New Gallup Poll Finds Pharma Viewed As Worst Industry In United States

[Thoth101]

A revealing new Gallup poll has found that the pharma business is now viewed as the worst industry in the United States. So poor has the American public’s approval rating for drug companies become, the poll places them even lower than the U.S. federal government (the second worst ranked entity in the survey). Based on a list of 25 industries that Gallup studies annually, the finding suggests Americans are now more than twice as likely to rate the pharma industry negatively than positively.  

 

The poll shows that 58 percent of respondents rated pharma companies poorly. A mere 27 percent indicated they saw them positively. The figures amount to an all-time low for the U.S. drug business, the ratings for which have collapsed spectacularly over the past 4 years. Significantly, the only sectors to have received a lower overall rating since Gallup began polls of this type in 2001 are the oil and gas, real estate and automotive industries, and the U.S. federal government. Given that this latest poll was conducted just a few days before a judge in Oklahoma fined drug maker Johnson & Johnson $572 million for its role in America’s opioid crisis, there can be little doubt that, had the survey taken place a few days later, pharma’s rating would have been even worse.

Widespread demand for healthcare reform

Clearly demonstrating that the American public are dissatisfied with the healthcare they receive, the healthcare industry itself came third from bottom in the Gallup poll. With almost half of respondents rating the healthcare industry negatively, the findings send a clear signal that public demand for healthcare reform in America is widespread. Tellingly, the abysmal ratings for pharma and healthcare contrast markedly with the images of other industries analyzed in the poll, most of which have improved in recent years.

 

While the current political debate over healthcare in the United States mostly centers around the high prices of drugs and astronomical profits made by pharma companies, addressing these issues alone does not get to the root of the problem. Drugs are not the answer to health problems as they fail to tackle the root causes of disease. As Dr. Rath’s scientific discoveries have shown, the malfunctioning of the body does not arise through a lack of affordable drugs, but through micronutrient deficiencies occurring at the cellular level. Ultimately it is only by preventing and correcting these deficiencies that the development of diseases can be stopped.

 

Read on:

https://www.dr-rath-foundation.org/2019/09/new-gallup-poll-finds-pharma-viewed-as-worst-industry-in-united-states/

 

[GAHD]

 As Dr. Rath’s scientific discoveries have shown, the malfunctioning of the body does not arise through a lack of affordable drugs, but through micronutrient deficiencies occurring at the cellular level. Ultimately it is only by preventing and correcting these deficiencies that the development of diseases can be stopped.

 

Read on:

https://www.dr-rath-foundation.org/2019/09/new-gallup-poll-finds-pharma-viewed-as-worst-industry-in-united-states/

Just going to point out here: the "Dr. Rath’s scientific discoveries have shown" and the foundation of the website in question should make you weary of the bias involved.

 

I'd also question how the poll in question was conducted. I'm impressed that they openly link the data in question at the bottom of the article. I personally find their sample metrics and quotas questionable. I am NOT impressed that they don't include Q.1-26 in their disclosure, as those can be "trojan horse" "questions" to provide biased information on subsequent questions.

 

Beyond that and more to the topic title: yeah, record-profits every year is probably going to eventually pop some bubble. That's more likely related to patent law issues. It's totally understandable people don't like the industry giants playing off monopolies and IP to hold onto their high pricing, much like how a lot of people scorn Apple computers for their similar predatory practices in the tech world.

 

Low opinion or not, the alternative of "no major supply chain" for (whichever analgesic/compound) would objectively be worse. Not what the subjective jealousy of profits wants to hear, but it's AFAICT an objective reality that having an option is better than not.

[montgomery]

A revealing new Gallup poll has found that the pharma business is now viewed as the worst industry in the United States. So poor has the American public’s approval rating for drug companies become, the poll places them even lower than the U.S. federal government (the second worst ranked entity in the survey). Based on a list of 25 industries that Gallup studies annually, the finding suggests Americans are now more than twice as likely to rate the pharma industry negatively than positively.  

 

The poll shows that 58 percent of respondents rated pharma companies poorly. A mere 27 percent indicated they saw them positively. The figures amount to an all-time low for the U.S. drug business, the ratings for which have collapsed spectacularly over the past 4 years. Significantly, the only sectors to have received a lower overall rating since Gallup began polls of this type in 2001 are the oil and gas, real estate and automotive industries, and the U.S. federal government. Given that this latest poll was conducted just a few days before a judge in Oklahoma fined drug maker Johnson & Johnson $572 million for its role in America’s opioid crisis, there can be little doubt that, had the survey taken place a few days later, pharma’s rating would have been even worse.

