272 Comments

Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1140949/

“Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry”, wrote Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, in March 2004.

Expand full comment

But some are more honest- www.myflcv.com/VCTP.html

Expand full comment

This has been a difficult thing as most of us have been programmed to trust the government, TV, internet and social media. It is hard to accept that they lie to us and deceive us. For humanity to survive, ordinary people are going to have to make their own decisions. and disregard what our

"leaders" tv set and internet tell us to do.

Expand full comment

The government and the media and the so-called "experts" have been lying to us for a very long time. In a way it is good that Covid has made more people come to this realization.

The main thing people need to do is critical thinking. People cannot generate all the raw information by themsleves. So they have to take the time to figure out which information to believe and which one to ignore. And figure out which sources of information to trust.

Expand full comment

So true Sandra

Expand full comment

It is hard to judge the Lancet against most US medical journals. the level of corruption and lies. Would be hard to compare.

Expand full comment

As a retired Physican I would occasionally read medical journals but never took them seriously as I was aware of serious conflicts of interest and financial bias. Being a doctor today- would never do it, too much government and insurance company control over your decisions.

Yet I at least have good memories of being a doctor. It used to be a great job.

Expand full comment

You were lucky. I hope you continue to speak out, as so many Americans are still enamored of anybody with a Dr. in front of their name, no matter how ignorant, corrupt, or incompetent the individual may be. Next year they'll probably stop your social security payments for speaking out (ruining your social credit score), so we all need to speak out while we still can, before they cancel our credit.

Expand full comment

People can trust "authority" or personal intuition and gut instinct. I used to trust authority but abandoned it during covid. I will never trust the TV social media or government again.

Expand full comment

When’s the last time you heard anyone say, “Damn! Wish I hadn’t gone with my gut on that!”?

Expand full comment

Similarly, no one says: “I regret NOT getting the jab.”

Expand full comment

Me neither Dennis , I will never be the same .

Expand full comment

John Mellencamp authority song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsEwK69LXjQ

Expand full comment

Not a medical thing and of target. My friend was a writing his doctoral thesis at an Ivy league university about the inefficiency of electric cars. He brought up the amount of fossil fuels it takes to make a single battery as well as the child slavery and Enviromental degradation involved in the production of EV batteries. His professor told him, our department is financed. by industries that are pushing electric vehicles so it would be in your best interest to write a different thesis.

Expand full comment

Some electric cars have insane acceleration, but they suck in hot and cold weather and break down. And the range never is close to what is advertised. I have a V8 dodge challenger. I think they stopped making them.

Expand full comment

Boom 💥 Dennis .. follow the money 💰.. stacks of money …

Expand full comment

Similar corruption appears in journals that address "climate change "and food science. They promote 'man made global warming" and the bogus safety claims about genetically modified food. If you are a researcher and want to publish a study that is scientifically sound but goes against the government or corporate narrative, your funding will be denied, and you will not be able to publish. That is how "consensus" is artificial concept.

Expand full comment

"but unfortunately for the credibility of the journals who publish them—these trials [PRCTs] rarely produce results that are unfavourable to the companies' products"

Expand full comment

It's called modify or falsify the data to prove the hypotheses. In other words, just lie.

Expand full comment
author

GREAT find! Added to my article.

Expand full comment

Steve….see my comment about how on the eve of the pandemic…Gates IHME (that works closely with the WHO) awarded Richard Horton, the editor of the Lancet $100,000 Roux Award.

You don’t bite the hand that feeds you. Influence and silence bought and paid for. Now do you wonder about how the bogus crap about Ivermectin ended up in the Lancet earlier?

No honor among thieves and pathological liars—nor do they play by ethics that have a prohibition against Conflicts of Interest….that whole concept seems to be dead when it comes to big pharma, our FDA, CDC, etc.

Expand full comment
Jan 14, 2023·edited Jan 14, 2023

Please read this. Not so long ago the Lancet was pointing out scientific corruption!!

Expand full comment

You don't say! ;)

Expand full comment

That is the beauty of it. The corrupt can also point fingers at corruption and try to make it look like a problem that is too big and, therefore, beyond them. Here is the root of the problem:

"Can bad scientific practices be fixed? Part of the problem is that no-one is incentivised to be right. Instead, scientists are incentivised to be productive and innovative."

