Connect with us

Underworld

The Medical Journals’ Sell-Out—Getting Paid to Play

The Medical Journals’ Sell-Out—Getting Paid to Play 86

Note: This is Part IX in a series of articles adapted from the second Children’s Health Defense eBook: Conflicts of Interest Undermine Children’s Health. The first eBook, The Sickest Generation: The Facts Behind the Children’s Health Crisis and Why It Needs to End, described how children’s health began to worsen dramatically in the late 1980s following fateful changes in the childhood vaccine schedule.]

The vaccine industry and its government and scientific partners routinely block meaningful science and fabricate misleading studies about vaccines. They could not do so, however, without having enticed medical journals into a mutually beneficial bargain. Pharmaceutical companies supply journals with needed income, and in return, journals play a key role in suppressing studies that raise critical questions about vaccine risks—which would endanger profits.

Journals are willing to accept even the most highly misleading advertisements. The FDA has flagged numerous instances of advertising violations, including ads that overstated a drug’s effectiveness or minimized its risks.

An exclusive and dependent relationship

Advertising is one of the most obviously beneficial ways that medical journals’ “exclusive and dependent relationship” with the pharmaceutical industry plays out. According to a 2006 analysis in PLOS Medicinedrugs and medical devices are the only products for which medical journals accept advertisements. Studies show that journal advertising generates “the highest return on investment of all promotional strategies employed by pharmaceutical companies.” The pharmaceutical industry puts a particularly “high value on advertising its products in print journals” because journals reach doctors—the “gatekeeper between drug companies and patients.” Almost nine in ten drug advertising dollars are directed at physicians.

In the U.S. in 2012, drug companies spent $24 billion marketing to physicians, with only $3 billion spent on direct-to-consumer advertising. By 2015, however, consumer-targeted advertising had jumped to $5.2 billion, a 60% increase that has reaped bountiful rewards. In 2015, Pfizer’s Prevnar-13 vaccine was the nation’s eighth most heavily advertised drug; after the launch of the intensive advertising campaign, Prevnar “awareness” increased by over 1,500% in eight months, and “44% of targeted consumers were talking to their physicians about getting vaccinated specifically with Prevnar.” Slick ad campaigns have also helped boost uptake of “unpopular” vaccines like Gardasil.

Advertising is such an established part of journals’ modus operandi that high-end journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) boldly invite medical marketers to “make NEJM the cornerstone of their advertising programs,” promising “no greater assurance that your ad will be seen, read, and acted upon.” In addition, medical journals benefit from pharmaceutical companies’ bulk purchases of thousands of journal reprints and industry’s sponsorship of journal subscriptions and journal supplements.

In 2003, an editor at The BMJ wrote about the numerous ways in which drug company advertising can bias medical journals (and the practice of medicine)—all of which still hold true today. For example:

  • Advertising monies enable prestigious journals to get thousands of copies into doctors’ hands for free, which “almost certainly” goes on to affect prescribing.
  • Journals are willing to accept even the most highly misleading advertisements. The FDA has flagged numerous instances of advertising violations, including ads that overstated a drug’s effectiveness or minimized its risks.
  • Journals will guarantee favorable editorial mentions of a product in order to earn a company’s advertising dollars.
  • Journals can earn substantial fees for publishing supplements even when they are written by “paid industry hacks”—and the more favorable the supplement content is to the company that is funding it, the bigger the profit for the journal.

Discussing clinical trials, the BMJ editor added: “Major trials are very good for journals in that doctors around the world want to see them and so are more likely to subscribe to journals that publish them. Such trials also create lots of publicity, and journals like publicity. Finally, companies purchase large numbers of reprints of these trials…and the profit margin to the publisher is huge. These reprints are then used to market the drugs to doctors, and the journal’s name on the reprint is a vital part of that sell.”

… however, even these poor-quality studies—when funded by the pharmaceutical industry—got far more attention than equivalent studies not funded by industry.

