Ask yourself: Why are there no prescription medications without horrific side effects?
Saturday, October 06, 2018 by: S.D. Wells
Mike Adams sometimes writes some very good articles--like his rather stunning proof a few months ago that there were at least two shooters in the Las Vegas massacre--but this article by S.D. Wells is not a good one.
Wells doesn't properly acknowledge the fact that allopathic medicines are bound to have side effects, because the human body is biochemically "wired" such that tinkering with any given pathway in the hope of fixing/alleviating one problem is virtually certain to mess up another pathway to some degree. (Herbal medicines [on which many prescription drugs are based] are for the most part less likely to have bad side effects, but some of them
do have bad side effects. Some other "natural supplements" are pretty harmful for many people--precisely because they have essentially allopathic mechanisms of action. Are these "natural meds" being promoted by unscrupulous manufacturers
because they have side effects that wreck people? Of course not. They are being shrewdly
promoted because they are often
less likely to cause injury than meds that employ the more aggressive allopathy inherent in prescription drugs--which aggressive drugs do happen to focus on fast, impressive, "patentable" efficacy while hopefully
minimizing adverse affects.)
I submit that pharmaceutical companies--
most such companies, at least!--do
not deliberately select for the development and marketing of drugs that have bad side effects, i.e., they don't try to make people sick so as to force them to buy other drugs. For that matter, bad side effects are often the cause for delayed approval or even non-approval of a candidate drug. (In any case, a better
business plan is to develop efficacious drugs with better side-effects profiles than those that are currently available. Such drugs will sell like hotcakes. [If one reads the pharmaceutical advertisements for new drugs, the better side-effects profile is always hyped when it can be hyped.])
I will offer a caveat to the above paragraph: I do not blindly trust Big Pharma to be completely ethical; some Big Pharma firms may be very crooked, indeed. I just don't think the posted article makes a convincing case. Besides, the headline is dishonest click bait: My goodness, there have been and surely still are some prescription medicines that do
not have "horrific" side effects.
(Full disclosure: I never get the flu vaccine. That's one I don't trust.)
