Follow the Science summary

Informed consent is a cornerstone of medical ethics, designed to ensure that patients understand the risks of participating in research before agreeing to participate. But not all research studies adhere to this principle. A striking example is the SUPPORT Baby Oxygen study, a government-funded experiment conducted between 2005 and 2009. Aimed at determining the optimal oxygen levels for premature infants, the study revealed how the medical establishment can sometimes mislead patients about the risks involved – even those in highly vulnerable populations.

The study was conducted at 23 prestigious institutions, including Duke and Yale. The mothers of premature infants were told that the study would provide “support” and assistance, but they weren’t fully informed of the experiment’s true nature. In reality, the infants were randomly assigned to receive either high or low levels of oxygen, and medical staff were given intentionally manipulated readings to prevent them from adjusting the oxygen levels. As a result, the infants were exposed to serious risks, including blindness, brain damage, and death.

In 2021, the Alzheimer’s drug aducanumab, branded as Aduhelm, was introduced as a groundbreaking treatment for millions facing dementia. Marketed as the first drug targeting amyloid plaques – the suspected root cause of Alzheimer’s – it was expected to slow disease progression. But Aduhelm quickly became one of the most controversial pharmaceutical approvals, primarily due to incomplete data supporting its release.

Clinical trials of Aduhelm were halted in 2019 after early results suggested the drug was ineffective. Despite this, Biogen, its manufacturer, reanalyzed the data and collaborated closely with the FDA to push for approval. This raised concerns, particularly when the FDA issued a joint report with Biogen, an unusual move that led to widespread criticism of the agency’s impartiality. This unusual collaboration between a regulatory body and a drug manufacturer fueled concerns about conflicts of interest, and further scrutiny arose from both the scientific community and watchdog groups. The FDA advisory committee, which typically provides critical guidance, overwhelmingly opposed Aduhelm, citing insufficient evidence. Ten members voted against it, yet the FDA approved the drug anyway, sparking outrage in the medical community.

Vaccines have long been seen as essential tools in the fight against disease. Yet, many aspects of their development, safety, and regulation remain hidden from public view. While they’re vital for preventing outbreaks and saving lives, the conversation surrounding vaccine safety has often been dominated by corporate interests and government assurances, leaving critical ethical concerns unanswered.

A major issue is the lack of transparency about potential vaccine risks. Although serious side effects are rare, they can be devastating – ranging from brain damage to paralysis. This information isn’t always clearly communicated – once again undermining the principle of informed consent. Many individuals, particularly parents of vaccine-injured children, find themselves caught in a legal system that shields vaccine manufacturers from liability. The vaccine court, set up to handle these claims in the US, operates under strict limitations, offering limited recourse for those seeking justice. This imbalance leaves victims battling an uphill legal struggle, facing systems designed to protect the pharmaceutical industry over individuals.

In July 2022, when President Biden contracted COVID-19 twice, his infections brought to light a glaring issue: the confusion and misinformation surrounding the pandemic. Biden, along with other top officials like Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Rochelle Walensky, had assured the public that vaccines would prevent illness. Yet, all had multiple infections despite being heavily vaccinated, raising significant questions about the public health narrative.

One of the first key missteps was the guidance to isolate at home. Early data showed that a majority of COVID-19 hospitalizations involved people who had followed this advice. Governor Cuomo revealed that 66 percent of hospitalized patients had been sheltering at home, yet this revelation was largely ignored. Instead of advising people to spend more time outdoors, public health authorities persisted in promoting isolation, contributing to widespread illness.

In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, a global scramble ensued to find effective treatments for the virus before vaccines were available. Hydroxychloroquine, a drug with a long history of treating malaria, emerged as a candidate after studies in China and France suggested it could help. But what followed wasn’t a straightforward evaluation of the drug’s potential. Instead, political and financial interests muddied the waters, creating confusion around its effectiveness.

Early on, the media began portraying hydroxychloroquine as dangerous, fueled by an online report from the Veterans Affairs Department that linked it to increased deaths in COVID-19 patients. Despite this, other studies pointed to the drug’s possible benefits when used in the early stages of infection. This divide in the perception of hydroxychloroquine wasn’t based purely on science but was deeply influenced by politics. With President Trump endorsing the drug, media outlets framed it as a “miracle cure” despite his measured statements. His support became a reason for some media outlets to discredit the drug.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, another significant health crisis has emerged – often referred to as “Long Covid” and “Long Vax.” These conditions appear to be linked to spike proteins and microclotting issues in the body, affecting millions of people worldwide. By early 2024, up to 25 percent of adults were already reporting signs of long-term illness, many of them vaccinated, yet the vaccine’s potential role in exacerbating these conditions is often ignored in public discussions.

The illnesses, which surface long after the virus or vaccine is cleared, present a wide range of symptoms – from brain fog and muscle stiffness to severe complications like strokes and heart attacks. Doctors are often at a loss, dismissing these patients or misdiagnosing them due to a lack of guidance on testing and treatment.