Industry-funded bias

According to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), nearly three-fourths of all funding for clinical trials in the U.S.—presumably including vaccine trials—came from corporate sponsors as of the early 2000s. The pharmaceutical industry’s funding of studies (and investigators) is a factor that helps determine which studies get published, and where. As a Johns Hopkins University researcher has acknowledged, funding can lead to bias—and while the potential exists for governmental or departmental funding to produce bias, “the worst source of bias is industry-funded.”

In 2009, researchers published a systematic review of several hundred influenza vaccine trials. Noting “growing doubts about the validity of the scientific evidence underpinning [influenza vaccine] policy recommendations,” the authors showed that the vaccine-favorable studies were “of significantly lower methodological quality”; however, even these poor-quality studies—when funded by the pharmaceutical industry—got far more attention than equivalent studies not funded by industry. The authors commented:

[Studies] sponsored by industry had greater visibility as they were more likely to be published by high impact factor journals and were likely to be given higher prominence by the international scientific and lay media, despite their apparent equivalent methodological quality and size compared with studies with other funders.

In their discussion, the authors also described how the industry’s vast resources enable lavish and strategic dissemination of favorable results. For example, companies often distribute “expensively bound” abstracts and reprints (translated into various languages) to “decision makers, their advisors, and local researchers,” while also systematically plugging their studies at symposia and conferences.

The World Health Organization’s standards describe reporting of clinical trial results as a “scientific, ethical, and moral responsibility.” However, it appears that as many as half of all clinical trial results go unreported—particularly when their results are negative. A European official involved in drug assessment has described the problem as “widespread,” citing as an example GSK’s suppression of results from four clinical trials for an anti-anxiety drug when those results showed a possible increased risk of suicide in children and adolescents. Experts warn that “unreported studies leave an incomplete and potentially misleading picture of the risks and benefits of treatments.”

Many vaccine studies flagrantly illustrate biases and selective reporting that produce skewed write-ups that are more marketing than science.

Debased and biased results

The “significant association between funding sources and pro-industry conclusions” can play out in many different ways, notably through methodological bias and debasement of study designs and analytic strategies. Bias may be present in the form of inadequate sample sizes, short follow-up periods, inappropriate placebos or comparisons, use of improper surrogate endpoints, unsuitable statistical analyses or “misleading presentation of data.”

Occasionally, high-level journal insiders blow the whistle on the corruption of published science. In a widely circulated quote, Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of NEJM, acknowledged that “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.” Dr. Angell added that she “[took] no pleasure in this conclusion, which [she] reached slowly and reluctantly” over two decades at the prestigious journal.

Many vaccine studies flagrantly illustrate biases and selective reporting that produce skewed write-ups that are more marketing than science. In formulaic articles that medical journals are only too happy to publish, the conclusion is almost always the same, no matter the vaccine: “We did not identify any new or unexpected safety concerns.” As an example of the use of inappropriate statistical techniques to exaggerate vaccine benefits, an influenza vaccine study reported a “69% efficacy rate” even though the vaccine failed “nearly all who [took] it.” As explained by Dr. David Brownstein, the study’s authors used a technique called relative risk analysis to derive their 69% statistic because it can make “a poorly performing drug or therapy look better than it actually is.” However, the absolute risk difference between the vaccine and the placebo group was 2.27%, meaning that the vaccine “was nearly 98% ineffective in preventing the flu.”

… the reviewers had done an incomplete job and had ignored important evidence of bias.

Trusted evidence?

