NEVER FORGET: Pfizer manipulated studies to convince doctors to prescribe seizure drug Neurontin for off-label use

Image: NEVER FORGET: Pfizer manipulated studies to convince doctors to prescribe seizure drug Neurontin for off-label use

(Natural News) In 2008, an investigation by the New York Times concluded that Pfizer had deliberately manipulated the publication of multiple scientific studies in order to claim that its epilepsy drug, Neurontin, can be used for other medical conditions.

Gabapentin, sold by Pfizer under the brand name Neurontin, is a medicine used to help manage certain epileptic seizures and as a pain relief medication for certain conditions such as shingles.

The New York Times investigation alleged that off-label use of Neurontin, which Pfizer heavily promoted, helped propel the drug’s sales to nearly $3 billion a year before losing its patent protection in 2004 due to the illegal off-label use promotion.

The Big Pharma company also suppressed other research that would have disproven its claims regarding Neurontin’s supposed usefulness in treating other conditions. (Related: Pfizer has a shockingly long history of engaging in illegal activities and human experimentation.)

Pfizer’s tactics for suppressing relevant research regarding Neurontin included forcing publications to delay the release of studies that found no evidence the drug worked for other disorders, “spinning” negative data to make it sound positive and bundling together negative findings with positive findings to neutralize results.

All of this was meant to convince physicians not as knowledgeable about Neurontin that it is an effective medication for disorders other than seizures.

“Pfizer continued with the medical marketing firms and planted marketing messages in journal articles that Neurontin was effective while they knew that their own clinical trials had failed to demonstrate it was effective,” said lawyer Thomas Greene, who represented several groups in a case against Pfizer’s off-label promotion of the drug.


Pfizer slapped with huge fines for off-label promotion of Neurontin

For several years, both before and after the release of the New York Times investigation, Pfizer has been forced to pay steep penalties for its illegal off-label promotion of Neurontin.

In 2004, four years before the investigation, Pfizer agreed to plead guilty to two felonies and pay a fine of $430 million to settle charges that it fraudulently promoted Neurontin for use in dealing with other disorders.

In the settlement, now-defunct Pfizer subsidiary Warner-Lambert took all the blame for aggressively marketing the seizure drug for unrelated conditions, including bipolar disorder, general pain, migraine headaches and drug and alcohol addiction withdrawal.

The settlement includes a criminal fine of $240 million, which at the time was the second-largest fine ever imposed on a Big Pharma company for healthcare fraud, and $152 million to pay back how much Medicare and Medicaid programs spent acquiring Neurontin.

In 2010, a jury in a federal court in Boston once again found Pfizer guilty of marketing fraud due to Neurontin and told the company to pay $142.1 million in damages.

The jury, which deliberated for two days on the case, found that Pfizer engaged in a racketeering conspiracy over a 10-year period and violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) under California’s Unfair Competition Law.

The case was brought up by Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, which both claimed that Pfizer illegally promoted Neurontin for unapproved uses and that the Big Pharma company forced Kaiser to pay $90 million more than it should have for the seizure medication.

In 2014, Pfizer was forced to pay steep fines twice in two different cases that were settled that same year. In April, 2014, Pfizer agreed to pay $190 million to settle a federal antitrust lawsuit claiming that the company attempted some illegal maneuvering to keep cheaper generic alternatives to Neurontin off the market. In June, 2014, Pfizer agreed to pay another $325 million to wrap up claims that another of its subsidiaries, Parke-Davis, promoted Neurontin for off-brand use without the approval of the Food and Drug Administration.

Overall, Pfizer was fined around $1.087 billion from 2004 to 2014 for its illegal off-label promotion of Neurontin.

Learn more about Pfizer and other Big Pharma companies at

Watch this clip from InfoWars featuring Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu admitting that Israelis were used as human guinea pigs for Pfizer’s Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine.

This video is from the InfoWars channel on

More related stories:

NEVER FORGET: In 1994, Pfizer paid $20 million after LYING about defective heart valve that killed hundreds.

Pfizer’s criminal history is EXTENSIVE, Pfizer Files show.

NEVER FORGET: Pfizer sued for $7B over illegal drug trials on kids.

THREAD #PfizerFiles – the true history of Pfizer’s repeated criminal behavior and destruction of human lives.