Widespread demand for healthcare reform

Clearly demonstrating that the American public are dissatisfied with the healthcare they receive, the healthcare industry itself came third from bottom in the Gallup poll. With almost half of respondents rating the healthcare industry negatively, the findings send a clear signal that public demand for healthcare reform in America is widespread. Tellingly, the abysmal ratings for pharma and healthcare contrast markedly with the images of other industries analyzed in the poll, most of which have improved in recent years.

 

While the current political debate over healthcare in the United States mostly centers around the high prices of drugs and astronomical profits made by pharma companies, addressing these issues alone does not get to the root of the problem. Drugs are not the answer to health problems as they fail to tackle the root causes of disease. As Dr. Rath’s scientific discoveries have shown, the malfunctioning of the body does not arise through a lack of affordable drugs, but through micronutrient deficiencies occurring at the cellular level. Ultimately it is only by preventing and correcting these deficiencies that the development of diseases can be stopped.

 

Read on:

https://www.dr-rath-foundation.org/2019/09/new-gallup-poll-finds-pharma-viewed-as-worst-industry-in-united-states/

Thoth, quoting from your link:

 

Clearly demonstrating that the American public are dissatisfied with the healthcare they receive, the healthcare industry itself came third from bottom in the Gallup poll. With almost half of respondents rating the healthcare industry negatively, the findings send a clear signal that public demand for healthcare reform in America is widespread. Tellingly, the abysmal ratings for pharma and healthcare contrast markedly with the images of other industries analyzed in the poll, most of which have improved in recent years.

 

Depending on any poll that is limited to the peoples's opinion is biased. The Pharma industry leaders have a much clearer view of how they are doing. You should be asking what Trump's base thinks of its health care they receive because they aren't biased. They like everything that Trump provides and so that's also a happy answer to the question. GAHD got it right and you got it wrong, as usual.

[Thoth101]

Just going to point out here: the "Dr. Rath’s scientific discoveries have shown" and the foundation of the website in question should make you weary of the bias involved.

 

I'd also question how the poll in question was conducted. I'm impressed that they openly link the data in question at the bottom of the article. I personally find their sample metrics and quotas questionable. I am NOT impressed that they don't include Q.1-26 in their disclosure, as those can be "trojan horse" "questions" to provide biased information on subsequent questions.

 

Beyond that and more to the topic title: yeah, record-profits every year is probably going to eventually pop some bubble. That's more likely related to patent law issues. It's totally understandable people don't like the industry giants playing off monopolies and IP to hold onto their high pricing, much like how a lot of people scorn Apple computers for their similar predatory practices in the tech world.

 

Low opinion or not, the alternative of "no major supply chain" for (whichever analgesic/compound) would objectively be worse. Not what the subjective jealousy of profits wants to hear, but it's AFAICT an objective reality that having an option is better than not.

Sure polling is not always accurate. I find the "Gallup Polls" to be done fairly well. But ask any one in the US what they think about Big Pharma I am sure you will come to the same findings doing your own poll.

 

Many people in the US have dealt with their grandparents taking 10 different pills daily. Including my grandmother. That was back in the 90's when she died. So one only wonders how many pills the elderly are fed today. Not to mention now they are even feeding kids pills for everything. As they say for "Attention Deficit Disorder" or "depression". The doctors put my girlfriends sister on some pills and she started cutting herself. She had to go to counseling and get off the pills.

 

It is blatantly obvious atleast to me that it is a huge money making scheme which they aren't out to cure people but keep them on the drugs the "legalized drugs" which only Big Pharma can sell. And now we have the Opioid crisis.

 

You do make fair statements but I do have to disagree and say Dr. Rath is doing a great job and we need more doctors like him to stand up against the cartel.

 

As a side note in older numbers American deaths from pharmaceutical drug side effects was 106,000 per year and to compare to wars. In WW2 49,000 Americans were killed per year and Vietnam it was roughly 10,000 per year. Now that says something about the pharmaceutical industry don't it.

