Posted on 11/18/2025 6:07:13 AM PST by Heartlander
Yesterday, I took part in a panel discussion in Washington, D.C., on the weaponisation of science — specifically, how conflicts of interest, industry influence, and scientific deception have reshaped modern medicine.
It was an important conversation about how the scientific process has been hollowed out by financial incentives, regulatory capture, and institutional cowardice.
For me, this is not an abstract debate. I’ve spent much of my career investigating how science becomes distorted — not by a few rogue actors, but through an entire system built on commercial dependence.
Once you start pulling the threads of how evidence is produced, who funds it, who controls the data, and who polices the outcomes, you quickly realise that the corruption of science is structural and systemic.
I first saw this clearly while investigating cholesterol-lowering drugs. My 2013 Catalyst documentary questioned whether statins were being overprescribed, and it unleashed a media firestorm.
The episode was pulled after industry outrage, and I was publicly attacked. None of the critics engaged with the evidence — they simply sought to silence it.
In 2018, I published a narrative review, “Statin wars: have we been misled by the evidence?”
The piece revealed that the raw data underpinning statin trials were held exclusively by the Oxford-based Cholesterol Treatment Trialists (CTT) Collaboration and had never been released.
The CTT group had signed confidentiality agreements with pharmaceutical sponsors, blocking independent access to the raw data and preventing verification.
Yet those same meta-analyses have shaped prescribing guidelines around the world — produced by a group that sits under Oxford’s Clinical Trial Service Unit, which receives millions in funding from statin manufacturers.
In my public talks, I’ve described the statin story as a case study in bias and censorship. The trials used well-worn techniques to amplify benefits and minimise harms.
For example, they use ‘run-in’ periods before the trial to weed out people who couldn’t tolerate the drug, thereby artificially lowering the adverse events detected during the trial.
Often the outcomes were reported in relative, not absolute, terms — effectively exaggerating benefits that were, in reality, minuscule to the individual patient.
The vast majority of statin trials are funded by the manufacturers, and almost all show benefit — except for one publicly funded study that showed the opposite.
So, who funds the trial matters. The system is captured, plain and simple.
The same dynamics pervade drug regulation. In a 2022 BMJ investigation, I showed how drug regulators rely heavily on funding from the very industries they oversee.
In Australia, the Therapeutic Goods Administration derives 96% of its operating budget from industry fees.
In the US, the same conflict exists through the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), which allows the FDA to collect billions from drug companies.
Those “user fees” now fund roughly two-thirds of the agency’s drug-review budget — a structural conflict of interest described by one scholar as “institutional corruption.”
And it’s true.
Industry money drives the demand for faster approvals through “expedited pathways,” which often means weaker evidence, shorter trials, and looser post‑marketing obligations.
Regulators defend this as “innovation,” yet the drugs approved under these pathways are far more likely to later receive black-box warnings or be withdrawn from the market due to safety issues.
The result is a system that rewards speed and sales over safety and substance.
The illusion of effective drugs has become even clearer thanks to a landmark investigation this year by Jeanne Lenzer and Shannon Brownlee.
They reviewed more than 400 FDA drug approvals between 2013 and 2022, and found that 73% of the drugs failed to meet four basic scientific criteria for demonstrating effectiveness.
Cancer drugs were especially problematic: only 3 out of 123 met all scientific standards, most approved on surrogate endpoints with no evidence that they improved survival.
It’s the perfect illustration of regulatory capture — an agency funded by industry fees and pressured by politics, approving drugs of uncertain benefit while calling itself the “gold standard.”
The same playbook has unfolded in psychiatry — beginning with how clinical trials are designed and reported.
Study 329 is one of the best-known examples. It claimed that paroxetine (Paxil) was safe and effective for adolescents aged 12 to 18.
But when researchers reanalysed the original regulatory documents, they found that suicides and suicide attempts had been coded under misleading terms such as “emotional lability” or “worsening depression,” effectively erasing them from view.
A similar pattern emerged when regulatory documents for two fluoxetine (Prozac) trials in children and adolescents were re-examined. Suicide attempts were omitted or misclassified, making the drug appear safer than it was.
Both reanalyses were carried out under the Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials (RIAT) initiative, a project dedicated to “restoring” abandoned or misreported trials by publishing accurate versions of the data submitted to regulators.
Selective publication compounds the problem.
The FDA only requires two trials demonstrating a drug is better than a placebo before it is approved — meaning multiple failed trials get buried.
Psychologist Irving Kirsch, using Freedom of Information requests, uncovered dozens of unpublished SSRI trials that had been withheld from the medical literature.
When those missing studies were included, the apparent benefit of antidepressants over placebo almost vanished — an average gain of less than two points on the Hamilton Depression Scale, far below the threshold for meaningful clinical benefit.
In other words, much of what appears to be a “drug effect” is, in reality, a placebo.
For years, patients have also been sold the marketing myth that depression stems from a “chemical imbalance” in the brain — a debunked theory but an extraordinarily effective sales campaign.
In 2020, we analysed popular health websites across ten countries and found that about 74% falsely claimed depression was caused by a chemical imbalance and implied that antidepressants could correct it.