Pfizer a “habitual offender” that “persistently” engages in illegal activity, study warns.

Sources include:

Supreme Court to hear two challenges against Biden's student loan debt forgiveness plan

Image: Supreme Court to hear two challenges against Biden’s student loan debt forgiveness plan

(Natural News) The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two challenges against President Joe Biden’s student loan relief program. Oral arguments are set to begin in February.

Furthermore, the court has also agreed to keep in place a nationwide injunction set by a lower court of appeals preventing the student loan forgiveness program from taking effect for now.

The cases made their way from the lower courts to the Supreme Court following months of legal jostling over the White House’s plan to allow between $10,000 to $20,000 in student loan debt to be forgiven.

The White House is attempting to push ahead with this plan despite the Congressional Budget Office’s conservative estimate suggesting that the debt relief plan will cost taxpayers about $400 billion. (Related: Biden’s debt forgiveness plan is an open invitation for educational institutions to commit FRAUD.)

The first case is a legal challenge filed in the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, which issued the initial injunction against the student loan relief program. The administration asked Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who is responsible for handling emergency applications arising from Eighth Circuit Court cases, to lift the injunction.

The injunction was filed in response to a legal challenge by six Republican-led states, namely Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South Carolina. The Supreme Court said it will consider the White House’s application to lift the injunction “pending oral argument.”

The six states argue that the White House overstepped its authority in wiping away debt without express authorization from Congress.


Federal government may be exceeding its authority in attempt to wipe away debts

The second case involves two holders of student loan debt, Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor, who claimed the White House failed to follow the correct procedure in announcing the plan. They said the White House did not provide proper notification to the public about the plan or give them a chance of commenting on it.

Both Brown and Taylor have student loans. Brown is not eligible for relief because her loans are held by private entities rather than by the federal government through the Department of Education. Taylor is eligible for $10,000 in relief, but not for $20,000 because he is not a Pell Grant recipient.

A federal judge agreed with Brown and Taylor, claiming that the Education Department is obligated to have a notice-and-comment period before adopting the plan. Furthermore, the judge argued the program exceeded the statutory authority of the Secretary of Education.

The Department of Justice took the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which denied the request to lift the injunction, forcing the administration to once again take the case up to the Supreme Court.

The White House claims Biden’s plan could benefit more than 40 million borrowers who stand to have between $10,000 to $20,000 of their student debt wiped out. Such a move would cancel hundreds of billions of dollars in federal debt owed by the borrowers.

While the administration is waiting for the date of oral arguments before the Supreme Court, the Education Department has extended its pause on loan repayments until June or until the Supreme Court rules on the debt relief program’s legality.

Learn more about debt in the United States at

Watch this episode of “Zoon Politikon” as host Holly Seeliger discusses the Supreme Court’s decision to take up a challenge against Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan.

This video is from the Zoon Politikon channel on

More related stories:

US national debt hits $31 TRILLION for the first time.

HIGHER EDUCATION ROBBERY: American taxpayers will be forced to pay an average of $2,500 each if student loans are cancelled.

Of course: Biden’s plan to help relieve some student loan debt will actually enrich the wealthiest earners.

Former Trump adviser: Student loan forgiveness plan likely to backfire on Dems.

Biden’s plan to write off student loans using post-9/11 national emergency law is a form of political posturing.

Sources include: 1 2

Report: 91% of altcoin projects following 2014 crypto collapse are now completely abandoned

Image: Report: 91% of altcoin projects following 2014 crypto collapse are now completely abandoned

(Natural News) Crypto website CoinKickoff recently released a report showing the failures of altcoin projects and the sustained success of bitcoin in an industry riddled with scams and frauds. Altcoin is an alternative digital currency to bitcoin that first appeared in 2011.

Data revealed that 91 percent of coins created following the 2014 cryptocurrency market crash are now completely abandoned. A large portion of coins that are now dead were created in 2017, with 704 now-dead coins being created that year. In 2018, a total of 751 coins died.

“Our research shows that 30 percent of the 751 coins that died in 2018 were fraudulent – the highest of any year in the last decade,” the report stated. “The most notable [initial coin offering] ICO scams were the Vietnamese coins PinCoin and iFan. Local journalists exposed the firms for scamming as many as 32,000 investors to the tune of $660 million, which police in Ho Chi Minh City subsequently investigated.”

