* * * * *
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
