need to know.” The moment we allow that thought to enter our
heads, let alone pass our lips, we are missing something. There is
always something else we would benefit from knowing.
In the case of money
and political agendas: when you find the money behind the first
perverse political agenda, you will usually find that the people
supplying that money are serving a different political agenda in
their turn, in order to obtain that money in the first place. And so
it goes up the chain until you find someone so wealthy that they (and
probably their foreseeable descendants) can self-fund their every
whim. At this point you have found someone who is driven by their own
political agenda rather than that of any other person or group of
persons. And if that person wasn’t mad to begin with, they soon
will be once they have the whole world at their feet.
Bayer, the
definitive Big Pharma company, is now supposedly a stand-alone
entity, but was originally part of the I.G. Farben multi-industrial
combine which was “Big Everything” and I.G. Farben never
hesitated to put all of its financial muscle behind its political
agenda, of which both world wars were part.
“Of Popes
and Unicorns” by David Hutchings and James C Ungureanu
If you accept, or claim in the case of the makers of the film
described above, that science has been “captured” by commercial
interests, perhaps you need to know how science was first wrested
from the non-profit-making hands of amateur (and mostly
observational) scientists, many of whom were Christian clergy.
Perhaps you also need to pay some attention to who the people who did
this were, too. Because they were self-regarding authoritarian
elitists to a man. (And to begin with, not one of them was
female.) Anti-science and anti-Christianity are not opposites, nor is
either of them right. They are what Mr George Galloway MP might
describe as “two cheeks of the same posterior” and I would describe as
two prongs of the same pitchfork. When the Devil organises a boxing
match, both prize-fighters are going to lose, as are all the punters
who place bets on the outcome.
My review of this frankly expensive book is here:
https://mswritingshowcase.blogspot.com/2024/05/book-review-of-popes-and-unicorns-by.html
Silent
Invasion by Clive Hamilton
To help readers better understand how certain fields of governmental
function might be “captured” by wealthy companies and what the
word “capture” even means in this context, Professor Hamilton
describes how the Chinese Communist Party (a political body not
without its friends in Big Pharma in the West) set out to capture the
Commonwealth of Australia: a work this is still ongoing. Not a part
of the government, not even the whole Federal Government and all the
State Governments, but the whole continent-spanning nation.
My review of this book is here:
https://mswritingshowcase.blogspot.com/2018/04/book-review-silent-invasion.html
As well as posting this review on my blog, I have posted it (in
slightly edited form to remove links) on the site from which the film
was downloaded. It could have been twice as long and I’d still have
important things to say, so I make no apologies for it being the way
it is.
Matthew K. Spencer