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!

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



Let’s stop pretending the government can fix the health care system it wrecked — by wrecking it even more.

For years, Americans have endured rising health care costs, shrinking access, and mounting frustration. Now, senators from both parties, the Federal Trade Commission, and several states want to blame pharmacy benefit managers. Before they do, it’s worth asking: Who actually caused this mess?

It wasn’t PBMs. It was Washington, D.C.

I’ve spent decades studying health care and economic systems. Central planning always fails. Yet here we go again — federal regulators scapegoating private players for a system government distorted over generations.

PBMs aren’t flawless, but they’re not the villains. They emerged as one of the few market-based responses to a government-created crisis. They operate within a system twisted by 80 years of policy failures — starting with World War II wage controls that incentivized employer-sponsored insurance. That led to the third-party payer model, which removed patients from pricing decisions.

Layer on Medicare, Medicaid, and a blizzard of mandates, and the result is clear: Government made sure health care would never again resemble a functioning market.

If we’re serious about fixing health care, we must stop repeating the failed policies that broke it in the first place.

PBMs didn’t invent this system. They were born into it. Congress established Medicare Part D, which subsidized prescription drugs without fixing the underlying distortions. PBMs stepped in to negotiate with manufacturers, manage formularies, push generics, and introduce cost controls into an otherwise bloated and opaque drug market.

They’re not perfect. But they didn’t start the fire. Government did.

Here’s the kicker: PBMs work better than almost anything else in the health care system.

University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan recently published research for the National Bureau of Economic Research showing PBMs create $145 billion in net annual value. Even after accounting for their costs, PBMs lower drug prices, help patients stick to medications, reduce hospitalizations, and cut non-drug health costs by about $40 billion each year. They also drive pharmaceutical innovation — improving uptake of new treatments and adding another $13 billion annually in future drug development.

Now compare that to the government’s record. Medicaid and Medicare leak hundreds of billions through improper payments, bloated administration, and price manipulation. Mulligan doesn’t put a figure on the waste, but other studies estimate government health care inefficiencies cost more than $1 trillion every year.

Still, no one talks about that. Instead, the FTC is grandstanding, blaming PBMs for prices the government made uncontrollable in the first place.

Washington’s real problem? It keeps designing a health care system around bureaucrats instead of patients. PBMs aren’t the issue. Bureaucracy is. The solution isn’t more scapegoating — it’s restoring freedom and responsibility to the people who use and deliver care.

RELATED: Congress must resist Big Pharma’s scheme to dismantle drug cost watchdogs

zhuweiyi49 via iStock/Getty Images

That’s why we need unlimited health savings accounts, especially for low-income Americans on Medicaid. Don’t micromanage their health care. Give them agency. Pair it with work requirements for able-bodied Medicaid recipients — not to punish them, but to promote responsibility and reduce dependency, while still supporting those in genuine need.

The result: smarter decisions, stronger competition, lower costs, and fewer true middlemen — starting with the federal regulators and compliance officers who helped create this mess.

In a real market, PBMs will sink or swim based on value. If they deliver, they’ll thrive. If not, they’ll fail — and be replaced. That’s the beauty of market discipline. And right now, PBMs are one of the only players in health care remotely subject to it.

This assault on PBMs isn’t about health care. It’s about power. Regulators and politicians want a scapegoat for a system they helped break.

But facts still matter. PBMs reduce costs, improve access, and drive innovation. Government programs promise the same — and deliver the opposite.

If we’re serious about fixing health care, we must stop repeating the failed policies that broke it in the first place. Scrap the mandates, cut the bureaucracy, and shift power back to patients and providers. Real reform means transparency, personal responsibility, and the freedom to choose what’s best — not what Washington prescribes.

Will Trump’s Free-Market Drug Pricing Solution Cut Out Greedy Middlemen?

An executive order instructs the HHS secretary to negotiate with drug manufacturers so that Americans pay the same low prices that others do.

Dems Who Clapped Like Seals For Biden’s Big Pharma Actions Do 180 On Trump Drug Pricing Order

'Donald Trump is all hat and no cattle'

Dems Sworn To Oppose Trump Land Awkwardly On The Side Of Higher Drug Prices

Democrats don’t care enough about drug costs to collaborate. Any desire Democrats have to solve problems is dwarfed by their scorn for Trump.

After long suggesting ADHD has biological basis, scientists now make stunning admission



The medical establishment has a troubling track record of confidently stating things that just aren't so — as became clear to Americans who suffered injuries from supposedly safe and effective vaccines during the pandemic.

There was a damning admission in New York Times Magazine over the weekend that may inspire new doubts about the credibility of the so-called experts advising the masses on matters of health, namely that attention deficit hyperactivity disorder may not have a basis in biology after all.

That admission was not volunteered from some activist or critic but rather by the Dutch neuroscientist who apparently misled the world into thinking "A.D.H.D. is a disorder of the brain."

'No one knew exactly how the medication worked.'

In a piece titled "Have we been thinking about A.D.H.D. all wrong?" Paul Tough discussed the correlated explosion of ADHD diagnoses and Ritalin prescriptions in the 1990s — a trend, he noted, that was accompanied by criticism from parents and others concerned about the apparent campaign to load kids with methylphenidate and amphetamines.

"You didn't have to be a Scientologist to acknowledge that there were some legitimate questions about A.D.H.D.," wrote Tough. "Despite Ritalin's rapid growth, no one knew exactly how the medication worked or whether it really was the best way to treat children's attention issues."

Parents were right to be concerned.

