American Thought Leaders - From Statins to Paxil, Here’s What’s Wrong With a Lot of Medical Research | Maryanne Demasi

Episode Date: December 3, 2025

Maryanne Demasi is an independent investigative journalist based in Australia and a former medical scientist with a PhD in rheumatology from the University of Adelaide.For many years, she worked for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and gained wide attention for reporting on controversial medical topics, particularly the efficacy and safety of statins and psychiatric drugs.Demasi was eventually suspended from her position at ABC in 2016 following controversies over her comprehensive and critical examination of statin drugs and other health risks. After leaving ABC, she continued her career as an independent investigative medical journalist.In this interview, we discuss how science can be weaponized and drug data manipulated or suppressed, even for many common drugs prescribed to millions of Americans.“Psychiatry is a classic example of where pharmaceutical companies have been sponsoring their own trials and burying data and then putting a spin on the medical journal, saying that the drug is safe and effective when the fact is, it’s not,” she says.“This is not an exception. This happens commonly. Throughout history, pharmaceutical companies have been sued for designing trials [and] hiding, burying data.”Demasi said she has been censored during her career as a journalist and understands the censorship and the pressures faced by journalists and medical professionals who challenge the data and narratives of the powerful pharmaceutical industry.“COVID was the unmasking of how all of this censorship came about,” she said. “It really was an event that woke people up to just how corrupt the system is at every level, from the media to the academia to the agencies that are meant to protect us to the medical journals.”Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Weaponization of science is the systemic corruption of science, and it happens at every level. In this episode, I sit down with Marianne de Macy, an investigative journalist with a Ph.D. in Rheumatology to explore how pharmaceutical companies influence medical research. Our story starts with something as common as statins. The issue is that there's not enough informed consent when someone gets prescribed statins. The vast majority of people that are on statins are in the low-risk category. And so they don't get an overall benefit from the medication. From missing data to hidden risks,

Damacy reveals how transparency breaks down inside clinical trials. The drug Paxil, or peroxatine, is a really interesting case. The manufacturer did a series of trials and found that the drug was no better than placebo. It means that it did nothing. Yeah, but they also found that there were suicides that were hidden and buried in the data. It's just really kind of unbelievable. Yeah, it's unbelievable. This is American Thought Leaders, and I'm Yanya Kellick.

Marianne DeMacy, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders. Thank you for having me. I recently watched you talking about the weaponization of science. of science and corruption of science. Why don't you give me the most acute example of this that you've come across in your long career? I think I first came across how systemic the corruption of science was

when I started researching the area of cholesterol lowering drugs called statins and I was working in mainstream television at the time. In 2013, I did a document that questioned the over-prescription of statins. And the firestorm that that caused was really quite extraordinary. The pharmaceutical companies complained to the television network. The television network capitulated and censored the program.

And all of the critiques in the media didn't really address the facts made in the program. It was all just working to censor the programs. I knew something was really terrible that was unfolding. And I continued to look into this topic. In 2018, I actually published a narrative review of statins. It was called Staten Wars. Have we been misled by the evidence? And in that, I revealed that the raw data that underpinned all of the clinical trials for statins,

had actually been held by one particular group called the cholesterol treatment trialists. And I tried to obtain access to that raw data, and they revealed that they had made an agreement with the statin manufacturers that they wouldn't share that data with any third parties. So it's been years that this drug has been on the market, and the entire data set is really under a cloud because the CTT collaboration that does these very influential meta-analyses that influence the prescribing guidelines have never really been independently authenticated. And when you realise that the vast majority of statin trials are funded by the manufacturers themselves, They collect the data, they analyze the data, they publish the data in the journals, and

that influences the doctor's prescribing guidelines. You realize that every level of the scientific process has been influenced and corrupted by the drug industry. Just very quickly, the bottom line, what are the issues with statins, which are still massively prescribed today? I think the issue is that there's not enough informed consent when someone gets prescribed statins. The vast majority of people, about 75% of people that are on statins, are in the low risk category. And so they don't get an overall benefit from the medication. The clinical trials show that you can reduce your risk of having a cardiovascular event, whether that be a

