Pharmedia

From Dharmapedia Wiki
(Redirected from The Lancet)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  • “it is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” — Marcia Angell
  • “the case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. Something has gone fundamentally wrong.” — Richard Horton
This website is for information purposes only. By providing the information contained herein we are not diagnosing, treating, curing, mitigating, or preventing any type of disease or medical condition. Before beginning any type of natural, integrative or conventional treatment regimen, it is advisable to seek the advice of a licensed healthcare professional.

Big pharma spends much more on government lobbying than any other industry. Crucial in this regard is commercially-controlled media and the pharmedia which too often serves as a the propaganda arm of Big Pharma.

Medical journals have often refused to publish a study that supported a natural substance that competed with a pharmaceutical drug.

Big Pharma media

Richard Smith, former editor, BMJ, said: In what has been called the age of accountability, editors have continued to be as unaccountable as kings. The whole business of medical journals is corrupt because owners are making money from restricting access to important research, most of it funded by public money. He also said: Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies... between two-thirds and three-quarters of the trials published in the major journals—Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine—are funded by the industry... The peer-review process is defunct, inclined toward bias and abuse. Medical journals have become marketing tools of the drug industry, publishing studies that favor their products. Instead of publishing clinical trials, journals should consider critically describing them.[1]

Richard Horton (The Lancet) said: Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry. The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.

Peter Goetzche wrote that medical journals contribute substantially to the corruption of medical science. Gøtzsche said: “The pervasive scientific misconduct has led to a research literature where one has to dig deeply to find the few gems among all the garbage.”

Robert Yoho wrote, The “big five” most respected medical journals, Lancet, JAMA, BMJ, NEJM, and Annals of Internal Medicine, are all contaminated with this commercial bias.

Nortin Hadler wrote in The Citizen Patient (2013): “It turns out that the vast majority of the clinical literature is so lacking in methodological quality as to offer no contribution of substance to clinical decision making. For most clinical questions, one is fortunate to find a dozen studies that can be deemed informative.”

Jason Fung said: Do the editors of the NEJM and the Lancet believe [evidence-based medicine] anymore? Not at all. So neither should we. We can’t believe evidence-based medicine until the evidence has been cleaned up from the corrupting influence of commercial interests.

  • “This is the first meta-analysis of surveys asking scientists about their experiences of misconduct. It found that, on average, about 2% of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once and up to one third admitted a variety of other questionable research practices.”[2]
  • “Our findings reveal a range of questionable practices that are striking in their breadth and prevalence. U.S. scientists engage in a range of behaviors extending far beyond fabrication, falsification or plagiarism that can damage the integrity of science.”[3]
  • “Our data demonstrate that senior-level investigators who responded to the survey receive a wide variety of industry-sponsored support which is important for their careers, and that industry support of research and researchers is pervasive in the clinical and research departments of top U.S. research institutions.”[4]
  • “For a pharmaceutical company, delaying or minimizing knowledge of a side effect of a medication has cash value. Similarly, not publishing negative studies may shift the balance of subsequent meta-analyses.”[5]
  • “Today’s biomedical researchers live in an organizational world within which lying and cheating are rife.”[6]
  • Data audits by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found that 10-20% of studies contained misrepresented data, inaccurate reporting and fabricated experimental results.[7]
  • “Vaccine manufacturers have financial motives and public health officials have bureaucratic reasons that might lead them to sponsor research that concludes vaccines are safe.”[8]
  • “Conflict of interest is widespread among the authors of published manuscripts and these authors are more likely to present positive findings.”[9]
  • “Among a group of meta-analyses of pharmacological treatments published in high-impact biomedical journals, information concerning primary study funding and author conflicts of interest for the included randomized controlled trials were only rarely reported.”[10]
  • “This study found that most Cochrane reviews of drug trials did not report information on trial funding sources or trial author-industry financial ties, including employment, from included trials. When this information was reported, patterns of reporting were inconsistent.”[11]
  • “The CDC’s image as an independent watchdog over the public health has given it enormous prestige, and its recommendations are occasionally enforced by law. Despite the agency’s disclaimer, the CDC does receive millions of dollars in industry gifts and funding, both directly and indirectly, and several recent CDC actions and recommendations have raised questions about the science it cites, the clinical guidelines it promotes, and the money it is taking.”[12]
  • “Failure to report placebo composition compromises the foundation on which medical decisions are based, and on which the fate of lives may rest.”Placebos that are not neutral can have effects that influence study results. When studies do not provide sufficient details about placebo interventions, study replication is not possible. [13]
  • “For most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”• This paper demonstrates that most published research findings are false.[14]
  • “Contradiction and initially stronger effects are not unusual in highly cited research of clinical interventions and their outcomes. Controversies are most common with highly cited non-randomized studies, but even the most highly cited randomized trials may be challenged and refuted over time.”[15]
  • There is a double standard in biomedical and vaccine research. When orthodox views are promoted, serious ethical violations such as undeclared conflicts of interest, using false placebos and withholding evidence, are often ignored.[16]

Online Big pharma shills include many so-called fact checkers, WebMD, Rationalwiki and Wikipedia. Even the New York Times noted that WebMD has become "permeated with Pseudomedicine and subtle misinformation" and "synonymous with Big Pharma Shilling."[17][18] If your search engine shills these websites, it is good idea to change your search engine.

