March 28, 2025 • 17 mins
In this episode, we call B.S. on Big Pharma’s profit motives and explore how cheap or off-patent drugs often get sidelined – not by a grand conspiracy, but by a system that simply doesn’t reward low-margin cures. We discuss:
- Opioid Crisis Lawsuits: How Purdue Pharma and others downplayed risks and triggered a national epidemic.
- The Ivermectin Saga: Why a generic anti-parasitic got dismissed for COVID-19, stoking theories about suppressing cheap treatments.
- Cannabis & Psychedelics: Once deemed “no medical value,” now shown to help PTSD, depression, and more, but suppressed for decades.
- Real Influence on Research: Pharma funds trials, buries negative results, and fosters publication bias.
- Minor Mention of LDN: Low Dose Naltrexone as an example of an under-researched, generic therapy that might have big potential.
Key Points & Discussion
- Opioid Crisis Lawsuits:
- Purdue Pharma’s role in pushing OxyContin, concealing addictive potential.
- Billions in settlements; internal memos showed profit-first tactics.
- Demonstrates Big Pharma’s willingness to prioritize sales over safety.
- WHO & Ivermectin Saga:
- Early COVID-19 hype vs. mainstream dismissal, fueling “suppression” talk.
- No major RCT funding from big sponsors – no profits to be made.
- Shows how “lack of data” can be a result of zero corporate interest.
- Cannabis & Psychedelics:
- They were Schedule I (“no medical value”) for decades, but new studies show clear benefits (pain, depression, etc.).
- Pharma’s disinterest in non-patentable compounds – overshadowed by new psych meds.
- Now a resurgence of research as big companies eye synthetic/novel forms for profit.
- Real Influence on Research:
- Evidence of publication bias; negative or unflattering results get hidden.
- Synthroid fiasco (study suppressed for 7 years), paying doctors, lobbying regulators.
- Reinforces that “profit over science” can hamper cheap, off-label therapies.
- LDN (Low Dose Naltrexone) Mention:
- Potential uses (fibromyalgia, Crohn’s), minimal side effects, but no big trials = less adoption.
- Symbolizes how unpatented therapies languish in R&D purgatory.
References
- Opioid Crisis Lawsuits: US DOJ Opioid Settlement with Purdue
- Ivermectin & COVID-19: WHO Advice on Ivermectin
- Cannabis & Psychedelic Studies: Nature: Psilocybin for Depression RCT
- Influence on Research: BMJ: Publication bias in industry-funded trials
- LDN Trials Info: Penn State Crohn's LDN Study
Listener Action Items
- Scrutinize Pharma Claims: Always ask who funds the trials, check for negative or missing data.
- Support Independent Research: Encourage public funding for generics & natural therapies so they're properly studied.
- Stay Skeptical: Don't dismiss everything mainstream, but remember profit motives shape the narrative.
Connect & Subscribe
If you enjoyed this episode, please leave a 5-star review on your favorite podcast platform! Questions or comments? Email contact@kristinabraly.com or DM us on IG: @icallbswithkb. Stay tuned for our next episode where we investigate more suspicious BS in the world of medicine, marketing, and beyond!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Hey there, my beautiful nerds.
(00:02):
Have you ever looked at the whole medical system and wondered why the hell are certainmeds pushed nonstop while others get quietly ignored?
Let me tell you, there's a reason your insurance covers that pricey patent protected pill,but maybe won't pay a dime for some cheap decades old remedy.
Today, we're calling out Big Pharma for prioritizing profit over everything else.
(00:28):
system built on monopolies and margins might just bury treatments that can't linecorporate pockets.
Welcome back to I Call Bullshit with Kristina Braly your host.
The podcast where we blow the lid off corporate scams, deep rooted myths, and anythingelse that's been pulling the wool over your eyes.
No politics, no spin, just straight talk and fiery opinions.
(00:50):
I'm your host, Kristina, physician, mom, and big time skeptic these days.
Today, we're shining a bright light on big pharma and asking...
Are they actively suppressing cheaper cures to protect their profit margins?
We'll talk about the opioid crisis lawsuits, revealing how companies like Purdue Pharmapushed addictive painkillers, the ivermectin saga, a cheap drug that mainstream media
(01:15):
swiftly dismissed, the cannabis and psychedelic research that's been suppressed fordecades, and real influence on drug trials, how negative results can disappear.
