FDA finally admits COVID-19 vaccine killed kids: 'This is a profound revelation'



Millions of Americans across the country were told during the pandemic to offer up their arms for the COVID-19 vaccines — the first-ever mRNA vaccines approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration — if they wanted to keep their jobs, eat in public, stay in school, or visit their loved ones.

Government officials, the establishment media, and pharmaceutical representatives claimed that the vaccines were "safe and effective." Those who dared to suggest otherwise about the experimental drugs that were making liability-shielded vaccine manufacturers record profits were often attacked and censored.

Months after the Department of Health and Human Services concluded that "mRNA technology poses more risks than benefits for these respiratory viruses," the Food and Drug Administration admitted in an internal letter that the COVID-19 vaccines killed numerous children.

'Healthy young children who faced tremendously low risk of death were coerced.'

Dr. Vinay Prasad, chief medical officer at the FDA and director at the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, noted in an email to staff on Friday that FDA Office of Biostatistics and Pharmacovigilance career staff "have found that at least 10 children have died after and because of receiving COVID-19 vaccination."

In the email, which was reviewed by multiple publications and shared online by the Washington Post, Prasad indicated that the OBPV performed an analysis of 96 deaths between 2021 and 2024 and concluded "that no fewer than 10 are related. If anything, this represents conservative coding, where vaccines are exculpated rather than indicated in cases of ambiguity. The real number is higher."

"These deaths are related to vaccination (likely/probable/possible attribution made by staff). That number is certainly an underestimate due to underreporting, and inherent bias in attribution," wrote Prasad. "This safety signal has far-reaching implications for Americans, the U.S. pandemic response, and the agency itself."

RELATED: Pfizer COVID shot sales plummet after Trump administration ends universal recommendations

Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images

Despite the strong improbability of a healthy child getting seriously ill from COVID, former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci, former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, and other health officials championed injecting kids with the novel vaccines.

On Nov. 2, 2021, then-President Joe Biden's health officials gave final approval to Pfizer's COVID-19 shot for kids ages 5 to 11. Biden said at the time, "It is a major step forward for our nation in our fight to defeat the virus."

COVID-19 vaccination for children younger than 5 began across the U.S. in June 2022.

"These vaccines are safe, highly effective, and will give parents the peace of mind of knowing their child is protected from the worst outcomes of COVID-19," said Biden.

Prasad noted in his Friday letter that despite evidence that the COVID-19 vaccine put boys and young men at great risk of myocarditis, Biden health officials "did not quickly attempt mitigation strategies such as spacing doses apart, lowering doses, omitting doses among those with prior COVID-19."

Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle that can manifest as various symptoms, including heart palpitations, chest pain, fainting, and weakness, and can also cause fatal cardiac arrest.

"Worse, the FDA delayed acknowledgement of the safety signal until after it could extend marketing authorization to younger boys 12-15," continued Prasad. "Had the acknowledgement come early, these younger boys, who likely did not require COVID-19 vaccination, may have chosen to avoid the products."

The FDA's chief medical officer stressed that the OBPV's finding that the COVID vaccine contributed to the deaths of children amounted to "a profound revelation."

"For the first time, the U.S. FDA will acknowledge that COVID-19 vaccines have killed American children," continued Prasad, whose agency revoked emergency-use authorization for COVID vaccines earlier this year. "Healthy young children who faced tremendously low risk of death were coerced, at the behest of the Biden administration, via school and work mandates, to receive a vaccine that could result in death. In many cases, such mandates were harmful."

Peter Marks, Prasad's predecessor, complained to the New York Times about the "political tone" of Prasad's letter and noted, "I would not be surprised if the attributions turn out to be debatable, as these cases are often quite complex."

FDA commissioner Dr. Marty Makary said in a "Fox & Friends" interview on Saturday that his agency would no longer "rubber-stamp things with no data," adding that such a "mockery of science" was alternatively "the M.O. in the Biden administration with the eternal COVID booster approvals for young, healthy kids."

