Connect with us

Alternative News

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

Published

on

[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.]

advertisement - learn more

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.

-->FREE Report: Discover the Top 10 Nutrient Deficiencies, including key signs you may be deficient in them and what you can do about it Click here to learn more!

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.

advertisement - learn more

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.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Is Wayfair Really Trafficking Humans?

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Allegations that Wayfair is trafficking humans hit the internet over the past few days as the company was selling utility cabinets, and other items, with human names for upwards of $14,000. Wayfair claims the listings were a mistake.

  • Reflect On:

    Is it our duty as citizens to not simply accept a company's denial of something? Is it important we look past the limited research of fact checkers and ask deeper questions? Where are these realizations leading us?

You have likely heard about it by now, allegations that Wayfair was selling everything from industrial cabinets, desks, pillows and shower curtains at extremely high prices, when in reality they were selling humans. It began as a Reddit thread, where a user who noticed extremely high priced utility cabinets on Wayfair asked if anyone else thought it was weird that there were female names in front of the descriptions of the items.

“Is it possible Wayfair involved in Human trafficking with their WFX Utility collection? Or are these just extremely overpriced cabinets? (Note the names of the cabinets) this makes me sick to my stomach if it’s true,” one Redditor user named PrincessPeach1987 posted.

This sparked a string of discussion into whether or not Wayfair was selling these items as a cover for trafficking humans. Over a couple of days, it blew up into a huge collective research project on the internet, rife full of great questions and at times false information. Nonetheless, any investigative journalist would tell you there is something here that has not yet been explained, and further investigation is a must because these allegations may very well be true.

A screengrab of Wayfair’s alleged website posting cabinets with human names being sold for upwards of $12,000 each.

Oddly, Wayfair’s product names match some children found to be recently missing in the US.

 

Although Wayfair has come out denying allegations of human trafficking and claimed the products were a mistake. Wayfair removed the product images from its website and said it plans to rename the products. The products were named Neriah, Yaritza, Samiyah and Alyvia ranging in price between $12,699.99 and $14,499.99.

“Recognizing that the photos and descriptions provided by the supplier did not adequately explain the high price point, we have temporarily removed the products from site to rename them and to provide a more in-depth description and photos that accurately depict the product to clarify the price point,” Susan Frechette, a Wayfair spokeswoman.

It’s important to note that fact checkers have claimed this story is false, but their position is only based on Wayfair’s statement that it wasn’t true, not actual research and critical thinking. As per usual, no authentic and thorough research was done by fact checkers when it comes to this story.

Here at CE we asked some very critical questions and did a bit of deep diving of our own on this story. Our research is nowhere near done, but we have put some early parts of it into a segment of a show we have on CETV called The Takeaway. You can watch the segment below.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

81% of Clinical Trial Volunteers Suffer Reactions to CanSino Biologics’ COVID-19 Vaccine

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Multiple clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines have shown severe reactions within 10 days after taking the vaccine.

  • Reflect On:

    Should we think twice about taking a rushed vaccine? Is it even necessary given the remarkably low death rate?

What Happened: COVID-19 vaccines have been in production for several months now, and clinical trials have been underway in various countries. One experimental vaccine being developed by CanSino Biologics, Inc. of Tianjin, China, has completed phase 1 of human clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccine (adenovirus type-5 Ad5-nCoV) and involved 108 volunteers, ranging in age from 45–60 years old.

Participants were given various levels of dosing, from low to high. 87 (or 81%) of the 108 participants experienced at least one adverse reaction within seven days after receiving the vaccination. Of the 87 who had reactions, 30 were in the low dose group, 30 were in the middle dose group, and 27 were in the high dose group. Overall, 10 of the participants (just under 10%) experienced Grade 3 adverse reactions, most were in the high dose group.

According to researchers conducting the study on the Phase 1 clinical trial for the Ad5-nCoV vaccine:

The most common injection site adverse reaction was pain, which was reported in 58 (54%) vaccine recipients. Pain was reported in 17 (47%) participants in the low dose group, 20 (56%) participants in the middle dose group, and 21 (58%) participants in the high dose group. The most commonly reported systematic adverse reactions overall were fever (50 [46%]), fatigue (47 [44%]), headache (42 [39%]), and muscle pain (18 [17%]). Fever was reported in 15 (42%) participants in the low dose group, 15 (42%) participants in the middle dose group, and 20 (56%) participants in the high dose group. Headache was reported in 14 (39%) participants in the low dose group, 11 (31%) participants in the middle dose group, and 17 (47%) participants in the high dose group. Muscle pain was reported in seven (19%) participants in the low dose group, three (8%) participants in the middle dose group, and eight (22%) participants in the high dose group.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) describes a Grade 3 adverse event as “severe or medically significant but not immediately life-threatening; hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization indicated; disabling; limiting self care” such as “bathing, dressing and undressing, feeding self, using the toilet, taking medications.”