A brief look at LDN, also known as low dose naltrexone, a super cheap generic that mighthelp with certain conditions, yet it remains on the fringe.
So settle in because we're about to call major BS on the way big drug companies operate.
(02:01):
Let's start with a headline you probably know, the opioid crisis.
For years, people whispered about Big Pharma pushing highly addictive painkillers ontodoctors and patients, brushing aside the real risks.
And some folks said, no, that's just a conspiracy.
But guess what?
Lawsuits and internal documents from companies like Purdue Pharma basically confirmed it.
(02:24):
Purdue Pharma developed OxyContin, marketing it as a near-magical solution for chronicpain.
downplayed addiction risk, paid reps to push the drug into the prescribing mainstream.
Lawsuits revealed that they had a strategy to maximize profits by relentlessly targetingdoctors, especially those in rural areas with higher painkiller usage.
(02:47):
Multiple states sued Purdue, and in 2019, Purdue filed for bankruptcy to handle theavalanche of settlements.
Internal memos showed executives knew how addictive OxyContin could be, but kept sellingthe storyline that it was less addictive than immediate release opioids.
Meanwhile, the whole country was drowning in an opioid epidemic.
(03:09):
A wave of over 2,000 lawsuits eventually forced a huge settlement, tens of billions inliability.
But the damage was done.
Half a million Americans died.
from opioid overdoses in the last two decades.
perfect example of how profit motives overshadow public health.
(03:30):
Instead of being cautious about addiction, Big Pharma used marketing spin.
People were told these meds are safe, just a small risk.
So next time someone says Big Pharma wouldn't risk lives for profit, well,
the opioid crisis says otherwise.
They basically admitted it in court.
That sets the stage for how they might similarly ignore or undermine cheaper, saferalternatives if those threaten to reduce their high margin drug sales.
(03:58):
Now let's pivot to something more recent, the ivermectin saga during COVID-19.
I know as a medical professional whenever we hear ivermectin these days, especiallypost-COVID,
where it kind of like roll our eyes, shrug our shoulders.
And I admittedly internally cringed when I was doing the research for this.
was like, I can't believe I'm about to talk about ivermectin and its benefits.
(04:22):
Because that just, it was so heavily spun negatively amongst the scientific communityduring COVID-19.
But let's talk about it with an unbiased approach and clear eyes and no spin, noinfluence, no bias.
Early in the pandemic, some small studies suggested that this cheap antiparasitic mighthelp mild COVID cases.
(04:45):
Mainstream medicine swiftly labeled it unproven, even quote, dangerous, though ironically,it's been used safely for parasitic infections for years.
Before we continue, let me be crystal clear.
Large, high-quality trials so far do not show a definitive benefit of ivermectin againstCOVID.
But that's not the juicy part.
The controversy is that many people believe there was a coordinated attempt to bury anyinvestigation into it purely because it's a dirt cheap generic with no patent left.
(05:17):
Supporters point out a handful of positive preliminary studies from places like Egypt andBrazil.
Critics note
Those trials often had flawed methodologies, small sample sizes, or possible datamanipulation.
The WHO and NIH consistently recommended against ivermectin for COVID outside of trials.
They said evidence was insufficient.
(05:38):
This is arguably a standard approach.
No strong data equals no endorsement.
But some see it as, quote, suppressing a potential cheap solution to keep profitablevaccines and therapeutics like
remdesivir on top.
A bigger factor might just be that Big Pharma invests zero in large ivermectin trialsbecause there's no money to be made.
(06:02):
The big sponsors who performed major COVID drug trials were also behind expensivetreatments or vaccines.
So the burial might be less a formal conspiracy and more that no one with deep pocketschampioned the research.
But you see how the suspicion arises, right?
People saw potential in a generic drug.
Some small study said, eh, maybe it helps.
(06:24):
But the big medical establishment reliant on pharma funding basically hammered it asworthless.
Was it worthless?
Probably yes, as bigger trials suggest minimal effect.
That doesn't mean that there wasn't also a lack of interest in proving or disproving itthoroughly.
Because if it turned out to have real benefit, that would overshadow pricey brand nametreatments.
(06:51):
So again, we have that underlying question.
Did money talk?
