Big Pharma and the Media are at it again - Pushing faulty tests and harmful drugs

[Red Phoenix]

Big Pharma and the Media are at it again.

Pushing faulty tests and harmful drugs.

Source: https://ianbrighthope.substack.com/p/big-pharma-and-the-media-are-at-it

= = = 

> Articles in the media are surfacing that serve as a thinly veiled pharmaceutical propaganda pieces, peddling fear and misinformation under the guise of public health guidance. Their core premise—urging individuals to "know" their risk for severe COVID-19 and "act quickly" with a plan—rests on a foundation of scientifically dubious practices and profiteering motives that have plagued the COVID-19 response from the outset. Specifically, the reliance on PCR tests with their notorious false positive rates and the aggressive promotion of toxic, overpriced antivirals like remdesivir represent a scandalous betrayal of public trust, prioritising corporate gain over human lives. I want to dismantle these practices with an unapologetic clarity, exposing their flaws and the harm they’ve inflicted.

 

First, let’s address the PCR test debacle, which has been the linchpin of the COVID-19 "case" narrative. The articles implicitly endorse the use of PCR tests to identify COVID-19 cases, a methodology that has been thoroughly discredited by independent scientists and critical analysts. PCR tests, when run at high cycle thresholds (Ct values often exceeding 35 or even 40), amplify genetic material to the point of absurdity, detecting minute fragments of viral RNA that are often non-infectious or even unrelated to SARS-CoV-2. A 2020 study published in The BMJ highlighted that RT-PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 were not validated against a gold standard, with design flaws leading to non-specific amplification and rampant false positives. The Swiss Institute of Microbiology noted these tests’ propensity for erroneous results, yet they were weaponised to inflate case numbers, creating a phantom pandemic of "asymptomatic" carriers. Posts on X have echoed this, with users citing false positive rates as high as 95-99% due to the inability to isolate the virus itself, rendering the entire testing regime a fraudulent exercise in fearmongering.

This misuse of PCR tests had catastrophic consequences. By labelling healthy individuals as "positive" based on meaningless results, hospitals and governments justified draconian measures—lockdowns, forced quarantines, and unnecessary medical interventions—while funnelling billions into testing industries. These article’s call to "act quickly" upon a positive test ignores this context, perpetuating the myth that a PCR result equates to a genuine health threat. It’s not just misleading; it’s a deliberate obfuscation of the test’s limitations, designed to keep the public in a state of perpetual panic and compliance.

 

Now, let’s turn to the insidious push for antivirals, which reeks of pharmaceutical collusion. The recommendation to "act quickly" with a plan likely points to drugs like remdesivir, a toxic and exorbitantly priced antiviral that has become a poster child for COVID-19 profiteering. Remdesivir’s track record is a horror story: during Ebola trials, it was known to cause organ damage, particularly to kidneys and livers, yet it was fast-tracked for COVID-19 under Emergency Use Authorization by figures like Anthony Fauci, despite its dismal efficacy. X posts have detailed how remdesivir’s use in hospitals was linked to worsened outcomes, with patients placed on ventilators and dosed with this drug suffering higher mortality rates. The drug’s cost—often thousands of dollars per course—stands in stark contrast to cheaper, safer alternatives like ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine and zinc which were vilified or suppressed to protect remdesivir’s market share.

These articles fail to question these antivirals or acknowledge their risks are not just journalistic negligence; it’s complicity in a system that monetised suffering. By urging readers to seek treatment for "high-risk" conditions without scrutinizing the drugs involved, the article becomes a mouthpiece for Big Pharma, steering vulnerable people toward interventions that may harm rather than heal. The financial incentives are glaring: hospitals received bonuses for COVID-19 diagnoses and remdesivir use, a fact highlighted in X discussions about the Fauci hearings. This created a perverse cycle where false positive PCR tests fed patients into a pipeline of toxic treatments, enriching pharmaceutical giants while patients paid the ultimate price.

 

The broader implications are chilling. The article’s fear-driven narrative—know your risk, act fast—relies on a distorted reality where flawed diagnostics and dangerous drugs are presented as salvation. It sidesteps the inconvenient truth that early treatment protocols, natural immunity, and basic supportive care (like vitamin D, vitamin C and zinc) were often more effective and far less harmful. By omitting these alternatives, these articles perpetuate a one-size-fits-all medical tyranny, stripping individuals of informed choice and critical thinking. The slick presentations and authoritative tone mask the role as a cog in a machine that has eroded trust in science and medicine.