In 2018, the Cochrane Collaboration—which bills its systematic reviews as the international gold standard for high-quality, “trusted” evidence—furnished conclusions about the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine that clearly signaled industry bias. In May of that year, Cochrane’s highly favorable review improbably declared the vaccine to have no increased risk of serious adverse effects and judged deaths observed in HPV studies “not to be related to the vaccine.” Cochrane claims to be free of conflicts of interest, but its roster of funders includes national governmental bodies and international organizations pushing for HPV vaccine mandates as well as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation—both of which are staunch funders and supporters of HPV vaccination. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s president is a former top CDC official who served as acting CDC director during the H1N1 “false pandemic” in 2009 that ensured millions in windfall profits for vaccine manufacturers.

Two months after publication of Cochrane’s HPV review, researchers affiliated with the Nordic Cochrane Centre (one of Cochrane’s member centers) published an exhaustive critique, declaring that the reviewers had done an incomplete job and had “ignored important evidence of bias.” The critics itemized numerous methodological and ethical missteps on the part of the Cochrane reviewers, including failure to count nearly half of the eligible HPV vaccine trials, incomplete assessment of serious and systemic adverse events and failure to note that many of the reviewed studies were industry-funded. They also upbraided the Cochrane reviewers for not paying attention to key design flaws in the original clinical trials, including the failure to use true placebos and the use of surrogate outcomes for cervical cancer.

In response to the criticisms, the editor-in-chief of the Cochrane Library initially stated that a team of editors would investigate the claims “as a matter of urgency.” Instead, however, Cochrane’s Governing Board quickly expelled one of the critique’s authors, Danish physician-researcher Peter Gøtzsche, who helped found Cochrane and was the head of the Nordic Cochrane Centre. Gøtzsche has been a vocal critic of Cochrane’s “increasingly commercial business model,” which he suggests is resulting in “stronger and stronger resistance to say anything that could bother pharmaceutical industry interests.” Adding insult to injury, Gøtzsche’s direct employer, the Rigshospitalet hospital in Denmark, then fired Gøtzsche. In response, Dr. Gøtzsche stated, “Firing me sends the unfortunate signal that if your research results are inconvenient and cause public turmoil, or threaten the pharmaceutical industry’s earnings, …you will be sacked.” In March 2019, Gøtzsche launched an independent Institute for Scientific Freedom.

In 2019, the editor-in-chief and research editor of BMJ Evidence Based Medicine—the journal that published the critique of Cochrane’s biased review—jointly defended the critique as having “provoke[d] healthy debate and pose[d] important questions,” affirming the value of publishing articles that “hold organisations to account.” They added that “Academic freedom means communicating ideas, facts and criticism without being censored, targeted or reprimanded” and urged publishers not to “shrink from offering criticisms that may be considered inconvenient.”

In recent years, a number of journals have invented bogus excuses to withdraw or retract articles critical of risky vaccine ingredients, even when written by top international scientists.

The censorship tsunami

Another favored tactic is to keep vaccine-critical studies out of medical journals altogether, either by refusing to publish them (even if peer reviewers recommend their publication) or by concocting excuses to pull articles after publication. In recent years, a number of journals have invented bogus excuses to withdraw or retract articles critical of risky vaccine ingredients, even when written by top international scientists. To cite just three examples:

  • The journal Vaccine withdrew a study that questioned the safety of the aluminum adjuvantused in Gardasil.
  • The journal Science and Engineering Ethics retracted an article that made a case for greater transparency regarding the link between mercury and autism.
  • Pharmacological Research withdrew a published veterinary article that implicated aluminum-containing vaccines in a mystery illness decimating sheep, citing “concerns” from an anonymous reader.

Elsevier, which publishes two of these journals, has a track record of setting up fake journals to market Merck’s drugs, and Springer, which publishes the third journal as well as influential publications like Nature and Scientific American, has been only too willing to accommodate censorship requests. However, even these forms of censorship may soon seem quaint in comparison to the censorship of vaccine-critical information now being implemented across social media and other platforms. This concerted campaign to prevent dissemination of vaccine content that does not toe the party line will make it harder than ever for American families to do their due diligence with regard to vaccine risks and benefits.

