PDA

View Full Version : Medical industry corruption more dangerous than all wars combined



Matt P
24th August 2015, 10:59
http://nsnbc.me/2015/06/19/shocking-report-from-medical-insiders/

Shocking Report from Medical Insiders

F. William Engdahl (NEO) : A shocking admission by the editor of the world’s most respected medical journal, The Lancet, has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media. Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-chief of the Lancet recently published a statement declaring that a shocking amount of published research is unreliable at best, if not completely false, as in, fraudulent.

Richard Horton declared, “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."

To state the point in other words, Horton states bluntly that major pharmaceutical companies falsify or manipulate tests on the health, safety and effectiveness of their various drugs by taking samples too small to be statistically meaningful or hiring test labs or scientists where the lab or scientist has blatant conflicts of interest such as pleasing the drug company to get further grants. At least half of all such tests are worthless or worse he claims. As the drugs have a major effect on the health of millions of consumers, the manipulation amounts to criminal dereliction and malfeasance.

The drug industry-sponsored studies Horton refers to develop commercial drugs or vaccines to supposedly help people, used to train medical staff, to educate medical students and more.

Horton wrote his shocking comments after attending a symposium on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research at the Wellcome Trust in London. He noted the confidentiality or “Chatham House” rules where attendees are forbidden to name names: “’A lot of what is published is incorrect.’ I’m not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides.”

Other voices

Dr. Marcia Angell is a physician and was longtime Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), considered to be another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. Angell stated,

“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.”

Harvey Marcovitch, who has studied and written about the corruption of medical tests and publication in medical journals, writes, “studies showing positive outcomes for a drug or device under consideration are more likely to be published than ‘negative’ studies; editors are partly to blame for this but so are commercial sponsors, whose methodologically well-conducted studies with unfavorable results tended not to see the light of day…”

At the University of British Columbia’s Neural Dynamics Research Group in the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Dr Lucija Tomljenovic obtained documents that showed that, “vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and health authorities have known about multiple dangers associated with vaccines but chose to withhold them from the public. This is scientific fraud, and their complicity suggests that this practice continues to this day.”

Lancet’s Dr. Horton concludes, “Those who have the power to act seem to think somebody else should act first. And every positive action (eg, funding well-powered replications) has a counter-argument (science will become less creative). The good news is that science is beginning to take some of its worst failings very seriously. The bad news is that nobody is ready to take the first step to clean up the system.

Corruption of the medical industry worldwide is a huge issue, perhaps more dangerous than the threat of all wars combined. Do we have such hypnosis and blind faith in our doctors simply because of their white coats that we believe they are infallible? And, in turn, do they have such blind faith in the medical journals recommending a given new wonder medicine or vaccine that they rush to give the drugs or vaccines without considering these deeper issues?

grannyfranny100
24th August 2015, 11:19
Yes, wow and wouldn't be great if someone got brave enough to publish studies that do not duplicate Monsanto research especially the studies Monaanto published for short periods of time that other have verbally stated came out with different results when carried out for longer terms. Monsanto better save their pennies because they will be hit with lawsuits when the long term results show up. So if you see the Monsanto suddenly sells to someone else, you know they are doing a cover up.

ponda
24th August 2015, 11:45
Good find

Here's another interesting article:


Study Finds Nearly All Scientific Papers Controlled By Six Corporations (httphttp://www.riseearth.com/2015/07/study-finds-nearly-all-scientific.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+riseearth%2FKZKa+%28RiseEarth%29://)


A recent study conducted by Professor Vincent Lariviere (http://yournewswire.com/nearly-all-scientific-papers-controlled-by-same-six-corporations/) from the University of Montreal’s School of Library and Information Science, and a number of other researchers, found that nearly all major scientific papers are controlled by the same six corporations.

“Overall, the major publishers control more than half of the market of scientific papers both in the natural and medical sciences and in the social sciences and humanities. Furthermore, these large commercial publishers have huge sales, with profit margins of nearly 40%. While it is true that publishers have historically played a vital role in the dissemination of scientific knowledge in the print era, it is questionable whether they are still necessary in today’s digital era,” Lariviere said.

The researchers sifted through tons of studies that were published between the years of 1973 and 2013 and found that the studies were overwhelmingly published by the same six publishers. The publishers named in the study are ACS, Reed Elsevier, Sage, Taylor & Francis, Springer, and Wiley Blackwell.

Lariviere explained how this can create problems, saying that “As long as publishing in high impact factor journals is a requirement for researchers to obtain positions, research funding, and recognition from peers, the major commercial publishers will maintain their hold on the academic publishing system.”

“One would expect that a major publisher acquiring a journal would have the effect of increasing the latter’s visibility. However, our study shows that there is no clear increase in terms of citations after switching from a small to large publisher. Our findings question the real added value of big publishers. Ultimately, the question is whether the services provided to the scientific community by these publishers warrant the growing share of university budgets allocated to them,” Lariviere added.

Napping
24th August 2015, 11:53
I think he's being very generous saying half of the medical literature is untrue.....honestly there's that much garbage being spewed out in the name of science that it makes it almost impossible for the average Joe to decipher fact from manipulated fiction.

Just to be clear though, he's not saying that half of the Lancet is untrue, nor other respected journals that go through extremely robust review processes.

The problem is, it takes a significant amount of training to be able to scrutinise literature appropriately to be able to tell if it is riddled with bias, or something worthy of attention. Even in the cases of apparent good science, there are agendas at play that many allude to here. It really is a minefield.

Good article mpennery.

WhiteFeather
24th August 2015, 12:07
Yes I also believe that science has turned to darkness. Especially with regards to medicine. Someday hopefully through consciousness, people will grasp this and become a hive mind like the rest of us here, whom have a better understanding with natural/alternative ways of healing.

«~~We are all 1 tribe~~»

W.f.

Cardillac
24th August 2015, 17:32
if one has read Jim Marrs' newest book opus "Population Control" (highly recommended) it confirms in literary form our worst fears: bad food, bad water, bad air and hideous medicine; knowing the fact alone that John D. Rockefeller the 1st primarily bank-rolled the founding of the pharmaceutical industry died at the age of 97 with his homeopath at his bedside (he never once ingested the coal-tar based pharmaceuticals he financed) should give us all a huge pause for thought-

Larry

vano915
24th August 2015, 20:18
I decided a long time ago -- and have instructed my children to carry this out if I can't -- that if I ever find myself in a hospital, I will write on my informed consent form that I am to be given no drug that has not been on the market for at least ten years. It seems like it's been getting worse and worse lately, and I don't want to be a statistic in some drug recall.

Violet
24th August 2015, 20:26
Scientists lose their jobs for bringing to the table undesired results. In addition, scientific research is costly and requires funding, which in turn may requires certain concessions to be made.


Thanks for highlighting this Napping. It's very frustrating indeed.


I think he's being very generous saying half of the medical literature is untrue.....honestly there's that much garbage being spewed out in the name of science that it makes it almost impossible for the average Joe to decipher fact from manipulated fiction.

Just to be clear though, he's not saying that half of the Lancet is untrue, nor other respected journals that go through extremely robust review processes.

The problem is, it takes a significant amount of training to be able to scrutinise literature appropriately to be able to tell if it is riddled with bias, or something worthy of attention. Even in the cases of apparent good science, there are agendas at play that many allude to here. It really is a minefield.

Good article mpennery.


This one is taken from Samuel Johnson's New Guide to Health (1822):


30922

conk
28th August 2015, 16:42
And beware of marketing and advertising. These are big tools in the toolbox of the Medical Mafia. And where most people get their information. great thread/!