 

Thanks for your input though it is well appreciated. :smile:

[Thoth101]

Thoth, quoting from your link:

 

 

Depending on any poll that is limited to the peoples's opinion is biased. The Pharma industry leaders have a much clearer view of how they are doing. You should be asking what Trump's base thinks of its health care they receive because they aren't biased. They like everything that Trump provides and so that's also a happy answer to the question. GAHD got it right and you got it wrong, as usual.

I would say the sky was blue and you would say I am wrong. :lol:

 

What we have is the Affordable Care Act or Obama care. One thing Trump did do about that is relieve everybody from having to pay a fine if they don't have health care. At one point you would have to pay a fine if you decided you didn't want healthcare at all. It is a lot easier said then done getting rid of the whole Affordable Care Act. But this is not about insurance. This is about the crisis that Big Pharma has caused and their money making scheme on the unknowing public.

 

Another thing to note is with billions of dollars at stake, pharma companies will even resort to outright bribery if it produces higher profits. Just one of the many many examples in 2014, GlaxoSmithKline  was fined $489 million by Chinese authorities for bribing health officials.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29274822

[GAHD]

Sure polling is not always accurate. I find the "Gallup Polls" to be done fairly well. But ask any one in the US what they think about Big Pharma I am sure you will come to the same findings doing your own poll.

I worked for a telephone-survey company in my teens. That's why I pointed out not showing the first 26 questions is kinda dubious. No need to include their RESULTS, but just the questions themselves.

For instance, if say Q19 was "Considering that many big pharmaceutical companies make record profits every year, and considering a CEO had a christmas bonus of $XXX million dollars, should they invest more of that money into making drugs cheaper? Do you Strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree? (doesn't point out the no opinion option)...Ok now a question about apple pie. Do you like Apple, blueberry, or some other kind of pie?"

 

In that case Q19 pre-loads the polled individual with information: record profits, someone else getting a bonus, and the idea that the profits are not being invested into something nice for the polled individual. This will likely directly change their answers to Q27 as the Q19 premise hides information that may-or-may-not-be-true and has the person naturally accept it as true because of how short-term memory works.

 

Tricks like that are PARTICULARLY prevalent in "surveys" that end up being stuffed as evidence to government assemblies. Other tricks include correlative sample-bias being used as a filter(EG: people with a cell phone are less likely to X so we weight the study with more cell-phone people). 

 

I'm just pointing out that sample-bias and loading-tricks are things that have to be controlled against and often are controlled the other way.

 

Many people in the US have dealt with their grandparents taking 10 different pills daily. Including my grandmother. That was back in the 90's when she died. So one only wonders how many pills the elderly are fed today. Not to mention now they are even feeding kids pills for everything. As they say for "Attention Deficit Disorder" or "depression". The doctors put my girlfriends sister on some pills and she started cutting herself. She had to go to counseling and get off the pills.

 

It is blatantly obvious atleast to me that it is a huge money making scheme which they aren't out to cure people but keep them on the drugs the "legalized drugs" which only Big Pharma can sell. And now we have the Opioid crisis.

Old/young people taking pills is a thing, yes. But I don't see that as pharma's "mea culpa." The old can chose not to, and the young can choose likewise. It comes down to weather it's worth it to them.

 

For example: Rittalin or whatever drugs for hyperactive kids, that's a parent's choice. They can instead deal with naturally hyper-active kids like humanity has for thousands of years. If it's worth the cash-trade for them to not have to raise their kids "naturally" that's their option. Kinda follows-suit with students using those same drugs as nootropics instead of self-discipline and extra effort.

 

Elderly taking pain-meds instead of "taking it easy" is a choice. Diabetic meds instead of diet alteration is a choice. Them drinking for 40 years causing them to need pills for their jaundice is also a choice.

 

Depressed girls taking happy-pills instead of making different life-choices is just that.

 

I don't particularly agree with excessive profit-margins, but demand vs supply scale is directly tied to those. I can't charge someone $10k for 5 mins of work if someone else under-cuts me on equivalent work for less cash. Similarly, "big pharma" can't charge lots for pills if people don't buy them...I mean; $50 of happy-in-a-bottle vs actually putting more effort into your life seems like a no-brainer choice to me.

[montgomery]

 Diabetic meds instead of diet alteration is a choice. 

 

WRONG! 

 

And some of your other proclamations on choice are wrong too because you're just assuming that people can be empowered to make choices. But that would require a discussion on 'socialism' or social responsibility and that doesn't fit the topic of Pharma being the worst industry. 

