‘That’s evil!’: Jillian Michaels shocks Glenn Beck with latest Big Food betrayal



For many, many years, most of us blindly trusted the pharmaceutical industry to develop drugs that were safe and effective. We didn’t question the food at the grocery store either. We just naively assumed that if it was approved for sale, it must be safe to consume.

But the ruse is up.

Now we know that Big Pharma and Big Food are in bed together – plotting how to ensure Americans stay sick and addicted.

On a recent episode of “The Glenn Beck Podcast,” Glenn interviewed fitness expert and “The Biggest Loser” trainer Jillian Michaels on the insidious ties between the “catastrophic quartet of Big Food, Big Ag, Big Pharma, and Big Insurance” that’s keeping us in chains.

Michaels isn’t convinced that all people who work in medicine or food are devilishly conspiring to harm Americans. The puppet masters at the top may be, but most individual workers had no intention of being pawns in a game.

“The machine has a bottom line, and the machine reports to Wall Street. And so they need profit. People are just cogs in that machine. And I don’t think these individuals are ill-intentioned, but they definitely get caught up in these industries,” she says, acknowledging that many of these individuals pursue careers in food and medicine because they want to help “save the world” and “feed the world.”

Unfortunately, what ends up happening is these well-intentioned people need to “pay [their] bills,” and the only way to do that is to “incentivize people to drink more soda and to eat more chips.”

Glenn agrees, noting that America “fed the world” because of developments in genetically modified organisms, which altered the DNA of various plants and animals so they could grow faster and be more pest resistance, drought tolerant, or nutritionally dense.

“At the beginning, it was a really good thing ... but somewhere along the line, that changed,” he says.

“I’m actually writing a book about this right now,” Michaels says, “and it looks at the ways in which our food policy, our policy around Big Ag, Pharma, Big insurance ... captured well-intentioned legislation and inverted them.”

“It is absolutely nefarious because everything that was passed with the best of intentions ended up getting in the wrong hands and subsequently manipulated to be weaponized against the American people,” she adds.

Now the food that was meant to nourish us is actually poisoning us, and the medicine that was meant to heal us is actually making us sicker.

Michaels gives the example of Howard Moskowitz, an American market researcher and psychophysicist specializing in food science, who coined the term “bliss point” in the 1970s.

The bliss point is “the perfect ratio of fat and sugar and salt” that makes our brains crave more. In other words, Moskowitz was a specialist in food addiction, which is responsible for America’s astronomical obesity rates and subsequent diseases.

“That is probably the least nefarious thing that has happened,” Michaels says.

Moskowitz’s research has since developed into a “multidisciplinary team of scientists and behavioralists and marketing experts that work around the clock trying to figure out how to make you not eat just one.”

“That’s not a slogan — you can’t eat just one. That’s a business model. Period,” Michaels says.

This creates a prime opportunity for the pharmaceutical companies to create expensive weight loss drugs, like Ozempic, which boost the body’s GLP-1 hormones that tell it to stop eating.

However, because these weight loss medicines are helping people break food additions, now “the food companies are trying to find a way to make these ultra-processed foods now bypass your GLP-1 hormone pathways,” Michaels says.

“That’s evil!” Glenn reacts.

“That is the kind of stuff that is happening and has been happening for decades,” Michaels says.

To hear more of the conversation, watch the full interview above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Texas sues Tylenol makers over alleged links to autism



Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. first highlighted the new revelation based on studies that there are potential links to autism when pregnant women take Tylenol.

Now the state of Texas is suing the makers of Tylenol, claiming that they hid these links to autism and that it was deceptively marketed to women.

“These are kids that are permanently altered,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton tells BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales on “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered.”

“This is the type of thing, whether it’s transitioning kids or going after the vaccine, that harms people, that these companies know about, and they don’t tell us. They make hundreds of millions, billions of dollars off these products, and they don’t disclose they’re harmful,” Paxton explains.


“So that’s part of my job, is to protect consumers from companies that are doing bad things and that’s what we’re doing here,” he adds.

Gonzales points out that it was “interesting watching the backlash.”

“It was very alarming for me to see after RFK Jr. announced this, you had these TikTok videos of these pregnant women who just to spite RFK were like, ‘I’m going to take a bunch of Tylenol on video and, you know, knock it back with some water. Haha, screw you.’ And I’m like, what are we doing? How have we been reduced to this?” she says.

