Connect with us

Underworld

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

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

The Nuremberg Code and the ethics against the upcoming forceful vaccinochipization

Vaccination / chipization is moving by leaps and bounds and people around the world are already starting to think about how to avoid this miraculous manipulation. Of course, no one knows the laws, but in different countries the laws are also different, however, there is a universal law. It is called the Nuremberg Code.

The Nuremberg Code is an international document regulating the principles of conducting medical experiments and procedures on people. The Code was developed and adopted after the Nuremberg trial of doctors in 1947, as a result of which many, many citizens were sent to the gallows, in particular for the forcible administration of different vaccines to people. The code has only ten points and it reads:

1. The absolutely necessary condition for conducting an experiment on a person is the voluntary consent of the latter.

2. The experiment should bring positive results to the society, unattainable by other methods or research methods; it should not be random, essentially non-binding in nature.

3. The experiment should be based on data obtained in laboratory studies on animals, knowledge of the history of the development of this disease or other studied problems. Its holding should be organized in such a way that the expected results justify the fact of its holding.

4. When conducting an experiment, it is necessary to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and damage.

5.None of the experiments should be carried out if there is reason to assume the possibility of death or a disabling injury to the subject; an exception, perhaps, may be cases when research physicians act as subjects in carrying out their experiments.

6. The degree of risk associated with the experiment should never exceed the humanitarian importance of the problem that the experiment is aimed at

7. The experiment should be preceded by appropriate training, and its implementation should be provided with the equipment necessary to protect the subject from the slightest possibility of injury, disability or death.

8. The experiment should be carried out only by persons with scientific qualifications. At all stages of the experiment, those who conduct it or are engaged in it require maximum attention and professionalism.

9. During the experiment, the subject should be able to stop him if, in his opinion, his physical or mental state makes it impossible to continue the experiment.

10. During the experiment, the researcher responsible for carrying out the experiment should be prepared to terminate it at any stage if professional considerations, conscientiousness and caution in the judgments required of it, give reason to believe that the continuation of the experiment may lead to injury, disability or death test subject.

As American lawyers write, the key points are 1 and 6 – that is, the person involved in the vaccination must be capable to give consent; a person should be able to exercise freedom of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, deception, coercion, direct or hidden; the person must possess sufficient knowledge and understanding of the elements of the subject in question. The next universal legal document is called Article 6 of the 2005 UNESCO statement on bioethics and human rights. It is written there:

Article 6, section 1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical interventions should be carried out only with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned on the basis of adequate information. If necessary, consent must be expressed and can be revoked by the person concerned at any time and for any reason.

Article 6, section 3: In no case shall the collective agreement of the community or the consent of the community leader or other authority be a substitute for the informed consent of individuals.

Thus, any orders of a particular Parliament or a celebrated supreme leader on compulsory vaccination will violate Article 6 of the UNESCO statement on human rights and bioethics. Along the way, they violate the Nuremberg Code, in particular Article 1 and Article 6. It is still unknown how the authorities of different countries will try to circumvent these fundamental ethical documents.

Continue Reading

Underworld

Vaccination passports will be distributed soon, possibly in October


The Department of Defense announced on Tuesday it had a contract with ApiJect Systems America for $ 138 million to create a ready-made supply chain for pre-filled syringes: when the COVID-19 vaccine is available, syringes should be ready.

Under the contract, a subsidiary of ApiJect RAPID USA Inc. will act as part of the Project Jumpstart initiative to create a high-speed supply chain of pre-filled syringes using blown, filled and densified plastic technology, which will enable the production of medical-grade injection devices. The contract will be completed by October 2020.

ApiJect announced Tuesday that it also plans to increase syringe production in 2021, producing 330 million pre-filled BFS syringes per month by the end of the year.

“RAPID USA is led by our diverse team of experienced engineers, pharmaceutical technology experts and management. Our team has made tremendous efforts to ensure that all Americans can receive critical injections when developing and testing drugs, ”says ApiJect Systems America CEO.

Concluding a contract for the early production of vaccine syringes is exceptionally good news, but two things confuse conspiracy theorists. First, what does the Pentagon have to do with vaccines? It is clear when this or that Ministry of Defense enters into a contract with a pharmaceutical company that supplies the military with disposable syringes with promedol or antibiotic there, but what does the Pentagon have to do with vaccines?

