Follow the Money — How Big Pharma Hijacked Modern Healthcare

• The post-9/11 smallpox program raised new concerns — Attkisson was sent by CBS News to cover the federal government’s restart of the smallpox vaccination program after the September 11 attacks, prompted by fears that terrorists could weaponize the virus.

The smallpox vaccine carries a high rate of adverse events, so the government was supposed to track every serious health outcome after vaccination, regardless of whether a link was confirmed.

• Severe vaccine reactions emerged in real time — As part of her investigation, she reported directly from military operations, witnessing the smallpox vaccine rollout. However, she soon noticed that healthy people who received the vaccine began experiencing severe reactions, and one of them, NBC correspondent David Bloom, unexpectedly died not long after of a blood clot.

• Bloom’s death was deliberately excluded from reporting systems — Attkisson found out that Bloom had recently gotten the smallpox and anthrax vaccines. When she asked officials if there could be a link to his death, they pushed back and avoided her questions.

“It was said that he had genetic predispositions, and he had been cramped up in a tank the whole day, and he’d had some pain in his leg and so on. But I knew from the research that I’d been conducting for covering these stories that the smallpox vaccine, according to some research, had blood clots as a potential side effect, as many other things. Deep vein thrombosis that could be fatal,” Attkisson shared.

“In a program they’re thinking about restarting and they were supposed to be measuring all adverse events that occur after the vaccine — whether or not they think it was related, they have to monitor all of them and report them so they can be counted and looked at — nobody was reporting David Bloom’s death as a potential vaccine side effect.”²

• Only media pressure forced the government to acknowledge his case — When Attkisson broke the story, only then was Bloom’s death ultimately reported as a potential vaccine-related event. Not long after, due in part to public pressure and mounting adverse event reports, the government quietly halted the smallpox vaccination program entirely.

• This investigation exposed a pattern of narrative control — This experience opened Attkisson’s eyes to how medical narratives are manipulated.

“I came to learn this is a very convenient catch-22. Whenever you try to find out something from the government that may implicate a product from the pharmaceutical industry, suddenly, everything’s a big secret. But if it’s something that they want to have released for reasons that benefit somebody, they will tell you everything,” she said.³

• Nonprofits are widely trusted, but many have hidden industry ties — Nonprofit organizations are widely perceived as altruistic, mission-driven protectors of the public good. But behind the curtain, many of them are tied to the very industries they claim to monitor or oppose. Attkisson recounts a longtime CBS producer telling her, “If they say they’re the ‘Citizens Against Cancer,’ it’s probably started by R.J. Reynolds or a tobacco company.”⁴

• The link between antiperspirants and breast cancer — Attkisson shares an example that began with an unexpected tip from a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official that antiperspirants had been linked to breast cancer. According to Attkisson:

“He told me that the FDA had been fighting for years to try to potentially put a warning about the antiperspirant and cancer link on the label for antiperspirants, but had been beaten down year after year by the power of the antiperspirant industry …

I asked for an interview with the antiperspirant industry — basically it’s the cosmetics industry … They didn’t want to do an interview, but they kept saying, ‘Interview the American Cancer Society.’ And I’m thinking why do they think the American Cancer Society is going to defend them? Why are they so sure of that? … I bet there’s a money tie.”⁵

• The connection raised red flags — When Attkisson contacted the American Cancer Society, their head of science dismissed the connection as a “myth,” echoing language used on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and FDA websites. But when questioned further, the spokesperson admitted they’re not familiar with the latest science.

• Donations present a major conflict of interest — When she asked directly whether the organization received funding from the antiperspirant industry, the spokesperson admitted they did.

“I asked how much, and they would not tell me … no dollar figure, not even a percentage. He just said, as I kept asking, ‘It’s a small amount.’ That’s a huge organization. If they get a ‘small amount’ of funding from every industry that’s implicated in cancer, you can see how the conflict of interest could stack up,” she noted.⁶

• Nonprofits are industry shields disguised as public advocates — This is how the shell game works. Industry money flows to nonprofits, which then present biased conclusions under the veil of objectivity, all under the banner of charity.

• The Baby Oxygen Study — Attkisson highlights a case known informally as the “Baby Oxygen Study,” which involved premature infants whose oxygen levels were deliberately manipulated without adequate parental consent. Mothers of these infants were told to sign vague forms during stressful C-sections, under the guise of helping their babies.

They weren’t told their children would be placed in randomized oxygen groups. Worse, the study team rigged monitoring equipment to hide real oxygen levels from hospital staff. This prevented clinicians from intervening if a baby was in distress, ensuring the trial data remained “clean.”

• Officials acknowledged the violation, but researchers faced no consequences — Years later, government ethics officials said the study did break informed consent laws. But instead of facing consequences, the researchers were defended, claiming that sharing all risks would scare people away and slow research. So, rather than strengthening protocols, the regulators made the rules weaker.

• A quiet regulatory shift gave researchers power to hide risks — The FDA now allows researchers to withhold certain study risks if they deem them “minimal.” That subjective standard gives enormous discretion to the very people conducting the studies.

Researchers no longer need to disclose every known danger, just the ones they think might matter. These changes reveal the industry’s true priorities. Protecting data collection has overtaken protecting participants.

• Medical journals no longer guarantee credibility — Medical journals are widely viewed as arbiters of scientific truth, yet according to Attkisson, many have been infiltrated by pharmaceutical interests to the point where their content is no longer trustworthy.

“[M]edical editors themselves say much, if not most, of the science now in these peer-reviewed published journals like the New England Journal of Medicine is not to be believed because it’s been taken over so much by the pharmaceutical industry … that you’re not getting the whole truth or sometimes any truth at all,” she said.⁷

• Drug companies block the publication of unfavorable study results — In one case, researchers tried to publish a failed AIDS vaccine trial. The drug company that funded it blocked the release, claiming it owned the data. Even though the study showed the vaccine didn’t work, the company wouldn’t let it be shared. The scientists were sued for millions just for trying to tell the truth.