Next up, let's talk cannabis, LSD, and psilocybin.
For decades, these substances were labeled That means no medical value and high abusepotential.
Critics said, wait, is that actually supported by data or is it because big pharma wouldlose out if people use weed for pain or mushrooms for depression?
(07:19):
Let's break it down.
Cannabis.
For years, the official stance in the US was that marijuana had, quote, no acceptedmedical use.
Despite anecdotal and some early evidence, it could help pain, nausea, seizures, etcetera.
The cynics said Big Pharma didn't want pot legalized because it might cut into sales ofpain meds or anti-nausea drugs.
(07:44):
Over the last decade, legitimate research has blossomed.
Robust trials show
Cannabis can reduce chronic pain in certain conditions, treat spasticity in MS, and helpwith chemo-induced nausea.
Now, 37 states have some form of medical marijuana.
So, was it suppressed by big pharma?
(08:07):
More like the entire system.
Government, pharma, lobbying groups, they all had an interest in maintaining the statusquo.
There's no question
that big pharma invests in lobbying to maintain certain scheduling laws, presumably toreduce competition from a natural plant.
Let's talk psychedelics.
(08:27):
LSD and psilocybin were demonized after the 1960s, research.
In the 1950s and 60s, LSD was studied for alcoholism treatment end of life anxiety andmore with some encouraging results.
Then came the war on drugs.
Everything got shut down.
(08:49):
Now we see a renaissance.
Johns Hopkins, Imperial College London, and others run well-designed trials showing thatpsilocybin can significantly help treatment-resistant depression.
PTSD or end of life anxiety.
So the big question, was all that progress delayed half a century because these substancesthreatened Big Pharma's antidepressant market?
(09:14):
Possibly a stretch to say that it's solely Big Pharma's fault, but you can bet that cheapnatural substances or in LSD's case, off patent, aren't as profitable as SSRIs or novel
psych meds with psychedelic
therapy re-emerging, we see that indeed the old stance of no medical value was shaky.
(09:38):
So yeah, many wonder if pharma lobbies also helped keep these out of mainstream acceptancefor decades.
So it's not a direct smoking gun where Pfizer said ban psilocybin, for example.
But we definitely see a pattern where no corporate giant championed the research.
Why?
Because LSD, psilocybin, and cannabis can't be neatly patented in their natural forms.
(10:02):
So yes, that is effectively a suppression by disinterest.
Now that we have synthetic versions or new delivery methods, some of which can bepatented,
Watch how pharma invests in these quote unquote psychedelic medicine startups.
Let's talk about how Big Pharma can shape drug trials and bury unfavorable results, aphenomenon that gives credence to these suppression theories.
(10:31):
Investigations show major drug makers often design trials in ways that favor theirproduct, or they stop trials early if results look bad.
There's a well-known concept called publication bias.
Negative or null studies are less likely to be published.
A 2019 systematic review in BMJ found that industry-sponsored trials were far more likelyto produce positive results for the sponsor's drug, not necessarily due to direct fraud,
(11:03):
but subtle design choices, selecting ideal patient populations, using inappropriatecomparators, and controlling trial protocols.
In another scandal, in the Synthroid Fiasco, which is a thyroid hormone drug,
the manufacturer literally blocked the publication of a study that proved generics werejust as good.
(11:23):
It took seven years and lawsuits for that data to see the light of day.
Meanwhile, patients overpaid for brand-only prescriptions in that timeframe.
The World Health Organization's own panel about certain drugs had experts with ties topharma, occasionally leading to recommendations that favored brand-name meds over generics
(11:45):
or off-labeled uses, ignoring cost-effectiveness arguments.
This was well documented in the Tamiflu saga.
There was internal Roche data that wasn't fully released for years, and public healthagencies recommended Tamiflu widely, only to later learn it had a modest benefit at best.
(12:07):
All these examples show that big pharma manipulates the narrative isn't just conspiracytalk, it's documented.
They strategically invest in research that yields the results they want and negative orless profitable angles go unfunded or unpublished.
So if a cheap generic or an off-label therapy might compete with a blockbuster drug, doyou think pharma
(12:33):
is eager to fund a big trial proving the alternative works?
Hell no!
That's how entire lines of inquiry get sidelined.
The intangible effect is, we just won't research it so there's no big randomizedcontrolled trial so doctors say it's "unproven".