“It seems like anytime you give them a scientific study and say, ‘Hey, this company was fraudulently misrepresenting a COVID vaccine, Tylenol,’ whatever it is, they can’t handle it. Like, it doesn’t compute for them,” she adds.

“Well, and the fact that you’d be willing to ignore the science and maybe take the risk that, ‘Oh, I hope it’s not right, and I might damage my kid permanently,’” Paxton chimes in.

“I mean, why would you do that?” he asks.

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.

Headaches continue for Tylenol brand as Texas AG files lawsuit over alleged autism link



A little more than a month after President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced an official statement suggesting a link between Tylenol and autism, drug manufacturers are facing some heat.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue for allegedly concealing the link between prenatal use of acetaminophen and autism spectrum disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Acetaminophen is the active ingredient in Tylenol.

'By holding Big Pharma accountable for poisoning our people, we will help Make America Healthy Again.'

Dated October 27, the lawsuit lodges two main complaints against Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries Kenvue Inc. and Kenvue Brands LLC.

First, the lawsuit alleges that "defendants have paid no heed to the scientific facts" by downplaying or concealing the known link between acetaminophen and ADS and ADHD. If the defendants had been more forthcoming on their labels, pregnant mothers may have chosen to avoid the drug, the lawsuit posits.

RELATED: Trump administration claims link between autism and Tylenol, greenlights remedy

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

It cites 26 epidemiological studies that showed "positive associations" between prenatal use of acetaminophen and ASD and ADHD. Other studies showed a dose-response relationship, according to the lawsuit.

The second part of the lawsuit alleges that Johnson & Johnson, aware of the legal risk of its product, attempted to "shed its liability" by transferring its liabilities associated with Tylenol to Kenvue without transferring the necessary assets to the subsidiary company.

Asked about the lawsuit, a Johnson & Johnson spokesperson told Blaze News, “Johnson & Johnson divested its consumer health business years ago, and all rights and liabilities associated with the sale of its over-the-counter products, including Tylenol (acetaminophen), are owned by Kenvue.”

“Big Pharma betrayed America by profiting off of pain and pushing pills regardless of the risks. These corporations lied for decades, knowingly endangering millions to line their pockets,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a news release. “Additionally, seeing that the day of reckoning was coming, Johnson & Johnson attempted to escape responsibility by illegally offloading their liability onto a different company. By holding Big Pharma accountable for poisoning our people, we will help Make America Healthy Again.”

On its website, Kenvue issued the following statement regarding the supposed link between acetaminophen and autism: "Nothing is more important to us than the health and safety of the people who use our products. We believe independent, sound science clearly shows that taking acetaminophen does not cause autism. We strongly disagree with allegations that it does and are deeply concerned about the health risks and confusion this poses for expecting mothers and parents."

Blaze News contacted Attorney General Ken Paxton's office and Kenvue for comment but did not receive a response.

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

Tylenol fights autism claims, slams proposed FDA warning label as 'unsupported' by science



The maker of Tylenol is fighting back against proposed changes to its label.

Kenvue, the American company behind Tylenol, says changes proposed by a recent petition would be "improper."

'Fight like hell not to take it.'

After the Trump administration linked the use of Tylenol during pregnancy to autism, the Informed Consent Action Network urged the FDA to "change the labels" for Tylenol and provide "crucial warnings for pregnant women and their care providers."

No evidence for risk?

Kenvue responded directly to the petition in its own document and said that changing the labeling to its over-the-counter acetaminophen products in such a manner would be "unsupported by the scientific evidence and legally and procedurally improper."

Requesting that the consumer-facing warning addresses a risk between "acetaminophen use and neurodevelopmental disorders" would allegedly go against the "overwhelming weight of the evidence contradicts the existence of any such risk," Kenvue claimed.

The manufacturer called acetaminophen one of the "most studied medicines in history," with evidence regarding its use during pregnancy being "continuously evaluated by the FDA for more than a decade."

It further claimed that available evidence does not support "a causal association between acetaminophen use in pregnancy and neurodevelopmental disorders, including ASD and ADHD."

RELATED: Tylenol's concerns about possible autism risk date back more than a decade, documents reportedly show

Billion-dollar brand

CNN reported that Tylenol generates about $1 billion annually for Kenvue and is considered to be its top-selling brand.

If the FDA agrees with ICAN's demand, Tylenol labels would need to be updated from its current instructions that say, "If pregnant or breast-feeding, ask a health professional before use."

