Before the Blatant Scientific Fraud of the PSYOP-19 Era, there was this -- NEJM editor: “No longer possible to believe much of clinical research published”
This is a brief follow up to today’s earlier article:
When it comes to research studies and “Trust the Science” in the PSYOP-19 era, we have exposed the corrupt BigPharma influence from the egregious discrediting of effective early treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, to the endorsements of fraudulent PCR tests, the absurd modeling, criminal studies such as Pfizer’s own DEATHVAX™ as covered up by the FDA, to masking and lockdowns and even genocidal hospital protocols. But all of this medical and scientific fraud started decades ago; in fact, ever since the Rockefeller endowment concocted the Germ Theory based Medical Industrial Complex.
It has been obvious that the peer review process was corrupted long ago, and below is an especially interesting article from December 14th, 2013 that is more topical and relevant than ever:
NEJM editor: “No longer possible to believe much of clinical research published”
Harvard Medical School’s Dr. Marcia Angell is the author of The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It. But more to the point, she’s also the former Editor-in-Chief at theNew England Journal of Medicine, arguably one of the most respected medical journals on earth. But after reading her article in the New York Review of Bookscalled Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption, one wonders if any medical journal on earth is worth anybody’s respect anymore.
“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 an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”
Dr. Angell cites the case of Dr. Joseph L. Biederman, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and chief of pediatric psychopharmacology at Harvard’s Massachusetts General Hospital. She explains:
“Thanks largely to him, children as young as two years old are now being diagnosed with bipolar disorder and treated with a cocktail of powerful drugs, many of which were not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for that purpose, and none of which were approved for children below ten years of age.”
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.”
In June 2009, an American senate investigation 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.
“Two of Biederman’s colleagues received similar amounts. After the revelation, the president of the Massachusetts General Hospital and the chairman of its physician organization sent a letter to the hospital’s physicians expressing not shock over the enormity of the conflicts of interest, but sympathy for the beneficiaries: “We know this is an incredibly painful time for these doctors and their families, and our hearts go out to them.”
Biederman’s failure to disclose his Big Pharma payments to his employers ar Harvard (as is required for all Harvard employees) has been under investigation* for the past two years by Harvard Medical School, in as journalist Alison Bass describes this: “what must be the longest investigation in that school’s history”).
Dr. Angell’s article contains bombshell after bombshell, all gleaned during her tenure asNEJM editor. For example, on the subject of doctors who are bought and paid for by Big Pharma, she writes:
“No one knows the total amount provided by drug companies to physicians, but I estimate from the annual reports of the top 9 U.S.-based drug companies that it comes to tens of billions of dollars a year in North America alone.By such means, the pharmaceutical industry has gained enormous control over how doctors evaluate and use its own products. Its extensive ties to physicians, particularly senior faculty at prestigious medical schools, affect the results of research, the way medicine is practiced, and even the definition of what constitutes a disease.”
Revelations like this from medical profession insiders cast serious doubt on more than what’s printed on the pages of these medical journals.
Your physician reads these journals, treatment decisions are changed, care is affected, drugs are prescribed – all based on Big Pharma-funded medical ghostwriter-prepared journal articles from physicians who fraudulently claim to be the study authors. Then you walk out of your doctor’s office with a prescription for a drug that may or may not kill you, based on treatment protocols written by doctors like Biederman who are on the take from Big Pharma.
A very recent example of the sad reality over at the once-prestigious New England Journal of Medicine is their decision to publish a drug company-funded review article. This review attempts to discredit emerging research suggesting that many years of using Merck’s Fosamax or Procter & Gamble’s Actonel (both osteoporosis drugs in a class called bisphosphonates) could actually result in more leg bone fractures.
Not surprisingly, drug manufacturers of bisphosphonates are fighting back ferociously against this emerging (independent) research. A Merck-funded review paper published in the NEJM on March 24, 2010 concludes:
“The occurrence of fracture of the subtrochantericor diaphyseal femur was very rare, even among women who had been treated with bisphosphonates for as long as 10 years.”
Sounds promising for Big Pharma. But if you look very, very closely, the article’s fine print confesses:
“The study was underpowered for definitive conclusions.”
You might justifiably ask yourself why a medical journal would stoop to publishing a meaningless scientific paper that the paper’s own authors admit lacks any conclusion. Even more troubling than a journal article that was itself bought and paid for by Merck, is the conflict of interest disclosure list at the bottom of this NEJM article. It reads like aWho’s Who of Big Pharma.
Of the 12 study authors listed in the NEJM article, at least three are full-time employees of Merck or Novartis. Each one of the other nine admit owning equity interests in or receiving cash, travel expenses, or “consulting and lecture fees” from companies including Merck, Novartis, Amgen, Roche Nycomed, Procter & Gamble, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronics, Nastech, Nestle, Fonterra Brands, OnoPharma, Osteologix, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Sanofi-Aventis, Tethys, Unilever,Unipath, Inverness Medical, Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, OSIProsidion, or Takeda.
Why is the New England Journal of Medicine or any other credible medical journal accepting for publication articles submitted by paid employees of pharmaceutical companies?
As a cardiac patient, I’m gobsmacked by what appears to be this systemic corruptionof not only medical journals who continue to publish what they clearly know is tainted research linked to drug marketing, but of the very doctors whom patients trust to look out for us.
Since my heart attack in 2008, I take a fistful of cardiac meds every day, and I have no clue which of them were prescribed for me based on flawed research or tainted medical journal articles funded by the very companies that make my drugs.
And worse, neither do my doctors.
Happily, there are other decent physicians out there who, like Dr. Angell, are just as outraged as she is. Her targets are not just guilty of unethical conflict of interest – they are criminals who should be charged with endangering our health while padding their wallets.
Read Dr. Angell’s article from the New York Review of Books, called Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption.
source: http://ethicalnag.org/2009/11/09/nejm-editor/
Do NOT comply.
(Hat tip charles.)
In the 5 and 1/2 years I spent in Pharmacy school, people are shocked when I tell them we spent a grand total of 15 minutes "learning" to read prescriptions. It is all about knowing what you are looking for, and of course being familiar with the prescriber.
One thing we did spend sufficient time learning from some pretty smart professors was how to read clinical research and incorporation into a "study."
A lot of it is seeing what they didn't put in it, rather than what they did. Often this can lead to easier identification of what is most likely mis-interpreted or fraudulent data.
It never hurts to see who is funding it as well.
You must have the raw data for proper analysis, often lacking without additional research.
Also helpful is background data on the researchers themselves, to get a feel for what type of work they do or are actually qualified to do.
This revolving door between the FDA and Big Pharma has led to a system where then ends, big profits, justify the means, total lack of oversight or any "moral" compass.
It is like I said, Big Pharma makes the "Deep State" ("THE STATE") look like rank amateurs in comparison, but they are getting sloppy, and careless, and simply DO NOT CARE.
I have never trusted doctors since I was 14, being fed way too many antibiotics and then got a pneumonia that did not react to them anymore. I then started reading about herbs, later found out from a colleague, that homeopathic meds work fine, and hardly ever used regular meds anymore. Since it is all about money, who can you trust? Not even the butcher! I just read that a lot of infected chicken meat has been sold nevertheless. There is a real good book on the Rockefeller history in med, by dr. Mullins, Death By Injection. A tough read, but very interesting. It was written in 1988 and of course, lots of people changed, but still good.
I also gave up on Berenson, who is obviously paid by Bigharma or wants to get back on board with a newspaper.