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

Source link

Comments

Underworld

Raised by Wolves: Microsoft has been tasked with developing a global digital passport

Raised by Wolves: Microsoft has been tasked with developing a global digital passport 87
Photo: Raised by Wolves, directed by Ridley Scott and Aaron Guzikowski

According to the Hill, a coalition of medical and technology organizations is working to develop a digital COVID-19 vaccination passport that will allow businesses, airlines and countries to check whether people have received the vaccine. 

The vaccination initiative, announced Thursday, is developing technology to confirm vaccinations, with the likelihood that some governments will require people to provide proof of their vaccinations to enter the country.

The organization hopes the technology will enable people to “demonstrate their health to safely return to travel, work, school and life, while protecting the privacy of their data.”

The initiative, which includes members such as Microsoft, Oracle and the American non-profit Mayo Clinic, is using the results of the Commons Project’s international digital document confirming a negative COVID-19 test, according to the Financial Times.

The Commons Project technology, created in partnership with the Rockefeller Foundation , is already being used by three major airline alliances.

The coalition is reportedly in talks with several governments to create a program requiring either negative tests or proof of vaccination, Paul Meyer, executive director of The Commons Project, told the Times.

“The goal of the Vaccine Initiative is to give people digital access to their vaccination records so they can use tools like CommonPass to safely return to travel, work, school and life while protecting the privacy of their data ,” Meier said in a statement. …

People who have been vaccinated are currently receiving a sheet of paper confirming their vaccination, he said, but the coalition could develop a digital certificate using electronic health records.

The technology should allow patients to keep their data safe by being available in a digital wallet or physical QR code so that they can regulate who sees the information.

The Vaccine Initiative assumes that certain businesses, such as event organizers and universities, will require their consumers, students and employees to provide proof of vaccination , the Times reported.

Mike Sicily, executive vice president of Oracle Global Business Units, says in a statement that a passport “should be as simple as online banking.”

“We are committed to working together with the technology and medical communities, as well as with global governments, to ensure that people have safe access to this information, no matter where and when they may need it,” he added.

The project is also evolving as new strains of COVID-19 emerge around the world, including the spread of a more contagious variant that has been found in the United Kingdom.

It should be understood that only those travelers who received the RIGHT vaccine will receive permission to fly and cross borders.

Are people really vaccinated? Are we being raised by wolves?

The material is taken from the public website of this biotech giant, founded in 2010 to develop drugs and vaccines based on messenger RNA (mRNA) technologies. The company became known to our readers due to the launch of the eponymous vaccine against the Covid-19 virus on the market.

Quotes:

“Recognizing the wide potential of mRNA science, we decided to create a technological platform for mRNA that is very similar to the operating system on a computer. It is designed so that it can be connected and interchangeable with various programs. In our case, the “program” or “application” is our mRNA preparation – a unique mRNA sequence that encodes a protein.

“May 1, 2020 Moderna, Inc. and Lonza Ltd. today announced a 10-year strategic collaboration agreement to enable large-scale production of Moderna mRNA vaccine (mRNA-1273) against the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) .

The primary conclusion is that the so-called Moderna vaccine is not at all like traditional vaccines, which use live or dead, natural or engineered parts of the RNA of the virus, designed to induce an immune response and form antibodies in the body.

The drug “mRNA-1273” is not a vaccine against a virus, but, in fact, is an artificial bioprogrammed virus.

Based on the author’s definition of the mRNA platform as an analogue of a computer operating system, if you adhere to the declared letter, it should be recognized: the drug is intended for (re) programming the human body by (re) coding its protein. In other words, the masks are off, the mRNA platform is the place where Big Pharma teams up with Big Tech, justifying the darkest predictions yesterday by science fiction writers, and today by realists.

If you take a good walk around the Moderna website, you will find very interesting things.