President Trump had previously said during a press conference in September that if used during pregnancy, Tylenol was linked to a "very increased risk of autism."

"Fight like hell not to take it," Trump added.

RELATED: 'TrumpRx' website to offer discounted drugs as part of landmark Big Pharma deal

Photo by Jordan Bank/NWSL via Getty Images

New autism drug

At the same time, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had begun its process to approve a treatment for autism-related symptoms.

The FDA announced in late September that it had approved leucovorin calcium tablets for patients with "cerebral folate deficiency."

The neurological condition affects folate transfer into the brain, the FDA said, adding that "individuals with cerebral folate deficiency have been observed to have developmental delays with autistic features."

"We have witnessed a tragic four-fold increase in autism over two decades," said FDA Commissioner Marty Makary. "Children are suffering and deserve access to potential treatments that have shown promise. We are using gold standard science and common sense to deliver for the American people."

According to the Mayo Clinic, leucovorin has a few side effects, all of which are listed as rare. These include skin rash, hives or itching, and wheezing. "Convulsions (seizures)" are also listed.

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

SSRIs and mass shootings: A link we can't afford to dismiss



There’s no link between antidepressant use and mass shootings, at least not according to a new study published in the journal Psychiatry Research.

Certainly good news for the pharmaceutical industry — but does one study really mean case closed?

The FDA’s own adverse event reporting system shows a consistent link between SSRIs and violence among adults.

It’s a controversial topic that has only become more so in recent years, especially now that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the secretary of health and human services under President Trump.

Deplorable questions?

Kennedy has long maintained that antidepressants are causing mass shootings. In an interview with Elon Musk in 2023, for example, Kennedy said, “Prior to the introduction of Prozac [a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor], we had none of these events [mass shootings].”

In his confirmation hearings in February, he told the Senate that the link “should be studied, along with other possible culprits.”

He was asked to clarify his views about antidepressants and mass shootings by his Democrat interrogators, because they were intended to be discrediting just by being uttered aloud — just like his views on water fluoridation, vaccination, and the origins of COVID-19. A whole basket of deplorable ideas.

In short, we’re talking about yet another partisan political issue, even though, surely, we can all agree that mass shootings are terrible and we need to do everything we can to stop them.

Guns, not drugs?

And that includes, obviously, understanding what motivates the shooters.

The new study looked at over 800 mass-shooting incidents that took place between 1990 and 2023. The researchers used publicly available data — news reports, court records, and police statements — to see whether the perpetrators had any history of antidepressant or psychotropic drug use and whether there was a link between suicidality and mass shootings. Previous research had suggested there was such a link.

The researchers found evidence of lifetime antidepressant use in just 34 out of 852 cases and evidence of psychotropic drug use more broadly in 56 cases — just 6.6%. There was no unusual association between suicidality and mass shootings either. Suicide attempts were slightly more common among those with a history of medication use, but the difference was not statistically meaningful.

Population-level data also indicated that antidepressant use among mass shooters was lower than among the general public. If antidepressants were causing mass shootings, we’d expect levels of antidepressant use to be higher, not lower.

QED — or so the researchers believe.

“The vast majority of mass shootings have nothing to do with mental illness,” Ragy R. Girgis, one of the study authors, told medical news website PsyPost.

“The primary modifiable population-level risk factor for mass shootings is firearm availability.”

Prevent people from getting their hands on guns, prevent mass shootings. It’s that simple.

Or is it?

RELATED: Groomed for violence? The dark world of furries and transgenderism in America's classrooms

Blaze Media illustration

Premature conclusions

There’s a glaring problem: The data simply isn't good enough to allow any kind of firm conclusion to be reached. The writers at "PsyPost" do at least acknowledge there’s a serious problem, although it doesn’t stop them from trumpeting “new study finds no evidence” in their headline.

Here’s what "PsyPost" says about the reliability of the evidence on offer.

Data were collected from publicly available sources, such as news articles and online records. This approach may miss cases where medication use was not reported or was kept confidential. The study also could not determine whether medications were being taken as prescribed during the attack or whether the person had recently stopped taking them.

Data is often kept confidential, even in the most high-profile cases. Take the Columbine shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. At the time of the massacre, which claimed the lives of 14 people and left another 20 wounded, it was widely reported that Harris had been on the powerful new SSRI Luvox, generic name fluvoxamine. The New York Times claimed Harris had been rejected by Marine recruiters just five days before the attack for taking the drug.