Ritalin, Adderall, and the other highly addictive stimulants foisted upon hard-to-control American youths have a variety of undesirable side effects, both immediate and long-term.

In the short term, they can cause side effects such as bladder pain, bloody urine, an irregular heartbeat and palpitations, diarrhea, headaches, joint pain, trouble sleeping, confusion, agitation, seizures, and vomiting. In the long term, these drugs can apparently impact growth, dopamine regulation, and memory formation and retention and cause elevated blood pressure, psychosis, and mood disorders.

Over the past decade, prescriptions for stimulants to remedy imagined ADHD have skyrocketed — by 58% between 2012 and 2022. Most of the drugs dished out have been amphetamines, according to a 2023 document prepared for the Drug Enforcement Administration.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an estimated 7.1 million American children (approximately 1 in 9) aged 3-17 had ADHD diagnoses as of 2022. That's up from two million in the mid-1990s. Over half of the children currently diagnosed with ADHD receive at least one ADHD medication.

Tough noted that the medical establishment, already bullish on the ADHD craze, seized upon the initial results of the Multimodal Treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Study. The study, published in 1999, suggested that Ritalin was effective.

After the Ritalin train left the station at full speed, James Swanson — who subsequently went to consult for drug companies, including the manufacturer of Adderall — and his colleagues realized that their study championing stimulant use had aged poorly.

While the children in their MTA study reported improvements after 14 months of choking down stimulants, after 36 months, their advantage had effectively disappeared such that they were expressing the same supposed symptoms as the comparison group. Years later, the same test subjects turned out to be an inch shorter than their peers.

In other words, the medical establishment was hyping and pushing addictive drugs largely on the basis of perceived short-term gains that, unlike drug dependency, faded in under two years.

"There are things about the way we do this work," Swanson, now in his 80s, told Tough, "that just are definitely wrong."

"I don't agree with people who say that stimulant treatment is good," Swanson said, after spending three decades studying the drugs. "It's not good."

Swanson is apparently not the only supposed ADHD expert now having significant doubts.

Edmund Sonuga-Barke, a researcher in psychiatry and neuroscience at King's College London, told Tough, "I've invested 35 years of my life trying to identify the causes of A.D.H.D., and somehow we seem to be farther away from our goal than we were when we started."

'We're terrified of what will happen to the kids who can't get the meds.'

"We have a clinical definition of A.D.H.D. that is increasingly unanchored from what we're finding in our science," added Sonuga-Barke.

Sonuga-Barke suggested further that ADHD is not a static, easily definable, or objectively measurable condition.

That's not what Martine Hoogman, the chair of the Enigma ADHD working group, and her team suggested in a 2017 paper funded by the National Institutes of Health and published in the Lancet Psychiatry, a peer-reviewed Elsevier journal.

After years of academic chatter about potential physical differences in the brains of people with ADHD diagnoses, Hoogman and her team compared the cortical volumes of ADHD-diagnosed subjects with those of a control group.

While Tough indicated their data showed the opposite to be true, Hoogman and her team originally stated:

We confirm, with high powered analysis, that ADHD patients truly have altered brains, i.e. that ADHD is a disorder of the brain. This is a clear message for clinicians to convey to parents and patients, which can help to reduce the stigma of ADHD and get a better understanding of ADHD. This way, it will become just as apparent as for major depressive disorder, for example, that we label ADHD as a brain disorder. Also, finding the most pronounced effects in childhood provides a relevant model of ADHD as a disorder of brain maturation delay.

Hoogman did a complete about-face when recently pressed about her statement, telling Tough, "Back then, we emphasized the differences that we found (although small), but you can also conclude that the subcortical and cortical volumes of people with A.D.H.D. and those without A.D.H.D. are almost identical."

"The A.D.H.D. neurobiology is so much more complex than that," added Hoogman.

Sonuga-Barke indicated that there is a desperation among some scientists to find evidence pointing to the biological nature of ADHD.

"In the field, we're so frightened that people will say it doesn't exist," said Sonuga-Barke. "That this is just bad parenting, from the right, or this is just a product of our postindustrial society, from the left. We have to double down because we're terrified of what will happen to the kids who can't get the meds. We've seen the impact they can have on people's lives."

'It's infuriating.'

The well-documented overdiagnosis and overtreatment of ADHD in children and adults is troubling on its face but far worse when considered in light of Sonuga-Barke's understanding that ADHD diagnoses are purely subjective and effectively unfalsifiable; Swanson's admission that ADHD treatment doesn't help in the long-run; and Hoogman's admission that there is not a biological signature for the supposed disorder.

Blaze News previously noted that the Trump administration's plan to assess the prevalence and impact of pharmaceuticals on children has some childhood psychiatrists and other prongs of the pharmaceutical industry panicking. After all, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. might cost them a source of revenue by taking a closer look at ADHD.

Kennedy noted during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Finance Committee that "15% of American youth are now on Adderall or some other [attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder] medication."

"We are not just overmedicating our children, we are overmedicating our entire population," said Kennedy. "Half the pharmaceutical drugs on earth are now sold here."

Conservative commentator Matt Walsh noted in response to the New York Times Magazine article, "ADHD is one of the greatest scams in modern history. Millions of kids have been given mind-altering drugs on the basis of a lie. Now after decades — and after shouting down and defaming those of us who knew better — they're finally starting to admit it. It's infuriating."

Author and journalist Alex Berenson tweeted, "It's unbelievable that drug companies and shrinks ('telehealth' in particular) have pushed this junk for so long."

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