RSS Feed
February 14th, 2024 
Awake Goy 
In shocking statements which makes a mockery of the phrase “follow the science,” the editors of the two of most distinguished scientific publications in the world have admitted that much of what they publish should not be believed. The most prominent recurring reason cited for this is conflicts of interest, whereby profit-sharing arrangements for a particular drug or treatment give scientists incentives to be other than fully honest and diligent in their studies.
“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”
Marcia Angell, the long-time editor of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM,) affiliated with Harvard, and possibly the only science journal that rivals The Lancet in prestige, has written along the same lines:
“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,…”
The confessions upend the entire “safe and effective” narrative which cites scientific studies, sometimes bearing the imprints of prestigious institutions, to justify mandates for COVID vaccines and claims that they are “safe and effective.”
In the lead for bashing those who disagree with him for not “following the science” is Dr. Peter Hotez, the go-to commentator for CNN, NBC, and many other media outlets whenever “anti-vaxxers” need bashing. Hotez is fond of charging those who do not follow his science with being a new “killing force” on the planet.
Hotez wrote in the website for the American Medical Association:
“You know, 200,000 Americans needlessly perished because they refused the COVID vaccine, so that this anti-science—and they were victims, basically, of this kind of anti-science aggression. So this anti-science movement is a dangerous political force. But we don’t frame it in that context. Too often, we toss it off as something called misinformation or infodemic, as though it’s just some random junk on the internet, when in fact, it’s organized, it’s well-financed, and it’s politically motivated.
Now, it’s a killing force. And that’s why we need to care about it—because if we’re health care providers or biomedical scientists, you know, it used to be enough just to want to save lives. And now—an added burden is now trying to figure out a way to combat the anti-vaccine, anti-science aggression, because it becomes such a killing force.”
But what was the “science” of which Hotez wrote? Science paid for by Big Pharma? Marcia Angell of the NEJM wrote of Dr. Joseph L. Biederman, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and chief of pediatric psychopharmacology at Harvard’s Massachusetts General Hospital. Angell wrote in the New York Times that Biederman, who was a pioneer in diagnosing children as young as two with bipolar disorder, designed sham studies to show safety and efficacy.
“Biederman’s own studies of the drugs he advocates to treat childhood bipolar disorder were, as The New York Times summarized the opinions of its expert sources, “so small and loosely designed that they were largely inconclusive.”1
In June, Senator Grassley revealed that drug companies, including those that make drugs he advocates for childhood bipolar disorder, had paid Biederman $1.6 million in consulting and speaking fees between 2000 and 2007…”
Although he is the go-to pitbull who will go on TV to slander and trash anyone who disagrees with his COVID mRNA “safe and effective” views, Hotez is hardly a distant observer. In 2021, retired US Army Col. Lawrence Sellin revealed that Hotez was the recipient of NIAID research grant number R01AI098775, which is controlled by Anthony Fauci, a long-time associate of Hotez’s. Sellin found out that among the research performed under the grant were studies by scientists in China with connections to the People’s Liberation Army.
Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Peter Hotez, Image Source: Hotez Twitter
This is not looking good for “the science,” whatever that means anymore. But that does not stop some people from wishing death on those who do not follow it, or their version of it.
Professor Leemon McHenry: The Illusion of Evidence-based Medicine (view at Rumble)
The following is reprinted from NIH National Library of Medicine, “Skeptical of medical science reports?” by Carlton Gyles
“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” (1).
More recently, Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, wrote that “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” (2).
The first of these two commentaries on clinical research publications appeared in 2009, the second in April of this year. These statements are being taken seriously, coming as they do from the experiences of editors of two of the world’s most prestigious medical journals. The first article showed how the relationships between pharmaceutical companies and academic physicians at prestigious universities impacted certain drug-related publications and the marketing of prescription drugs. Potential conflicts of interest seemed to abound: millions of dollars in consulting and speaking fees to physicians who promoted specific drugs, public research dollars being used by a researcher to test a drug owned by a company in which the researcher held millions of dollars in shares, failure of university researchers to disclose income from drug companies, company subsidies to physician continuing education, publishing practice guidelines involving drugs in which the authors have a financial interest, using influential physicians to promote drugs for unapproved uses, bias in favor of a product coming from failure to publish negative results and repeated publication of positive results in different forms. The author, Marcia Angell, cited the case of a drug giant that had to agree to settle charges that it deliberately withheld evidence that its top-selling anti-depressant was ineffective and could be harmful to certain age groups (1).
Marcia Angell’s comments (1) were directed largely against conflicts of interest and the biases introduced by the influence of drug companies on researchers and universities. Richard Horton’s statement (2) was part of his comments on a recent symposium on reliability and reproducibility of research in the biomedical sciences and addresses a broader area of concern. Some of the problems he identified are seen in the veterinary literature. They include inadequate number of subjects in the study, poor study design, and potential conflicts of interest. He notes that the quest for journal impact factor is fuelling competition for publication in a few high reputation journals. He warns that “our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale” and he remarks that journal editors, reviewers, and granting bodies all stress original studies to the extent that “we reject important confirmations” (2).
Individuals and organizations considered responsible for the present state of published medical science include researchers, journal editors, reviewers, granting agencies, governments. Horton goes on to reflect on whether the bad practices can be fixed (2). He concludes that scientists have incentives to be productive and innovative but no incentives to be right. He muses on removal of incentives, emphasizing collaboration rather than competition, improving research training and mentorship, funding studies that attempt to replicate published data. Horton ended by noting that it is a good first step to recognize the problems but no one seems ready to begin the task of reversing the trends.
Clinical journals such as The Canadian Veterinary Journal are less affected by the fight for the impact factor because the primary impact that we seek to make is on the clinical practice community, rather than the research community (the journal impact factor is based on the impact on the researcher community). Nonetheless, we share some of the problems discussed above. Perhaps the most serious weakness is inadequate sample number in some studies. Such studies are sometimes accepted because they may have some value if care is taken to acknowledge the limitations associated with inadequate power. The take home message is that readers must exercise caution in interpreting the published literature, regardless of the reputation of the journal in which an article is found.
References
1. Angell M. Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption. The New York Review of Books magazine. [Last accessed August 5, 2015]. Available from: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/
2. Horton R. Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma? [Last accessed August 5, 2015]. www.thelancet.com. Available from: http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf.
More Articles…
Swiss Banker, Son of WEF Co-Founder Calls for Arrest of WHO Staff, Bill Gates, Schwab
Cold Blooded Murder: Bill Gates Funded Studies on Hydroxychloroquine Designed to Kill Subjects
What is CBDC That Both Trump and RFK Jr. Have Declared War On?
Why is the Most Critical Instigator on J6, Scaffold Commander, Not Wanted by the FBI?
Related posts:
Views: 0
Posted in 
Tags: 