non-fatal heart attack or a re-vascularisation or even angina. But what you don't get is an overall total mortality benefit. You live the same length of time as the group that didn't take the drug. So this is the issue that we have in public health where they will implement a strategy that they want everybody to be taking a statin over the age of 50, even if you don't have high cholesterol, with the idea that it will reduce your risk of having a heart attack. But you don't actually live longer. So you've got to realize that maybe the statin might benefit you in one way, but harm you

in another way. And your overall benefit from the drug matches the group that's not taking the drug. So there's no doubt that statins are overprescribed. and there's probably a small population of people that do benefit from these medications, the ones that have established heart disease. And it's probably not through the lowering of cholesterol, ironically, it's through the drug's ability to have anti-inflammatory effects. I mean, fascinating.

And of course, in some number of people, there's also these kind of side effects that come with any medication, has some low level, hopefully very low level. of side effects and certain kinds of people. I think the problem with knowing what the true side effects are is that because the majority of statin manufacturers sponsor their own trials, they're able to design a trial in a way that underplays those harms and therefore exaggerates the benefits. And if you speak to cardiologists, most of them will say,

about 20% of our patients experience muscle pain on statins. But when you look at the randomized control trials, the gold standard trials, they say that the muscle harms are no different in the statin group compared to the group taking a placebo. But it's because they use these strategies to hide or mask the muscle harms. For example, in one trial, they did what they call a run-in period where they gave everybody

the medication and those who experienced muscle harms or couldn't tolerate the drug, they excluded from the trial and then they began the randomization. So of course, all of those people who probably would have experienced those harms during the randomization of the trial were already excluded and that's how they can mask the effects. I mean, absolutely fascinating. So you have a very interesting background for a journalist. Of course, you've been a journalist for a very long time, but also you're a scientist. Actually, give me your story.

Where did you start, what you got interested in first, in how you ended up in media, and then we'll talk a little bit about what happened as you became more bold in your assertions? So I did medical science at university and then started a master's degree, and that converted it into a PhD. They called it a PhD in medicine. My specific area was in rheumatology. And so it was all about learning and understanding genes and the way they behaved in response to particular drugs and looking at the inflammatory side of rheumatoid arthritis and also the autoimmune aspect of it. Once I finished my PhD, I became interested in some of the things that arose while I was conducting my PhD.

And we were looking at the harms of a drug called Vioxx. And that was a sort of a new blockbuster drug at the time, which promised anti-inflammatory relief for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, but it had the gastric sparing effects that you wouldn't get with your normal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, which cause you stomach upset.

if you take them for too long. Just to be clear, bottom line is they didn't cause the stomach upset like the others. Right. So the claim from the drug company was that you don't get the stomach ulcerations that you get with the normal anti-inflammatory medications. And so this was like a fantastic blockbuster drug. But we noticed at the time that it was also increasing the risk of myocardial infarction in some people.

So a type of heart damage? Yeah. Yeah. So it was increasing the risk of heart attacks. So it had the anti-inflammatory relief, but it also increased the risk of having a heart attack in patients that had rheumatoid arthritis. And so this was really quite concerning, and we looked at ways in perhaps the medication could be causing this.

And some of the mechanisms we determined were probably through increasing the patient's ability to clot. And so, you know, clots were the basis for these heart attacks. But the company resisted for many years in informing the public and the FDA was on their back about putting the warnings. We all know that the drug was eventually withdrawn from the market, but not before tens of thousands of people died from heart attacks. And I thought that was a really interesting case because the clinical trials were sponsored by the manufacturer. The FDA was pretty weak in its regulation of the drug, and thousands of people died.