In conclusion, the articles are a damning indictment of the industry, embodying the worst excesses of the COVID-19 era. Uncritical endorsement of false positive PCR tests and toxic antivirals like remdesivir reveal a reckless disregard for truth and human welfare. These practices didn’t just mislead; they fuelled a global hysteria, bankrupted economies, and cost countless lives under the pretence of public health. The articles failure to question the establishment narrative makes it not just misleading but morally bankrupt, a shameful artifact of a time when fear and greed trumped reason.

The public deserves better—they deserve the truth, unfiltered and unapologetic.

Ian Brighthope

[Stiddle Mump]

Not a bad attempt to spell it out. More than an attempt. a worthwhile piece. Thanks to both Ian and Red for the enlightenment. 

 

Personally I only agree part way. But good piece all the same.

 

Anyone ever heard of DARPA? No! Well DARPA (Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency) had been working behind the curtain getting everything prepared for 2020. Ensuring that things could move effortlessly and quickly once the pandemic arrived.

 

Ever heard of Deborah Birx? No! Well our Debs had executive authority at the White house during The Don's first stint. AFAKI, there were only two people that could remove her. The head of US Health and The Don himself. And guess what? She was a military officer.

 

There is so much to know. So much to yet find out. Every little helps us to see the full picture.

''The public deserve better—they deserve the truth, unfiltered and unapologetic.''

I'll go with that.

[Mark Nothing]

There are many parallels to our modern day experts theories and queen jezebel's witch doctor theories. She was reviled as an abomination by her many forms of poisonous witch craft in the Holy Bible.

 

The definition of witchcraft is to conjure up beliefs in the target audience that leads them to self inflict harm or misfortune on themselves often times in the pursuit of financial benefits to the instigator.

 

Queen jezebel had an especially grotesque poisoning treatment to save her people.  There were plenty of poisonous snakes, lizards, scorpions and spiders available in queen jezebel's kingdom.  Her witch doctors would convince the citizens to be bitten on purpose in the name of health and prosperity and to avoid disease or other problems.  For payment of course.  An old form of vaccination that conveniently bypasses the human body defense mechanisms.

 

It was especially profitable, as a second payment was quickly due when the poison kicked in.  A great way to plunder all the goodies from those susceptible.  Land, farm, house, tools, gold, selling children into slavery.  A reallocation of wealth from the people to the monarch.  Via diabolical witch craft.

 

Now queen jezebel openly attacked the priests who knew the truth to her trickery.  They knew how to neutralise and eliminate her sorcery and render it powerless.

[rattlesnake]

9 hours ago, Mark Nothing said:

There are many parallels to our modern day experts theories and queen jezebel's witch doctor theories. She was reviled as an abomination by her many forms of poisonous witch craft in the Holy Bible.

 

The definition of witchcraft is to conjure up beliefs in the target audience that leads them to self inflict harm or misfortune on themselves often times in the pursuit of financial benefits to the instigator.

 

Queen jezebel had an especially grotesque poisoning treatment to save her people.  There were plenty of poisonous snakes, lizards, scorpions and spiders available in queen jezebel's kingdom.  Her witch doctors would convince the citizens to be bitten on purpose in the name of health and prosperity and to avoid disease or other problems.  For payment of course.  An old form of vaccination that conveniently bypasses the human body defense mechanisms.

 

It was especially profitable, as a second payment was quickly due when the poison kicked in.  A great way to plunder all the goodies from those susceptible.  Land, farm, house, tools, gold, selling children into slavery.  A reallocation of wealth from the people to the monarch.  Via diabolical witch craft.

 

Now queen jezebel openly attacked the priests who knew the truth to her trickery.  They knew how to neutralise and eliminate her sorcery and render it powerless.

 

[kwilco]

Conspiracy theorists love to think they’re doing research, but all they’re doing is digging deeper into ignorance. It’s not truth-seeking — it’s fan fiction with a medical theme. I think it’s genuinely sad how much time some people spend spinning conspiracies when that same energy could be used to actually understand the science. But I guess it’s easier to yell 'Big Pharma' than read a clinical trial."

 

So here's a reality check from science ... It's healthy to be sceptical. It's essential to hold institutions accountable. But it’s also crucial that scepticism doesn’t slide into pseudoscience.