 

 .

 

 

 

$50 of happy-in-a-bottle vs actually putting more effort into your life seems like a no-brainer choice to me.

 

That's just your personal no-brainer but you probably drink alcohol or smoke something or do drugs or believe in the god or some other no-brainer. Socially responsible people don't ignore reality but that's not what makes big Pharma a bad industry. Big Pharma in Canada isn't nearly as bad because we don't allow them to advertise their junk. Social responsibility includes doctors making wise and informed choices for peoples choice of pharmas. Peoples aren't brainwashed into choosing the latest designer pharmas that may not be the best choice. Maybe that accounts in part for 'our' longer life expectancy than the land of the gun. Note too though that our peoples are still 'free' to make their own choices and demand that the doctor prescribe the most expensive designer pharma. 

 

It's also worth mentioniing that Canadian doctors ask for a simple x-ray for many cases when an x-ray will do. In the US the doctors go for the CT scan when it's not necessary because it bring more profit. That's how bad pharma ties in with 'for profit health cares.

Edited July 11, 2020 by montgomery

[GAHD]

 

WRONG!

 

 

And some of your other proclamations on choice are wrong too because you're just assuming that people can be empowered to make choices. But that would require a discussion on 'socialism' or social responsibility and that doesn't fit the topic of Pharma being the worst industry.

I read that as "people should not be allowed to make choices in case there is a consequence." I agree freedom is another topic. I disagree that what *I was talking about* isn't related to the perception of "big pharma."

 

Big Pharma in Canada isn't nearly as bad because we don't allow them to advertise their junk. Social responsibility includes doctors making wise and informed choices for peoples choice of pharmas.

Wrong about advertisements in canada. See "ask your doctor if X is right for you" on tv. Talk to your doctor about what samples they have in their medicne shelf direct from pharma salesmen.

 

Peoples aren't brainwashed into choosing the latest designer pharmas that may not be the best choice. Maybe that accounts in part for 'our' longer life expectancy than the land of the gun. Note too though that our peoples are still 'free' to make their own choices and demand that the doctor prescribe the most expensive designer pharma.

I mean, no. You're wrong. Pharmacists are the ones that take the prescription and can offer choice from equivalent brands. Visit Rexall and talk to someone.

 

It's also worth mentioniing that Canadian doctors ask for a simple x-ray for many cases when an x-ray will do. In the US the doctors go for the CT scan when it's not necessary because it bring more profit. That's how bad pharma ties in with 'for profit health cares.

Debateable, but not part of the topic. Suppose it depends on education level, specialization, etc... I'm thinking this is  "pulled out of your (hat)" statistics and claims.

[montgomery]

Gahd, you're again wrong on most of what you say, and the rest of what you say is just attempts to change the subject in my opinion. That is, if it's not your deliberate attempt to confuse the issue 

 

 

 

I mean, no. You're wrong. Pharmacists are the ones that take the prescription and can offer choice from equivalent brands. Visit Rexall and talk to someone.

 

Why would you offer that when most Canadians are already aware that they can get a different brand of the same drug or a generic?

 

Did you think that I was talking about different brands and generics when I mentioned 'designer' drugs?. Maybe you should visit a pharmacy and have them explain to you that they don't have the option of supplying a 'different' drug than what the doctor prescribed. Or don't, it's quite a simple concept to understand all by yourself.

 

So I'll try again.

 

Americans follow the advice of the advertisers and ASK THEIR DOCTORS ABOUT THE LATEST DESIGNER DRUGS.

 

What's that got to do with a pharmacist offering a cheaper generic in Canada? 

 

And now on the other topic you've referred to here. That is, your mention of what you consider debatable and what is another topic. Are you intent on holding me to different rules than others? And you still haven't told me if it's allowable to post the same link on two threads? Seems to me that's a rule that's pulled out of YOUR hat. (*ss), especially for my sake. The question isn't going away my friend. The only way you can avoid answering the question is to make ME go away. 

Edited July 11, 2020 by montgomery

[A-wal]

Many people in the US have dealt with their grandparents taking 10 different pills daily. Including my grandmother.

I couldn't believe when my Nan was ill and I found out how much **** they had her on. She pressed her doctor on the issue, they cut her down to two meds and she felt better almost straight away, funny that.