Then it stays unproven because no big money invests.
(12:55):
It's a perfect self-fulfilling prophecy.
Now let's briefly talk about low dose naltrexone, or also known as LDN, as a real worldexample of a generic that might offer some benefits for autoimmune or chronic pain
conditions, but gets no major backing from pharma.
That's because the drug is decades off patent.
(13:18):
Nobody can charge patients $1,000 a month.
So funding for large scale trials is minimal.
Preliminary studies on LDN for fibromyalgia or Crohn's disease show potential, but they'resmall.
A major multi-center trial with hundreds of patients would cost millions, and there's nobig sponsor stepping up.
(13:39):
I think we've made it clear why that is.
Meanwhile, patients who swear by it get LDN from compounding pharmacies for a few bucks amonth.
And mainstream rheumatologists or gastroenterologists are often hesitant to recommend it,citing a lack of robust data.
Gee, I wonder why that is.
It's a classic catch-22.
(13:59):
My own mom has been touting the power and effectiveness of LDN for years now.
It's a microcosm of how big pharma's profit motive can overshadow cheap treatments.
It's not maybe an active cover-up, but a systematic neglect, and in my opinion, apurposeful one.
If LDN had a fresh patent and million-dollar price tag, I bet we'd see commercials 24-7calling it a revolutionary new therapy, right?
(14:28):
So what do we do with all of this?
Are we forever stuck in a loop where only high margin drugs get R &D money and marketing,while cheaper, possibly effective therapies stay in the shadows?
This answer is complicated.
This is a global system shaped by intellectual property laws, corporate incentives, andgovernment policies.
(14:51):
But public outcry and activism do help.
When journalists expose a pharmaceutical scandal like the opioid crisis or a blockedgeneric study, the backlash can lead to legislation or lawsuits that fix some corners of
the problem.
Nonprofit and government funded trials can also fill the gap for researchingnon-patentable treatments.
(15:14):
Groups like the NIH or philanthropic organizations can sponsor large randomized controlledtrials on generics or natural remedies if there's enough demand.
Even the World Health Organization has some programs to study older or off-labeltreatments for neglected diseases.
And let's not forget the small biotech companies aiming to repatent or repurpose oldermolecules in creative ways, though unfortunately that can lead to new price hikes.
(15:43):
Bottom line, the system that we have is the system we built, a for-profit drug industrythat invests in big payoffs.
Unless or until we change the incentives, let's say awarding government prize funds fordeveloping a generic cure, cheap solutions will remain orphans.
Meanwhile, as patients, we can push for more transparency.
(16:06):
We can question brand new pricey meds and keep an open mind about generics or alternativesthat might be overshadowed.
So no, it's not a cartoonish James Bond villain scenario where a guy in a top hat cackleswhile hiding The Cure in a vault.
But the net effect might as well be.
If it's not profitable, it doesn't get studied or promoted.
(16:29):
That means you as a patient or physician might never know about a cheaper or simpleroption.
And that, my beautiful nerds, is a giant load of bullshit.
Stay aware, stay curious, and call it out when you see it.
All right, that's a wrap for this episode of I Call Bullshit.
We tackled big pharma's profit over patients dynamic from opioid lawsuits to suppressedgenerics, from ivermectin's fiasco to psychedelics.
(16:59):
If you found this enlightening or enraging, please subscribe, leave a review, and sharethe episode with a friend who's tired of overpriced meds.
We can't fix the system overnight, but we sure can expose the nonsense.
As always, I'm Kristina Braly reminding you question everything, especially if it's tooexpensive and too profitable.
(17:19):
Thanks for joining me, my beautiful nerds.
Catch you next time and stay skeptical.
Hey there, my beautiful nerds.
(00:02):
Have you ever looked at the whole medical system and wondered why the hell are certainmeds pushed nonstop while others get quietly ignored?
Let me tell you, there's a reason your insurance covers that pricey patent protected pill,but maybe won't pay a dime for some cheap decades old remedy.
Today, we're calling out Big Pharma for prioritizing profit over everything else.
(00:28):
system built on monopolies and margins might just bury treatments that can't linecorporate pockets.
Welcome back to I Call Bullshit with Kristina Braly your host.
