Troy Jackson, Who Called Big Pharma 'the Anti-Christ,' Spotted Campaigning With Lobbyists Who Repped Pharma Company That Jacked Up Price of Cystic Fibrosis Drug

Maine Democratic Senate hopeful Troy Jackson has referred to the pharmaceutical industry as "the anti-Christ" and attacked "high-priced lobbyists and corporate greed." He also appears to have a close relationship with a pair of Maine lobbyists who represented a pharmaceutical company that faced intense criticism for jacking up the price of its cystic fibrosis drug.

The post Troy Jackson, Who Called Big Pharma 'the Anti-Christ,' Spotted Campaigning With Lobbyists Who Repped Pharma Company That Jacked Up Price of Cystic Fibrosis Drug appeared first on .

Why Eric Cantor Going To Head Big Pharma Is The Swampiest Move Ever

Eric Cantor will become the next head of PhRMA, and the two seem made for each other for all the wrong reasons.

The drug you keep seeing at vape shops has a dark side



Kratom products are advertised everywhere — at gas stations, smoke shops, and vape stores — but comedian and filmmaker Davey Jackson believes the rapidly growing industry deserves far more scrutiny.

In a new documentary, Jackson examines how concentrated kratom extracts and synthetic derivatives have transformed a once-obscure plant into a multibillion-dollar industry.

“There’s basically three categories. There’s natural powder leaf kratom, which a lot of people use and have used successfully for, you know, a lot of years. And then there’s a slightly newer product, and it’s an extract,” Jackson tells BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales.

“So they’re basically extracting and concentrating the kratom into these drinks ... which that’s a whole other story. And then they have these synthetic products like 7-OH or MGM-15 or MGM-16 that the DEA is in the process of banning right now,” he explains.


Gonzales points out that “there’s big money in the industry,” referencing the company Feel Free.

“That’s an interesting one. So they got their start giving away their products on college campuses, just handing them out to college students. And again, this is a fairly addictive thing that we’re dealing with here,” Jackson says.

“These Feel Free shots, you know, they’re not as bad as the 7-OH tablets that are getting banned right now, but they’re certainly habit-forming. Much more potent than the actual kratom product,” he explains, noting that the founder of Feel Free is “an ex-con” who “spent time in federal prison for fraud.”

“They’re the number one retail kratom product in America. I want to say they’re doing $250 million a year in sales. They’ve been investigated by the DOJ ... and they actually are a big part of the kratom conspiracy that we were investigating,” he continues.

“It just must all come down to money, right? Whoever is making money wants to keep it alive,” Gonzales says.

“Yeah,” Jackson agrees. “So you’ve got companies like Feel Free who absolutely want to keep it alive and have lobbied to keep the kratom industry unregulated to a large extent, but they were also a big part of the push behind the ban for 7-OH because 7-OH was, you know, kind of taking up market share.”

“They’re making $250 million a year already, but obviously they want to make more. And then of course, there’s Big Pharma. You know, people that are taking 7-OH that you can buy at a gas station or a smoke shop,” he continues.

“Granted,” he adds, “I don’t think it’s safe from a regulatory perspective as far as what they’re actually putting in this stuff because I’ve heard multiple times there’s 7-OH that’s been tested that has [fentanyl] in it. I mean, that’s horribly dangerous, right?”

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Parents, not bureaucrats, should call the shots



President Trump signed an executive order last week reducing the number of recommended childhood vaccines from 18 to 11 and urging states with school-entry requirements to update their laws accordingly.

That should be a starting point, not an end point.

More coercion will deepen skepticism, not cure it.

Alabama is already closer to that model than most states. Its school-entry requirements rely on a narrower set of core vaccines and do not force hepatitis B vaccination for every student. Other states should treat the president’s order as the floor for vaccine freedom, not the ceiling.

The most immediate step is obvious: States can reduce school-entry requirements to match the new federal recommendations. Better still, they should eliminate those mandates altogether or, at minimum, make it much easier for families to opt out.

Coercion has no place in parental medical decisions. Public schools exist to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic. They should not condition access to a publicly funded classroom on a government-approved medical regimen.

Aligning state rules with the new federal baseline would be progress. But true parental authority requires going farther.

Forty-six states already allow religious exemptions from school vaccine requirements. Their broad existence also shows that states can preserve opt-outs without schools simply ceasing to function.

Religious exemptions should remain. But the principle should not end there.

Parents can have sincere nonreligious reasons for declining particular vaccines, whether because of personal medical history, concerns about a specific product, or objections to the schedule itself. Treating religious objections as legitimate while dismissing every other conscientious objection draws an arbitrary line.

States should therefore expand personal and philosophical exemptions as well. Families should not have to choose between access to public education and surrendering authority over their children’s medical decisions.

