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.
Excellent points. And I generally start with the conflicts of interest section, and the look into research background(s) prior to reading most studies.
One of my professors told us to first read it like it was honest effort to check for "errors or omissions." Then check out the obvious conflicts and think about how would you "hot rod" it for potential profit. We would even re-write parts for those purposes and occasionally even get grades on it. One of my professors approached me before class, my paper in his hand, "Brilliant" he said, "I even called my former fellow researcher who exclaimed "Why didn't we think of that?' and it left both of us laughing."
Now this was in the 70s, which means they were already doing it in the 60s.
Ha! These changed the definition on that: recent study conflicts of interest section: 'No conflicts of interest were reported that would interfere with the (I'm slightly paraphrasing, don't have it in front of me) outcomes of the study. (All study authors are employed by pfizer.)' Also I've noticed conflicts of interests statements completely missing or invisible where they are commonly found. I don't know if you've read my piece of magnolia, but more safety profiling has been done on it than the the v.
Exactly. The raw data is almost never available, which is what makes it ironically NOT science. Science is about repeatability of results by outside third parties multiple times. When has this happened before approval of a profitable product in the medical industry? The comments section the NJEM is so upsetting to read, I generally cannot because it is so dissonant with the study. And the things they study are often rather non-relevant compared to what impacts most people's lives and what they could be studying if the goal was health, wellness for all. I think there scientists who try to do their best within the system just as their are pharmacists who do their best within the system, but as far as I can tell all the journals have the mob either at the back or literally backing them. I think the British Medical Journal has the best leadership within the last ten years and manages to publish some good things along with some party-line stuff.
If someone wanted to create some legislation, it would make "proprietary" not legally applicable to products that can be prescribed or mandated and would make it a criminal sin with obligatory jail time to put shareholder interest before safety and transparency around efficacy would be a legal obligation, including providing accessible, reader-friendly yet accurate materials to providers that they would in turn be necessitated to offer to patients.
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.
Not giving advice, but you may wish to look into the following for cardiac stuff - Taurine, Pine Park, Serreptase L theanine, Hawthorn, Motherwort, Arjuna CBD
Yes, when I first came across her work I was excited but then disappointed, as well. I wonder what goes inside her head and heart with interesting combinations of views? I guess we all have contradictions...it's hard to imagine how she carries those but I've seen good people rational about the others stuff just have the bar up on the v issue that it's not open for critical thinking. It's the "this is so obvious we don't question the assumption" brainwashing.
Hey2SG-Take a break this weekend and pick this old book up. You will find a fascinating read "Dr. Mary's Monkey" Edward T Haslam. Something new to prick your brain.
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.
Excellent points. And I generally start with the conflicts of interest section, and the look into research background(s) prior to reading most studies.
One of my professors told us to first read it like it was honest effort to check for "errors or omissions." Then check out the obvious conflicts and think about how would you "hot rod" it for potential profit. We would even re-write parts for those purposes and occasionally even get grades on it. One of my professors approached me before class, my paper in his hand, "Brilliant" he said, "I even called my former fellow researcher who exclaimed "Why didn't we think of that?' and it left both of us laughing."
Now this was in the 70s, which means they were already doing it in the 60s.
Ha! These changed the definition on that: recent study conflicts of interest section: 'No conflicts of interest were reported that would interfere with the (I'm slightly paraphrasing, don't have it in front of me) outcomes of the study. (All study authors are employed by pfizer.)' Also I've noticed conflicts of interests statements completely missing or invisible where they are commonly found. I don't know if you've read my piece of magnolia, but more safety profiling has been done on it than the the v.
Exactly. The raw data is almost never available, which is what makes it ironically NOT science. Science is about repeatability of results by outside third parties multiple times. When has this happened before approval of a profitable product in the medical industry? The comments section the NJEM is so upsetting to read, I generally cannot because it is so dissonant with the study. And the things they study are often rather non-relevant compared to what impacts most people's lives and what they could be studying if the goal was health, wellness for all. I think there scientists who try to do their best within the system just as their are pharmacists who do their best within the system, but as far as I can tell all the journals have the mob either at the back or literally backing them. I think the British Medical Journal has the best leadership within the last ten years and manages to publish some good things along with some party-line stuff.
If someone wanted to create some legislation, it would make "proprietary" not legally applicable to products that can be prescribed or mandated and would make it a criminal sin with obligatory jail time to put shareholder interest before safety and transparency around efficacy would be a legal obligation, including providing accessible, reader-friendly yet accurate materials to providers that they would in turn be necessitated to offer to patients.
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.
berenson is a pos.
He sold out, now, he is "controlled opposition."
Remember what I said, "Communists always control both sides. ALWAYS"
Don't let them take you out, 2SG.
Oh, don't you worry about anyone taking me out. I'm hard to kill, and mighty pissed.
Yep, I believe a lot of the public anti-vaxxers that actually go big in spite of apparent censorship are controlled opposition.
Unfortunately he was the first one I found when looking for people who thought like me. I wish I had found you and the Cat sooner LOL
Yes indeed, when I found this quote I found it so profound that I opened my first book with it (Agnotology in Vaccines)
What if most of biology is wrong?
https://healthimpactnews.com/2022/modern-medicine-is-based-on-politics-and-dogma-not-science-remembering-british-biologist-whistleblower-harold-hillman/
It's all overwhelming
Not giving advice, but you may wish to look into the following for cardiac stuff - Taurine, Pine Park, Serreptase L theanine, Hawthorn, Motherwort, Arjuna CBD
Pretty sure the people won against Fosamax/Merck
Have a read of Dr. Marcia Angell's take on the vaccines from August 2021. She wrote the book then completely fell for everything she warned against, and worse. https://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/my_view/covid-19-stopping-the-next-variant/article_3d4b07b4-0154-11ec-a204-b3562983e4f2.html Seems she's just as susceptible to Pharma marketing and covid fear porn as all the rest.
Yes, when I first came across her work I was excited but then disappointed, as well. I wonder what goes inside her head and heart with interesting combinations of views? I guess we all have contradictions...it's hard to imagine how she carries those but I've seen good people rational about the others stuff just have the bar up on the v issue that it's not open for critical thinking. It's the "this is so obvious we don't question the assumption" brainwashing.
Hey2SG-Take a break this weekend and pick this old book up. You will find a fascinating read "Dr. Mary's Monkey" Edward T Haslam. Something new to prick your brain.
Thanks for the tip. Will actually read it, when time permits. (This substack constitutes mini breaks from my day....)