For example, the company clearly recognizes that a healthy immune system poses a threat to mRNA, since an intense immune response can destroy the platform before it even starts to act and which can lead to negative results, which can include molecular deficiency and hormonal defects, and cause seizures, allergic reactions, infertility and other side effects, but at the same time it does not form a targeted immune response to coronavirus proteins at all. 

In addition, the self (re) programming of cells is necessary in order for them to be open for the reception and delivery of various drugs, the effectiveness of which is often significantly reduced due to rejection by the body.

What this means: a healthy immune system after the introduction of the drug “mRNA-1273” is (re) programmed either unpredictably or predictably, but for the further purposes of the Moderna company, which is vitally interested in the fact that the human body is further open for access to pharmaceutical companies … The immune system actually breaks open, opening the door for any biotechnological experiments on the human body.

Due to the fact that such biotechnologies are at the beginning of the path, which is always associated with a great risk to life, the Moderna company at the legislative level is exempted by the US Congress from liability for the consequences of the use of its drugs. Also, by the way, like the Pfizer company.

Is this an explanation of the reason for the planned mass vaccination of all people in 2021, as well as the “sharp aggravation of the pandemic” in the world media?

Continue Reading

Underworld

Freemasonry calendar for 2021 and the next 25 years: Earthlink & BrainTrust

Freemasonry calendar for 2021 and the next 25 years: Earthlink & BrainTrust 88

With the onset of the covid pandemic, vaccinations, immunization passports and other such miracles, conspiracy theorists were surprised to find that all this was written in plain text on the Internet many years ago. The people who determine the strategic course of the world have communicated their plans quite openly. Until a certain moment, no one paid attention to these plans.

However, now that everything that is happening has become more or less clear, many enthusiasts began to re-read the texts with great interest and revise the videos of 2010 and earlier years, trying to find in them both indications of the events taking place around the current events and the events that will follow. The next discovery of this kind was a video from 2008 from Casaleggio Associati – a small Masonic organization somehow connected with Gianroberto Casaleggio.

From the first visit, the conspiracy theorists did not manage to dig very deeply, but, according to the first impression, we are talking about regional masonry of a not very high level of management, so there is clearly not all the information there, especially information for showing the general public.

Nevertheless, some crumbs of knowledge are still better than its complete absence, so we will retell the video in general terms. The first five minutes there is an introductory one, which tells about the great thinkers of the Renaissance who opposed Genghis Khan and wanted to arrange the world correctly and justly. This desire lasted for centuries, until the baton passed to the US Democratic Party and the Bilderberg Club. Then, from the middle of the fifth minute of the video, the most interesting part begins.

In 2018, according to the forecast from 2008, the world will be divided into two blocks – the block of good guys who live in Europe, and the block of bad guys who live in China and its satellites: The war between the blocks begins in 2020 with the use of bacteriological weapons. The war will last 20 years. During the war, such cultural monuments as Reims Cathedral, St. Peter’s Square and the Sagrada Familia will be destroyed, which suggests that there will be no stone unturned from Italy, France and Spain.

Also, in addition to biological weapons, at the first stage of the war, climate weapons will be used, which will cause a rise in ocean level by 12 meters with all the ensuing consequences. There will also be a world famine and a rejection of fossil fuels – tanks by the end of the war will be some kind of electric. As a result of this, the West will win by 2040, but there will be no more than a billion people on the planet who will be offered a single electric passport and a networked democracy, which will be controlled by the World Government and Earthlink Artificial Intelligence.

Earthlink will start operating in 2043, a single passport will be issued in 2047, and in 2050 there will be the so-called BrainTrust – collective social intelligence: When BrainTrust starts working, people will connect their brains into a network and collectively choose the World Government, which will lead them, proclaiming the coming of the Era of the New World Order. It will appear in 2054. Here is such an interesting Masonic tale of the 2008 model. Oddly enough, but so far the chronology is being observed and the prophecy is coming true.