And the result was a settlement out of court for the company. nobody went to jail, no individual, no CEO was held responsible for this absolute disaster. The public really needed to understand that this is how the industry conducts itself behind closed doors. So I guess that's why I decided to get into journalism was to try and convey these things. I had a behind-the-scenes look at how these situations arose and I thought that it was important. important to continue to tell these stories publicly. And just very briefly, why were you so sure that this wasn't a one-off? Just because I'd worked in science for a long time and I could just see how conflicts

of interests would bend the science and influence people's opinions. And it was asked of us at the time to disclose our conflicts of interest. So it was clear to us that you could have your opinions influenced by getting funding from universities or from drug companies. So it was important to disclose. As the years went on, I realised that disclosure wasn't quite enough. You know, there has to be accountability and transparency of data. But I felt that it was important to be communicating these messages and that's how I got into journalism. Absolutely.

And I just, you know, just to put a pin on this, the Vioxx, I mean, should have obviously never been licensed in the first place, absolutely, you know, deadly, deadly. I'm going to, you know, you're very, just like, you know, I write about this, you know, China's forced organ harvesting industry, and I'm very desensitized to those realities. I talk about them very casually. You're talking about this very casually. The reality is, you know, literally tens of thousands of people died that wouldn't have died because they took this drug and of course they weren't told that, you know, significant possibility

you could have a heart attack from this, right? So there's also this lack of informed consent element that plays in here, which seems to be a common thread. Could you comment on that a little? Yeah, it's not just a lack of informed consent. It's the censorship that happens when these situations arise. And it was only through legal battles and discovery that it was revealed that Merck actually had a hit list of doctors that they planned to neutralize in various ways if they were talking poorly about the efficacy and safety of Vioxx. So they were threatening doctors, you know, withdrawing their funding, you know, not giving them opportunities to present at conferences. So it's not just about not telling the patients what the data says. It's the

inability of those speaking out to communicate these messages to the public. Incredible, right? And so what did what do we know about what this company knew at the time while it was doing this? Like did they know they had a drug that was so deadly? They knew they had a drug that was increasing the risk of cardiovascular disease. When they finally had to admit that the drug was increasing the risk of cardiovascular disease, it was off the back of their own trial. There was the final trial that they did, and it showed a twofold increase in risk of cardiovascular disease. So it was the drug company's decision at the time to withdraw the drug from the market. To comment on this

as well, that's a massive finding, right? Because heart disease is relatively common. So a doubling of the likelihood. I mean, that is just, I'm getting shivers up my spine and not in a good way. And when you think about how they have such an exclusion criteria to get into a clinical trial, you know, often they're choosing healthy patients or patients who've had, they exclude patients who might have harms or reactions, adverse reactions to the drug. I mean, they've got such a clean specimen of participants in the clinical trial, you know that that doesn't actually apply to the generalized public when they're taking the drugs. So this is the absolute best data that you're going to get. And even then when they did that, they still found a two-fold

increase in cardiovascular disease. Yeah, I don't want to belabor this point, but my point is this happens and this happened, and you're basically contending that this is not an exception, like in terms of how these things are conducted? This is not an exception. This happens commonly. Throughout history, pharmaceutical companies have been sued for designing trials, hiding, burying data.

Psychiatry is a classic example of where pharmaceutical companies have been sponsoring their own trials and burying data and then putting a spin on the medical journal saying that the drug is safe and effective when the fact is it's not. And, you know, children have been harmed by these things. Well, you know, you recently actually wrote about the Paxil example. And there's generally, you know, I've had recently on the show I've been doing more on the over-prescription of psychiatric drugs, especially SSRIs, because they have these various effects that are often, even some doctors I've learned, aren't even aware of some of the effects

of some of these drugs. But let's use that one as an example. What do we actually know happened with that drug? So the drug Paxil or peroxatine is a really interesting case. Again, corruption at every level you could possibly think of. So in the late 90s, the manufacturer, Glaxo-SmithKline or G. a series of trials and found that the drug was no better than placebo. And this one particular study...