Publication bias

Another problem with the influence of pharmaceutical corporations is the possibility of publication bias in research they sponsor. Pharmaceuticals carrying out their own clinical trials must register the trials in a database by law, but they are not required to disclose the results of all of their trials. This enables them to inflate the effectiveness of a drug by sitting on negative trial data.[19] Ben Goldacre is a noted critic of the way in which pharmaceutical companies refuse to release the data from negative and inconclusive trials.

Big Pharma propaganda

Robert Kennedy writes: The dismaying role of mainstream media in these exercises is to broadcast propaganda, impose censorship, and manufacture consent for oppressive policies. In their projections, the social planners project absolute confidence that news media and social media companies will fully cooperate with this coup d’état.... Both mainstream and social media titans, it turns out, are predisposed to serve globalist elites. Gates and his cronies somehow intuited that these institutions would obligingly shape news coverage so as to manufacture obedience with compulsory vaccination and the dismemberment of the Constitution.[20]

Fox News, a known propaganda outlet that routinely shills for the pharmafia, is of course siding with Fauci and the mainstream narrative. The fake news outlet claims that trials and “real-life experience” show that Fauci Flu shots provide “significant protection” against the Wuhan Flu.[21]

Robert F. Kennedy wrote: Thus, pharmaceutical products were both the predicate and the punchline of the Cancel Culture. The Pharmedia long ago banned Dr. Mercola from the airwaves and newsprint while turning Wikipedia—which functions as Big Pharma’s newsletter and propaganda vehicle—into a mill for defamations against him and every other integrative and functional health physician.[22]

So called fact checkers who “debunk” stories and studies of vaccine injuries receive funding from people and organisations that are financially or personally involved with the Big Pharma.[23]

Dr. Robert Malone wrote “The real problem here is the damn press and the internet giants. The press and these tech players act to manufacture and reinforce ‘consensus’ around selected and approved narratives. And then this is being weaponized to attack dissenters, including highly qualified physicians.”[24]

Anthony Fauci dispenses some $7 billion in research grants to “public health” researchers all over the world. He has held that position for 30 years. This means that for thirty years there has been a monopoly control over virtually all public health-related “peer review.”[25] Another reason why peer review is often nothing more than a fraud.

The pharmedia has also invented new Newspeak words. The WHO has changed definitions of the words pandemic, vaccine and herd immunity. Another word, vaccine-hesitancy, is replacing the word suicide-hesitancy.

Some guidance to separating the wheat from the chaff

Some guidance to separating the wheat from the chaff by Geert Vanden Bossche
  1. Don’t pay as much attention to the opinion of silo-thinkers as you do to opinions from experts capable of drawing from multiple fields. To be able to gain a helicopter view over this pandemic, a multidisciplinary educational background helps a lot. Don’t be impressed by big names (you have already been able to witness the many shortcomings and continuous changes in their assessments) but stay focused on the content, the rational and the consistency of the messages experts are trying to convey.
  2. Along the same lines, don’t pay too much attention to the ‘expert’ opinions of those who are too eager to show up all the time on TV shows and mainstream broadcasting media...
  3. Don’t pay any attention to views, opinions from experts who have a conflict of interest and whose viewpoints may, therefore, be affected by elements that are not purely science-driven...
  4. Ignore experts who fiercely refuse to revisit their opinions for fear of shame or losing face... This also applies to experts who simply decline providing answers to critical scientific questions. There is nothing wrong with voicing strong opinions. However, the stronger they are, the higher the likelihood they are going to be scrutinized and criticized. Experts who think they can afford to turn away their head from scientific questions and criticism should not be granted much credibility. The same applies to scientific information divulged by experts who refuse to engage in an open scientific debate.
  5. DYOR: Do your own research to find out about people’s background and the veracity of the messages they are conveying. We’re used to doing this in other fields, like when you consider making an important financial investment, for example. Well, all this is about an investment in our health and that of our children and the upcoming generation at large. It’s more than worth taking the time to explore things yourself and connect with people whom you can trust. This is also to say that you should feel confident in the final outcome and conclusions of your own research and stay away from groupthink.
  6. Do ignore fact checkers. It's obvious that their scientific illiteracy does not allow them to even understand the basics of the dynamics of this pandemic, let alone to validate what experts are saying. But because fact checkers are acting on a political agenda, they have no choice but to vilify and attack people who put their careers on the line, not in exchange for money as they do, but purely out of an ethical and moral obligation. Most of these arrogant but simple minded souls do not even realize that they’ve already ruined their career before they even started one and that their names are deeply engraved in the memory of those whom they defamed or have suffered from unbearable consequences as a result of the misinformation they spread. The incompetence of fact checkers and the credibility of "experts" they consult can easily be ‘fact checked’.
  7. Don’t waste your time paying attention to the rhetoric of experts, politicians or any other person who tends to push some mainstream judgements.

Source [1] [archive]

Big Tech censorship

See also: Big Tech

Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA vaccines, said that LinkedIn deleted his account after he made comments about mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and questioned whether they’re appropriate to give to certain groups of people. “My business pays for linked in premium. I have been deleted,” Malone wrote on Twitter: “Purchased a service from linked in to promote my company. This is very different from the YouTube or Twitter terms. This arbitrary and capricious action has damaged our business, and we deserve to be compensated.”