Continue Reading

Underworld

Covid-19: The Great Reset -Pandemic targets declared

Covid-19: The Great Reset -Pandemic targets declared 89

The working class of the United States is in despair. This was stated by Senator Bernie Sanders on his Twitter page. He also wrote that the US Congress should listen to the people and provide a one-time payment of $ 1,200 to each member of the working class.

“Maybe – just maybe – it’s time for Congress to listen to the American people and send out survival checks for $ 1,200 to working-class Americans who are now in such despair,” Sanders said.

On March 25, the U.S. Congress approved a one-time payment of $ 1,200 to every adult U.S. citizen. The purpose of the payment was to mitigate the social impact of quarantine measures and the coronavirus pandemic.

Sanders is in favor of re-payment, as the crisis caused by the quarantine and pandemics is not only not overcome, but is developing.

However, it is quite possible that not only American workers will receive benefits soon. 

The FGC website spoke about the book “Covid-19: The Great Reset”, published in the summer of 2020 in Europe. The authors of the book are Klaus Schwab, founder and permanent leader of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and Thierry Mallre, who is presented as a futurist.

By the end of 2020, the book should be published in German, French, Spanish, Japanese, Chinese and Korean.

The main ideas of the book about “great reset” are already diverging.

First , the COVID-19 pandemic is a “unique window of opportunity.” It is through this window that humanity must be introduced into the future. No return to the past! “Many people ask: when will we return to normal life? The short answer is never. Our story will be divided into two parts: before the coronavirus and after. “

Secondly , the “bright future” is a world where the distinctions between rich and poor countries will be erased, and over time state borders will be destroyed. A single planetary state with a single government will emerge: “The question of the World Government is at the center of all issues.” Further, Schwab writes: “With the introduction of lockdown, our attachment to loved ones increases, we value more those whom we love – family members and friends. But the downside here is that it causes a rise in patriotic and national feelings, along with dark religious beliefs and ethnic preferences. And this toxic mixture brings out the worst in us … “Schwab makes it clear that” dark religious beliefs and ethnic preferences “will be declared war.

Third , the economy of the Brave New World must be centrally run by giant monopolies. Private property will wither away, its place will be taken by the “economy of use”, “the economy of participation”. There will be no cash, digital currencies will be introduced everywhere.

Fourthly , there will be a transition to “green” energy, it will replace hydrocarbon energy. Limits will be imposed on the consumption of water, electricity, some “environmentally hazardous” types of products (eg meat) or industrial products (eg cars). And the most radical means of reducing the burden on the natural environment will be to reduce demographic growth or even to reduce the population: “The greater the demographic growth … the higher the risk of new pandemics.”

Fifth , robotization will be completed in all spheres of the economy and public life. The book “The Great Reset” says many times about the sharp job cuts: “Until 2035, up to 86% of jobs in restaurants, 75% of jobs in trade and 59% in the entertainment industries can be automated.” “Up to 75% of restaurants can go broke due to lockdowns and subsequent social distancing measures.” “Not a single industry, not a single enterprise will remain unaffected.” It is proposed to introduce an unconditional basic income (UBI) for people who will be replaced by robots, but only if the person confirms that he is vaccinated.

Sixth , digitalization of all spheres of the economy and society will continue. An effective system will be created to monitor the behavior and movement of people, including using face recognition technologies. Quote: “To end the pandemic, a worldwide digital surveillance network must be created.”

Seventh , the new health care model will provide for regular testing, compulsory vaccination, issuance of a sanitary passport, and the establishment of restrictions and punishments for persons who evade the rules of medical discipline.

Eighth , in the spirit of transhumanism, a person will be “improved”.

The goals of the “pandemic” have been declared. With the support that the “great reset” receives from the camp of globalism, there is no doubt that the notorious “pandemic” is the beginning of the operation of the transition to the “brave new world.” Will there be forces capable of resisting the reset-globalists? .. This is an open question.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

DO NOT MISS

Trending