I just want to emphasize this. It means that it did nothing. Yeah. It literally did nothing. Please continue. This was just untenable for them. And later through legal discovery, there was an email that was sent to staff where GSK said that this would be commercially unacceptable to disclose the poor efficacy data of this drug. So instead of telling the truth, they hired a PR firm to write the medical journal for them, so to ghost write the article, and put a positive spin on it. And then that was submitted to the journal and it was published in 2001.

And it wasn't long before the regulators in the US and also in Europe, they discovered that the drug actually was increasing the risk of suicidal ideation. It was doing the exact opposite of what the drug was meant to do. And so they put out a warning saying that this drug showed no efficacy in children and adolescents. But the drug continued to be marketed off-label. And because the prominent journal had published this peer review paper, GSK purchased thousands of preprints and sent them out to all their representatives.

and then they went to doctors giving free samples saying this drug is safe and effective for children. And I think within a time span of three years, GSK made over a billion dollars in sales from a drug that had never proven to be safe or effective in children and adolescents. And in 2015, there was a publication in the BMJ that was looking at a real re-analysis. It was called Restoring Study 329. And researchers went and looked at what the regulatory data, what the documents actually showed. And they found that the drug was no safer than placebo, but they also found that there were suicides that were hidden and buried in the data. Or they reclassified them as things like emotional liability or

worsening depression. So they weren't categorized as suicidal ideation. They were recategorized as another adverse event. And so that kind of masks it and helps it disappear from the data. So it was really terrible behavior on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry to be doing this. And the authors on the papers, I think about that was 21 of odd authors on the paper and over half of them hadn't disclosed conflicts of interest or hadn't even seen the raw data. They just accepted what the ghostwritten article had said, continued to market the drug, continued to profit, continued to go on conferences. In the meantime, children were dying from this and the journal refused to retract the paper, despite the fact

that I think it was 2012, the Department of Justice managed to get GSK to admit to fraudulently promoting the use of Paxil in adolescence. And they paid a $3 billion fine. Study 329 was part of that settlement. And it was the biggest in medical history at the time. that fine. And the journal still refused to retract the paper. It turns out that recently a lawyer who had been litigating this case for some people who were harmed them by antidepressants started digging out all the evidence and decided to sue not just the journal, but also the publisher, Elsevia. I suspect that a retraction might be on the horizon because the journal has acted since

finding this out and they've put an expression of interest on the paper. How many years from publication to, again, maybe a retraction? It's been over two decades. So it was published in 2001. And this drug is still used? This drug is still prescribed to children and adolescents off-label. for the treatment of depression when there has never been any evidence

to suggest that it works. Do you find that astonishing? Flabbergasted by it. This is, I mean, just reading the lawsuit that has recently been filed, just kind of goes through all the events, and you just, you can't believe that at every stage, nobody said, okay, I think we've stepped over the line here.

You know, children are being harmed by this. We need to pull the plug. At so many points in the process over the last 20 years or so, nobody's ever had a conscience to say, we need to fix this. How do you think this actually happens, given that you've been in the, I don't know, I'll say the bowel, you've seen it from the inside, many times in many different orientations and how does this happen? I don't know how it happens. I can't get into these people's minds and I don't know what

they're thinking. I don't know why they don't feel conscious that they're violating their oath to first do no harm. And I actually asked the question to the lawyer who's filed this recent lawsuit, why at no point did any of the authors, who are like practicing psychiatrists, why didn't anyone just think, you know, this is unscrupulous behavior. We, you know, we should call this out. We should blow the whistle on GSK.

And he said it's just the power of the seduction of the money, the prestige, the grants, the future positions that you hold. It's all just too overwhelming for them. I think it just must be a cognitive dissonance thing where they compartmentalize what they've done and refuse to understand the ramifications that children actually died because of their actions and focus on how this advances their own professional careers. You said that they paid $3 billion in some kind of a settlement, but that didn't actually

even connect with withdrawing the drug? No. Even when presented with the evidence from the GOJ, the journal still refused to retract the paper. They said that, as far as they were concerned, it had been investigated and there was nothing more to say. But what about the use of this drug at all? I mean, if they're paying a $3 billion fine for misrepresenting their findings, I guess, right? And is it causing harms? It was for the illegal promotion of the drug.