The podcast where we blow the lid off corporate scams, deep rooted myths, and anythingelse that's been pulling the wool over your eyes.
No politics, no spin, just straight talk and fiery opinions.
(00:50):
I'm your host, Kristina, physician, mom, and big time skeptic these days.
Today, we're shining a bright light on big pharma and asking...
Are they actively suppressing cheaper cures to protect their profit margins?
We'll talk about the opioid crisis lawsuits, revealing how companies like Purdue Pharmapushed addictive painkillers, the ivermectin saga, a cheap drug that mainstream media
(01:15):
swiftly dismissed, the cannabis and psychedelic research that's been suppressed fordecades, and real influence on drug trials, how negative results can disappear.
A brief look at LDN, also known as low dose naltrexone, a super cheap generic that mighthelp with certain conditions, yet it remains on the fringe.
So settle in because we're about to call major BS on the way big drug companies operate.
(02:01):
Let's start with a headline you probably know, the opioid crisis.
For years, people whispered about Big Pharma pushing highly addictive painkillers ontodoctors and patients, brushing aside the real risks.
And some folks said, no, that's just a conspiracy.
But guess what?
Lawsuits and internal documents from companies like Purdue Pharma basically confirmed it.
(02:24):
Purdue Pharma developed OxyContin, marketing it as a near-magical solution for chronicpain.
downplayed addiction risk, paid reps to push the drug into the prescribing mainstream.
Lawsuits revealed that they had a strategy to maximize profits by relentlessly targetingdoctors, especially those in rural areas with higher painkiller usage.
(02:47):
Multiple states sued Purdue, and in 2019, Purdue filed for bankruptcy to handle theavalanche of settlements.
Internal memos showed executives knew how addictive OxyContin could be, but kept sellingthe storyline that it was less addictive than immediate release opioids.
Meanwhile, the whole country was drowning in an opioid epidemic.
(03:09):
A wave of over 2,000 lawsuits eventually forced a huge settlement, tens of billions inliability.
But the damage was done.
Half a million Americans died.
from opioid overdoses in the last two decades.
perfect example of how profit motives overshadow public health.
(03:30):
Instead of being cautious about addiction, Big Pharma used marketing spin.
People were told these meds are safe, just a small risk.
So next time someone says Big Pharma wouldn't risk lives for profit, well,
the opioid crisis says otherwise.
They basically admitted it in court.
That sets the stage for how they might similarly ignore or undermine cheaper, saferalternatives if those threaten to reduce their high margin drug sales.
(03:58):
Now let's pivot to something more recent, the ivermectin saga during COVID-19.
I know as a medical professional whenever we hear ivermectin these days, especiallypost-COVID,
where it kind of like roll our eyes, shrug our shoulders.
And I admittedly internally cringed when I was doing the research for this.
was like, I can't believe I'm about to talk about ivermectin and its benefits.
(04:22):
Because that just, it was so heavily spun negatively amongst the scientific communityduring COVID-19.
But let's talk about it with an unbiased approach and clear eyes and no spin, noinfluence, no bias.
Early in the pandemic, some small studies suggested that this cheap antiparasitic mighthelp mild COVID cases.
(04:45):
Mainstream medicine swiftly labeled it unproven, even quote, dangerous, though ironically,it's been used safely for parasitic infections for years.
Before we continue, let me be crystal clear.
Large, high-quality trials so far do not show a definitive benefit of ivermectin againstCOVID.
But that's not the juicy part.
The controversy is that many people believe there was a coordinated attempt to bury anyinvestigation into it purely because it's a dirt cheap generic with no patent left.
(05:17):
Supporters point out a handful of positive preliminary studies from places like Egypt andBrazil.
Critics note
Those trials often had flawed methodologies, small sample sizes, or possible datamanipulation.
The WHO and NIH consistently recommended against ivermectin for COVID outside of trials.
They said evidence was insufficient.
(05:38):
This is arguably a standard approach.
No strong data equals no endorsement.
But some see it as, quote, suppressing a potential cheap solution to keep profitablevaccines and therapeutics like
remdesivir on top.
A bigger factor might just be that Big Pharma invests zero in large ivermectin trialsbecause there's no money to be made.
(06:02):
The big sponsors who performed major COVID drug trials were also behind expensivetreatments or vaccines.