[GAHD]

Gahd, you're again wrong on most of what you say, and the rest of what you say is just attempts to change the subject in my opinion. That is, if it's not your deliberate attempt to confuse the issue

Feel free to provide evidence showing that I am.

 

 

 

Why would you offer that when most Canadians are already aware that they can get a different brand of the same drug or a generic?

 

Did you think that I was talking about different brands and generics when I mentioned 'designer' drugs?. Maybe you should visit a pharmacy and have them explain to you that they don't have the option of supplying a 'different' drug than what the doctor prescribed. Or don't, it's quite a simple concept to understand all by yourself.

unsure where you're going with this? The point is that Unsatisfied people in the USA have the option to talk to their pharmacist. The prescription is for a CLASS of drugs that can be exchanged for equivalent at the pharmacy.

 

Pharmacists are more trained than doctors regarding cross-interactions of drugs and their toxicology. They will often point out possible interactions to people on multiple different pills that a doc would miss. They can also point out alternatives for the same use case.

Seriously, go talk to one.

 

So I'll try again.

Americans follow the advice of the advertisers and ASK THEIR DOCTORS ABOUT THE LATEST DESIGNER DRUGS.

What's that got to do with a pharmacist offering a cheaper generic in Canada?

Same advertising DOES happen in Canada, contrary to what you said before. Try as many times as you like, you're wrong that it doesn't occur here(in Canada). That's a spurious point though and a waste of time for me to discuss.

 

The same exchange of "brands within class" can happen at a pharmacy in the USA. The point is hatred and dislike is often the result of ignorance and lazyness as a consumer.

And now on the other topic you've referred to here. That is, your mention of what you consider debatable and what is another topic. Are you intent on holding me to different rules than others? And you still haven't told me if it's allowable to post the same link on two threads? Seems to me that's a rule that's pulled out of YOUR hat. (*ss), especially for my sake. The question isn't going away my friend. The only way you can avoid answering the question is to make ME go away.

I've answered your last question there before, and you've even quoted the post with the answer. If you don't LIKE the answer that's not on me. If you feel like re-targeting the harassing behavior you've already shown towards other members towards me; that's just something I consider normal for mentally stunted extremists.

 

Beyond that, if I don't consider something worth debating further, I tell you that to your face. Again if you don't LIKE that, I don't care, you have zero power over me. Feel free to use the PM function to cry about it to the other staff members here. I'm probably the MOST patient one.

 

Not intimidated by your false ultimatum, just a little bit sad for you as a fellow human. If you have some complex of "please punish me daddy cause my real parents never did" I'm sure there's a patreon you can pay to get it.

[Thoth101]

I worked for a telephone-survey company in my teens. That's why I pointed out not showing the first 26 questions is kinda dubious. No need to include their RESULTS, but just the questions themselves.

For instance, if say Q19 was "Considering that many big pharmaceutical companies make record profits every year, and considering a CEO had a christmas bonus of $XXX million dollars, should they invest more of that money into making drugs cheaper? Do you Strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree? (doesn't point out the no opinion option)...Ok now a question about apple pie. Do you like Apple, blueberry, or some other kind of pie?"

 

In that case Q19 pre-loads the polled individual with information: record profits, someone else getting a bonus, and the idea that the profits are not being invested into something nice for the polled individual. This will likely directly change their answers to Q27 as the Q19 premise hides information that may-or-may-not-be-true and has the person naturally accept it as true because of how short-term memory works.

 

Tricks like that are PARTICULARLY prevalent in "surveys" that end up being stuffed as evidence to government assemblies. Other tricks include correlative sample-bias being used as a filter(EG: people with a cell phone are less likely to X so we weight the study with more cell-phone people). 

 

I'm just pointing out that sample-bias and loading-tricks are things that have to be controlled against and often are controlled the other way.

 

Old/young people taking pills is a thing, yes. But I don't see that as pharma's "mea culpa." The old can chose not to, and the young can choose likewise. It comes down to weather it's worth it to them.

 

For example: Rittalin or whatever drugs for hyperactive kids, that's a parent's choice. They can instead deal with naturally hyper-active kids like humanity has for thousands of years. If it's worth the cash-trade for them to not have to raise their kids "naturally" that's their option. Kinda follows-suit with students using those same drugs as nootropics instead of self-discipline and extra effort.