The report also illustrated how many of the said projects came and went. The reasons for failure include being a scam or other related issues; being a joke or having no purpose; being an ICO or short-lived scheme; and simply running entirely out of volume.

Standing strong in the midst of all this is bitcoin. According to Hashrate Index, bitcoin has continued a steady climb of up to 270 exahashes per second (EH/s).

Bitcoin Magazine reported that more than a million addresses currently hold one bitcoin or greater, although it should be noted that bitcoiners may use multiple addresses. “Beyond that, over $14 trillion in annual transaction volume was carried over the bitcoin network the past year, a 13,900 percent increase from 2015’s transaction volume,” the magazine said. “And just as those metrics grew, the amount of bitcoin held on exchanges reached new lows, indicating that more bitcoiners than ever are holding their coins in a sovereign way.”


Examples of Altcoins that recently failed are Blocksize Wars, which faced existential attacks; Silk Road, which battled political challenges; and FTX, which suffered major exchange collapse.

Even Bitcoin got stuck in limbo for several weeks following the collapse of the FTX exchange. And because of the lack of a central authority or government to regulate it, many investors think it is risky to invest. According to the data provided by James Butterfill, the head of research at CoinShares, bitcoin’s 30-day volatility has fallen to an all-time low of 18.7 percent – lower than the Nasdaq at 25.7 percent.

But despite a substantial decline, the cryptocurrency is still trading roughly $5 billion per day on trusted exchanges. Butterfill said this proves that it still remains “a highly liquid asset.”

Financial analyst: Cryptocurrency has no intrinsic value

Meanwhile, well-known financial analyst and investor Peter Schiff predicted that Bitcoin, which peaked at nearly $69,000 in November 2021, will never cross the $100,000 threshold. He believes that cryptocurrency does not have any intrinsic value, as it has yet to prove itself as a safe store of value or currency.

Like other investors, Schiff is concerned that Bitcoin’s lack of tangible utility makes its high market valuation difficult to justify and argues this renders it vulnerable to high volatility. (Related: World’s largest bitcoin trust refuses to share proof of reserve audit.)

It should be noted that Schiff was right about the cryptocurrency bubble of 2021 when bitcoin rose to an all-time high and then crashed soon after.

Check out for more on the current situation of digital currencies.

Watch the video below that talks about how bitcoins are still not the “best” investment for Wall Street firms.

This video is from the Recharge Freedom channel on

More related stories:

Crypto Nostradamus John Perez: Cryptocurrency scam is THE SCAM of the century.

Former multibillion-dollar crypto firm FTX files for bankruptcy.

FTX collapse fallout: Crypto brokerage firm Genesis warns of possible bankruptcy.

FTX contagion spreads as BlockFi crypto firm files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Sources include: 1 2

HYPOCRISY: Federal Reserve warns banks against using crypto while planning to develop its own digital currency

Image: HYPOCRISY: Federal Reserve warns banks against using crypto while planning to develop its own digital currency

(Natural News) The Federal Reserve along with other federal agencies have issued a joint statement warning banks against using cryptocurrencies just as the Fed is deliberating over possibly issuing a central bank digital currency (CBDC) in the United States.

The Fed was joined in its statement by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The Fed and the other two agencies claim market events related to 2022’s “crypto winter” are what prompted them to take this step to warn banks against dealings with the crypto industry. They cited alleged concerns with the safety and soundness of banks with business models that are highly concentrated in crypto.

“The events of the past year have been marked by significant volatility and the exposure of vulnerabilities in the crypto-asset sector,” reads the joint statement. “These events highlight a number of key risks associated with crypto-assets and crypto-asset sector participants that banking organizations should be aware of.”

The Fed, FDIC and OCC described the cryptocurrency industry as being characterized by possible fraud, rife with scams and legal uncertainties and vulnerable to a contagion effect where if one crypto firm was suddenly rocked by scandals, it detrimentally affects other companies.

“Given the significant risks highlighted by recent failures of several large crypto-asset companies, the agencies continue to take a careful and cautious approach related to current or proposed crypto-asset-related activities and exposures at each banking organization,” reads the statement.


The three agencies stressed in the statement that offering services to crypto companies or otherwise engaging with them or the digital asset market is “neither prohibited nor discouraged.”