So they were promoting the drug off-label. I see. The drug was not licensed for children and adolescents, but it's pretty powerful when pharmaceutical reps come to the doctor's office and they give them free samples. They say, look, here is a peer-reviewed paper showing that the drug actually works in children and adolescents. It's safe. It's effective.

Here's some free samples. and, you know, you can read the paper as proof. May I ask, like, how does it work with these samples? Like, who do you, who does the doctor give the free samples? Do they take them themselves? Like, I'm confused by this. They give them to the patients. So sometimes, so I was actually in the situation where I had sustained back pain

and a doctor had just been visited by a pharmaceutical rep who was giving out free samples of Vioxx. And the doctor said to me, look, you know, if you've, you've had this back pain for a couple of weeks and you've been on a non-storodal anti-inflammatory drug, this might be harsh on your stomach lining, I've got some samples of this new drug that's on the market. It's called Vioxx. And it's supposed to protect your stomach whilst also giving you anti-inflammatory relief. So I took those samples and I went home and had about six days worth of Vioxx myself. Fortunately, I didn't have any adverse effects, but that's how it happens. And it's happened so many times even with psychiatric medication. A doctor says, well, you know, I've got some free samples. Why don't you just give it a try? And if things get better for you, we can write you a prescription.

It's a really quite powerful marketing tool. Wow. I didn't even understand that this happens. I mean, presumably, especially with psychiatric medication, something that takes a bit of time. But there's also the doctor's endorsement, which plays, I think, a profound impact on the psyche should. You know, it's someone you trust deeply. I mean, there's so many things going on here. And again, so they got, they were fined massively for misrepresenting, you know, basically for fraudulently illegal marketing, right?

And then they said, okay, we won't do that anymore. But that's it. Well, it still continues. And the fact that the peer reviewed study that shows it's allegedly safe and effective is really quite powerful. And the lawyer that filed this lawsuit said that he had deposed a few people and some doctors

who had prescribed this medication to children who said that they read the article in the journal. And that's what persuaded them to prescribe the medication. It gives them that sense that the data is there. Okay, so the regulator hasn't approved it, but there's a peer-reviewed study in a reputable journal. Let's give it a go. Yeah, I don't want to belabor this one particular example, but it's just really kind

of unbelievable. Yeah, it's unbelievable. Let's go back to you becoming a journalist and then, you know, what? What are some examples of what you tackled? And then, so, you know, I became aware of your work during the COVID-19 pandemic time, because you had some, well, just frankly, very interesting work that you did, that I benefited from greatly. Yeah. So I think, I mean, I started out quite a few years ago in mainstream media,

doing small documentaries, short documentaries, about medical issues. And I first came across this issue in 2013 when I did a documentary about statins and questioned that they were overprescribed. And that's when I really started to realize the force of the pharmaceutical industry and how powerful and persuasive they could be. Those programs were censored from the network. But I continued, I managed to keep my job for several years later, but I continued to do programs

where I talked about the unnecessary and over-prescription of medications, you know, medicine chasing numbers and surrogate markers that they can prescribe medications for, but not actually medications that help the patient benefit overall. And just with these markers, I just want to clarify. that. You're basically saying that they use some kind of related measure that suggests that this thing is actually effective. But then when you look at how it is, is it actually helping somebody? Well, maybe not. But there's an elevated marker of some sort that suggests that it might, it's plausible that it might be effective. Something like that? Yeah. So, for example,

in cardiovascular disease, they say that LDL cholesterol is causative of cardiovascular disease. But then you give somebody a statin and their cholesterol level drops 50%, but does that actually translate into a benefit in cardiovascular risk? For most people, it doesn't. And so it tells you that LDL might have a small role, but it's not the major role. And so we're chasing the wrong thing in cardiovascular disease. you probably should be chasing something else. Like, for example, insulin resistance,

which has a greater risk of developing cardiovascular disease than something like LDL. But you can't, there's not a drug to treat insulin resistance. There's a drug to treat LDL. So that's where the pharmaceutical industry favors the prescription. Yeah, let's continue. I just wanted to make sure we, everyone understood. So, you know, I continued doing programs where I looked at the poor oversight and regulation of chemicals in our water supply and in our food.