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

Why Trump’s Obesity Drug ‘Deal’ Will Help Big Pharma Most Of All

With the market for GLP-1s already exploding, Americans might be best served by a government that focuses on promoting competition to drive down prices.

Do you really have ADHD — or do they want to medicate you into conformity?



Everybody has a diagnosis these days.

Not just adults — kids too. It doesn’t matter if you're 8 or 38, there's someone somewhere waiting to explain away whatever's different about you.

Perhaps you find your work excruciatingly boring and hard to care about precisely because it is excruciatingly boring and hard to care about.

It's not a quirk of your personality or a flaw in your character or a wound in your soul. It's a illness. Never mind that the symptoms are vague or the evidence that it's a discrete medical condition are lacking — a pharmaceutical cure will fix it.

Just pop this pill, and you will be like everyone else. Isn’t that what you want?

All the rage

All the kids these days have ADHD or autism. Which often makes me wonder if any of them do. Or if these conditions exist at all.

Autism certainly seems real in its extreme forms, but I am not at all convinced that it's at the far end of a continuum. I don’t really think being a little “on the spectrum” is a thing. Those people are just a little weird and need stronger guidance on how to get on in life.

I have a friend who was an engineer at Google. He told me half the people he worked with claimed to be “on the spectrum,” and according to him, it was all bull. They didn’t have medical problems; they had personal problems. They were guys who never learned how to interact normally, so they just ended up being kind of weird and rude.

As for ADHD, it's so obscenely overdiagnosed that it's essentially fake at this point. The market has been so oversaturated by ridiculous and erroneous diagnoses that whenever I hear about another kid with ADHD, it tells me more about the doctors and the “system” and less about the kid.

Boys will be boys

Are some kids better at sitting down at a desk for three hours at a time? Sure. Are more girls than boys better at doing it? Yes. Is there a gender factor here when it comes to diagnosis? Absolutely.

Boys don’t learn the same way girls do. But much of modern education ignores this fact. So when boys fidget or get bored, it gets chalked up to ADHD. This is more or less common knowledge by now. So the only thing a boy being diagnosed with ADHD tells me is that he doesn't get enough recess.

Of course, there are extreme cases. There are kids who genuinely don’t seem to be able to focus at all. Something like actual ADHD exists in a small number of boys, but that doesn't negate the broader truth: Instead of seeing people as individuals with different strengths and weaknesses, we decide to overmedicate when someone isn’t exactly like everyone else.

My mom worked with special ed kids. Some of them had mild disabilities, some more extreme. In some cases, it was clear they would need supervised care their entire lives. But in other cases, it wasn't clear just what, if anything, was wrong — besides a certain learned helplessness reinforced by doctors and parents.

Pill and chill

Nowadays ADHD diagnoses aren’t just for kids; adults are getting in on it too. Believe it or not, an increasing amount of men and women, especially women, in their 30s and 40s are discovering that they too have ADHD — a discovery that inevitably “explains everything.” My wife sees reels on Instagram all the time, along with ads selling various solutions.

What's that? You couldn’t focus at your computer, clicking on an excel spreadsheet, sending pointless emails for seven hours at a time? Shocking. No, you don’t need ADHD medication. You need to do something else with your life. Perhaps you find your work excruciatingly boring and hard to care about precisely because it is excruciatingly boring and hard to care about.

Overmedicalization and overdiagnosis is a deep problem in our society. Not just because the result is an increase in prescription drug use, but because the individual human being is lost or suffocated a little bit at a time. Everyone is different. Everyone has skills, and everyone has weaknesses. Everyone learns in a different way, and everyone focuses on different things too.