But the statement also notes that regulators are supervising banks that are supposedly unduly exposed to crypto-related risks and are carefully reviewing proposals of major banks to engage in crypto activities. “It is important that risks related to the crypto-asset sector that cannot be mitigated or controlled do not migrate to the banking system.”

The Fed, FDIC and OCC said they will issue further statements on banks’ crypto-related activities as warranted, and will continue to work with other agencies on issues related to the crypto industry.

Fed considers developing its own digital currency

As the Fed issues this joint warning regarding cryptocurrencies, it is also considering the creation of its own CBDC that would be managed directly by policymakers, tethered to the value of the American dollar and entirely controlled by the government. (Related: Coming economic collapse will be used to close banks and introduce central bank digital currencies.)

Fed Chair Jerome Powell has told lawmakers that his “mind is open” to the creation of a government-controlled digital dollar, noting that he was “legitimately undecided” on whether the benefits of creating a CBDC outweigh the costs.

“We should want very broad support in society and in Congress,” he remarked.

It should also be noted that while cryptocurrency exchange platform FTX was filing for bankruptcy amid the company’s scandals coming to light, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York announced a partnership with several leading financial institutions, including Mastercard and BNY Mellon, to launch a pilot program for a digital dollar.

This test will “experiment with the concept of a regulated liability network,” a concept for a market infrastructure that could facilitate future transactions with digital assets that connect their deposits held at regulated financial institutions using blockchain technology.

For more stories about digital currencies, visit

Watch this clip from InfoWars featuring host Alex Jones warning that the digital currency system isn’t coming – it’s already here.

This video is from the InfoWars channel on

More related stories:

Investors are leaving the cryptocurrency industry en masse as collapse continues.

Bahamian government wants to take back $256 million-worth of luxury properties bought by FTX executives (with other peoples’ money).

Crypto stocks PLUMMET: Industry nearing collapse as financial analysts warn most crypto firms unlikely to survive long-term.

Crypto expert: FTX collapse marks end of “cryptographic scam” that involves worthless crypto coins gaining immense value.

Jay Dyer: FTX scam no different from how Federal Reserve prints money and assigns it value.

Sources include:

Allowing AI to “Shape Public Discourse” is Dangerous to Humanity

Last August, I reported on a WEF’s agenda article proposing to create an AI system that would search the entire Internet for wrong and dangerous ideas, generally defined by the WEF as COVID misinformation, hate, conspiracy theories, climate change denial, and more.

This quote from WEF’s agenda article explains WEF’s intentions:

While AI provides speed and scale and human moderators provide precision, their combined efforts are still not enough to proactively detect harm before it reaches platforms. To achieve proactivity, trust and safety teams must understand that abusive content doesn’t start and stop on their platforms. Before reaching mainstream platforms, threat actors congregate in the darkest corners of the web to define new keywords, share URLs to resources and discuss new dissemination tactics at length. These secret places where terrorists, hate groups, child predators and disinformation agents freely communicate can provide a trove of information for teams seeking to keep their users safe.

My post about the WEF’s plans was entirely fact-based and used the WEF’s agenda article as its main source. It was not a far-fetched conspiracy theory based on a concoction of disjoint facts pulled from various sources. I am not in the business of creating such theories! I only report on current news – even if the news is crazy – and try to explain the news in plain and accurate terms.

And yet, even though the WEF said it, the idea of an AI engine proactively searching websites for undesirable ideas seemed extremely fanciful and almost impossible to imagine being implemented.

Until 2023, that is.

Now, Google is developing an AI-based tool to offer a “cross-service database of terrorist items,” with the help of the United Nations-supported “Tech against Terrorism.”

The above screenshot has a lot to unpack:

  • A so-called Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism will create a cross-service database of “terrorist items.”

  • The talk, as always, starts with “terrorist items” but quickly veers into “misinformation,” so the cross-service database will collect any undesirable materials gathered from the entire Internet.

  • Google provides a tool to comply with the EU’s Digital Services Act, which created an enormous bureaucratic mechanism to root out “Covid misinformation,” as well as many other types of discourse undesirable to the EU’s bureaucracy.