Idaho has already gone farther. Its Medical Freedom Act prohibits schools from imposing medical intervention mandates, including vaccine requirements, as a condition of attendance. Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo is pushing in the same direction, seeking to eliminate school vaccine mandates entirely in the Sunshine State.

Other lawmakers should study those models. The core principle is straightforward: Attending a government school should not require surrendering parental authority over a child’s body.

The burden of vaccine mandates also falls unevenly.

Affluent parents who object can more easily homeschool or move a child to a private school with different policies. Working families often have fewer options. They may be forced to comply, navigate exemption processes that demand time and paperwork they do not have, or keep a child out of the classroom.

RELATED: Fauci is yesterday’s fight. Medical freedom is today’s.

Adam Glanzman/Bloomberg/Getty Images

That creates a two-tier system in which families with the fewest resources have the least room to exercise meaningful choice.

Reducing mandates or broadening opt-outs would expand educational freedom precisely for the families who are most constrained by the current system.

None of this prevents families from vaccinating their children. Parents who want the full schedule remain free to choose it. The question is whether the state should force that choice on everyone else as the price of attending school.

Public trust in health institutions fell sharply after COVID. Rebuilding that trust will require transparent information, honest risk communication, and genuine freedom to say no. More coercion will deepen skepticism, not cure it.

President Trump’s executive order gives states a practical starting point.

Legislatures should use it: Reduce school-entry vaccine mandates to the new federal baseline, expand opt-outs beyond religious grounds, or eliminate the mandates entirely.

Parents, not bureaucrats, should decide what goes into their children’s bodies. States that move first can expand educational freedom while beginning the harder work of rebuilding public confidence through voluntary cooperation rather than compulsion.

Why The Trump Administration Was Right To End The Medicare Part D Insurer Bailout

The temporary and extralegal bailout that provided billions of dollars in subsidies to insurers cost the program far more than Dems claimed.

How Obamacare Pushes Big Pharma To Overcharge You For Prescriptions

I found out firsthand: big conglomerates make profits by keeping the system complicated, bureaucratic, and opaque.

Trump hits foreign drug manufacturers in HUGE announcement



The cost of generic drugs will likely change drastically after the latest tariff announcement from President Donald Trump.

The president said in a post on Truth Social that he would allow generic drug imports to have zero tariffs for two years, then face two large hikes afterward.

'The objective of this Policy is to protect the people of the United States.'

Trump said the tariffs were designed to encourage drug companies to move their manufacturing operations back to the U.S.

"Effective August 1st, 2026, all Generic Drugs being brought into the United States will continue to have a TARIFF of ZERO PERCENT for a two year period of time, after which the TARIFF will be raised to 100% for a one year period of time, and 200% thereafter," he wrote.

"The objective of this Policy is to protect the people of the United States," Trump added.

Generic drugs account for 90% of the prescriptions in the U.S., according to the Food and Drug Administration, and half of generic drugs are manufactured in India. China, on the other hand, is the source for 95% of imported ibuprofen and 70% of imported acetaminophen.

White House spokesman Kush Desai cited other efforts from the administration to reshore manufacturing in comments to CBS News.

"The President's resounding success securing firm reshoring plans from global drugmakers as part of our most-favored-nations deals and Section 232 tariff program for branded drugs is proof that this administration has a track record of success to get critical manufacturing back into the United States," Desai said in an email.

RELATED: The hidden danger in Trump’s drug-price plan

Experts indicated to CBS News that manufacturers were likely to pass on the tariff costs to consumers but that the already low prices meant the cost increases could be modest.

However, some manufacturers may choose to pull out of the U.S. market altogether and cause drug shortages.

"Pharmaceutical Facilities are being built, at a level never seen before, all over the United States of America. Thank you for your attention to this matter!" Trump concluded.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The hidden danger in Trump’s drug-price plan



One of the most influential military strategists of the 20th century, U.S. Air Force Col. John Boyd, developed a decision-making process known as the OODA loop: observe, orient, decide, act.

His model emphasized a simple but powerful principle: Move quickly, but only after understanding the strategic environment.

Nations that lead biotechnology will enjoy not only economic advantages but also strategic leverage during future global crises. China understands this.

The most important step is often “orient.” It requires leaders to look beyond the immediate problem, understand the broader consequences of their actions, and anticipate unintended outcomes. When leaders skip that step, they may solve today’s problem while creating a much larger one tomorrow.

President Donald Trump’s recent effort to reduce prescription drug prices illustrates that challenge.

One of the administration’s most significant health care initiatives is the adoption of a most-favored-nation pricing model. Under this policy, the United States would tie the prices of certain prescription drugs to the lower prices paid by selected foreign countries.

The objective is understandable. Americans often pay substantially more for prescription medicines than patients in Europe or Canada. Reducing those costs would help millions of families.