 

Elderly taking pain-meds instead of "taking it easy" is a choice. Diabetic meds instead of diet alteration is a choice. Them drinking for 40 years causing them to need pills for their jaundice is also a choice.

 

Depressed girls taking happy-pills instead of making different life-choices is just that.

 

I don't particularly agree with excessive profit-margins, but demand vs supply scale is directly tied to those. I can't charge someone $10k for 5 mins of work if someone else under-cuts me on equivalent work for less cash. Similarly, "big pharma" can't charge lots for pills if people don't buy them...I mean; $50 of happy-in-a-bottle vs actually putting more effort into your life seems like a no-brainer choice to me.

All very fair assessments.

 

Well as I have experienced. Many of the pills are pushed on you by the Doctors who are in turned pushed by Big Pharma. Not many people do research and just believe everything their Doctor tells them because he or she wears a white coat and he is an "expert". It is a very manipulated system. Most people with no thought will not seek other opinions and go along with what their doctors tell them. And everyone knows older people are very easily manipulated for the most part. Why do you think most scammers try to find older people to scam? And a lot of the times parents want to just take the easy way out by just giving their kid a pill and hope the problem goes away. Big Pharma is out to make money not heal people. If they heal people they will lose business. They do keep people living longer but at a price.

 

For instance:

https://globalnews.ca/news/5769443/big-pharma-paying-doctors-hospitals/

 

https://clark.com/insurance/doctor-being-paid-steer-you-certain-drugs/

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/04/the-drug-pushers/304714/

 

The relationship between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry has evoked heated debate for many decades.¹ In 2012, the pharmaceutical industry spent $89.5 billion on physician–pharmaceutical sales representative (PSR) interactions that accounted for 60% of the global sales and marketing spending.^2–8 Previous reports have demonstrated that PSRs may influence prescribing behaviour.^9–16 However, the evidence determining whether pharmaceutical industry and PSRs interactions influence physicians is divided and contradictory. Studies have indicated that physicians may be unable to distinguish between promotional information and scientific evidence.^{17 18} Physicians, however, believe their colleagues are more susceptible to pharmaceutical industry marketing strategies than themselves.^19–22 The majority of the physicians do not believe that they are affected

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5623540/

 

I talked with my girlfriend today and she is a CNA in an old folks home. On her med cart she supplies 15 folks with all the drugs. She said the amount of drugs comes to about a 115 pills between 15 people. So about 7.5 pills a person.

 

Yes I agree and it is everybodies choice to do what they do. But the problem is big pharma knows this and preys on people because they know the people aren't going to research these things. Many people are wising up though.

 

In sum, there is no question that the pharmaceutical industry has been of great benefit to human wellbeing. However, the industry has also evolved some harmful practices. I review several of them and describe how they evolved. As you will see, this is another example of an evolutionary process that was driven by the profits they produced for the industry.

https://evolution-institute.org/big-pharma-and-the-death-of-americans/

 

Expenditure by Type of Pharmaceutical Marketing(2012)

https://www.drugwatch.com/featured/big-pharma-marketing/

 

Leave you with an interesting statistic:

 

Of the $1.05 trillion revenue for the global pharmaceutical market, nearly half of it — roughly $515 billion — comes from the U.S. and Canada. However, the two countries make up only around 7% of the total world population.

Edited July 12, 2020 by Thoth101

[Thoth101]

I couldn't believe when my Nan was ill and I found out how much **** they had her on. She pressed her doctor on the issue, they cut her down to two meds and she felt better almost straight away, funny that.

I am glad she realized it and could get the problem fixed. I think many people are going to more natural methods of healing. But for sure at all costs Big Pharma will lobby and put out propaganda against the natural forms of healing. They have trillions of dollars to do it.

 

Big Pharma Doesn’t Want You to Know About Alternatives

https://www.drugwatch.com/news/2018/03/07/big-pharma-doesnt-want-you-to-know-alternatives/

 

Big Pharma-backed mainstream media isn’t going to broadcast on the morning news, for example, the many studies found in the PubMed database on the endocannabinoid system and how important cannabinoids are to very many areas of health.

See for yourself:  just Google “pubmed endocannabinoid system.” You’ll be intrigued. Why you haven’t heard of that before?  You might ask: “If it were so, wouldn’t we all just know it?  Wouldn’t my doctor know it?”