RELATED: Drugged for being boys: The TRUTH behind the ADHD scam

Blaze Media

Free agency

Some people are just a little awkward, a little weird, a little absent-minded, or a little dry. Sure, they should try to meet society halfway in some reasonable sense — but that happens through early teaching, parental guidance, community expectations, and personal effort, not through a pill you pop every day. For most of the 20th century, we relied far more on those nonmedical supports.

All the pill-popping flattens our individualism and undercuts our own agency as humans. It presupposes that one cannot make oneself better, one cannot work to act right, and that one doesn’t have any control. This is a lie. Yes, of course, there are people who suffer with truly debilitating problems who need medication, and they should get that medication. But it is a small fraction of the population. Most people can make themselves better when they set their minds to it.

Don’t get me wrong. I'm not anti-psychiatry. I'm not into alternative medicine or any of the hippie stuff. I’m not denying that there are people with problems who are helped most effectively with medication. I’m thankful for the blessings of modern medicine and the advancements we continue to see every year.

But we have a problem with overdiagnosis in our country. We have a problem with losing sight of the individual. We have a problem with people who want to give up their agency and turn it all over to a pill, and we are worse off because of it.

Trump strikes major deal with pharma giants Lilly and Novo over obesity drugs, Medicare



Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is working on identifying and tackling the root causes of America's obesity epidemic. In the meantime, the Trump administration wants to make sure that Americans have access to affordable diabetes and weight-loss drugs, specifically glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, better known as GLP-1 drugs.

To this end and as part of his months-long campaign to bring most-favored-nation prescription drug pricing to Americans, President Donald Trump has struck a deal with pharmaceutical giants Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk, the manufacturer of Ozempic, to cut prices on their weight-loss drugs in exchange for Medicare coverage.

A senior administration official indicated on Thursday that since Trump issued his most-favored-nation pricing executive order in May, GLP-1 drugs "have been top of mind" — not just because of the pharmaceuticals' apparent cardiometabolic benefits "but also because this is, again, an issue of fairness."

RELATED: How MAHA can really save American lives

IM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

Per the terms of Trump's deal with the two companies, "starting oral doses of GLP-1s will cost just $149 for everyone on Medicare, Medicaid, or Trump Rx," said an official. "That's roughly 1/9th of today's list price."

For Medicare, the manufacturers have reportedly agreed to reduce prices on GLP-1 drugs that are currently used for diabetes and other covered conditions to $245 per month across all other doses, added the official.

Savings generated by these price reductions will apparently be used to provide new coverage for GLP-1 drugs to patients struggling with obesity who face high metabolic or cardiovascular risk at the same monthly cost of $245.

As of 2020, over 100 million American adults were obese, and more than 22 million adults suffered from severe obesity, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

While the adult obesity rate reportedly declined from 39.9% in 2022 to 37% this year — representing roughly 7.6 million fewer obese adults — Gallup recently indicated that diagnoses of diabetes have reached an all-time high of 13.8%.

Amid the glut of diabetes cases, there has been a significant increase in the number of U.S. adults who report taking GLP-1 drugs — from 5.8% in February 2024 to 12.4% in the latest quarter of 2025. The three-year decline in obesity among most age groups appears to correspond with the embrace of the weight-loss drugs.

When asked roughly how many patients on Medicare and Medicaid would be impacted by these changes, another administration official noted that in Medicare, around 10% of the population will be eligible for the standard access. While the drugs are approved for a much broader population, access has been constrained for "patients that will benefit clinically from it."

There will reportedly be three tiers of patients in Medicare who will have access to these drugs for the purposes of addressing obesity and driving "cardiometabolic improvement": those with a body mass index greater than 27 kg/m² suffering from pre-diabetes or established cardiovascular disease; patients with a BMI greater than 30 who have uncontrolled hypertension, kidney disease, and/or heart failure; and individuals with a BMI exceeding 35.

'We do not believe that GLP-1s or drugs alone are somehow some silver bullet.'

"This is about making America healthy again," said the second official. "This is about preventing strokes, this is about preventing heart attacks, and this is about preventing end-stage renal disease."