 

The post above makes sweeping claims about PCR tests, antiviral treatments, and COVID-19 response, while invoking classic tropes of the "Big Pharma" conspiracy. So let’s take a breath, bring some scientific rigour to the table, and unpick the core claims with the help of actual evidence—not viral Substack posts or random X threads.

 

PCR Tests Are Not “Discredited”

Let’s start with the PCR test. Contrary to what's claimed here, PCR (polymerase chain reaction) remains one of the most accurate and sensitive methods for detecting viral RNA. Yes, it’s true that cycle threshold (Ct) values matter—and labs have refined protocols over time to improve accuracy—but the idea that “95–99% are false positives” is simply false. That statistic doesn’t exist in any credible epidemiological literature.
PCR’s sensitivity means it can detect low viral loads—important for early detection, especially in vulnerable populations. Are there limitations? Of course. But that’s true of every medical test. That’s why PCR is often combined with clinical symptoms, contact tracing, and other data in public health decision-making.

 

Ben Goldacre—whose work Bad Science and Bad Pharma rightly criticises data manipulation—would call out misuse of statistics. But he would also call out cherry-picking and the spread of scientifically illiterate paranoia masquerading as critical thinking.
Ramdev Sivir and the “Toxic Antiviral” Myth

 

Next, remdesivir. It’s no silver bullet. But neither is it a cartoon villain. Clinical trials like the ACTT-1 trial (published in NEJM) found that it reduced recovery time in hospitalized patients. Other studies found mixed or modest benefits—but calling it "toxic" based on misapplied data from Ebola trials is disingenuous.

 

Drugs are authorised under emergency use when risks of inaction are higher than risks of use. That’s how medicine works in real time during a pandemic. If better treatments emerge, protocols change. That’s not conspiracy—that’s adaptive evidence-based practice.

 

Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin and the “Suppressed Cure” Fallacy
This narrative has been debunked countless times. Large-scale randomised controlled trials—including the WHO’s Solidarity Trial and the UK’s RECOVERY Trial—found that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin offer no meaningful benefit for COVID-19 patients and can carry risks, especially in unsupervised use.
If vitamin D and zinc were enough to treat severe viral respiratory illness, we’d have a very different medical history. Supplementing deficiencies is helpful—but replacing antivirals with multivitamins in ICU patients is not medicine. It’s magical thinking.

 

Why the “Big Pharma = Evil” Argument Fails
Here’s where Goldacre comes in. In Bad Pharma, he exposes real problems: lack of data transparency, ghost-writing, and selective reporting. But even he warned that if critics abandon evidence and run on emotion, they become as untrustworthy as the worst industry offenders.

 

Criticising pharmaceutical practices is necessary. Replacing that criticism with online rage, false statistics, and science denial is worse—it undermines trust in medicine, harms public health, and fuels dangerous movements that cost real lives.

 

Science Is Messy, But It’s Not a Conspiracy
COVID-19 was a global emergency. Mistakes were made. But they weren’t the product of some evil cabal—they were often the result of uncertainty, time pressure, and an evolving evidence base. Science learns. Conspiracy theories don't.
If we care about truth, let’s do better than posts like this. Let’s demand transparency, yes—but also uphold scientific literacy, humility, and responsibility in the way we talk about health.
multivitamins in ICU patients is not medicine. It’s magical thinking.
Why the “Big Pharma = Evil” Argument Fails

 

Here’s where Goldacre comes in. In Bad Pharma, he exposes real problems: lack of data transparency, ghost-writing, and selective reporting. But even he warned that if critics abandon evidence and run on emotion, they become as untrustworthy as the worst industry offenders.

 

Criticising pharmaceutical practices is necessary. Replacing that criticism with online rage, false statistics, and science denial is worse—it undermines trust in medicine, harms public health, and fuels dangerous movements that cost real lives.

 

Science Is Messy, But It’s Not a Conspiracy
COVID-19 was a global emergency. Mistakes were made. But they weren’t the product of some evil cabal—they were often the result of uncertainty, time pressure, and an evolving evidence base. Science learns. Conspiracy theories don't.

 

If we care about truth, let’s do better than posts like this. Let’s demand transparency, yes—but also uphold scientific literacy, humility, and responsibility in the way we talk about health.

 

[Stiddle Mump]

6 hours ago, kwilco said:

Conspiracy theorists love to think they’re doing research, but all they’re doing is digging deeper into ignorance. It’s not truth-seeking — it’s fan fiction with a medical theme. I think it’s genuinely sad how much time some people spend spinning conspiracies when that same energy could be used to actually understand the science. But I guess it’s easier to yell 'Big Pharma' than read a clinical trial."