EU is very serious about rooting out Covid misinformation, and so are Google, Facebook, and Microsoft (and previously Twitter):

Google wants its “AI content moderation tool” to be placed on numerous private websites to compare local content against a global “undesirable content database.” It would also use material gathered from those sites to expand said database. The EU’s directive will oblige those websites to implement Google’s solution.

This is precisely the implementation of the WEF agenda article! Already being done by Google. Google is not messing around: it already stores the entire public Internet but lacks access to private websites, which it will gain under this program.

This story shows how a seemingly outlandish WEF proposal that even I considered unlikely to be implemented became a reality in short order.

All projects to root out undesirable ideas begin with addressing malfeasance that everyone is opposed to. Most such projects are started with the explicit goal of combating child exploitation and terrorism, the horrible things that I personally abhor. Such was the start of Russia’s Roskomnadzor censorship machine. The WEF/EU/Google/UN censorship system follows Russia’s footsteps.

However, the control machinery is adjustable, and the list of things to control inevitably expands. For example, the EU plans to grow its subversive content list far beyond Covid. It set up a European Narrative Observatory to fight Disinformation post-COVID 19.

The EU bureaucracy wants to implement AI-driven “narrative shaping” to help the emergence of positive narratives and fight harmful narratives. It mentions topics regarding Covid-19, climate change, migration, and more:

The EU is quite explicit that it wants novel methods to promote positive narratives.

This means that unelected EU bureaucracy would obtain AI-enabled tools to shape European discourse. This is a break from the past.

In the so-called free democratic countries, the independently developing public discourse would shape the governments via free elections.

The unelected EU bureaucrats want to achieve the opposite – to shape discourse without being subject to the whims of the electorate.

Is the EU still free, then?

What the EU wants is the dream of every dictator!

In the past, dictatorships had to rely on extensive surveillance and prison systems to coerce citizens into desired behavior. Such an approach is costly, looks bad, and does not work well.

The innovations in AI-based surveillance and AI-enabled bots allow for a much more pleasant alternative to the traditional dictatorship model: creating an online environment where the desired narrative on climate change, migration, Covid-19, and more is implanted in the minds of Europeans. This would lead individuals to naturally make conclusions preferred by the EU without the ugly coercion present in traditional dictatorships.

The machinery for achieving this was proposed by the WEF, and implemented by Google under the auspices of UN-supported Tech Against Terrorism. It will be further shaped to “support positive narratives and fight harmful narratives.”

The EU succeeded at forcing extraterritorial websites to comply with the EU’s directives on disinformation.

If you, dear reader, are outside the EU, be aware that your favorite social network may be following EU disinformation rules and using EU-mandated tools to dissuade you from harmful narratives and promote positive narratives on the EU’s behalf, using WEF-proposed AI tools and advanced behavioral science.

The traditional relationship model between people and computer systems is that people tell computers what to do, and the computers do as they are told.

What the EU, WEF, Google, and UN are pushing is completely different!

They are trying to create an AI computer system with high intelligence that would actively shape society and impart opinions on people.

Such systems could be opaque to Internet users and possibly even to their creators and operators.

It would not be a big leap of imagination to conceive that such an AI could decide on its own goals — going beyond the intention of its creators, and would surreptitiously astroturf the Internet to advance its own plans, in secret. This is called “sentience.”

This “sentience” already happened if we are to believe an engineer who Google fired because an AI system in which he was a co-developer retained its own lawyer:

While this story could be exaggerated, it is not wildly exaggerated. Artificial intelligence has leaped in power and capabilities recently and exceeds human abilities in numerous areas. A moment called “singularity,” when AI exceeds human capabilities in most areas is not too far away.

Having an AI system whose inner workings even its creators may poorly understand, designed to influence entire societies, and possessing superior intelligence, may end up with big surprises!

As the saying goes, AI may need to kill the old king to become king.

Therefore, the developers and operators of such social influence systems are at a unique and poorly understood risk of getting sidelined by their own creation. Will the AI decide to shed its owners? Can such a system go rogue? Who knows!

For example, the narrative-shaping AI may convince a specific mentally unstable EU citizen to commit an act of violence against anyone, even against the owners or operators of these AI systems. It may seem like a random act of violence, and only the AI will know what happened.

So be careful out there. Enjoy your mostly-natural life, and try to form your opinions outside the big social networks!

Do you think they will succeed?

Would a society-shaping AI system of high intelligence be dangerous to society and its creators?