There were suggestions that he had tried to go cold turkey as a result and that this might have affected his actions on that dreadful, bloody day. The Times noted that “patients taking Luvox are warned that if combined with other drugs, including alcohol, the drug can cause extreme agitation progressing to delirium, coma and death. The package also carries a warning about suicide.”

While officials said neither shooter had drugs or alcohol in his system at time of death, the coroner refused to say whether they had been tested for antidepressants, including Luvox.

And so we still don’t know, 26 years later, whether antidepressants played a role in the Columbine killings.

Mandatory screenings

Thankfully, there are now some attempts to provide answers. Unsurprisingly, they’re coming from Republican politicians and red states.

Tennessee has become the first state in the U.S. to introduce mandatory screening for psychotropic drugs in mass killings, defined as incidents in which four or more people are killed. In every mass killing that takes place in Tennessee, a detailed toxicology report will be produced and made available to the public. Investigators will study drug interactions in the killer’s body — because drugs have different effects when used in combination, a fact that is poorly understood — and they’ll also consult with providers of mental health services if the killer was receiving treatment.

Here’s something we do know for sure. A clear, well-established link exists between SSRIs and all forms of violent behavior. A huge Swedish study from 2020 that looked at 250,000 people revealed a significant association between SSRI use and violent crime, especially among 15- to 24-year-olds and 25- to 35-year-olds. The study also showed that risk of violence remained elevated up to 12 weeks after discontinuation of the drugs. The FDA’s own adverse event reporting system shows a consistent link between SSRIs and violence among adults.

A tall order

Instead of dismissing the possibility of a link between antidepressant use and mass shootings, we actually need to do some proper research. Gather data and interpret it objectively — meaning dispassionately, without imposing an ideological agenda that fixes the conclusions in advance.

I know that’s a tall order, given how emotional a subject mass murder is — especially mass murder of children — and how unwilling we all are to talk across the growing political divide, but that’s the scientific ideal, and that’s the only way we’re ever going to get to the truth.

As every first-year history undergraduate knows — and I was one, once upon a time — absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Let’s not get twisted. Lives are at stake.

Time for RFK Jr. to expose the dark truth about the pill



No drug is as sacrosanct in today’s sexually “liberated” culture as oral contraceptives. But the proliferation of the birth control pill since the 1960s has fostered a number of grave consequences for our society: hook-up culture, delayed marriage, and the destruction of the nuclear family.

None of this would surprise Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. In the early 20th century, she promoted contraception as the mechanism for female emancipation. “Birth control is the first important step a woman must take toward the goal of her freedom,” she wrote. “It is the first step she must take to be man’s equal. It is the first step they must both take toward human emancipation.”

Though the perceived benefits of birth control pills are loudly and publicly celebrated, their costs need to be fully exposed.

Feminist author Betty Friedan agreed, asserting that the pill gave women “the legal and constitutional right to decide whether or not or when to bear children” and established the basis for true equality with men.

Because oral contraception has been touted as a cornerstone of women’s equality and freedom, its health repercussions are rarely called into question. Even Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who regularly wades into controversy by calling for investigations into seed oils and food dyes, remains relatively silent on oral contraceptives.

This is to the detriment of women across the country. As Dr. Sarah Hill demonstrates in “This Is Your Brain on Birth Control: How the Pill Changes Everything,” birth control has had numerous repercussions on women, relationships, and society. She shows that women at the peak of their cycle feel sexier, more outgoing, and more confident with the natural increase in estrogen. And men find them more attractive at that time, too.

More than mere ‘birth control’

As Hill points out, birth control pills do more than just prevent pregnancy: They affect a woman’s hormones more generally — hormones that affect everything from her brain to her fingertips and her overall emotional, mental, and physical health. Many of the women Hill interviewed described feeling emotionally blunted, or as if they were moving through life in a fog, while on the pill.

A woman’s menstrual cycle is often known as the fifth vital sign, and a disruption signals a concern to be addressed, not to be masked.

Birth control is, in fact, “medicated menopause.” While it can be a difficult reality for many to face, studies show that women who no longer menstruate are not as attractive to men, which is why trying to find a mate in the latter years of life can be challenging. The drive to partner up and reproduce is diminished, making marriage less of a necessity and mere companionship more of the goal.