So the burial might be less a formal conspiracy and more that no one with deep pocketschampioned the research.
But you see how the suspicion arises, right?
People saw potential in a generic drug.
Some small study said, eh, maybe it helps.
(06:24):
But the big medical establishment reliant on pharma funding basically hammered it asworthless.
Was it worthless?
Probably yes, as bigger trials suggest minimal effect.
That doesn't mean that there wasn't also a lack of interest in proving or disproving itthoroughly.
Because if it turned out to have real benefit, that would overshadow pricey brand nametreatments.
(06:51):
So again, we have that underlying question.
Did money talk?
Next up, let's talk cannabis, LSD, and psilocybin.
For decades, these substances were labeled That means no medical value and high abusepotential.
Critics said, wait, is that actually supported by data or is it because big pharma wouldlose out if people use weed for pain or mushrooms for depression?
(07:19):
Let's break it down.
Cannabis.
For years, the official stance in the US was that marijuana had, quote, no acceptedmedical use.
Despite anecdotal and some early evidence, it could help pain, nausea, seizures, etcetera.
The cynics said Big Pharma didn't want pot legalized because it might cut into sales ofpain meds or anti-nausea drugs.
(07:44):
Over the last decade, legitimate research has blossomed.
Robust trials show
Cannabis can reduce chronic pain in certain conditions, treat spasticity in MS, and helpwith chemo-induced nausea.
Now, 37 states have some form of medical marijuana.
So, was it suppressed by big pharma?
(08:07):
More like the entire system.
Government, pharma, lobbying groups, they all had an interest in maintaining the statusquo.
There's no question
that big pharma invests in lobbying to maintain certain scheduling laws, presumably toreduce competition from a natural plant.
Let's talk psychedelics.
(08:27):
LSD and psilocybin were demonized after the 1960s, research.
In the 1950s and 60s, LSD was studied for alcoholism treatment end of life anxiety andmore with some encouraging results.
Then came the war on drugs.
Everything got shut down.
(08:49):
Now we see a renaissance.
Johns Hopkins, Imperial College London, and others run well-designed trials showing thatpsilocybin can significantly help treatment-resistant depression.
PTSD or end of life anxiety.
So the big question, was all that progress delayed half a century because these substancesthreatened Big Pharma's antidepressant market?
(09:14):
Possibly a stretch to say that it's solely Big Pharma's fault, but you can bet that cheapnatural substances or in LSD's case, off patent, aren't as profitable as SSRIs or novel
psych meds with psychedelic
therapy re-emerging, we see that indeed the old stance of no medical value was shaky.
(09:38):
So yeah, many wonder if pharma lobbies also helped keep these out of mainstream acceptancefor decades.
So it's not a direct smoking gun where Pfizer said ban psilocybin, for example.
But we definitely see a pattern where no corporate giant championed the research.
Why?
Because LSD, psilocybin, and cannabis can't be neatly patented in their natural forms.
(10:02):
So yes, that is effectively a suppression by disinterest.
Now that we have synthetic versions or new delivery methods, some of which can bepatented,
Watch how pharma invests in these quote unquote psychedelic medicine startups.
Let's talk about how Big Pharma can shape drug trials and bury unfavorable results, aphenomenon that gives credence to these suppression theories.
(10:31):
Investigations show major drug makers often design trials in ways that favor theirproduct, or they stop trials early if results look bad.
There's a well-known concept called publication bias.
Negative or null studies are less likely to be published.
A 2019 systematic review in BMJ found that industry-sponsored trials were far more likelyto produce positive results for the sponsor's drug, not necessarily due to direct fraud,
(11:03):
but subtle design choices, selecting ideal patient populations, using inappropriatecomparators, and controlling trial protocols.
In another scandal, in the Synthroid Fiasco, which is a thyroid hormone drug,
the manufacturer literally blocked the publication of a study that proved generics werejust as good.
(11:23):
It took seven years and lawsuits for that data to see the light of day.
Meanwhile, patients overpaid for brand-only prescriptions in that timeframe.
The World Health Organization's own panel about certain drugs had experts with ties topharma, occasionally leading to recommendations that favored brand-name meds over generics
(11:45):
or off-labeled uses, ignoring cost-effectiveness arguments.
This was well documented in the Tamiflu saga.