Malone's personal account was removed without warning or explanation from LinkedIn, a subsidiary of Microsoft, his wife Jill Malone told The Epoch Times. “He was given no notice, no warnings,” she told Just the News. “He has a 10-15 year old account—has never even had a warning. 6,000 followers.”[26]

Previously, YouTube reportedly deleted a video of Malone discussing RNA vaccine risks.[27] According to MSN: "The inventor of mRNA vaccines said 'the government is not being transparent about the risks' of the COVID-19 vaccine after YouTube deleted a video where he discussed potential risks for young adults and teens."[28]

Dr. Mike Yeadon wrote: Attempting to tell the truth on Twitter plays into the strengths of “Mr Global”, who has assigned large numbers of people expressly to censor, suspend & as needed, eject the very people who are most effective at communicating the evidence for the childishly simple fraud that’s continuing. In addition to tweet by tweet scrutiny, there will be professional trolls who’s job is to attack & to discourage you. They’re well-trained & very good at what they do. And he said: I want to believe someone in media will break ranks, but based on the entire event to date, looking across the globe, there seems no chance whatsoever. As soon as a presenter starts to contradict the narrative, the camera & microphone are cut.[29]

Youtube has censored the following videos from Rajiv Malhotra:

  1. Indian Bar Association vs WHO | Adv. Dipali Ojha with Rajiv Malhotra [2] [archive]
  2. Sabotaging the research! Who is profiting from the pandemic ? | Dr. Tess Lawrie [3] [archive]
  3. EXPOSED! FDA, CDC & WHO is hiding this from you? | Dr Paul Marik FLCCC - Vijaya Viswanathano [4] [archive]
  4. Is Big Pharma lobby blocking treatments? | Rajiv Malhotra & Dr. Pierre Kory FLCCC [5] [archive]

The Lancet

The Lancet is a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is among the world's oldest and best-known general medical journals.[30][31] It was founded in 1823 by Thomas Wakley, an English surgeon who named it after the surgical instrument called a lancet (scalpel).[32]

Political controversies, retracted papers and scientific controversies

The Lancet has taken a political stand on several important medical and non-medical issues.[33] Recent examples include criticism of the World Health Organization (WHO), rejection of the WHO's claims of the efficacy of homoeopathy as a therapeutic option,[34] disapproval during the time Reed Exhibitions (a division of Reed Elsevier) hosted arms industry fairs, a call in 2003 for tobacco to be made illegal,[35] and a call for an independent investigation into the American bombing of a hospital in Afghanistan in 2015.[36]

Tobacco ban proposal (2003)

A December 2003 editorial by the journal, titled "How do you sleep at night, Mr Blair?", called for tobacco use to be completely banned in the UK. The Royal College of Physicians rejected their argument. John Britton, chairman of the college's tobacco advisory group, praised the journal for discussing the health problem, but he concluded that a "ban on tobacco would be a nightmare." Amanda Sandford, spokesperson for the anti-tobacco group Action on Smoking and Health, stated that criminalising a behaviour 26% of the population commit "is ludicrous." She also said: "We can't turn the clock back. If tobacco were banned we would have 13 million people desperately craving a drug that they would not be able to get." The deputy editor of The Lancet responded to the criticism by arguing that no other measures besides a total ban would likely be able to reduce tobacco use.[37]

The smokers rights group FOREST stated that the editorial gave them "amusement and disbelief". Director Simon Clark called the journal "fascist" and argued that it is hypocritical to ban tobacco while allowing unhealthy junk foods, alcohol consumption, and participation in extreme sports. Health Secretary John Reid reiterated that his government was committed to helping people give up smoking. He added: "Despite the fact that this is a serious problem, it is a little bit extreme for us in Britain to start locking people up because they have an ounce of tobacco somewhere."[38]

Andrew Wakefield and the MMR vaccine (1998)

Main article: Lancet MMR autism fraud

The Lancet was criticised after it published a paper in 1998 in which the authors suggested a link between the MMR vaccine and autism spectrum disorder.[39] In February 2004, The Lancet published a statement by 10 of the paper's 13 coauthors repudiating the possibility that MMR could cause autism.[40] The editor-in-chief, Richard Horton, went on the record to say the paper had "fatal conflicts of interest" because the study's lead author, Andrew Wakefield, had a serious conflict of interest that he had not declared to The Lancet.[41] The journal completely retracted the paper on 2 February 2010, after Wakefield was found to have acted unethically in conducting the research.[42]

The Lancet's six editors, including the editor-in-chief, were also criticised in 2011 because they had "covered up" the "Wakefield concocted fear of MMR" with an "avalanche of denials" in 2004.[43]

Fabricated article withdrawn (2006)

In January 2006, it was revealed that data had been fabricated in an article[44] by the Norwegian cancer researcher Jon Sudbø and 13 co-authors published in The Lancet in October 2005.[45][46] Several articles in other scientific journals were withdrawn following the withdrawal in The Lancet. Within a week, The New England Journal of Medicine published an expression of editorial concern regarding its published research papers by the same author, and in November 2006, the journal withdrew two oral cancer studies led by the Norwegian researcher.[47]