The officials acknowledged, however, that cheaper drugs do not amount to a long-term solution to the problem of obesity.

"Make no mistake: We're in a war against obesity. We do not believe that GLP-1s or drugs alone are somehow some silver bullet to make the ... country healthy again," said one official. "They are an important jump-start."

In exchange for their cooperation, the pharma giants are gaining additional access to beneficiaries who wouldn't otherwise be covered by Medicare for obesity indications, certainty from the Trump administration on its approach to drug pricing moving forward, and a commitment to invest in American manufacturing.

One Trump administration official told reporters that this initiative is expected to ultimately be cost neutral, stating, "This is really a win-win on all sides — for taxpayers, for Medicare beneficiaries, as well as for the companies."

Last month, Trump announced an agreement with AstraZeneca that would guarantee every state Medicaid program across the country most-favored-nation drug prices on the pharma giant's products. The previous month, he announced a similar deal with Pfizer.

"In case after case, our citizens pay massively higher prices than other nations pay for the same exact pill, from the same factory, effectively subsidizing socialism [abroad] with skyrocketing prices at home," Trump said in a statement. "So we would spend tremendous amounts of money in order to provide inexpensive drugs to another country. And when I say the price is different, you can see some examples where the price is beyond anything — four times, five times different."

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!

Trump launches 'TrumpRx' to slash drug prices — and even brings Pfizer on board



President Trump announced earlier this week his effort aimed at lowering drug costs, which includes the creation of a “TrumpRx” website, where Americans can buy medicine at a discount — and somehow got Pfizer to agree to join him.

“The United States is done subsidizing the health care of the rest of the world,” Trump said. “By taking this bold step, we’re ending the era of global price gouging at the expense of American families.”

Surprisingly, Pfizer is the first pharmaceutical company to comply with Trump’s demands, which include selling drugs to Medicaid and setting prices of new drugs at “Most-Favored Nation” levels, which is the lowest price available in other countries.

BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere is surprised by the move.


“This is interesting to me for a bunch of different reasons,” Burguiere tells BlazeTV host Dave Landau. “First of all, as a conservative, I don’t really like the idea of the government being involved in these things, but there are, you know, real concerns with drug prices on certain things.”

“The other thing I find fascinating about it, is like a big chunk of Donald Trump’s base thinks Pfizer is the Nazi regime. Literally hates this company more than anything else. And what I find fascinating about it is Trump can just do this stuff,” he continues.

“He’s the only guy I’ve ever seen that can just do this stuff. He can embrace a company that his base hates and somehow just go right down the middle unscathed,” he adds.

Want more from Stu?

To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

No more handouts for high-fructose hustlers



Political courage is rare, and common sense now gets dismissed as a conspiracy theory. This week, however, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. took a step that should have been taken decades ago. He told Big Soda: “Not on the taxpayer’s dime.”

“If you want to buy a sugary soda, the U.S. taxpayer should not pay for it,” Kennedy said, in remarks that rattled the food-industrial complex. “The U.S. taxpayer should not be paying to feed kids, the poorest kids in the country, that will give them diabetes.”

Banning soda and candy from SNAP removes the government’s role as the sugar daddy of the sugar industry.

The sugar lobby, soda executives, and professional grievance-mongers will no doubt howl, accusing Kennedy of “food policing” or “waging war on the poor.” But defending Pepsi purchases with food stamps as a civil rights cause doesn’t just miss the point — it reveals how far detached these elites are from reality.

State-subsidized sickness

“We are spending $405 million a day on” the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Kennedy said. “About 10% is going to sugary drinks. If you add candies to that, it's about 13% to 17%.” That’s roughly $60 million a day funneled into sugar water and junk food — paid for by you, the taxpayer.

This is state-subsidized sickness. America’s diabetes epidemic didn’t happen by chance — it’s the inevitable result of a system that promotes poor nutrition, rewards ultra-processed junk, and ignores the long-term damage.