 

So here's a reality check from science ... It's healthy to be sceptical. It's essential to hold institutions accountable. But it’s also crucial that scepticism doesn’t slide into pseudoscience.

 

The post above makes sweeping claims about PCR tests, antiviral treatments, and COVID-19 response, while invoking classic tropes of the "Big Pharma" conspiracy. So let’s take a breath, bring some scientific rigour to the table, and unpick the core claims with the help of actual evidence—not viral Substack posts or random X threads.

 

PCR Tests Are Not “Discredited”

Let’s start with the PCR test. Contrary to what's claimed here, PCR (polymerase chain reaction) remains one of the most accurate and sensitive methods for detecting viral RNA. Yes, it’s true that cycle threshold (Ct) values matter—and labs have refined protocols over time to improve accuracy—but the idea that “95–99% are false positives” is simply false. That statistic doesn’t exist in any credible epidemiological literature.
PCR’s sensitivity means it can detect low viral loads—important for early detection, especially in vulnerable populations. Are there limitations? Of course. But that’s true of every medical test. That’s why PCR is often combined with clinical symptoms, contact tracing, and other data in public health decision-making.

 

Ben Goldacre—whose work Bad Science and Bad Pharma rightly criticises data manipulation—would call out misuse of statistics. But he would also call out cherry-picking and the spread of scientifically illiterate paranoia masquerading as critical thinking.
Ramdev Sivir and the “Toxic Antiviral” Myth

 

Next, remdesivir. It’s no silver bullet. But neither is it a cartoon villain. Clinical trials like the ACTT-1 trial (published in NEJM) found that it reduced recovery time in hospitalized patients. Other studies found mixed or modest benefits—but calling it "toxic" based on misapplied data from Ebola trials is disingenuous.

 

Drugs are authorised under emergency use when risks of inaction are higher than risks of use. That’s how medicine works in real time during a pandemic. If better treatments emerge, protocols change. That’s not conspiracy—that’s adaptive evidence-based practice.

 

Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin and the “Suppressed Cure” Fallacy
This narrative has been debunked countless times. Large-scale randomised controlled trials—including the WHO’s Solidarity Trial and the UK’s RECOVERY Trial—found that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin offer no meaningful benefit for COVID-19 patients and can carry risks, especially in unsupervised use.
If vitamin D and zinc were enough to treat severe viral respiratory illness, we’d have a very different medical history. Supplementing deficiencies is helpful—but replacing antivirals with multivitamins in ICU patients is not medicine. It’s magical thinking.

 

Why the “Big Pharma = Evil” Argument Fails
Here’s where Goldacre comes in. In Bad Pharma, he exposes real problems: lack of data transparency, ghost-writing, and selective reporting. But even he warned that if critics abandon evidence and run on emotion, they become as untrustworthy as the worst industry offenders.

 

Criticising pharmaceutical practices is necessary. Replacing that criticism with online rage, false statistics, and science denial is worse—it undermines trust in medicine, harms public health, and fuels dangerous movements that cost real lives.

 

Science Is Messy, But It’s Not a Conspiracy
COVID-19 was a global emergency. Mistakes were made. But they weren’t the product of some evil cabal—they were often the result of uncertainty, time pressure, and an evolving evidence base. Science learns. Conspiracy theories don't.
If we care about truth, let’s do better than posts like this. Let’s demand transparency, yes—but also uphold scientific literacy, humility, and responsibility in the way we talk about health.
multivitamins in ICU patients is not medicine. It’s magical thinking.
Why the “Big Pharma = Evil” Argument Fails

 

Here’s where Goldacre comes in. In Bad Pharma, he exposes real problems: lack of data transparency, ghost-writing, and selective reporting. But even he warned that if critics abandon evidence and run on emotion, they become as untrustworthy as the worst industry offenders.

 

Criticising pharmaceutical practices is necessary. Replacing that criticism with online rage, false statistics, and science denial is worse—it undermines trust in medicine, harms public health, and fuels dangerous movements that cost real lives.

 

Science Is Messy, But It’s Not a Conspiracy
COVID-19 was a global emergency. Mistakes were made. But they weren’t the product of some evil cabal—they were often the result of uncertainty, time pressure, and an evolving evidence base. Science learns. Conspiracy theories don't.