PACE study (2011)

In 2011, The Lancet published a study by the UK-based "PACE trial management group", which reported success with graded exercise therapy and cognitive behavioural therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome;[48] a follow-up study was published in Lancet Psychiatry in 2015.[49] The studies attracted criticism from some patients and researchers, especially with regard to data analysis that was different from that described in the original protocol.[50] In a 2015 Slate article, biostatistician Bruce Levin of Columbia University was quoted saying "The Lancet needs to stop circling the wagons and be open", and that "one of the tenets of good science is transparency"; while Ronald Davis of Stanford University said: "the Lancet should step up to the plate and pull that paper".[50] Horton defended The Lancet's publication of the trial and called the critics: "a fairly small, but highly organized, very vocal and very damaging group of individuals who have, I would say, actually hijacked this agenda and distorted the debate so that it actually harms the overwhelming majority of patients."[50]

Starting in 2011, critics of the studies filed Freedom of Information Act requests to get access to the authors' primary data, in order to learn what the trial's results would have been under the original protocol. In 2016, some of the data was released, which allowed calculation of results based on the original protocol and found that additional treatment led to no significant improvement in recovery rates over the control condition.[51][52]

Health impact of alcohol (2010)

A December 2010 article determined that alcohol had the worst medical and social effects compared to other recreational substances such as heroin and crack cocaine. The drugs marijuana, ecstasy, and LSD scored far lower in terms of related harms. The authors did not advocate alcohol prohibition, but they suggested that the government raise the price of alcohol until it was no longer widely available.[53] Gavin Partington of the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, responded to the report by saying that alcohol abuse affects "a minority" needing "education, treatment and enforcement". He also remarked that millions of British citizens enjoy alcohol as "a regular and enjoyable social drink".[54]


Study on hydroxychloroquine (2020)

On 22 May 2020, The Lancet published an article by Mehra et al., "Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis".[55] This study, based on retrospective observational review of 96,032 patients from 671 hospitals between 20 December 2019 and 14 April 2020, had an immediate impact; the WHO decided to stop all the clinical trials on hydroxychloroquine.[56]

On 26 May 2020, Australian researchers found an error: only 67 deaths from COVID-19 had been recorded in Australia by 21 April, where the study claims 73. The Lancet told Guardian Australia, "We have asked the authors for clarifications, we know that they are investigating urgently, and we await their reply." Surgisphere's Sapan Desai said a hospital from Asia had accidentally been included in the Australian data.[57]

On 28 May some 180 researchers and doctors from various countries published An open letter to Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, regarding Mehra et al.[58] The following day, The Lancet published a corrected version.[59] According to the authors, the corrections did not change the overall findings of no benefit.[60] However, on 2 June 2020, The Lancet published an "Expression of Concern" and began an independent audit commissioned by the authors.[61]

On 3 June 2020, the WHO announced that clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine will be discontinued. The following day, three of the four authors retracted the paper,[62] and The Lancet published a retraction of the study.[63][64]

The Guardian accused The Lancet of promoting fraud: “The sheer number and magnitude of the things that went wrong or missing are too enormous to attribute to mere incompetence.” The Guardian commented, “What’s incredible is that the editors of these esteemed journals still have a job—that is how utterly incredible the supposed data underlying the studies was.”[65]

Robert F. Kennedy writes, The capacity of their Pharma overlords to strong-arm the world’s top two medical journals, the NEJM and The Lancet, into condoning deadly research and to simultaneously publish blatantly fraudulent articles in the middle of a pandemic, attests to the cartel’s breathtaking power and ruthlessness. It is no longer controversial to acknowledge that drug makers rigorously control medical publishing and that The Lancet, NEJM, and JAMA are utterly corrupted instruments of Pharma. The Lancet editor, Richard Horton, confirms, “Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry.” Dr. Marcia Angell, who served as an NEJM editor for 20 years, says journals are “primarily a marketing machine.” Pharma, she says, has co-opted “every institution that might stand in its way.”[66][67][68]

WHO-funded Coronavirus study on 2-metre distancing (2020)

In June 2020 a WHO-funded study claimed a reduction from 2 metres to 1 metre social distancing would raise infection risk from 1.3% to 2.6%.[69] Prof Ben Cowling of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control at the University of Hong Kong was critical of the study because it looked only at distance and not how long a person was exposed for. The UK Governments paper, Environmental influence on transmission of COVID-19, 28 April 2020,[70] takes into account how long people are together, ventilation and room size. The WHO-funded research was carried out by a team at McMaster University in Ontario. The McMaster team pooled data from previously published studies to estimate the risk of becoming infected with coronavirus at different distances. Kevin McConway, emeritus professor of applied statistics at the Open University said, “The method of comparing the different distances in the paper is inappropriate for telling you exactly how the risk at 2-metre minimum distance compares to a 1 metre minimum distance. It does not support, and should not be used in, arguments about how much greater the risk is with a 1 metre limit versus a 2-metre limit.” Other critics of the report include David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at Cambridge University, and member of the UK government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. The WHO responded by saying, "The evidence used to inform this guidance was based on a systematic review of all available, relevant observational studies concerning protective measures to prevent transmission of the coronaviruses that cause Sars, Mers and Covid-19. After checking for relevance, 44 comparative studies done in health-care and non-health-care settings were included."[71] The Lancet report was published as Boris Johnson, the UK Prime Minister, launched a review into the 2m social distancing rule.[72] UK government scientific advisers report that being 1m apart carries up to 10 times the risk of being 2m apart.[73]