More than 11% of Americans now live with diabetes. It’s not just a blood sugar problem — it’s a direct path to amputations, blindness, kidney failure, and premature death.

The American Diabetes Association puts the total economic cost of diagnosed diabetes at $412 billion annually. That’s a national crisis, not a mere lifestyle choice. And the bitter irony? The same government programs paying for treatment are also funding the sugar that drives the disease.

Stop footing the bill

Kennedy’s move isn’t cruel. It’s compassionate. It’s “making America healthy again.”

The opposition is already lining up. The usual suspects will cry “nanny state,” as if forcing taxpayers to underwrite Mountain Dew is some sacred constitutional principle.

Others will insist people have the right to choose what they eat — and they do. But choosing to guzzle liquid diabetes is not the same as expecting everyone else to pick up the tab.

No one’s banning soda. Buy it. Swim in it, if you like. Just don’t expect SNAP funds — meant to keep vulnerable families from going hungry — to cover your 64-ounce daily dose of high-fructose heartbreak.

Kennedy’s proposal isn’t radical. The Women, Infants, and Children program already limits purchases to nutritionally approved foods, prioritizing health over indulgence. SNAP should follow the same logic.

Our national health model is failing. As Tim Keller, founder of U.S. Diabetes Care and a fierce critic of reactive medicine, puts it: “Western medicine is broken. Doctors treat a symptom, not a patient.”

A broken health paradigm

Keller is right. We’ve built an entire health care system on the back of symptom suppression — pills for blood pressure, injections for insulin, meds for cholesterol — while ignoring the root causes.

Instead of handing patients more prescriptions, approaches like Keller's emphasize science-backed lifestyle changes that reverse diabetes altogether. These tools don’t just manage symptoms; they seek to reverse diabetes altogether using modern tools like diabetes management apps, empowering patients with real-time data, meal tracking, and coaching.

The result is a digital frontline in the war against chronic disease. “Diabetes is not a life sentence — we’re here to prove it,” says Keller.

But all the apps, education, and healthy lifestyle coaching in the world mean nothing if we keep dumping sugar down the throats of the nation’s poorest citizens with federal blessing. You can’t cure diabetes while simultaneously funding it.

Drawing a red line

MAHA needs to draw a firm line. It can’t posture as the party of platitudes while taxpayer billions bankroll chronic disease.

The United States spends more on health care than any nation on Earth, yet it trails most developed countries on nearly every health measure. That’s no accident. It’s the inevitable result of subsidizing failure and calling it “freedom.”

RELATED: RFK’s highly anticipated MAHA report paints dark picture of America’s health crisis

Photo by DNY59 via Getty Images

Removing soda and candy from SNAP is a simple, necessary first step to reversing this decline. It preserves personal choice while ending the federal government’s role as sugar daddy to the sugar industry.

MAHA’s moment

Conservatives should seize this moment. If we’re serious about cutting waste, improving public health, and restoring dignity to our social safety net, we should champion reforms like this — not shy away from them.

Nothing is “pro poor” about enabling chronic disease. Nothing is “compassionate” about funding metabolic illness. And nothing is “American” about trapping people in a system that feeds them into the health care meat grinder.

Let’s Make America Healthy Again. Let’s end the era of federally funded junk food. And let’s prove that health, like liberty, starts with responsibility.

Drug middlemen launch attacks against MAGA allies pushing for health care reforms



Pharmacy benefit managers like CVS are going after President Donald Trump's allies who are seeking meaningful health care reforms for their constituents.

Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R) and Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry (R) have become the primary target of PBMs, which are threatened by their push to implement reforms in drug costs. Threatened by MAGA allies, PBMs have now escalated these conflicts to legal disputes.

'These massive corporations are attacking our state because we will be the first in the country to hold them accountable.'