 

If we care about truth, let’s do better than posts like this. Let’s demand transparency, yes—but also uphold scientific literacy, humility, and responsibility in the way we talk about health.

 

So many words. Some true. But most not so.

 

I think you actually believe there was a pandemic. The pandemic was driven by the PCR test.

 

I think you actually believe there was/is a virus called covid-19. Where's the evidence? Don't other looking; there is none.

 

You are easily fooled Sir. Turn off the Tele.

 

Nature has the answers we seek.

[JimHuaHin]

Again?

 

Did Big Pharma ever stop pushing dangerous meds?

 

Do you know the potential drug or food interactions of all the meds you are taking?

 

Do you know the potential side-effects of the meds you are taking?  Do your doctors inform you of these side-effects?

 

[kwilco]

8 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

So many words. Some true. But most not so.

 

I think you actually believe there was a pandemic. The pandemic was driven by the PCR test.

 

I think you actually believe there was/is a virus called covid-19. Where's the evidence? Don't other looking; there is none.

 

You are easily fooled Sir. Turn off the Tele.

 

Nature has the answers we seek.

Thanks for the re-post - it's all a bit too much for you, isn't it?

 

where do you get your information from?

[transam]

7 hours ago, JimHuaHin said:

Again?

 

Did Big Pharma ever stop pushing dangerous meds?

 

Do you know the potential drug or food interactions of all the meds you are taking?

 

Do you know the potential side-effects of the meds you are taking?  Do your doctors inform you of these side-effects?

 

Yes........🤗

[kwilco]

7 hours ago, JimHuaHin said:

Again?

 

Did Big Pharma ever stop pushing dangerous meds?

 

Do you know the potential drug or food interactions of all the meds you are taking?

 

Do you know the potential side-effects of the meds you are taking?  Do your doctors inform you of these side-effects?

 

yes and rs - do you seriously think only you are privy to that?

[Stiddle Mump]

35 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Thanks for the re-post - it's all a bit too much for you, isn't it?

 

where do you get your information from?

Thanks Sir. No problem.

 

First I look for evidence that the things that are commonly thought to be true actually are. 

 

For instance; "Coughs and sneezes spread diseases." That old chestnut. Turns out that they don't.

 

Where is the elusive virus? Not ever seen the evidence that shows they are real.

 

Vaccines: The immune system: Big Pharms medications: White-coat procedures: I've researched them all.

 

www.CanYouCatchaCold.com

 

Nature has the answers we seek.

[kwilco]

9 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Thanks Sir. No problem.

 

First I look for evidence that the things that are commonly thought to be true actually are. 

 

For instance; "Coughs and sneezes spread diseases." That old chestnut. Turns out that they don't.

 

Where is the elusive virus? Not ever seen the evidence that shows they are real.

 

Vaccines: The immune system: Big Pharms medications: White-coat procedures: I've researched them all.

 

www.CanYouCatchaCold.com

 

Nature has the answers we seek.

so no research at all then? Where do you get your "evidence" or are you too ashamed to say?

[Stiddle Mump]

3 minutes ago, kwilco said:

so no research at all then? Where do you get your "evidence" or are you too ashamed to say?

Just told you Sir.

 

I look back at the stated evidence and research it.  The Enders/Peebles paper for instance. History of diseases. The Spanish Flu US Naval experiments. Etc.

 

As I posted. Much to look at on; www.CanYouCatchaCold.com

 

I've a decent library also.

 

Nature has so much to offer.

[kwilco]

11 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Nature has so much to offer.

oh dear! so you make a disnctilon? - do you bleieve in atoms and molecules? - BTW - The first evidence of the existence of viruses came from experiments with filters that had pores small enough to retain bacteria. In 1892, Dmitri Ivanovsky used one of these filters to show that sap from a diseased tobacco plant remained infectious to healthy tobacco plants despite having been filtered

[Stiddle Mump]

10 minutes ago, kwilco said:

oh dear! so you make a disnctilon? - do you bleieve in atoms and molecules? - BTW - The first evidence of the existence of viruses came from experiments with filters that had pores small enough to retain bacteria. In 1892, Dmitri Ivanovsky used one of these filters to show that sap from a diseased tobacco plant remained infectious to healthy tobacco plants despite having been filtered

Yup. Know all about the baccy virus.

 

But have to ask. Is a virus simply a natural natural inert entity, or is it responsible - as is claimed by the white-coats - for causing disease?

 

I say it is not capable of contagion.