"Extreme Cover-Up" - Scientists Who Penned Lancet Letter To Bat Down Lab Theory Have Links To China

All but one scientist who penned a letter in The Lancet dismissing the possibility that coronavirus could have come from a lab in Wuhan were linked to its Chinese researchers, their colleagues or funder. [6] [archive]

Controversies about R. Horton, editor-in-chief

Peer review

The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.[74]

HIV/AIDS

Regarding the role of HIV in AIDS, Horton wrote in the New York Review of Books that "The central role of HIV in the development of immunodeficiency is, in my view, established by the force of epidemiological and laboratory evidence. On this key issue, Duesberg is, I believe, in error," but "Duesberg has predicted, correctly, that the virus alone is not enough to explain all aspects of the immunodeficiency process."[75][76]

Royal Society

In the May 11, 2005 The Lancet, Dr. Horton criticized the ancient British scientific group, the Royal Society, under Lord Rees for its neglect of medicine.[77] Professor Mark Pepys and thirty other society members responded. A few years earlier the society and the journal had taken different positions in a scientific reporting debate known as the Pusztai affair involving research on genetically modified potatoes.

Professor Sir Roy Meadow

Horton published an article in 2005 supporting Professor Sir Roy Meadow who had been charged with serious professional misconduct by the GMC for giving erroneous and seriously misleading evidence in the Sally Clark trial. This was especially controversial as the article appeared whilst the GMC proceedings were still under away and was published on the first day of Meadow's defence. The article 'incensed" Clark, a solicitor who had been the victim of a serious miscarriage of justice. With the support of erroneous statistical (and other) evidence from Meadow the prosecution wrongly convicted her of murder and she spent over three years in prison before her successful second appeal.[78][79]

Her husband wrote a rebuttal letter to The Lancet in order to correct Horton's 'many inaccuracies and one-sided opinions' and to prevent them prejudicing independent observers. Dr James Le Fanu, medical practitioner and writer, also wrote to The Lancet in the same issue and described Horton's words as 'mischief'.[80] The Clark family issued a statement addressing and countering with established fact each of the points making up Horton's biased support of Meadow.[81]

"Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue"

Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false. 

   “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”[82]

John Ioannidis made a similar statement in 2005 ("Why Most Published Research Findings Are False").[83]

Hounding of Big Pharma critics

Fact-checkers, Wiki-pravda propagandists, are working overtime to keep the narrative going.

Critics are defamed as anti vaxxers guilty of vaccine hesitancy.

Examples of hounding:

  • The same weapons that NIH used to silence Dr. Morris—enforced isolation, disgrace, prohibiting him from publishing papers, presenting at conferences, or talking to the press, changing his laboratory locks to prevent further research—were already pieces of an established Soviet-style template for silencing dissident scientists at NIH. [84]

Books

  • Wakefield, Dr. Andrew J. - Callous Disregard_ Autism and Vaccines_ The Truth Behind a Tragedy-Skyhorse Publishing, Inc. (2010)

