The study that needs to be made would involve the positive stories just before and after a big pharma "blockbuster" drug hits the market. My guess is like most infomedia, it's mostly commercials for the maker whose big ads appear coincidentally beside the positive stories. And in the case of HCQ, the hyper knee-jerk negative reactions to a long used, 60 year record of safety and very inexpensive generic drug.. You would have thought that HCQ was akin to liquid Drano judging by the immense reaction by the Gods and Kingpins of medicine. Only when the curtain is pulled back can you see how intertwined big phama, med schools, research centers, are with clinical trials, foundation grants, sponsored junkets to great vacation spots, etc. To say they all seem to end up in the same bed most of the time is an understatement. How else can you go from how potentially harmful HCQ can be to the heart (in spite of no problems during 60 years of global use) to mRNA vaccines are safe and effective for everyone to get based on a few months of limited trials? And they say it with straight faces. When you are directly or indirectly tied to the vaccine's success, you don't see the irony at all.

Healthcare is a business in spite of the altruistic tugging at heartstrings they like to portray. Even non-profits need to cover their costs to stay afloat. We can argue about the necessity of fleets of private jets or C Suite artwork at a later date. Big Pharma has become the only advertiser in the major journals by design. In a sense they own the industry. When they want a message sent, they have thousands of willing MD.s willing to spread the word in these publications, just because they love seeing their names in print and the big pharma attaboys for a job well done. The clinical trials give credibility to the institution that wants to recruit the finest talent that can only be wooed with he latest in clinical technology in world class facilities. All of it requires money. Big pharma has it, the schools and clinicians need it, the resulting trials provide ample opportunity to bless the blockbuster and the money flows. To do otherwise would be to ungraciously bite the big hand that feeds you.

The study that needs to be made would involve the positive stories just before and after a big pharma "blockbuster" drug hits the market. My guess is like most infomedia, it's mostly commercials for, not against the maker whose big ads appear coincidentally beside the positive stories. And in the case of HCQ, the hyper knee-jerk negative reactions to a long used, 60 year record of safety and very inexpensive generic drug.. You would have thought the HCQ was akin to liquid Drano judging by the immense reaction by the Gods and Kingpins of medicine. Only when the curtain is pulled back can you see how intertwined big phama, med schools, research centers, are with clinical trials, foundation grants, sponsored junkets to great vacation spots, etc. To say they all seem to end up in the same bed most of the time is an understatement.

Healthcare is a business in spite of the altruistic tugging at heartstrings they like to portray. Even non-profits need to cover their costs to stay afloat. We can argue about the necessity of fleets of private jets or C Suite artwork at a later date. Big Pharma has become the only advertiser in the major journals by design. In a sense they own the industry. When they want a message sent, they have thousands of willing MD.s willing to spread the word in these publications, just because they love seeing their names in print and the big pharma attaboys for a job well done. The clinical trials give credibility to the institution that wants to recruit the finest talent that can only be wooed with he latest in clinical technology in world class facilities. All of it requires money. Big pharma has it, the schools and clinicians need it, the resulting trials provide ample opportunity to bless the blockbuster and the money flows. To do otherwise would be to ungraciously bite the big hand that feeds you.