COVID-19 and Other Pandemics | Anarchy in the USA

[Mr. Perfect]

Oh no. What are you guys going to do when the elite managerial classes and 3 layers of government don't agree?

Looks like you guys are out of bullets. What will you do now.

[Typhoon]

German Insurance CEO fired for honesty re: vax injury data. Well reported article that goes into details about data collection etc. Much deeper article than the clickbait url/headline suggests.

https://en-volve.com/2022/03/15/ceo-of- ... -reported/

A quick check showed this headline making the rounds only among antivaxx sites and other looney tune sites such as "Natural News".

If independent corroborating evidence is provided*, then will check in more detail.

*David Icke's site does not count.

[Nonc Hilaire]

German Insurance CEO fired for honesty re: vax injury data. Well reported article that goes into details about data collection etc. Much deeper article than the clickbait url/headline suggests.

https://en-volve.com/2022/03/15/ceo-of- ... -reported/

A quick check showed this headline making the rounds only among antivaxx sites and other looney tune sites such as "Natural News".

If independent corroborating evidence is provided*, then will check in more detail.

*David Icke's site does not count.

Ad hominem is your standard reply. We know news that does not support the bought & paid for narrative is ignored, even when it provided by experts.

But the fate of an insurance CEO dumb enough to speak the truth is not the important part of the article. It is the details about how data is handled that is interesting. Those details are also evidence that the reporter is professional.

[Mr. Perfect]

More fraudulent data from the CDC it's amazing anyone would post data from them.

[Mr. Perfect]

More lies from the 3 layers of government.

[Mr. Perfect]

[Mr. Perfect]

I'm forced to conclude that there are a lot of dumb people living over there.

[Mr. Perfect]

Also the triple shot is mostly worn off now. In maybe 2 months 75% of the world will be unvaccinated.

What a crap chemical product.

[Mr. Perfect]

Next time try for a vaccine that works

[Mr. Perfect]

Three injections, has had Covid twice now. Pfizer pfundamentalists are some special people.

[Mr. Perfect]

Pfizer Pfundamentalists posting their L's. Triple injected HRC gets Covid

obama's had it, Psaki, Kamela's husband, now this. Biden will get it eventually.

[Mr. Perfect]

Me? I'm uninfected, uninjected.

[Mr. Perfect]

It has a cult like quality.

[Mr. Perfect]

[Mr. Perfect]

Look! I found the Pfizer cult.

[Mr. Perfect]

These are the same people who told you that the corporate chemicals are safe and effective.

Dropping like flies in Plato's cave. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Mr. Perfect]

Also this is why I am against government medicine. ^

[Mr. Perfect]

[Doc]

The FDA reported whistle blower to Pfizer clinical trial contractor /Employer. The Clinical trial was highly flawed Patients and doctors were unblinded whether given real COVID Vaccine or placebo. Adverse effects either unreported or reported under the wrong patient name.

This isn't science. This is criminal. The FDA knew about it and did nothing. Criminal charges need to be filed.

From the British Medical Journal:

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

RaLxhFiOBYk

[Doc]

From the British Medical Journal:

https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o702

The illusion of evidence based medicine

Evidence based medicine has been corrupted by corporate interests, failed regulation, and commercialisation of academia, argue these authors

The advent of evidence based medicine was a paradigm shift intended to provide a solid scientific foundation for medicine. The validity of this new paradigm, however, depends on reliable data from clinical trials, most of which are conducted by the pharmaceutical industry and reported in the names of senior academics. The release into the public domain of previously confidential pharmaceutical industry documents has given the medical community valuable insight into the degree to which industry sponsored clinical trials are misrepresented.1234 Until this problem is corrected, evidence based medicine will remain an illusion.

The philosophy of critical rationalism, advanced by the philosopher Karl Popper, famously advocated for the integrity of science and its role in an open, democratic society. A science of real integrity would be one in which practitioners are careful not to cling to cherished hypotheses and take seriously the outcome of the most stringent experiments.5 This ideal is, however, threatened by corporations, in which financial interests trump the common good. Medicine is largely dominated by a small number of very large pharmaceutical companies that compete for market share, but are effectively united in their efforts to expanding that market. The short term stimulus to biomedical research because of privatisation has been celebrated by free market champions, but the unintended, long term consequences for medicine have been severe. Scientific progress is thwarted by the ownership of data and knowledge because industry suppresses negative trial results, fails to report adverse events, and does not share raw data with the academic research community. Patients die because of the adverse impact of commercial interests on the research agenda, universities, and regulators.