There was internal Roche data that wasn't fully released for years, and public healthagencies recommended Tamiflu widely, only to later learn it had a modest benefit at best.
(12:07):
All these examples show that big pharma manipulates the narrative isn't just conspiracytalk, it's documented.
They strategically invest in research that yields the results they want and negative orless profitable angles go unfunded or unpublished.
So if a cheap generic or an off-label therapy might compete with a blockbuster drug, doyou think pharma
(12:33):
is eager to fund a big trial proving the alternative works?
Hell no!
That's how entire lines of inquiry get sidelined.
The intangible effect is, we just won't research it so there's no big randomizedcontrolled trial so doctors say it's "unproven".
Then it stays unproven because no big money invests.
(12:55):
It's a perfect self-fulfilling prophecy.
Now let's briefly talk about low dose naltrexone, or also known as LDN, as a real worldexample of a generic that might offer some benefits for autoimmune or chronic pain
conditions, but gets no major backing from pharma.
That's because the drug is decades off patent.
(13:18):
Nobody can charge patients $1,000 a month.
So funding for large scale trials is minimal.
Preliminary studies on LDN for fibromyalgia or Crohn's disease show potential, but they'resmall.
A major multi-center trial with hundreds of patients would cost millions, and there's nobig sponsor stepping up.
(13:39):
I think we've made it clear why that is.
Meanwhile, patients who swear by it get LDN from compounding pharmacies for a few bucks amonth.
And mainstream rheumatologists or gastroenterologists are often hesitant to recommend it,citing a lack of robust data.
Gee, I wonder why that is.
It's a classic catch-22.
(13:59):
My own mom has been touting the power and effectiveness of LDN for years now.
It's a microcosm of how big pharma's profit motive can overshadow cheap treatments.
It's not maybe an active cover-up, but a systematic neglect, and in my opinion, apurposeful one.
If LDN had a fresh patent and million-dollar price tag, I bet we'd see commercials 24-7calling it a revolutionary new therapy, right?
(14:28):
So what do we do with all of this?
Are we forever stuck in a loop where only high margin drugs get R &D money and marketing,while cheaper, possibly effective therapies stay in the shadows?
This answer is complicated.
This is a global system shaped by intellectual property laws, corporate incentives, andgovernment policies.
(14:51):
But public outcry and activism do help.
When journalists expose a pharmaceutical scandal like the opioid crisis or a blockedgeneric study, the backlash can lead to legislation or lawsuits that fix some corners of
the problem.
Nonprofit and government funded trials can also fill the gap for researchingnon-patentable treatments.
(15:14):
Groups like the NIH or philanthropic organizations can sponsor large randomized controlledtrials on generics or natural remedies if there's enough demand.
Even the World Health Organization has some programs to study older or off-labeltreatments for neglected diseases.
And let's not forget the small biotech companies aiming to repatent or repurpose oldermolecules in creative ways, though unfortunately that can lead to new price hikes.
(15:43):
Bottom line, the system that we have is the system we built, a for-profit drug industrythat invests in big payoffs.
Unless or until we change the incentives, let's say awarding government prize funds fordeveloping a generic cure, cheap solutions will remain orphans.
Meanwhile, as patients, we can push for more transparency.
(16:06):
We can question brand new pricey meds and keep an open mind about generics or alternativesthat might be overshadowed.
So no, it's not a cartoonish James Bond villain scenario where a guy in a top hat cackleswhile hiding The Cure in a vault.
But the net effect might as well be.
If it's not profitable, it doesn't get studied or promoted.
(16:29):
That means you as a patient or physician might never know about a cheaper or simpleroption.
And that, my beautiful nerds, is a giant load of bullshit.
Stay aware, stay curious, and call it out when you see it.
All right, that's a wrap for this episode of I Call Bullshit.
We tackled big pharma's profit over patients dynamic from opioid lawsuits to suppressedgenerics, from ivermectin's fiasco to psychedelics.
(16:59):
If you found this enlightening or enraging, please subscribe, leave a review, and sharethe episode with a friend who's tired of overpriced meds.
We can't fix the system overnight, but we sure can expose the nonsense.
As always, I'm Kristina Braly reminding you question everything, especially if it's tooexpensive and too profitable.
(17:19):
Thanks for joining me, my beautiful nerds.
Catch you next time and stay skeptical.
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com