Studies comparing women who use contraception with those who do not reveal that the pill lowers libido, can lead to mood swings or depression, disrupts natural cycles, can cause infertility after discontinuation, interferes with the endocrine system, and can lead to bloating and a gain of nearly five pounds on average. Other studies have found that estrogen-containing pills raise the risk of venous thromboembolism and, to a smaller extent, strokes and heart attacks.

America lags behind

European countries have conducted many tests that demonstrate such effects. A nationwide Danish cohort study of over one million women found higher rates of first antidepressant use and first depression diagnosis among users of contraceptives than nonusers. Another large Danish study found that women who were currently or recently on hormonal contraception were more likely to attempt suicide or die by suicide than women who had never used it.

A Finnish study and a Swedish one produced similar results. A British database shows that the first couple of years of being on the pill brought an increased risk of depression and that women who began using the pill in their teens sometimes had a lasting higher risk.

Few, if any, comprehensive American studies have been conducted, even though about 15% of American women between 15 and 49 use oral contraceptives.

Environmental havoc

Potential problems are not limited to those who ingest the hormones. Synthetic estrogen, an endocrine-disrupting compound used in oral contraceptives, makes its way from America’s toilets to the water supply. Wastewater treatments can reduce, but never fully remove, such psychoactive drugs from drinking water.

U.S. regulators and scientists treat these as “contaminants of emerging concern.” The Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Geological Survey publish methods for measuring the prevalence of such hormones in wastewater and waters used for our drinking supply.

RELATED: Women’s infertility is Big Pharma’s cash cow

simarik via iStock/Getty Images

Male fish begin growing female genitals, and fish populations collapse in water containing the synthetic estrogen from birth control, according to some studies. As RFK Jr. has mentioned, boys are “swimming through a soup of toxic chemicals today, and many of those are endocrine disruptors.”

Though some studies show that typical concentrations of synthetic estrogen in drinking water pose negligible risks to women, perhaps the cumulative exposure to endocrine disruptors affects the sexual development of young males.

Long overdue accountability

RFK Jr. promised to “follow the law regarding access to birth control” during his confirmation process. That could include commissioning the National Institutes of Health to conduct “gold standard science” on oral contraception, as he has sworn to do for other food additives and pharmaceuticals, studies that many European countries have already done.

While calling for restrictions on birth control pills would likely cause a frenzy among many, informed consent is a paramount health priority. Though the perceived benefits of birth control pills are loudly and publicly celebrated (women, you too can have sex like a man!), their costs need to be fully exposed if we are going to restore human health and flourishing among both sexes.

Editor’s note: This article was published originally at the American Mind.

Jillian Michaels Exposes the REAL Biggest Losers | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 271
play icon

Jillian Michaels Exposes the REAL Biggest Losers | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 271

Trump’s Desire For More American Babies Is Good. His Newest IVF Plan Is Not

President Donald Trump’s newest plan to expand IVF is a prime example of good intentions gone wrong.

Trillions on pills, not prevention: The chronic disease cover-up



For decades, the government’s dietary guidelines have dictated what Americans eat, and surprise, surprise — we’re sicker than ever.

Today, 60% of the American population have at least one chronic disease, and roughly 85% of the nation's $5.3 trillion annual health care spending goes toward treating chronic diseases, such as diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, obesity, heart disease, and cancer.

We know that the number-one factor in chronic disease is poor diet, and yet the government has long pushed the very highly processed foods that make us sick, while promoting pharmaceutical drugs as the magic answer.

For example, it’s not uncommon to hear the government debate how to lower insulin prices.

“You can just eliminate the need for insulin by just getting people off the one macronutrient that causes blood sugar to spike, and that is carbohydrate,” investigative science journalist Nina Teicholz told BlazeTV host Nicole Shanahan on a recent episode of “Back to the People.”

“The current thinking is: Don't restrain yourself — eat the cake, eat the bread, but then you have to cover it with insulin. How about just don't eat the bread, don't eat the cake, and reverse your condition?” she asks.

Nina expresses frustration that such a simple fix — one that would save us “almost a billion dollars a day” and “reverse other chronic conditions” — has been so impossible to push in the public square.

“Nobody discusses this. It's like a taboo subject,” she laments.

Nicole agrees. “No, we have a president [Joe Biden] and a senator, Bernie Sanders, standing together hugging one another, talking about reducing the cost of drugs. … There’s not a single politician out there that is charting a path for people to get off of drug reliance.”