RELATED: Who is bankrolling the anti-MAHA movement?

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

In April, Huckabee Sanders signed legislation banning PBMs from "engaging in anticompetitive practices" by owning pharmacies. PBMs are tasked with negotiating drug prices between pharmacies and insurance companies, but by buying up pharmacies, they are able to take advantage of the health care system and inflate the cost of pharmaceuticals, pushing competitors out of business, according to Huckabee Sanders' press release.

“For far too long, drug middlemen called PBMs have taken advantage of lax regulations to abuse customers, inflate drug prices, and cut off access to critical medications," Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. “Not any more. These massive corporations are attacking our state because we will be the first in the country to hold them accountable for their anticompetitive actions, but Arkansas has never been afraid to be a conservative leader for America.”

The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association promptly retaliated and filed a lawsuit challenging the legislation, calling it a "fundamentally flawed law" that they say "could shutter pharmacies, restrict access to critical medications for patients and families, increase health care costs, and eliminate jobs."

RELATED: Pharmacy middlemen didn’t break health care — the feds did

Samuel Corum/Sipa/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Landry has become involved in his own legal disputes with PBMs. Landry, alongside Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, filed three separate lawsuits against CVS in June for allegedly interfering with legislation that also would have prevented PBMs from owning and simultaneously operating pharmacies.

"PBMs are not health care providers," Landry said. "They are corporate profiteers inserted into the most intimate part of your life and your health."

Although several of Trump's allies have been targeted by PBMs, criticism of the pharmaceutical industry is generally bipartisan.

Mark Cuban recently called out Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts for claiming that Big Pharma is responsible for high drug costs when, he says, PBMs are the real culprit.

"It's because PBMs corrupt healthcare," Cuban said in a post on X. "Big Pharma wishes they could set their own pricing. They don't. PBMs control formularies and manipulate prices, in exchange for providing pharma access to patients. It's how they maximize rebate revenue. In fact, 3 PBMs NEGOTIATE MORE THAN 90% OF REBATES for commercial insurance plans. That's your area of expertise, and you have done nothing."

Cuban's criticisms promptly earned the unlikely praise of some of the most prominent voices in MAGA world.

"Didn’t think I’d be RTing Mark for a while, but he’s 100% right on this issue," Donald Trump Jr. replied in a post on X.

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

RFK Jr.’s controlled demolition of Big Pharma’s billion-dollar commercial scheme



Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is setting his sights on pharmaceutical companies yet again by attempting to hinder them from making commercials and advertisements for their products.

His plan is to require drugmakers to be completely transparent about the side effects of their products, because including all the side effects will increase the run time and drive up the cost of production exponentially.

And BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales couldn’t be happier, as she believes a lot of their commercials are not only ridiculous but are selling a magic pill rather than inspiring potential clients to take control of their health naturally.


One commercial for Jardiance from 2023 features an overweight cast dancing and singing a catchy tune about lowering their A1C.

“You look at that commercial, and that’s just a perfect representation of why RFK is doing this. They’ve got this high production value, they’ve got musical theater. Now, I don’t think it’s appealing, but clearly the point is to appeal to people by using this cutesy little song,” Gonzales says on “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered.”

“It masks the really brief mention of all of these dangerous side effects. You don’t hear that, you just hear the music,” she adds.

“Your skin’s going to melt off by day 90,” BlazeTV contributor Jaco Booyens jokes, adding, “You know the average price spend is close to $3 million per commercial.”

And Gonzales personally knows that the pills they’re spending so much to advertise aren’t the be-all and end-all for those struggling to get healthy.

“I used to be 100 pounds heavier. I lost the weight naturally, you can, too. And so I take personal offense to this, like, just take a pill, here. Just take a pill. Like, all of those women were obese, and they need to consider lifestyle changes rather than taking a pill just to get rid of their diabetes,” she says.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

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

Kennedy has Big Pharma ads in his sights — and he's not the only one mulling a crackdown



Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. noted in an op-ed last year that one of the ways President Donald Trump can make America healthy again is by reviewing direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical ad guidelines.