So I was attacking the chemical industry and also looked at the lack of studies for the safety of electromagnetic radiation from our wireless devices and cell towers. So there was also the telecommunications industry, lots of industries that I was questioning over a period of years and eventually it just got too much for the network that the pressure from those industries to censor me, to fire me, to take the programs down was just absolutely extraordinary. I hadn't experienced anything like that in my career. And it was a very, sustained and well-organised machine. So I didn't find out till later that I was put on a hit list, similar to the Merck hit list. This was a hit list that was going after journalists and academic researchers who were talking about the harms of highly refined carbohydrates in the diet.

And so of course those industries, all the breakfast cereal industries, decided that they would gather together and higher influences to counter or neutralize the messages that I was saying publicly and they would publish opinion pieces in the major papers saying that I was saying things that were pseudoscientific. So it was really quite an orchestrated campaign to neutralize any of the negative messages coming from people like me. And this is already, you're still working for this TV network.

Yeah. And this is coming out, and then so what happens? So eventually I did a documentary in 2016, and I was exploring the possible health effects behind our exposure to electromagnetic radiation from wireless devices and other kinds of devices that we use all the time. And, I mean, it wasn't really that controversial. It was just to say that we've rolled out this technology really quite quickly over the last decade without really understanding what the long-term health implications would be.

That was about the extent of the program. But you wouldn't believe it when you looked at how the program was characterized in the media. The industry, the telecommunications industry, was just full-on attacking. The program was censored. So then even if people were curious about what I said in the program, you couldn't go back and reference it because it had been disappeared off the website. It caused so much angst within the ABC. What we realized we were doing was spending far more time defending the programs than we were actually making the programs. So it was a really bad business model.

They needed to decide what they wanted to do and they in the end decided to completely. restructure the program and the entire department was axed, which was really quite unfortunate. The thing that strikes me the most about that whole situation was that I was working for the factual department, the factual science department within the ABC and something really quite stunning, one of my supervisors said to me at one point, he said, I just don't know that this is about the facts anymore because we've got the facts right. It's just about perception. And I thought, how curious that I'm working for factual programming and facts don't matter. I kind of could see the writing on the wall at that point. I encountered you, I guess, in 2020. I guess. Yeah. So for a few

years there, I was pretty radioactive. I couldn't get work in Australia. I went back to doing some research and it was about two or three years ago I decided to then start writing on Substack as an independent journalist and I've slowly built up my newsletter from there. But it's, you know, Substack has been an incredible opportunity for independent writers who've been kicked out of the mainstream. There's quite a few of us now. And COVID was really the unmasking of how all of this censorship came about. It was an event that woke people up to just how corrupt the system is at every level,

from the media to the academia, to the agencies that are meant to protect us, to the medical journals. There's a level of corruption that is really quite overwhelming. just, you know, would you say, this is what I've been thinking, would you say that it just sort of, it's like a highly enhanced or maybe kind of an augmented version of everything we've been talking about, like every element, right? There was this bit of media capture. There was this, you know, people being influenced by the money. There was, you know, all these things. But somehow in the kind of the way this whole COVID thing, but it just seemed to like all get

elevated or more extreme somehow. Would that be fair? So people ask me, did it just all happen at COVID? I think it's been happening for decades. I think the rot... But at this level? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I think the rot has been there for decades. The difference is that far more people are awake to it now. And so that's why it feels more obvious because we're talking about up more. And, you know, we're not censored more. We have social media platforms now like X that don't censor people's thoughts and opinions. So I actually think it's been there for quite a while. And it's just, it's just, people are just more awake to it now. As you first encountered the reaction or the response to COVID-19, what were you thinking? I was thinking. I was thinking.