References

  1. ↑ Smith R. Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies. PLoS Med 2005 May; 2(5): e138.
  2. ↑ Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PloS One 2009 May 29; 4(5): e5738.Neil Z. Miller - Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies_ 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers-New Atlantean Press (2016)
  3. ↑ Martinson BC, Anderson MS, de Vries R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 2005 Jun 9; 435: 737-38.Neil Z. Miller - Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies_ 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers-New Atlantean Press (2016)
  4. ↑ Tereskerz PM, Hamric AB, et al. Prevalence of industry support and its relationship to research integrity. Account Res 2009 Apr-Jun; 16(2): 78-105.Neil Z. Miller - Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies_ 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers-New Atlantean Press (2016)
  5. ↑ Fava GA. Preserving intellectual freedom in clinical medicine. Psychother Psychosom 2009; 78: 1-5.Neil Z. Miller - Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies_ 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers-New Atlantean Press (2016)
  6. ↑ Noble JH. Detecting bias in biomedical research: looking at study design and published findings is not enough. Monash Bioethics Review 2007 Jan-Apr; 26(1-2): 24-45.Neil Z. Miller - Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies_ 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers-New Atlantean Press (2016)
  7. ↑ Glick JL. Scientific data audit—a key management tool. Accountability in Research 1992; 2(3): 153-68.Neil Z. Miller - Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies_ 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers-New Atlantean Press (2016)
  8. ↑ DeLong G. Conflicts of interest in vaccine safety research. Account Res 2012; 19(2): 65-88.Neil Z. Miller - Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies_ 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers-New Atlantean Press (2016)
  9. ↑ Friedman LS, Richter ED. Relationship between conflicts of interest and research results. J Gen Intern Med 2004 Jan; 19(1): 51-56.Neil Z. Miller - Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies_ 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers-New Atlantean Press (2016)
  10. ↑ Roseman M, Milette K, et al. Reporting of conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of trials of pharmacological treatments. JAMA 2011 Mar 9; 305(10): 1008-17.Neil Z. Miller - Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies_ 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers-New Atlantean Press (2016)
  11. ↑ Roseman M, Turner EH, et al. Reporting of conflicts of interest from drug trials in Cochrane reviews: cross sectional study. BMJ 2012 Aug 16; 345: e5155.Neil Z. Miller - Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies_ 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers-New Atlantean Press (2016)
  12. ↑ Lenzer J. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: protecting the private good? BMJ 2015 May 15; 350: h2362.Neil Z. Miller - Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies_ 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers-New Atlantean Press (2016)
  13. ↑ Golomb BA, Erickson LC, et al. What’s in placebos: who knows? Analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 2010; 153(8): 532-35.Neil Z. Miller - Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies_ 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers-New Atlantean Press (2016)
  14. ↑ Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PloS Med 2005 Aug; 2(8): e124.Neil Z. Miller - Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies_ 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers-New Atlantean Press (2016)
  15. ↑ Ioannidis JP. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA 2005 Jul 13; 294(2): 218-28.Neil Z. Miller - Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies_ 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers-New Atlantean Press (2016)
  16. ↑ Martin B. On the Suppression of Vaccination Dissent. Sci Eng Ethics 2015; 21(1): 143-57. Neil Z. Miller - Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies_ 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers-New Atlantean Press (2016)
  17. ↑ https://seekingalpha.com/article/967771-has-webmd-become-synonymous-with-big-pharma [archive]
  18. ↑ https://ihpi.umich.edu/news/truth-about-webmd-hypochondriacs-nightmare-big-pharmas-dream [archive]
  19. ↑ Publication Duty for Big Pharma [archive], PloS Medicine
  20. ↑ (Children’s Health Defense) Robert F. Kennedy - The Real Anthony Fauci_ Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health-Skyhorse (2021)
  21. ↑ https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-11-16-america-rushes-inject-children-other-countries-exercise-caution.html [archive]
  22. ↑ Joseph Mercola_ Ronnie Cummins - The Truth About COVID-19_ Exposing The Great Reset, Lockdowns, Vaccine Passports, and the New Normal-Chelsea Green Publishing (2021)
  23. ↑ (Children’s Health Defense) Robert F. Kennedy - The Real Anthony Fauci_ Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health-Skyhorse (2021)
  24. ↑ (Children’s Health Defense) Robert F. Kennedy - The Real Anthony Fauci_ Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health-Skyhorse (2021)
  25. ↑ (Children’s Health Defense) Robert F. Kennedy - The Real Anthony Fauci_ Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health-Skyhorse (2021)
  26. ↑ https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/linkedin-deletes-account-of-mrna-vaccine-pioneer-who-issued-warning-about-risks_3884669.html [archive]
  27. ↑ https://www.foxnews.com/media/tucker-carlson-mrna-vaccine-inventor [archive]
  28. ↑ https://trialsitenews.com/bioethics-of-experimental-covid-vaccine-deployment-under-eua-its-time-we-stop-and-look-at-whats-going-down/ [archive]
  29. ↑ https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/time-to-turn-up-the-heat-on-twitter/comments [archive]
  30. ↑ "Prestigious Medical Journal, The Lancet, Issues Family Planning Series" [archive]. Population Media Center. 13 July 2012. Retrieved 4 March 2014.
  31. ↑ "Scholar Metrics: Top Publications" [archive]. Google Scholar.
  32. ↑ "About the Lancet" [archive]. Retrieved 23 April 2020.
  33. ↑ "Is the Lancet becoming too political?" [archive]. www.spectator.co.uk. Retrieved 2020-09-12.
  34. ↑ "Homoeopathy's benefit questioned" [archive]. BBC News. 26 August 2005. Archived [archive] from the original on 15 May 2018.
  35. ↑ Ferriman A (2003). "Lancet calls for tobacco to be made illegal" [archive]. BMJ. 327 (7428): 1364. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7428.1364-b [archive]. PMC 293016 [archive].
  36. ↑ What are the Geneva Conventions for? [archive], editorial, The Lancet, vol. 386, no. 10003, p. 1510, 17 October 2015
  37. ↑ Laurance, Jeremy (5 December 2003). "Lancet calls for tobacco ban to save thousands of lives" [archive]. The Independent. Archived [archive] from the original on 6 June 2011. Retrieved 18 January 2010.
  38. ↑ "UK ministers urged to ban tobacco" [archive]. BBC News. 5 December 2003. Archived [archive] from the original on 10 April 2016. Retrieved 18 January 2010.
  39. ↑ Lyall J (2004). "Editor in the eye of a storm" [archive]. British Medical Journal. 328 (7438): 528. doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7438.528 [archive]. PMC 351866 [archive]. PMID 15164721 [archive].
  40. ↑ Murch SH, Anthony A, Casson DH, Malik M, Berelowitz M, Dhillon AP, Thomson MA, Valentine A, Davies SE, Walker-Smith JA (March 2004). "Retraction of an interpretation". Lancet. 363 (9411): 750. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15715-2 [archive]. PMID 15016483 [archive]. S2CID 5128036 [archive].
  41. ↑ "MMR researchers issue retraction" [archive]. BBC News. 4 March 2004. Archived [archive] from the original on 12 April 2016.