It may sound like harmless messaging, but its influence is profound.
An Australian study showed that 83% of people who were told they had a chemical imbalance were more likely to take an antidepressant, believing it would “fix” their brain chemistry.
A more recent review in Molecular Psychiatry synthesised the best available evidence and found no consistent link between depression and low serotonin levels or activity.
Together, these findings reveal how psychiatry’s modern narrative was constructed — through distorted trials and deceptive marketing — turning uncertainty into certainty, and speculation into “science.”
Recently, I reported on how journals can weaponise science.
The BMJ’s Peter Doshi raised serious concerns about the pivotal PLATO trial for the anti-clotting drug ticagrelor — including data irregularities and unexplained deaths. But the journal Circulation which published the trial, has refused to investigate.
This selective vigilance is telling. Journals will retract small hypothesis papers that challenge orthodoxy, but billion‑dollar drugs with questionable data remain untouchable.
We’ve seen an even more aggressive form of suppression in the vaccine arena.
The recent Covaxin case exposed the extent to which manufacturers will go to suppress inconvenient findings.
After Indian researchers published a peer‑reviewed post‑marketing study suggesting serious adverse events “might not be uncommon,” Bharat Biotech — the vaccine’s manufacturer — filed a defamation lawsuit against the 11 authors and the journal’s editor, demanding retraction and millions in damages.
Within weeks, the journal caved, announcing its intention to retract despite finding no scientific fraud or fabrication. The only “offence” was to suggest that further safety research was warranted.
It’s a chilling example of how corporate and political power now overrides the normal mechanisms of scientific debate — a new form of censorship disguised as quality control.
The weaponisation of science isn’t only about suppressing inconvenient ideas or studies — it extends to the scientists themselves.
During the Vioxx scandal, Merck was caught keeping an actual “hit list” of doctors and academics who criticised the drug’s cardiovascular risks.
Internal emails revealed executives discussing plans to “seek them out and destroy them where they live.” That’s how far industry will go to silence dissent.
Executives are no longer stupid enough to put such threats in writing, but the behaviour persists — now outsourced to lobby groups and front organisations that quietly destroy reputations.
I experienced a version of this myself after my ABC documentaries on statins and sugar.
Like Merck, the Australian Breakfast Cereal Manufacturers Forum — an industry front group — drew up an “active defence” plan to neutralise me for challenging the industry narrative.
And we’ve seen it again recently with the leaked BIO memo detailing a coordinated plan to undermine Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — by co-opting media influencers, partnering with think tanks, and shaping public perception.
Different industries, same playbook: when billions are at stake, dissent is dangerous, and science becomes a weapon.
Look at the rise of fact-checking as a weapon.
In 2024, for example, a peer‑reviewed Japanese study published in the journal Cureus that reported a statistical rise in certain cancers following the Covid‑19 mRNA vaccine rollout was retracted after a Reuters “fact-check.”
The authors, led by Dr Miki Gibo, made no claim of causation and had explicitly called for further investigation, yet the journal retracted the paper after the media controversy, citing concerns about the scrutiny of fact checkers.
When journals begin outsourcing editorial judgment to media organisations with commercial or institutional conflicts, peer review itself collapses under the weight of narrative control.
This is what I mean by the weaponisation of science.
Fraud today isn’t only about fabricating data — it’s about what institutions choose to suppress. It’s selective enforcement designed to protect profits under the guise of integrity.
I’m not going to pretend I have all the answers. Whether it’s cholesterol or serotonin, the science too often bends toward profit rather than truth.
Regulators, journals, and academic institutions have become so financially entangled with industry that truly independent science is now the exception, not the rule.
Retractions, fact-checks, and editorial bans are deployed selectively — not to correct fraud, but to erase debate under the banner of “scientific consensus.”
We’ve tried to fix this with transparency measures like open-data policies and the Sunshine Act, which expose payments from pharmaceutical companies to doctors.
But disclosure has become a box-ticking exercise, and raw data is still hard to get. Meanwhile, the machinery of influence keeps turning.
The deeper problem is the absence of accountability. Without accountability, there can be no trust.
When Merck’s painkiller Vioxx was withdrawn after being linked to tens of thousands of deaths, not one executive went to jail. The company paid fines, issued statements, and carried on.
Lives were lost, and no one was held personally responsible. That isn’t justice — it’s the “cost of doing business,” and worse, the people who preside over these disasters are often rewarded for them.
Bonuses are paid, stock options soar, and departing CEOs collect multimillion-dollar severance packages — all while families are left to bury their dead.
If we’re serious about restoring trust, that has to change. CEOs and senior executives who knowingly conceal data or market dangerous drugs should face criminal penalties, not corporate settlements.
A few jail sentences at the top would do more to restore trust in medicine than a thousand press releases about a renewed commitment to safety.
Accountability must also extend to government.
The FDA and other regulators are structurally dependent on industry money. It’s baked into the system, and the only real solution is to rebuild — fund these agencies publicly, remove user fees, and make them independent again.