"The U.S. and New Zealand are the only countries that allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to the public," wrote Kennedy. "News channels are filled with drug commercials, and reasonable viewers may question whether their dependence on these ads influences their coverage of health issues."

The administration is now poised to tackle this issue with policies that might make it costlier and/or more difficult for pharmaceutical giants to push their products directly to patients.

Health and Human Services press secretary Emily Hilliard told Blaze News that "Secretary Kennedy has consistently emphasized direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising must prioritize accuracy, patient safety, and the public interest — not profit margins."

"Consistent with Secretary Kennedy's public health commitments, we are exploring ways to restore more rigorous oversight and improve the quality of information presented to American consumers, who deserve nothing less than radical transparency," added Hilliard.

RELATED: How Big Pharma left its mark on woke CDC vax advisory panel — and what RFK Jr. did about it

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Bloomberg reported that the administration is considering two policies in particular.

The first would require drugmakers to to be more forthright in their ads about the side effects of their products.

Given that pharma products often have myriad side effects, this would likely increase the run time of TV ads, thereby making them far more costly. Since a total ban on pharma direct-to-customer ads would expose the administration to litigation, this potential disincentive could have a similar effect without the consequence.

Individuals said to be familiar with the plans told Bloomberg that the second policy would entail denying pharmaceutical companies the ability to write off DTC advertising as a business expense for tax purposes.

Recent analysis from the Campaign for Sustainable Rx Pricing indicated that the average annual global spending on advertising and promotions in 2023 among the drugmakers AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Pfizer was $1.4 billion, with Pfizer spending the most.

The advertising data firm MediaRadar reportedly found that companies spent $10.8 billion last year on direct-to-consumer pharma advertising.

Drugmakers spent a combined $729.4 million to run TV commercials for the top 10 brands in just the first three months of 2025, reported Fierce Pharma.

'The American people don’t want to see misleading and deceptive prescription drug ads on television.'

Bloomberg suggested that these potential policies could impact a key source of revenue for advertising, media, and pharmaceutical companies.

AbbVie chief commercial officer Jeff Stewart reportedly told analysts in May that if there were a crackdown on pharma ads, the company "would have to pivot," potentially focusing its advertising online rather than on mass media.

RELATED: MAHA scores major victory as Kraft Heinz vows to stop using artificial food dyes

Photo by JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images

Alex Siciliano, a spokesperson for the National Association of Broadcasters, told Bloomberg, "Restricting pharmaceutical ads would have serious consequences for stations, particularly those in smaller markets, and could raise First Amendment concerns."

Those concerned about HHS purging the airwaves of Big Pharma propaganda need not only fear initiatives from the Trump administration.

Independent Sens. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and Angus King (Maine) introduced legislation last week that would ban drugmakers from using direct-to-consumer advertising outright, not only on TV and radio, but on social media, digital platforms, and in print as well.

"The American people are sick and tired of greedy pharmaceutical companies spending billions of dollars on absurd TV commercials pushing their outrageously expensive prescription drugs," Sanders said in a statement.

"The American people don’t want to see misleading and deceptive prescription drug ads on television. They want us to take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and ban these bogus ads."

An Axios-Ipsos poll conducted last year found that 59% of Americans support banning TV pharma ads.

Unlike the Trump administration's potential policies, the End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act might not survive a constitutional challenge, given that Congress is barred from making any law abridging the freedom of speech.

The independent lawmakers noted in their joint statement that HHS Secretary Kennedy is not the only relevant party who has expressed an interest in clearing the airwaves; the American Medical Association has similarly endorsed a ban.

"The widespread use of direct-to-consumer advertising by pharmaceutical companies drives up costs and doesn’t necessarily make patients healthier," said King.

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