I'm thinking, I've seen this before, I know how this story goes. I know that there were people trying to speak out and I could see that their careers were going down the toilet and it came at an extraordinary cost. And a lot of people could see and understand that it was just too dangerous to question and stayed quiet for a lot of the time. But I saw the patterns, I saw the censorship, I saw the threats, I saw the spreading messages of fear, I saw the punishment, if you didn't comply, they were all things that I had experienced in the past. So how did you enter the fray? Well, I just stuck to the data, as I normally do, and continued to write cautiously

about the things that I was observing and the evidence that was coming out. I mean, people are trying to rewrite history now to say, we didn't know. We did the best we could at the time. But we did actually know early in the pandemic what the right things to do were. It's just those people that were trying to tell everybody else were being censored and punished. So I just continued to keep writing. I had nothing to lose, being an independent journalist, I wasn't constrained by the normal editorial shackles that I had experienced at the ABC. So that's how I have been able to tell my story. And I'm very grateful now that I have a level of intellectual freedom that I've never experienced in my career. Wow. So what's the difference

between weaponization of science and corruption of science? There's weaponization just like a particular piece of the ladder. I think weaponization of science is the systemic corruption of science, and it happens at every level from the regulatory capture to the conflicts of interest, to the institutional cowardice. It all comes together. It's not just one or two rogue figures. This corruption is systemic and it's not isolated.

I think that when you really start to pull the thread on who controls the science, who captures the data, who pays the regulators, who influences the guidelines, you'll see that It's really quite a corruption that infiltrates every aspect of science. So we have a new administration here in the US. It's quite controversial. There's a lot of people being attacked. It's unusual because there's people in the system now who previously were playing a role similar to yourself, quite a number of them. We know some of them mutually. How do you think that's going for them? I think there's always going to be resistance.

This corruption didn't happen overnight, so I don't think it's going to be dismantled overnight either. And I've worked in, as a ministerial advisor, looking at policy within the government, and I've seen for myself how slow things can be in trying to implement the kind of change. that people like health secretary Kennedy are trying to do. I think he's made some really positive strides. One of the most positive I see is the dismantling of the CDC vaccine advisory committee, the ASIP committee, and replacing them with new, fresh experts who have bright ideas and are asking the right questions. I think that's going to be quite significant over the next few years

because they're really starting to interrogate the questions that we've all been asking for decades. And I can see some positive things happening. We've seen it already with the COVID vaccines and moving from a situation where it's recommended for everybody to now only being recommended after you have a conversation with your health care provider. Moving to a situation where it's more about informed consent is a positive thing in my mind. Yeah, and so that's actually very interesting because it really changes dramatically how this product is, I guess, discussed, right, or offered because there has to be some kind of every time you can see it has to be considered between the doctor and the patient and a discussion has to happen but for some people it's not obvious right this is something you know monumental and

groundbreaking why is it i just think people have overlooked the importance of informed consent and it doesn't just happen with vaccines it happens with all kinds of medications in my parents generation there was a sort of white coat phenomenon that if the doctor was telling you this was the right thing to do then you would just believe it and do it. But that's really not the way medicine should be conducting, doctors should be conducting themselves. It was interesting when there was all this backlash regarding my statin program,

it was the cardiologists that were coming out complaining, saying that we're really upset, that we have all these patients coming into our clinics now, questioning their statins. And I thought to myself, isn't that exactly what you hope your patients are doing? You know, questioning their medications, asking you, should I be taking this medication?

What if I don't take this medication? What will the consequences be? Talk through the risks and the benefits and the number needed to treat. It was really an eye-opener to see how some doctors really rejected the idea that a patient would question their prescribing decisions. They didn't see it as a relationship between a patient and a doctor making an informed choice.

They saw it as, you know, the doctor gives the prescription and the patient just complies. Well, and there's this other dimension, too, that, you know, you really have to focus. The doctor needs to focus on the individual patient and their particular realities. Like, for example, I've had something called Guillain-Barre syndrome in my life. And so that makes a dramatic difference in terms of how a doctor should, for example, suggest a vaccine or something like that. So that conversation that might actually facilitate a doctor catching something, they might not just because they're in a routine of prescribing a certain way.