The pharmaceutical industry’s responsibility to its shareholders means that priority must be given to their hierarchical power structures, product loyalty, and public relations propaganda over scientific integrity. Although universities have always been elite institutions prone to influence through endowments, they have long laid claim to being guardians of truth and the moral conscience of society. But in the face of inadequate government funding, they have adopted a neo-liberal market approach, actively seeking pharmaceutical funding on commercial terms. As a result, university departments become instruments of industry: through company control of the research agenda and ghostwriting of medical journal articles and continuing medical education, academics become agents for the promotion of commercial products.6 When scandals involving industry-academe partnership are exposed in the mainstream media, trust in academic institutions is weakened and the vision of an open society is betrayed.

The corporate university also compromises the concept of academic leadership. Deans who reached their leadership positions by virtue of distinguished contributions to their disciplines have in places been replaced with fundraisers and academic managers, who are forced to demonstrate their profitability or show how they can attract corporate sponsors. In medicine, those who succeed in academia are likely to be key opinion leaders (KOLs in marketing parlance), whose careers can be advanced through the opportunities provided by industry. Potential KOLs are selected based on a complex array of profiling activities carried out by companies, for example, physicians are selected based on their influence on prescribing habits of other physicians.7 KOLs are sought out by industry for this influence and for the prestige that their university affiliation brings to the branding of the company’s products. As well paid members of pharmaceutical advisory boards and speakers’ bureaus, KOLs present results of industry trials at medical conferences and in continuing medical education. Instead of acting as independent, disinterested scientists and critically evaluating a drug’s performance, they become what marketing executives refer to as “product champions.”

Ironically, industry sponsored KOLs appear to enjoy many of the advantages of academic freedom, supported as they are by their universities, the industry, and journal editors for expressing their views, even when those views are incongruent with the real evidence. While universities fail to correct misrepresentations of the science from such collaborations, critics of industry face rejections from journals, legal threats, and the potential destruction of their careers.8 This uneven playing field is exactly what concerned Popper when he wrote about suppression and control of the means of science communication.9 The preservation of institutions designed to further scientific objectivity and impartiality (i.e., public laboratories, independent scientific periodicals and congresses) is entirely at the mercy of political and commercial power; vested interest will always override the rationality of evidence.10

Regulators receive funding from industry and use industry funded and performed trials to approve drugs, without in most cases seeing the raw data. What confidence do we have in a system in which drug companies are permitted to “mark their own homework” rather than having their products tested by independent experts as part of a public regulatory system? Unconcerned governments and captured regulators are unlikely to initiate necessary change to remove research from industry altogether and clean up publishing models that depend on reprint revenue, advertising, and sponsorship revenue.

Our proposals for reforms include: liberation of regulators from drug company funding; taxation imposed on pharmaceutical companies to allow public funding of independent trials; and, perhaps most importantly, anonymised individual patient level trial data posted, along with study protocols, on suitably accessible websites so that third parties, self-nominated or commissioned by health technology agencies, could rigorously evaluate the methodology and trial results. With the necessary changes to trial consent forms, participants could require trialists to make the data freely available. The open and transparent publication of data are in keeping with our moral obligation to trial participants—real people who have been involved in risky treatment and have a right to expect that the results of their participation will be used in keeping with principles of scientific rigour. Industry concerns about privacy and intellectual property rights should not hold sway.
Footnotes

Competing interests: McHenry and Jureidini are joint authors of The Illusion of Evidence-Based Medicine: Exposing the Crisis of Credibility in Clinical Research (Adelaide: Wakefield Press, 2020). Both authors have been remunerated by Los Angeles law firm, Baum, Hedlund, Aristei and Goldman for a fraction of the work they have done in analysing and critiquing GlaxoSmithKline's paroxetine Study 329 and Forest Laboratories citalopram Study CIT-MD-18. They have no other competing interests to declare.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned, externally peer reviewed