It is possible, of course, that the Pentagon wants to vaccinate the military first, but there we are talking about an order for almost one and a half hundred million dollars. It is unlikely that a disposable syringe costs 10 bucks, rather about a dollar, so it comes to vaccinating every US military ten times. It’s a bit much even for people who are very protective of their health.

The second thing that bothers everyone is the entry on the company’s official website:

Regardless of whether the health officials are conducting the planned vaccination program or the pandemic emergency response campaign, they can make better decisions if they know when and where each injection occurs. With an additional RFID / NFC tag on each syringe filled with BFS, ApiJect will make this possible.

Before making an injection, a healthcare professional will be able to launch a free mobile application and “touch” a pre-filled syringe with his phone, capturing a unique NFC tag serial number, GPS location, date / time. The application will then upload the data to a government-selected cloud database.

Here is such an interesting company, this ApiJect, which prepares not just vaccination syringes, but also RFID syringes. Judging by the description of the company, the chip with the identifier is located on the syringe itself, but who knows and who checks it? More likely, ApiJect received an order for syringes with a miracle vaccine from Bill Gates and in this case they will begin to distribute it around the month of October.

Continue Reading

Underworld

Chinese IT giant used pandemic to develop 5G networks

The coronavirus pandemic not only brought down the global economy , but also stimulated some high-tech industries – 5G mobile networks , robotics , cloud data systems and artificial intelligence. Some data in this area was shared by the Chinese company Huawei.

During the pandemic, network traffic around the world increased sharply – only by 40% in the first week, which is not surprising – people began to hang on the Internet in self-isolation. The time schedule for loading networks has also changed. The usual peak at 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. was added at 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. , with the main peak in the morning hours – thanks to distance education. 

The second peak is in remote workers. For example, in China, 200 million students study and another 200 million work online. According to China Mobile, traffic in distance education has grown eight times. The epidemic also affected the geographical dynamics of traffic – in business districts it fell by 59%, but grew by 32% in residential areas compared to 2019.

With the abolition of quarantine, traffic will decrease, but it will not be the same, this can be seen from statistics from those areas of China that have returned to normal life. At the peak time of the closure of Chinese cities, traffic grew 1.8 times, but after the opening of cities it still remained 30% -40% higher than before the pandemic.

TeleconferenceTeleconference

Until now, killer-application for 5G networks has not appeared in the world. The need to switch to a new format was associated with the spread of unmanned vehicles. But it turned out that in the context of the rapid construction of new infectious hospital buildings, only 5G networks can quickly provide the necessary speed and coverage. So, in two new hospitals in Wuhan, 5G networks were deployed in just 72 hours, and in just seven provinces, 1951 new base stations were installed at the same time.

During the pandemic, new technologies appeared in Chinese hospitals: intelligent robots that collected throat swabs; artificial intelligence-controlled systems for remote temperature measurement; interdepartmental cloud platforms for monitoring and managing the fight against the epidemic; diagnostic systems using artificial intelligence, providing a complete decryption of computed tomography of the lungs with visualization in seconds. All this required high-speed Internet access without delay, which only 5G networks could provide in new hospitals.

Robots in hospitalsRobots in hospitals

Other consumers of the gigantic data sets were transport and medical robots, which during the epidemic began to appear in large numbers in the hospitals of Hubei, Sih, and Jinting. For example, robots for conducting epidemiological control with the functions of remote temperature measurement, disinfection and spraying, which required an upstream channel bandwidth of 30 Mbit / s with a delay of not more than 200 ms. It is clear that in such a compact time it was not possible to develop them from scratch – alteration of patrol robots went into business. There are cheaper analogues with disinfection functions only.

There appeared in the corridors of hospitals and transport robots carrying drugs and food. In some cities, unmanned vehicles were allowed to deliver food to medical personnel. All these robots and drones could not function without 5G networks.

It is clear that these new robots did not play an important role in the fight against the pandemic (unlike powerful information networks with support for artificial intelligence), but investments in these technologies during the pandemic gave a powerful impetus to their development. 

Moreover, they are not going to curtail investments, but on the contrary: the New Infrastructure program adopted in China provides for seven main sectors for accelerated development with powerful support from the state: 5G networks, industrial Internet, high-speed intercity transportation, data processing centers, and artificial intelligence systems , high-voltage power and high-speed charging stations for electric vehicles. The total budget for these programs will be 17 trillion yuan ($ 2.4 trillion). 

“Investing in the future is never too early and will continue despite the pandemic dying out”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

DO NOT MISS

Trending