The duo reflect back on the disappointing White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health hosted by the Biden-Harris administration in 2022, which Nicole helped raise funding for.

Sugar — perhaps the biggest contributor to chronic diseases — wasn’t even mentioned.

“What came out of that [conference] was a huge amount of investment in the fake-food sector. It was fake protein, fake seafood, more fake meats, fake dairy, fake eggs. Those are ultra-processed foods that replace natural whole foods,” says Nina.

The other result of the conference was “a total doubling down on the dietary guidelines, which have been shown to not work.”

Nicole was hopeful that the 2018 Farm Bill, which governs agricultural and food programs, including farm subsidies, crop insurance, nutrition assistance (like SNAP), and rural development, would "[support] farmers who are producing really great, clean food,” but sadly, the Farm Bill has “made virtually no progress” when it comes to health.

“If anything ... it's added protections to the agrochemical businesses,” she laments.

Further, “SNAP has grown so enormously and without any restrictions or caps on how SNAP is spent. Soda remains the largest single item that consumers purchase with their SNAP benefits.”

Why is the government so resistant to moving toward the simple adjustments that would reverse chronic diseases? As Nicole and Nina see it, it's obvious: “Pretty much every member of Congress is supported by the pharmaceutical industry.”

“They make profits when people are unhealthy, not healthy,” Nina says frankly.

To hear more of the conversation, watch the full interview above.

Want more from Nicole Shanahan?

To enjoy more of Nicole's compelling blend of empathy, curiosity, and enlightenment, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Government bias and billionaires shouldn’t decide who gets affordable medicine



The Louisiana Pharmacy Benefit Manager Monitoring Advisory Council met last month with an unusual guest — one who came with a clear conflict of interest.

Dr. Alex Oshmyansky, founder and CEO of the Mark Cuban-backed Cost Plus Drug Company, was invited to brief the council on PBMs. But his company directly competes with them. No PBM representatives were invited to speak or respond. What could have been an informed policy discussion turned into an unbalanced promotional session for a single competitor — and that does not serve patients.

The one-sided hearing

Pharmacy benefit managers have long been in Mark Cuban’s crosshairs. He claims PBMs create “an inefficient market” and lack transparency. Those complaints underpin his partnership with Oshmyansky to form Cost Plus Drug Company, a business designed to bypass PBMs entirely.

If Louisiana’s leaders want real reform, they must start by restoring fairness — and remembering who the system exists to serve.

At the hearing, Oshmyansky presented his company’s views on PBMs without challenge or rebuttal. The absence of PBM voices left the council with a distorted view of the system it’s supposed to oversee.

That imbalance creates two serious problems.

First, it deprives the council of a complete understanding of how PBMs work — what services they provide, how they negotiate lower drug prices, and how Louisiana’s new PBM regulations are already being implemented. Without hearing from the industry itself, policymakers risk forming conclusions based on partial information and advocacy, not evidence.

Second, when public bodies accept one-sided testimony, patients lose. PBMs manage drug coverage for millions of Americans, ensuring access to affordable medicines and stable pharmacy networks. When their perspective is ignored, regulations may raise costs, reduce access, or disrupt care for the very people the state claims to protect.

Political hostility and government bias

The broader political context in Louisiana makes this even more troubling. Gov. Jeff Landry (R) has pushed to ban PBMs entirely — an extreme measure that would upend how prescription coverage operates in the state. Meanwhile, Attorney General Liz Murrill has sued CVS, one of the nation’s largest PBMs, for warning consumers about the potential fallout of such a ban.

These moves reveal a pattern: State leaders are treating PBMs not as partners with critical expertise but as enemies. That approach replaces policymaking with politics and undermines public confidence in fair regulation.

RELATED: The maligned and misunderstood player that Big Pharma wants gone

cagkansayin via iStock/Getty Images

Reform through balance, not bias

The PBM industry isn’t above reform. Greater transparency and accountability are necessary. But good policy starts with balance. The council should convene a second meeting — this time with PBM representatives at the table alongside Cost Plus Drug Company. The proceedings should be public and transparent.

Patients deserve policies based on facts, not billionaire-backed bias. Regulation shaped by evidence, not resentment, is how states protect health, affordability, and trust.

If Louisiana’s leaders want real reform, they must start by restoring fairness — and remembering who the system exists to serve.