But sound public policy requires looking beyond immediate savings.

Economists have long recognized that government-imposed price controls often reduce investment and supply over time. In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon imposed broad wage and price controls in an effort to combat inflation.

Instead, the country experienced stagflation — the painful combination of high inflation and slow economic growth. Energy price controls contributed to gasoline shortages by reducing incentives for increased production. Rent-control policies in cities such as New York have similarly discouraged new housing construction, contributing to housing shortages.

Pharmaceuticals operate under similar economic realities.

Developing a single breakthrough drug often requires more than a decade of research, thousands of unsuccessful experiments, and billions of dollars in investment. The profits from successful medicines finance the research that produces tomorrow’s cures.

If government policies significantly reduce those returns, companies are unlikely to stop producing today’s medicines. More likely, they will reduce research and development spending, slowing the pace of innovation.

RELATED: Big Pharma’s miracle drugs have a nasty side effect

Bagira22/Getty Images

That slowdown would be both an economic and national security concern.

Biotechnology has become one of the world’s most strategically important industries. It influences health care, agriculture, artificial intelligence, military medicine, pandemic preparedness, and protection against biological threats.

Nations that lead biotechnology will enjoy not only economic advantages but also strategic leverage during future global crises.

China understands this.

Just as Beijing has invested aggressively in artificial intelligence, critical minerals, semiconductors, and advanced manufacturing, it has identified biotechnology as a strategic national priority.

Between 2016 and 2021, the market capitalization of Chinese biotechnology companies grew to approximately $300 billion, while the Chinese government invested heavily in research centers, biotechnology hubs, and advanced scientific education.

The numbers tell an even more compelling story.

According to the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology, China completed more than 7,100 clinical drug trials in 2024, compared with roughly 6,000 in the United States. China’s share of global clinical trials has grown from approximately 1% in 2009 to nearly 30% today, while America’s share has declined.

Chinese scientists now produce roughly 60% of the world’s most-cited biotechnology research papers, and China accounts for 22% of international pharmaceutical and medical technology patents — an increase of nearly 380% over the past decade.

China also graduates approximately twice as many STEM students as the United States each year.

These statistics show that China views biotechnology as a critical component of future economic and military power. The United States, by contrast, risks treating one of its greatest strategic advantages primarily as a domestic pricing issue.

That should concern every American.

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the vulnerabilities created by dependence on foreign supply chains for medicines and medical equipment. Imagine a future pandemic — or a deliberate biological attack — in which America depends not merely on foreign manufacturing but also on foreign research, patents, advanced therapies, and biotechnology innovation.

The leverage China now enjoys through its dominance of critical minerals could become far greater if it also dominates the technologies needed to develop vaccines, precision medicine, or defenses against biological weapons.

None of this means prescription drug prices should remain high. Americans deserve affordable medicines.

The challenge is finding policies that lower costs without discouraging the innovation that has made the United States the global leader in biomedical research.

Trump’s leadership style has often been characterized by speed — moving rapidly to implement broad policy changes and challenge long-standing assumptions.

Speed can be an advantage in business, where quick decisions often create competitive advantages. But governing a nation is fundamentally different from managing a corporation. Public policy affects industries, scientific leadership, national security, and future generations.

Decisions that appear successful in the short term can produce unintended strategic consequences years later.

Boyd understood this better than most. The goal was never simply to act quickly. It was to understand the entire battlefield before deciding how to act.

America should pursue reforms that make prescription drugs more affordable. But before adopting policies that could reduce investment in biotechnology, policymakers should pause long enough to complete Boyd’s “orient” step.

RELATED: Eli Lilly strikes a $3 billion Chinese drug deal

Nikos Pekiaridis/NurPhoto/Getty Images

In an era of growing strategic competition with China, protecting America’s leadership in biotechnology may prove as important to national security as maintaining superiority in the air, at sea, in space, or in cyberspace.

Sometimes the most dangerous consequences of a decision are not the ones we see today.

They are the ones we fail to anticipate tomorrow.

Steve Deace unveils the ONE statistic that proves we’ve lost our culture



Americans are increasingly worried about skyrocketing housing costs, declining birth rates, and a generation of young adults struggling to reach traditional milestones. But according to BlazeTV host Steve Deace, those problems are merely symptoms of something much bigger.

“There’s a lot of things that we are pointing to in our culture right now as symptoms, and we’re at many times trying to do symptom masking,” Deace says on the “Steve Deace Show.”

While the reaction to a symptom is often just to treat it and “provide a patient or in this case a culture immediate relief,” the issue is that the underlying disease is not actually being treated.

One symptom America is facing is that the percentage of men and women getting married and owning a home by the age of 30 has declined from more than half the country in the 1960s to just 12% today.