The barrier isn’t money — it’s political will, compromised by the same corporate lobbying and campaign donations that distort science.
True reform requires the courage to confront the pharmaceutical industry’s financial grip on both major parties, to end the political donations that buy silence, and to legislate for genuine independence in science and medicine.
Perhaps Secretary Kennedy is now best placed to begin dismantling industry’s hold on science. Systemic corruption didn’t happen overnight, and it won’t be undone overnight either.
Commercial conflicts of interest have become normalised — woven through our institutions, universities, journals, and political culture. Until that’s confronted directly, nothing will change.
Disclosure is necessary, but it is not sufficient. The antidote is open debate, public funding, and real accountability.
Science should never be about consensus; it should be about contestability. If we can’t test claims, challenge data, or ask uncomfortable questions without fear of retribution, then we no longer have science — we have marketing.
The weaponisation of science ends only when truth becomes more valuable than profit.
Republished from the author’s Substack
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Thank you for posting this excellent article.
🙏🙏🙏
I do independent scientific investigations. One of the barriers I face is that journals have outrageous prescription fees citing the cost of “peer review.” Last time I looked, it was $5K per article. Universities buy prescriptions for their departments such that their work flies right through. There are cultural barriers as well starting with credentialing, but there are no credentials for multidisciplinary syntheses. My work therefore goes ignored.
“often the outcomes were reported in relative, not absolute, terms — effectively exaggerating benefits that were, in reality, minuscule to the individual patient.”
A 20 percent decrease in the risk of a heart attack is not miniscule. I pay $5 a month for statins, which have no negative side effects that I’m aware of, and my total cholesterol went from 230 to 180.
“from 1970 to 2022, overall age‐adjusted heart disease mortality decreased by 66% from 1970 to 2022 (from 761 to 258 per 100 000). “
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.124.038644
So the medical and pharmaceutical industries have made great progress against heart disease. The author’s attack on statins is a series of cheap shots. The author’s attacks on SSRIs for depression may be more apt, IDK. But if you want to attack Prozac, just attack Prozac, instead of lumping it in with statins which are a medical miracle IMHO.
We need a widespread conversation about abolishing the FDA.
It is not constitutional.
Science is a calling. Not a career choice. It is almost religious in that the purpose is to understand. “Why?” “How?”, etc.
Mebbe you can claim it is religious in that the ones pursuing it are trying to read the mind of Gawd.
Anyone who calls himself a scientist but then buckles to any other pressure is nothing more than a grifter. You either pursue the scientific method or you are just a parasite trying to worm your way into a calling you have too few brain cells to understand.
“Science is a calling. Not a career choice.”
It should be that—but the real world has never worked like it should.
Scientists who “play it straight” are brutally punished—and have been for at least a hundred years.
One other example—not covered by this excellent article—is the mess that is modern physics. Peer review has turned it into a nightmare:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics
Btw a fascinating book on this subject:
https://www.amazon.com/Falsification-Science-Our-Distorted-Reality/dp/B08WK2H7SJ
I’m not going to pretend I have all the answers. Whether it’s cholesterol or serotonin, the science too often bends toward profit rather than truth.
It is not all about money. Much is about power. The two are not completely interchangeable.
Anyone who calls himself a scientist but then buckles to any other pressure is nothing more than a grifter. You either pursue the scientific method or you are just a parasite trying to worm your way into a calling you have too few brain cells to understand.
Science does not, and never has, relied on the integrity of individual scientists to work.
Scientists are a subject to temptations as anyone else.
The biggest issue that modern science has had is a tendency to turn hypotheses into theories before all the data is fully considered.
Then once the theory becomes “accepted” by the “experts” any contrary data is dismissed as an anomaly and “cope” is employed to prop up the existing theory.
Any who object to the theory are treated like religious heretics and banned and canceled.
Any who object to the theory are treated like religious heretics and banned and canceled.
However, lots of theories have been treated with contempt until the repeatable experiments showed them to be better at explaining reality than the previous theory.
The key to winning a Nobel Prize in the sciences these days:
—Find an existing theory that is believed to be true by almost all the experts and has major flaws in it, i.e., data that blatantly contradicts it.
—Find a clever way to explain the anomalous data. This should include lots of complicated equations. It is OK if this explanation has logic holes—because remember you are saving the bacon of the “experts” and they will love you for it.
My scientific research has been on consciousness from a neuroscience perspective to understand the religious experience.
It has been very rewarding without discounting religion.
I noticed they passed over second hand smoke.
Many of these problems exist despite good scientists. Academic journals generally do not publish negative results, and many laboratory directors upon a finding of negative results direct their graduate students or post-docs to move on to something else. When I pointed out the statistical absurdity of this (keep doing studies until you get a positive result, even though the treatment is no better than placebo), even the “good” scientists felt you can’t change the system. As a result, I got out of academic science, and instead worked as an analyst, developing and leading scientific studies, for the Army.
This is unfortunately true in other disciplines besides science. Wherever people can get intrenched and hold power for long periods of time this occurs (think American Bar Assoc.). Reality breaks through eventually in many cases but it takes a long time - by then, the damage has been done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.