References

↵
Steinman MA, Bero LA, Chren MM, Landefeld CS. Narrative review: the promotion of gabapentin: an analysis of internal industry documents. Ann Intern Med2006;145:284-93. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-145-4-200608150-00008 pmid:16908919
CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
↵
Mukherjee D, Nissen SE, Topol EJ. Risk of cardiovascular events associated with selective COX-2 inhibitors. JAMA2001;286:954-9. doi:10.1001/jama.286.8.954. pmid:11509060
CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
↵
Doshi P. Pandemrix vaccine: why was the public not told of early warning signs?BMJ2018;362:k3948doi:10.1136/bmj.k3948.
FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
↵
Jureidini J, McHenry L, Mansfield P. Clinical trials and drug promotion: Selective reporting of Study 329. Int J Risk Saf Med2008;20:73-81doi:10.3233/JRS-2008-0426.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
↵
Popper K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery.Basic Books, 1959.
Google Scholar
↵
Bok D. Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education.Princeton University Press, 2003.
Google Scholar
↵IntraMed. Criteria Used to Develop Influence Score. 2008. https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.uc ... d=shbn0225
↵Schafer A. Biomedical conflicts of interest: A defense of the sequestration thesis—Learning from the cases of Nancy Olivieri and David Healy. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2004;30:8-24.
↵
Popper K. The Poverty of Historicism.Routledge, 1961: 154-5.
Google Scholar
↵
Howick J. Exploring the asymmetrical relationship between the power of finance bias and evidence. Perspect Biol Med2019;62:159-87. doi:10.1353/pbm.2019.0009 pmid:31031303
CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

View Abstract

Tweet Widget
Facebook Like

Article tools


Pathways to independence: towards producing and using trustworthy evidence
Ray Moynihan et al., The BMJ, 2019
Principles for international registration of protocol information and results from human trials of health related interventions: Ottawa statement (part 1)
Karmela Krleža-Jerić et al., The BMJ, 2005
Influence and management of conflicts of interest in randomised clinical trials: qualitative interview study
Lasse Østengaard et al., The BMJ, 2020
The rules of retraction
Melanie Newman, BMJ's Coronavirus (covid-19) Hub, 2010
Collaboration between academics and industry in clinical trials: cross sectional study of publications and survey of lead academic authors
Kristine Rasmussen et al., The BMJ, 2018

Science and Money: Problems and Solutions
David B. Resnik et al., Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education, 2014
Ionic Liquid-Based Electrolytes for Aluminum/Magnesium/Sodium-Ion Batteries
Na Zhu et al., Energy Material Advances, 2021
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Exciton Recombination Pathways in AgInS2 Colloidal Nanocrystals
Matteo L. Zaffalon et al., Energy Material Advances, 2021
A profitable new definition of health
Susan W. Myers et al., Journal of Consumer Marketing, 2007
The Rapid Rise in Investment in Psychedelics—Cart Before the Horse
Joshua Phelps et al., JAMA Psychiatry, 2022

Dear Editor

Jureidini and McHenry have hit the nail on the head by exposing the fallacy of evidence based medicine as we know it.

How do we know whether we can trust evidence from trials sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry?

The word “evidence” can be interpreted as “material items or assertions of fact”, but is used more loosely in connection with trials where, because of the clandestine nature of raw data, the facts are impossible to discern.

The starting point is that any trial report will almost certainly have been ghost-written by specially-trained “medical writers”.

What are the red flags to look for in a clinical trial report?

1) More than ten authors
2) The use of the expression “real world”
3) Multiple adjectives: e.g. “ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal (as applied to an efficacy trial)
4) An opaque audit trail from pharmaceutical company through “contract research organisations” to “site management organisations” and trial centres, all often in different countries
5) Multiple arms to the trials
6) Multiple often small trial locations that would be difficult to supervise
7) Trial locations in many countries, including countries where autopsies are difficult to perform
8) The inclusion of a small number of academic institutions associated with “key opinion leaders” (KOLs), in addition to the far greater number of clinical trial centres that are privately-run
9) Lengthy descriptions of sophisticated statistical analyses that are meaningless without the raw data
10) The authors’ conflicts of interests are given but not quantified
11) The trial sponsor will offer to release the raw data in the distant future, only if the company approves the request
12) The results are published with a matching editorial.

[Mr. Perfect]

A little behind, we do what we can.

This one is satisfying. I would wish death on no one, and normally not disease, but upon the Hitler of Australia I certainly wish Covid.

This fascist richly deserves this, and I will laugh at him as I remain uninjected and uninfected.

The injections don't work. This Nazi is just another on the list that proves it.

[Mr. Perfect]

The legacy of the HItler of Australia, and all his nazi supporters. They've earned a place in Hell.

[Mr. Perfect]

Hmmm

[Mr. Perfect]

CDC data is fraudulent. 3 layers of government



https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2022/ ... 65904.html

[Mr. Perfect]

Hmmm. I wonder what went wrong.