So the researchers simply publish scores of papers which are either proven to be wrong later, or are, at best, of mediocre quality. But they still get their promotions and tenures based on those papers.

Expand full comment

So, the Lancet have obviously decided that anything which actively interferes with their information laundering operations on behalf of Big Pharma is 'misinformation'.

Expand full comment

Misinformation and Disinformation are two words that suddenly appeared out of nowhere along with the covid scam. They don't say it's wrong or a lie. It's basically Orwellian "wrongthink", something that goes against the party line.

Expand full comment

"Money makes the world go round".

Expand full comment

Yes, information may not be the only thing they are laundering. What a POS journal.

Expand full comment

Steve, sorry for posting this question here but I want to try to make sure you see it. Is Liza implying that there's perhaps a hidden third variable or more than a third variable or confounding factor that could account for the correlation between vaccination rate and excess mortality? Is she mounting an argument akin to the argument that the cigarette companies have used to the effect that if trait neuroticism causes cancer and also causes cigarette smoking then there will be a spurious correlation between cigarette smoking and cancer, when actually neuroticism is causing both smoking and cancer? Would she argue that a high prevalence of COVID causes both a high vaccination rate and a high level of excess mortality? If a purported confounding factor could be identified then couldn't a partial correlation be calculated to describe the relationship between vaccination rate and excess mortality whilst taking away the effects of the other variable, or several other variables, on this relationship? Or might this be a case where structural equation modelling or path analysis could be applicable? I'm rusty on my stats so I wouldn't know. I also don't know if you are familiar with these methods of statistical analysis but if you're not I'm sure you could learn and master them very quickly.

Expand full comment

What about the fear of death factor? The programming was so strong to fear dying from the mention of COVID. Would not the psychological aspect influence results? Energetically, the consciousness around the programming could alone cause the physical manifestation of immune system or nervous system overdrive to the point of illness. Are you counting that in the "neuroticism"? How can the fear factor be measured enough for a scientific assessment? My guess is: with difficulty. Perhaps that is why it was the chosen vehicle for selling the Cov-19 program

Expand full comment

The COVID sludge is chock full of known and verified toxins.

People got sick and dead from the jabs before the actual ingredients were known to the public.

So.

Does fear of a disease cause some to sicken and die anyway?

Like some people die because of a voodoo curse?

Suggestibility.

Maybe some people are in this way vulnerable.

Does their fear fill their blood vessels full of clots?

Does fear cause their lung cells to rupture?

Is COVID merely a voodoo curse?

I don't think so.

Expand full comment

Agreed on the first two statements. Voodoo? No- my point was there was yet another factor that caused people to take the shots or catch the virus as the stress of fear is known to be a factor that can make people sick. It could be a factor in those who died because of the stress reactions depressing immune systems even further. Fear Porn propaganda has played a huge role in what has happened. Otherwise, normally "wise" folks might have resisted the programming and thought for themselves. Your second statement illustrates this. No one knew what was in it, yet took it. Why? Fear.

Expand full comment

OK.

I see what you mean.

Nevermind. :)

Expand full comment

I remember you.

Hi. :)

Expand full comment

Likewise! Hi Catherine!

Expand full comment

Pretty much any result could be explained away by the existence of hidden, confounding variables. Occam's Razor be damned. See for example, the invention of "Dark Matter."

Expand full comment

Smoke and mirrors.

Expand full comment

Sure. But note that this paper was published in 2005. So this corruption of medical journals has been around for a long time. It started long before Covid.

One of the major mechanisms of corruption is this: When a journal prints a paper favorable to a drug company, the company buys, say, 100,000 reprints of that paper and distributes them to the doctors. The journal also makes a lot of money by selling the reprints. But if the paper is unfavorable to the drug comapny, there are no reprints and no money for the journal.

Expand full comment

👍 and even long before 2005.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

I think the main issue with centralized power is that it attracts sociopaths, and they rise to the top.

Expand full comment

Would it work the same in a meritocracy, do you think?