  42. ↑ Park, Madison (2 February 2010). "Medical journal retracts study linking autism to vaccine" [archive]. CNN. Archived [archive] from the original on 27 May 2013.
  43. ↑ Deer, Brian (19 January 2011). "The Lancet's two days to bury bad news" [archive]. Archived [archive] from the original on 23 February 2014. Retrieved 18 November 2014. Were it not for the GMC case, which cost a rumored £6m (€7m; $9m), the fraud by which Wakefield concocted fear of MMR would forever have been denied and covered up.
  44. ↑ Sudbø J, Lee JJ, Lippman SM, et al. (2005). "Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the risk of oral cancer: a nested case-control study". The Lancet. 366 (9494): 1359–66. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67488-0 [archive]. PMID 16226613 [archive]. S2CID 7679747 [archive]. (Retracted)
  45. ↑ "Cancer study patients 'made up'" [archive]. BBC News. 16 January 2006. Archived [archive] from the original on 4 February 2012.
  46. ↑ Hafstad, Anne (17 January 2006). "Største svindel verden har sett" [archive]. Aftenposten (in norsk). Archived from the original [archive] on 24 October 2008.
  47. ↑ Cortez, Michelle Fay (1 November 2006). "Medical Journal Retracts Oral Cancer Studies Linked to Fraud" [archive]. Bloomberg News. Archived from the original [archive] on 20 July 2012.
  48. ↑ White PD, et al. (2011). "Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): a randomised trial" [archive]. The Lancet. 377 (9768): 823–836. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60096-2 [archive]. PMC 3065633 [archive]. PMID 21334061 [archive].
  49. ↑ Sharpe, M; Goldsmith, KA; Johnson, AL; Chalder, T; Walker, J; White, PD (December 2015). "Rehabilitative treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome: long-term follow-up from the PACE trial" [archive] (PDF). The Lancet Psychiatry. 2 (12): 1067–74. doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(15)00317-x [archive]. PMID 26521770 [archive].
  50. ↑ 50.0 50.1 50.2 Rehmeyer, Julie (13 November 2015). "Hope for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: The debate over this mysterious disease is suddenly shifting" [archive]. Slate. Archived [archive] from the original on 15 August 2019.
  51. ↑ Wilshire, C; Kindlon, T; Matthees, A; McGrath, S (2016). "Can patients with chronic fatigue syndrome really recover after graded exercise or cognitive behavioural therapy? A critical commentary and preliminary re-analysis of the PACE trial" [archive]. Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior. 5 (1): 43–56. doi:10.1080/21641846.2017.1259724 [archive].
  52. ↑ Rehmeyer, Julie; Tuller, David (18 March 2017). "Getting It Wrong on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome" [archive]. The New York Times (editorial). Archived [archive] from the original on 28 October 2019.
  53. ↑ Cheng, Maria (1 November 2010). "Study: Alcohol more lethal than heroin, cocaine" [archive]. Boston.com. Associated Press. Archived [archive] from the original on 2 March 2017.
  54. ↑ "Alcohol 'more harmful than heroin' says Prof David Nutt" [archive]. BBC News. 1 November 2010. Archived [archive] from the original on 10 May 2017.
  55. ↑ Mehra MR, Desai SS, Ruschitzka F, Patel AN, et al. (2020). "Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis" [archive]. The Lancet Infectious Diseases.
  56. ↑ Vera, Amir; Howard, Jacqueline (25 May 2020). "WHO temporarily pauses hydroxychloroquine study due to safety concerns" [archive]. CNN.
  57. ↑ Davey, Melissa (28 May 2020). "Questions raised over hydroxychloroquine study which caused WHO to halt trials for Covid-19" [archive]. The Guardian.
  58. ↑ An open letter to Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet regarding Mehra et al. [archive]
  59. ↑ Mehra MR, Desai SS (30 May 2020). "Department of Error" [archive]. The Lancet Infectious Diseases.
  60. ↑ Hopkins, Jared S. (29 May 2020). "Medical Journal Issues Correction on Study of Covid-19 and Antimalarial Drugs" [archive]. Wall Street Journal.
  61. ↑ "Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis" [archive]. Expression of concern. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2 June 2020.
  62. ↑ Mehra MR, Ruschitzka F, Patel AN (June 2020). "Retraction: "Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis"" [archive]. Lancet. 395 (10240): 1820. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31324-6 [archive]. PMC 7274621 [archive]. PMID 32511943 [archive].
  63. ↑ "Retraction: "Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis"" [archive]. The Lancet. 4 June 2020. Retrieved 4 June 2020.
  64. ↑ Boseley S, Davey M (4 June 2020). "Covid-19: Lancet retracts paper that halted hydroxychloroquine trials" [archive]. The Guardian. Retrieved 4 June 2020.
  65. ↑ (Children’s Health Defense) Robert F. Kennedy - The Real Anthony Fauci_ Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health-Skyhorse (2021)
  66. ↑ (Children’s Health Defense) Robert F. Kennedy - The Real Anthony Fauci_ Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health-Skyhorse (2021)
  67. ↑ Richard Smith, Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies, 2.5 PLOS MEDICINE e138 (May 2005). doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1140949/ [archive]
  68. ↑ Horton, R. [2004], The dawn of McScience. New York Rev Books 51(4): 7–9. Angell, M. (2005), The Truth About Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us And What To Do About It. New York: Random House
  69. ↑ Chu, Derek; Akl, Elie; Duda, Stephanie; Sally Yaacoub, Karla; Yaacoub, Sally; Schünemann, Holger (1 June 2020). "Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis" [archive]. The Lancet. 395 (10242): 1973–1987. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9 [archive]. PMC 7263814 [archive]. PMID 32497510 [archive]. Retrieved 15 June 2020.
  70. ↑ "Environmental influence on transmission of COVID-19, 28 April 2020" [archive]. UK Government. UK Government (SAGE). 28 April 2020. Retrieved 15 June 2020.
  71. ↑ Sample, Ian (14 June 2020). "Scientists report flaws in WHO-funded study on 2-metre distancing" [archive]. The Guardian. Retrieved 15 June 2020.
  72. ↑ "Coronavirus: Boris Johnson launches review into 2m social distancing rule" [archive]. BBC News. 14 June 2020. Retrieved 15 June 2020.
  73. ↑ Shukman, David (14 June 2020). "Coronavirus: Could social distancing of less than two metres work? =BBC News online" [archive]. Retrieved 15 June 2020.
  74. ↑ Horton, R (2000). "Genetically modified food: Consternation, confusion, and crack-up". The Medical journal of Australia. 172 (4): 148–9. PMID 10772580 [archive].
  75. ↑ "'The AIDS Heresy': An Exchange" [archive]. New York Review of Books. 8 August 1996. Retrieved 2010-04-08.
  76. ↑ "'The AIDS Heresy': Another Exchange" [archive]. New York Review of Books. 19 September 1996. Retrieved 2010-04-08. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
  77. ↑ Watts, Geoff. (2 July 2005). "A right royal spat" The BMJ. 331(7507): 53. PubMed website [archive]
  78. ↑ http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)66798-0/abstract [archive]
  79. ↑ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4641587.stm [archive]
  80. ↑ http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140673605670481.pdf [archive]
  81. ↑ http://www.sallyclark.org.uk/Lancet050701.html [archive]
  82. ↑ Horton, Richard (2015). "Offline: What is medicine's 5 sigma?" [archive] (PDF). The Lancet. 385 (9976): e1380.
  83. ↑ Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" [archive]. PLoS Medicine. 2 (8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 [archive]. PMC 1182327 [archive]. PMID 16060722 [archive].{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  84. ↑ (Children’s Health Defense) Robert F. Kennedy - The Real Anthony Fauci_ Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health-Skyhorse (2021)