“If you can imagine the chilling effect this has and had on scientists working for the industry. They work at universities, get all this money from the industry, and now your institution is looking at you. They’re mad at you. You have to hire lawyers that defend you. Even if you were to win your case, it’s a huge problem, and it’s basically a career-ender.”⁸

• Medical students are taught using material written by drug manufacturers — Merck claims that the manual is editorially independent from its pharmaceutical division. Yet, medical students are being trained to diagnose and treat illness using material written by a company that profits when people take more medication.

• False claims surrounding the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine — Attkisson discovered that Merck falsely claimed its HPV vaccine had “no serious adverse events” reported. This is a blatant falsehood, as the vaccine’s own FDA-approved label listed dozens of serious adverse reactions, including paralysis, seizures, and even death.

• The claim was quietly deleted without correction or transparency — After she exposed the lie in the Merck Manual, the sentence was deleted from the online version without explanation or correction. However, Merck still did not add accurate safety data in its place.

They just left doctors and students with no information at all. This is just as misleading as the original falsehood, as it conditions new doctors to assume there is nothing to watch for, no risks to consider, and no reason to question what they’re told.

• The problem doesn’t stop after graduation — Doctors are required to take continuing medical education (CME) courses to maintain their licenses, and these classes are often funded or presented by pharmaceutical companies. This explains why so many well-meaning doctors still promote drugs with known risks or dismiss safer alternatives.

“I would argue that this is a lot of the reason why we’re treated the way we’re treated at the doctor’s office, with them too often not trying to figure out what the cause of our disorders are, but just happily treating it with medicine,” Attkisson said.⁹

• The FDA bypassed its own experts to approve a failed Alzheimer’s drug — One of the clearest examples is the approval of the Alzheimer’s drug Aducanumab. The FDA’s own advisory panel reviewed the data and voted unanimously against approval, saying the drug didn’t work and came with serious side effects. Instead of listening, the FDA bypassed the committee and approved it anyway.

This decision sparked outrage from scientists, patients, and the FDA’s own advisory panel, leading to the drug’s withdrawal. However, it was quickly replaced with Lecanemab, which was approved just as recklessly, with little proof of benefit and serious risks once again ignored.

• FDA’s dependence on industry money creates conflicts of interest — A large portion of the FDA’s budget comes from fees paid by the very companies it regulates. These “user fees” were intended to speed up the process, but they’ve also blurred the lines between regulator and client. The more approvals granted, the more money flows in.

• Each fast-tracked approval weakens standards for the next drug — Companies learn they don’t need to meet the highest standards; they just have to find a way to get past the gatekeepers. That means more drugs with unclear safety profiles are entering the market, and more patients are facing unexpected side effects.

• Attkisson calls for severing financial ties between the FDA and industry — Attkisson argues that restoring the FDA’s integrity starts with cutting financial ties to industry. Approvals should be based on solid science, and until that happens, the agency will remain compromised, and your health will remain at risk from decisions you never had a say in.

• News outlets rely on ads to survive — Pharmaceutical ads are among the most lucrative. You see constant commercials for antidepressants, allergy meds, and vaccines. However, networks that rely on this revenue are less likely to air stories that might upset their advertisers.

• Selective silence distorts public understanding — Attkisson revealed that producers were told to avoid scrutiny of pharma-related stories. Even when the facts were solid, they were seen as too risky to air. This causes reporters to avoid pitching controversial topics in the first place. Viewers are left with a sanitized version of reality, where only the positive side of medicine is shown.

• The problem extends to online platforms as well — Social media algorithms often push mainstream narratives. Meanwhile, content questioning the safety and effectiveness of vaccines or drug trials is flagged, demoted, or deleted.

• Big Tech has become another gatekeeper — Digital media was supposed to give you more voice, more freedom, and better access to information. Instead, it now decides which messages you see and which ones disappear. Attkisson’s own experience with surveillance and censorship shows just how far this control goes:

“I had sources in the intelligence agencies who were able to get my CBS computers looked at, confirmed it. CBS announced that the computers had been infiltrated.

I’ve had probably seven or eight independent forensics exams since then that have gotten more and more information, including government IP addresses that were used to get inside my computers, monitor my keystrokes, look into my files on controversies that I was covering about the government, monitoring my family’s computers and so on.”¹⁰

• The collaboration between government and tech companies — Internal documents show coordinated efforts to suppress specific topics or people. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this collusion suppressed scientific debate and silenced credentialed experts — myself included — whose research challenged official narratives.

• The pandemic woke people up to contradictions and control — The COVID-19 pandemic, while devastating in scope, made Americans realize the official narratives didn’t add up and pushed many people to start asking long-overdue questions.

• Raising safety questions does not mean rejecting medicine — Questioning pharmaceutical narratives does not equate to being anti-medicine. Some drugs and vaccines save lives, but questions regarding safety must be asked without fear or censorship. When those questions are labeled “misinformation” before they’re even answered, that’s the sign of a broken system.

• Public tools for accountability exist — It’s time for you to become familiar with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) databases, not just to file reports but to examine trends the government won’t highlight.

Attkisson recalls how she was the first to report on Viagra’s link to blindness using adverse event reports and independent studies. That kind of data analysis is possible for anyone who knows where to look and refuses to rely solely on corporate-filtered messaging.

• A new medical movement is emerging outside the system — In closing, Attkisson encourages everyone to build their own network of trusted sources, including independent physicians and investigative reporters who haven’t sold out to the system.