Expand full comment
deletedJan 14, 2023·edited Jan 14, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Wow !!! Great summary

Expand full comment

Always follow the money.

Expand full comment

There may be some confusion ...

There seems to be a 2 min and a 4 min of Dalgleish ... and an 18 min recent interview

Then there is an 18 min multi-doctor video ... that was released a few weeks? ago which I got at the time

Twitter ... Doctors for Patients UK ... scroll down to Jan 17 'Banthebbc' ... working ... 18 min

pb

Expand full comment

Did they ever correct their Wuhan lab leak propaganda with the 25 or so “scientists” that signed the letter…

Expand full comment

30% oh my gosh

Expand full comment

BMJ is a more honest Medical Journal . They exposed the Pfizer fraud. www.myflcv.com/VCTP.html

Expand full comment

Steve, love your work.

Can you please provide details about how we know Sharon Alroy-Preis signed a non-disclosure agreement with Pfizer? Is this information from FOIA?

Thanks!

Expand full comment

Real scientists will want this corrected. they ALL lose face if they collude with this lack of integrity. OR they will all accept the grants and payments that keep them silent.

Expand full comment

It was John Abramson’s book, “Overdosed America” that first shined the light on the corruption of the medical journals for me when I read it during my residency training about 6 years ago. I couldn’t find anyone who really cared then.

As you seem to be aware, it doesn’t matter all that much that these publications lack integrity. It should, it’s fine to be alarmed and to call them out. But it is not impactful when our academic “leaders” and institutions give them a free pass. Maybe I’ve become too cynical, but I’m not seeing anything “new” here.

Expand full comment

They published the surgisphere study which discredited hydroxychloroquine. Hydroxychloroquine was given in lethal doses to some of the test subjects, and the lancet published it. They did retract the study, but in my opinion publishing such a lie should be criminal. Certainly those conducting that study should have been prosecuted.

Expand full comment

Andy Wakefield would surely agree with you.

Expand full comment

Follow the money and there is your answer!!!

Expand full comment

The Lancet is a rancid joke since publishing the fraudulent studies dissing Ivermectin and HCQ in order to help secure for their overseers the bogus EUA for the poison injections. Lancet editors obviously shill for the toxic drug companies making billions on the ineffective, unsafe shots.

Expand full comment

Going commie is painful to watch. Soon the CCP will own us all.

Expand full comment

Another example of corruption by a “prestigious” scientific journal … In 2016, I wrote to all senators and reps re: a GMO labeling vote. I ended my letter with this PS: “The pictures below show cancerous tumors on the rats fed GMO corn for 2 years, the only long-study in existence, research by French Scientist Gilles-Eric Séralini. If you Google and see sites mentioning the ‘retraction’ of this study by the journal FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY (where Seralini's study was originally published), look closely at who is now the Associate Editor of Biotechnology--Richard E. Goodman--a Monsanto scientist for 7 years! Anyone beginning to smell something rotten in the State of Denmark? The editor cited ‘weak’ evidence as the reason for retraction. Séralini is now fighting that decision. You decide if the pictures below show ‘weak’ evidence.”

Expand full comment

Another example of corruption by a “prestigious” scientific journal … In 2016, I wrote to all senators and reps re: a GMO labeling vote. I ended my letter with this PS: “The pictures below show cancerous tumors on the rats fed GMO corn for 2 years, the only long-study in existence, research by French Scientist Gilles-Eric Séralini. If you Google and see sites mentioning the ‘retraction’ of this study by the journal FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY (where Seralini's study was originally published), look closely at who is now the Associate Editor of Biotechnology--Richard E. Goodman--a Monsanto scientist for 7 years! Anyone beginning to smell something rotten in the State of Denmark? The editor cited ‘weak’ evidence as the reason for retraction. Séralini is now fighting that decision. You decide if the pictures below show ‘weak’ evidence.”

Expand full comment

"Scientists across the world" ---too general a designation for me to answer the poll. There are scientists and doctors that risk their reputations and livelihood by standing up and speaking the truth. . .and there are those that can't afford, for whatever reason, to 'step up to the plate'.

Expand full comment