See also

External links

These links are being provided as a convenience and for informational or entertainment purposes only; they do not constitute an endorsement or an approval by Dharmapedia of any of the products, services or opinions of the corporation or organization or individual. Dharmapedia bears no responsibility for the accuracy, legality or content of the external site or for that of subsequent links. Contact the external site for answers to questions regarding its content.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Medical_Journals_and_Conflicts_of_Interest [archive]

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Medical_paper_ghostwriting [archive]

https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/censorships-new-purpose-avoiding [archive]

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/08/joseph-mercola/who-is-behind-the-trusted-news-initiative/ [archive]

https://brownstone.org/research/articles-of-inquiry-the-role-of-media/ [archive]

https://anandamide.substack.com/p/peer-review-pharma-gatekeeping [archive]

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/proof-the-mainstream-media-is-being [archive]

https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-08-23-bmj-health-research-fraudulent-until-proven-otherwise.html [archive]

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/07/the-regime-of-censorship-being-imposed-on-the-internet-is-dangerously-intensifying-in-ways-i-believe-are-not-adequately-understood/ [archive]

https://palexander.substack.com/p/publication-bias-if-you-did-not-think [archive]

https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-11-29-academic-freedom-dead-anti-lockdown-stanford-professor.html [archive]

https://amidwesterndoctor.substack.com/p/critical-thinking-in-the-age-of-censorship [archive]

https://pierrekory.substack.com/p/critical-thinking-in-the-age-of-censorship [archive]

https://www.thefp.com/p/how-twitter-rigged-the-covid-debate [archive]

https://swarajyamag.com/tech/twitter-files-reveal-suppression-of-natural-immunity-tweet-flagged-by-pfizer-board-member [archive]

https://philharper.substack.com/p/its-no-longer-possible-to-believe [archive]

https://maryannedemasi.substack.com/p/are-medical-journals-dead [archive]

https://merylnass.substack.com/p/fraudulent-medical-literature-is [archive]

https://kirschsubstack.com/p/if-they-really-want-to-stop-misinformation [archive]

This website is for information purposes only. By providing the information contained herein we are not diagnosing, treating, curing, mitigating, or preventing any type of disease or medical condition. Before beginning any type of natural, integrative or conventional treatment regimen, it is advisable to seek the advice of a licensed healthcare professional.
Retrieved from "https://en.dharmapedia.net/w/index.php?title=Pharmedia&oldid=73009"