“In 1950, that was half of the country. In 1962, the number actually went up to more than half. That was 52%. 1970, relatively stable, 48%. 1980, we start to see a little bit of slippage now, 45%. But the 80s held things still,” Deace explains. “The ’80s did a great job of treating symptoms.”

While Deace notes that he loves Ronald Reagan, “the ’80s gave us amnesty.”

“And the immigration policy that is threatening to wreck America today ... its origin, its genesis, is the Reagan amnesty of ’86,” he says, explaining that Reagan also signed the 1986 vaccine indemnity act.

“That put us on the very path we’ve been on with Big Pharma ever since,” he says.

And now, only 12% of Americans are getting married and buying homes by the age of 30.

“You could get a $500,000 mortgage, 30-year fixed rate, for $2,100 bucks a month in America in 2021. Today that amount is $3,200 a month on average,” he says.

But it's not just housing costs and immigration.

“It’s more likely that a woman in her 40s will be married and pregnant than a woman who is 19 for the first time in American history,” Deace says, explaining that this “sadly fits into the overall trend line.”

“Fifty years ago in this country, it was way more likely a 19-year-old woman was going to be married with a kid than a 42-year-old woman was going to be having a kid. Way more likely. And when you throw in these other cultural trends now, it is more likely a 30-year-old man will still be living at home with a parent than living in a home with a wife and a kid,” he says.

“This is death-of-a-culture stuff,” he continues, adding that this is the “disease.”

Want more from Steve Deace?

To enjoy more of Steve's take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Big Pharma’s miracle drugs have a nasty side effect



My husband has bipolar disorder. I know firsthand that the medications he takes do not merely improve his quality of life — they make our family life possible.

I am thankful for the drug companies whose products and innovations help keep my family together. But that does not mean I trust Big Pharma.

The pharmaceutical industry’s incentives are often at odds with the people it treats.

The pharmaceutical industry has helped create a culture in which Americans are taking more prescription drugs than at any point in history. Last year, more than two-thirds of Americans reported taking a prescription drug daily, and 26% said they take four or more.

No wonder the average price of prescription medications in the United States has risen by about 37% in the last decade. Many of the most popular brand-name medications have doubled in price over the past 15 years.

One study found that prescription drug prices in the United States are nearly three times higher than prices for the same medications in 32 comparable countries. Family health insurance premiums for employer-sponsored plans jumped 26% from 2020 to 2025, outpacing wage growth and inflation.

A quarter of Americans recently reported having difficulty paying for their medications. About 19% said they had skipped or rationed doses because of the cost. Research indicates that medical expenses are now the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in this country, surpassing job loss.

I understand that high prices help fund the astronomical cost of clinical trials that test and bring new drugs to market. But Americans have also seen pharmaceutical companies acquire the rights to off-patent drugs and raise prices overnight. They have watched insulin prices climb for years even though insulin is relatively cheap to produce.

Let’s face it: The pharmaceutical industry’s incentives are often at odds with the people it treats.

The same industry that helps my husband is increasingly keeping medications out of reach for many families.

Drug prices would not be so high if Big Pharma did not spend between $13 billion and $14 billion a year on direct-to-consumer advertising. They would not be so high if the pharmaceutical and health sectors did not consistently spend more on federal lobbying than any other industry.

Those efforts shape the laws and policies that allow current drug prices. The industry clearly views them as worthwhile investments.

Americans spent 12.7% more on pharmaceutical drugs last year than they did in 2024. A significant share of that increase came from popular GLP-1 weight-loss drugs such as Ozempic and Wegovy. Roughly 12% of American adults are currently taking one of these drugs, and that number is expected to rise significantly in the coming years.

I am not saying people should not take these medications. That is not for me to say. But I am deeply concerned that, culturally, we increasingly treat medication as the first line of defense for nearly every challenge before seriously exploring other options.

RELATED: Want to live to 100? Don’t expect Big Pharma to help.

lucigerma/iStock/Getty Images

That concern comes from firsthand experience.

As someone who has battled addiction, I am acutely aware of the power substances can hold over a person’s life. That experience has left me worried about others who may develop dependencies on drugs.

I remember how the opioid crisis destroyed entire communities and caused a staggering number of deaths after companies such as Purdue Pharma aggressively pushed OxyContin while downplaying its risks. That epidemic continues today with synthetic opioids such as fentanyl.

Is it any wonder some of us remain skeptical of pharmaceutical companies’ motives?

As a parent, I do everything in my power to ensure that my children do not become unnecessarily dependent on medications. I want them to understand that any drug they take should be used carefully and for its intended purpose.

I acknowledge the value of medicine. I deeply respect what the health care industry can do. My own family depends on it.

But respect should not require blindness.

The pharmaceutical industry should remember the families paying the bills, rationing the doses, and wondering whether the medications they need will remain within reach.

Innovation deserves reward. Exploitation does not.