CanSino’s Ad5-n-CoV vaccine uses a chimpanzee adenovirus vector that uses the HEK293 cell lines derived from the tissue of an aborted fetus. The HEK293 human fetal cell line, which was designed, developed and is licensed by Canada’s National Research Council (NRC), is also being used to produce the AZD1222 COVID-19 vaccine developed by the University of Oxford’s Jenner Institute.

Why It Matters: COVID-19 vaccines are being rushed to market, and vaccines that are rushed to market never ave a good safety record. Given that even Moderna’s COVID vaccine also showed negative reactions, people should think twice about opting in for the vaccine, especially given COVID-19 is continuing to prove it is not as dangerous or life-threatening as mainstream media has been making it sound.

While the introduction of a vaccine will mean huge dollars for pharmaceutical companies, like the seasonal flu vaccine, it seems unnecessary and potentially can cause more harm than the good it could do. Vaccines for illnesses similar to COVID-19 often don’t protect high percentages of takers from the illness it attempts to prevent.

The Takeaway: There has been a great deal of discussion regarding the introduction of a vaccine, ID card and mandating medicine in one final push towards deep authoritarian control by members of the societal and financial elite. This includes people like Bill Gates. Is this the big push for total control that has long been talked about and built up to ever since 9/11? Is the promise of contact tracing and ID cards “to keep the world safe” really what this is about? Or does the track record on measures like this prove that it’s never about ‘the virus’ and more so about the control that comes as a result of the measures that stick around long after the virus is gone?

Given millions are asking these very questions, people are awakening to truths that they never would have prior to major events like this taking place. In that sense, COVID-19 and the deceit and lies that have gone along with it have been a catalyst for further collective awakening. An awakening that can push us to re-imagine our world completely, and create one where we can truly thrive.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Official: Feds Feared Ghislaine Maxwell Might Kill Herself In Prison

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Federal prosecutors took specific action to avoid having Jeffrey Epstein connected Ghislaine Maxwell kill herself while is custody. This comes after Epstein allegedly killed himself in prison last summer.

  • Reflect On:

    Would high profile people involved with Maxwell and Epstein, like potentially the Clinton's, Trump and Bill Gates, be motivated to want to 'get rid' of them both? This time, are we going to see more names named to encourage the masses to awaken?

What Happened: Associated Press was told in an interview that federal authorities were so worried about Ghislaine Maxwell trying to kill herself while in custody that they took her clothes and bedsheets away and provided her paper attire to wear instead. Maxwell will be locked up in federal jail in New York City pending trial for charges related to Jeffrey Epstein and their dealings with underage sex trafficking.

The Justice Department has added extra security precautions this time around and has brought in federal officials to guard the Bureau of Prisons in charge of ensuring there is adequate protection for Maxwell so other inmates cannot harm Maxwell.

The concerns come partly due to the fact that Jeffrey Epstein allegedly killed himself in a federal jail in Manhattan last summer while in custody on sex trafficking charges Maxwell was also involved in.

No new details have emerged regarding the ongoing investigation against Maxwell.

Why It Matters:

Maxwell is heavily connected to sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein who operated a sex/pedophile ring that tailored to high profile individuals, business people, entertainers and politicians.

Her arrest may be important in helping to bring light to more people connected to Epstein’s dealings which include Hillary and Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Bill gates and other high profile names.

The Takeaway:

It is more than likely that Jeffrey Epstein did not kill himself in prison. If this is the case, and he was killed, then the same fate may be coming to Maxwell in order to keep ‘powerful’ people protected. However, we are in a time where immense amounts of truth are coming to the surface and humanity is awakening to the reality of the world we truly live in. This is a process we call ‘Breaking The Illusion.’ This is a big step in our collective awakening that inspires change in our world we all know is truly possible.

Is it time for humanity to learn who is truly behind the mass trafficking of children including ritual? Is it time we understand we begin to step out from under the parent-child relationship wee have with politicians and government? All of it is connected, and it’s all part of a greater process of inner expansion we are going through collectively. I spoke about this in great detail here.

Looking Deeper:

Why The ‘Red Pill’ Has Gotten So Big

Explore our coverage of Jeffrey Epstein & Ghislaine Maxwell

 

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod

Elevate your inbox and get conscious articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!