For those who haven't noticed, the concept of "trusting the science" regarding one's health is rapidly deteriorating in the United States. Besides the absolute failure of COVID jabs, three specific instances over the past few days have taken center stage. First, substantial evidence now shows that the rationale for antidepressants that began in the 1990s—which declared a serotonin deficiency causes depression—is based on no proof. Next, it has come to light that one of the most cited pieces of Alzheimer's disease research in the last twenty years may have been deliberately manipulated. And most recently, reports reveal that over half of the studies testing anticancer drugs against each other used protocol rules that favored the experimental arm over the control arm.
Undoubtedly, the heavily censored group of concerned citizens paying close attention to the COVID-19 mRNA jab campaign are not shocked by these revelations. Instead, they have been increasingly suspicious of "the science" surrounding COVID-19 injections since the moment the primary objective became clear. Indeed, at any cost, the agenda to jab every human being on the planet with an experimental mRNA product fraught with inaccurate, overlooked, and skewed data and an ever-growing list of severe adverse events is mind-boggling.
In addition to the tyrannical COVID narrative, a closer look at the three significant healthcare failures mentioned above—each closely leaning on "the science"—corroborates what COVID-19 injection skeptics have said for nearly three years. A much larger scenario is at play here.
Evidence Shows Serotonin Deficiency Does Not Cause Depression
The idea that serotonin might be involved in depression was first suggested in the 1960s. It was known as the serotonin theory, as explained by University College of London professor Dr. Joanna Moncrieff. Public messaging on the subject got underway in the 1990s when the increasingly scandalous Big Pharma began marketing its new range of antidepressant drugs known as selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs.
With the United States' dangerous "direct to consumer" advertising, Big Pharma had the perfect platform to tell Americans—in carefully targeted TV advertising commercials—that low levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin most likely caused depression. After dropping their bombshell news, they announced their cure—antidepressant drugs. With a substantial promotional campaign targeting doctors, no other explanations on the drugs were typically needed or provided.
Countless doctors repeated the message around the globe, both in their private practices and in the media. In the 2000s, Big Pharma's bribery of doctors to prescribe SSRI drugs began to decrease. But the damage had been done. Moncrieff emphasized that the SSRI marketing campaign had successfully established the idea that a chemical imbalance caused depression in the brain—essentially labeling it as a "fact" in the minds of much of the medical profession and the general population.
Believing their doctors, a myriad of individuals started taking SSRI drugs because they thought they had something wrong with their brain that an antidepressant could fix. The SSRI campaign was so successful that from 1991 to 2018, the number of SSRI prescriptions in the U.S. rose a whopping 3,000%, with 224 million prescriptions written in 2021. In a country with 330 million people, those numbers are staggering. Yet, the suicide rate—one of the most reliable indicators of depression—during that same seventeen-year time frame increased by an astronomical 35%.
As time went on, a few leading psychiatrists began questioning the serotonin theory. In the early 2000s, two academics uncovered a "disconnect" related to SSRIs when comparing information on pharmaceutical websites with the statements of certain researchers. Despite remaining largely silent in the public arena, the duo published a piece on the issue, which, as Moncrieff explained, led to the discovery that "several leading psychiatrists claimed the psychiatrists had never actually believed in the chemical imbalance "myth" anyway." Still, to reiterate, they chose not to speak loudly about their findings.
Thus, despite their startling awareness, the belief that serotonin is the cause of depression was still widely endorsed in scientific literature in the 1990s and 2000s. Moncrieff describes the belief in this theory as one of the most influential theories there is on the origins of depression, despite the fact it is not supported by scientific evidence. Following their recent research into the matter, Moncreiff and her team concluded that it is not possible to say that taking SSRI antidepressants is worthwhile or even completely safe. Meanwhile, taxpayer-funded research into depression, serotonin, and SSRIs continues.
Presently, as the truth about serotonin and its ties to depression become more evident, SSRIs have hit many we love and care for far too close to home. For years, those brave enough to speak up have questioned the role antidepressants tragically play in teen suicides and devastating events like mass shootings. Although much damage has been done, many Americans are starting to take note. A more in-depth examination of Moncrieff's important work can be found here.
Alzheimer's Study Shows Deliberate Manipulation
If that weren't devastating enough, the recent news surrounding Alzheimer's research is startling. On July 21, 2022, Science reported that critical parts of one of the most cited Alzheimer's disease research papers may have been deliberately manipulated. Published in Nature in 2006, the highly influential paper has steered billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer-funded research into Alzheimer's, one of the most common causes of dementia worldwide. Meanwhile, finding a treatment for Alzheimer's has eluded scientists for decades, making the news especially devastating to the individuals and families of the 6.5 million people suffering from the disease in the United States.