I don't know. I can think of all sorts of benefits. I think that's where the vaccine mandates were really quite terrifying for me because doctors stopped looking at patients as individuals, and they stopped looking at their previous clinical notes and their experiences with other medications or similar medications. It was all just, you know, it's mandated, you must take it. And, you know, that's the end of the conversation.

And I think that's why I objected so much to vaccine mandates at the time. And just something just strikes me, right? because it's not just bad for the patient, but it's bad for the doctor. Like the doctor stops thinking somehow, right, if it becomes like that. That's, I just hadn't really thought about that. In Australia, there was a situation quite early on in the pandemic where the medical regulator sent a note to all health care providers warning them that if they talk to patients in a way that undermined the

rollout of the COVID vaccine, that there was would be potential ramifications for their medical license. So that really scared doctors into just advising all patients to get the vaccine. There was very little discussion about the potential harms, very little acknowledgement that this was a vaccine that only had provisional approval, which was approved through an expedited pathway, that there was no medium to long-term data. None of those things were discussed with the patients. And I think it's just because the doctors were really concerned about being reported to the

regulator having their license revoked and not being able to practice anymore. So that was a real shame that that happened. I think a lot of the time the doctors feel as if they have to just follow the prescribing guidelines because if something does happen to the patient, the patient will come back and say, well, you know, why didn't I take this medication? Because this is what the guidelines say, I should have been taking this medication. So it's almost like a defensive mechanism that they don't want to be in trouble for not doing what the guidelines recommend them to do. So they're just wrote learning and it's cookie cutter medicine, really. And that ends up harming people.

And the guidelines end up having a much more, being much more, you know, powerful in terms of affecting implementation than you might, than they're, you know, on the surface supposed to be, right? And we have guideline committees that only involve, you know, sometimes up to eight or ten people, and half of those people have conflicts of interest. It's really quite extraordinary when you think about a guideline committee, say, for example, statins, It's such a small committee that makes a decision for the entire population, and that committee in itself might have conflicts of interest or financial ties to the manufacturer of these drugs. It's really quite outrageous.

Do you have one or a few prescriptions for how to positively affect change to start that? You mentioned it's a long process. There's no magic wand. there's no quick fix, but what are steps that you haven't seen, or maybe even that you have seen, aside from the ASIP committee being replaced and that move us in the right direction in your view? I think it has to go in stages. So there has to be acknowledgement that they've done the wrong thing. And, you know, so people need to understand that there is an acknowledgement that terrible things have happened to people and there needs to be better transparency because if there's

any chance of trying to regain trust in back into the medical profession and the agencies that are meant to protect us, there has to be a much more rigorous emphasis on transparency. And admission of, you know, so that things didn't go as planned or at least went wrong. And I guess you mean this for every product where that's, you know, been demonstrated to be the case. Yeah, yeah, yeah. There has to be admission. There has to be transparency going forward. But there also, it's really important to have accountability.

As I mentioned in the Vioxx scandal, not one CEO went to jail. despite making decisions that resulted in tens of thousands of people dying from these medications. So I don't think that company fines are enough of a deterrent to stop this bad behaviour. You need to make the individuals responsible for this. And I think as soon as an individual at a pharmaceutical company is made accountable for the decisions, under their watch, I think that this behavior will stop overnight because nobody is going to take that risk. At the moment, they think they're sheltered, they're protected by the company. And in fact, some of the time, they're rewarded by their behavior and promoted in other companies.

That really has to change. Okay. So what's next for you? What are you working on now? I'm just going to continue writing and working on Substack and truth-telling. That's kind of where my focus is. Well, Marianne DeMacy, it's such a pleasure to have had you on. It's been a pleasure. Thanks, Jan. Thank you all for joining Marianne DeMacy and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I'm your host, Janja Kellick.