Vanderbilt University neuroscientist Matthew Schrag inadvertently stumbled across the scandalous research papers recently while investigating an experimental drug for Alzheimer's. "The data should speak for itself," Schrag said when revealing his role as a whistleblower. The study in question, led by neuroscientist Sylvain Lesné, "underpins a key element of the dominant yet controversial amyloid hypothesis of Alzheimer's, which holds that [protein amyloid beta] Aβ clumps, known as plaques, in brain tissue are a primary cause of the devastating illness."
At issue is whether, under Lesné's direction, images in multiple research papers in the study were skewed to more favorably support the desired hypothesis. According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the neuroscientist, an associate professor at the University of Minnesota, is under investigation by the University to determine if he, along with his co-authors, including Dr. Karen Ashe, intentionally "used manipulated or duplicated images to inflate the role of a protein in the onset of Alzheimer's."
As highlighted by Science, Schrag colorized and magnified images from Lesné's studies in ways that prompted questions about whether they were doctored or copied. Expert consultants agreed some of the images in the University-led studies appeared manipulated in ways that elevated the importance of the protein Aβ*56.
Adding to the magnitude of the finding, from 2008 to 2012, on Lesné's behalf, the University received $774,000 in National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants specifically related to Aβ*56 clumps. After that initial chunk of funding, NIH records show Lesné received more than $7 million in additional NIH grants related to the origins of Alzheimer's. Underscoring the significance of this fraudulent discovery—which should enrage every American taxpayer—the Star wrote:
"The U studies have been so influential on the course of Alzheimer's research over the past two decades that any evidence of manipulation or false study results could fundamentally shift thinking on the causes of the disease and dementia. The investigation also implicates two successful researchers on a key measure by which they are judged: their ability to pull in federal grants."
Cancer Clinical Trials Intentionally Favor Experimental Drug Arm
It is simply unacceptable to discover that depression and Alzheimer's research is deceitful. And now, with cancer on the rise amid COVID-19, it has come to light that over half of the clinical trials testing anticancer drugs against each other are rigged to favor the experimental arm of the study instead of the control arm. As described by Medscape, this revelation leaves unanswered the question of whether new cancer drugs are actually superior to older ones or if, instead, different outcomes are owed to more aggressive dosing or growth factor support.
Researchers published the findings in the European Journal of Cancer on July 10, 2022, telling Medscape that cancer trials may be "rigged" so that new therapies appear more effective than if the trial had been designed with "fairer rules." For their highly concerning study, Dr. Timothée Olivier with Geneva Hospital, Switzerland, and colleagues performed a cross-sectional analysis of "all 62 head-to-head registration RCTs that led to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval between 2009 and 2021." They discovered that an astonishing 65% of the trials had unequal rules for medication, dose, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) use, or both. Stunned by the findings, Oliver shared with Medscape:
"[The results are] highly concerning because when you are investigating the effect of a new drug, you don't want to have a false sense of a drug's effect because of other factors not directly related to the drug's efficacy.
If you introduce unfair rules about dose modification or supporting medication that favors the new drug, then you don't know if a positive trial is due to the effect of the new drug or to the effect of differential dosing or supporting medication."
Oliver continued, explaining that, identical to the COVID jabs, the multi-billion-dollar pharmaceutical industry sponsors most cancer trials. He added that it is the role and duty of government regulators to reconcile industry incentives with the patient's best interests, rightly proclaiming, "and there is accumulating data showing the regulators are failing to do so."
Data Overwhelmingly Shows Regulators Fail to Protect Our Health
After enduring for way too long the tyranny tied to COVID, are we surprised by these bombshell data manipulation revelations surrounding the funding and subsequent treatment of depression, Alzheimer's, and cancer—three huge problems in our country? To many, the answer is "absolutely not." After all—as emphasized with COVID-19—the "revolving door" between the FDA and Big Pharma has been around for a long time and is gaining momentum.
Without question, one thing is indisputable. The pharmaceutical industry's incredibly biased, profit-driven, and taxpayer-funded influence over the healthcare of every man, woman, and child in America is creating a massive health crisis in our country. There is no doubt that a perfectly healthy, thriving, and drug-free outcome for American citizens is not the goal of Big Pharma or the government agencies working under the Biden administration. As the situation stands right now, the far-reaching and dire predicament is appropriately summed up by Oliver, who asserted:
"Financial conflict of interest is present at many levels of drug development, including drug regulation. How can one fairly and independently appraise a medical intervention if one's current or future revenue depends on its source?"