[All scientific journals are increasingly acting as gatekeepers, promoting established narratives while sidelining research that challenges the status quo.]
Regulators have dismissed this study largely because it was not “peer-reviewed”. The study out of FDA’s lab was peer-reviewed and they said “we do not comment on individual studies”….. see the pattern? They keep changing the goal posts so that everyone gets dizzy.
The Cureus rejection notice sounds like a statement written by a first year science student or a non-science trained PR agent.
If anything, your critique understates its egregiousness.
As I have mentioned previously, I have anecdotally seen a huge increase in post-jab cancers, frequently in healthy young people, and often two or more unrelated cancers in one person.
We've been warned by journal editors about the corruption in medical science. Funny that the media never investigates it . . .
“Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, big Pharma uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers and the medical profession itself.”
Dr. Marcia Angell, a former long-time editor in Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) resigned in June of 2000 after twenty years in the post. She wrote a book about the corruption she witnessed.
"Politicisation of science was enthusiastically deployed by some of history’s worst autocrats and dictators, and it is now regrettably commonplace in democracies.20 The medical-political complex tends towards suppression of science to aggrandise and enrich those in power. And, AS THE POWERFUL BECOME MORE SUCCESSFUL, RICHER AND FURTHER INTOXICATED WITH POWER, the inconvenient truths of science are suppressed. When good science is suppressed, people die."
“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. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine” (my emphasasis)
"It's unusual to watch one of the world's most powerful editors in scientific publishing play with a marionette puppet.
But Dr. Fiona Godlee, editor of the BMJ, specializes in the unexpected.
The puppet she's holding is dressed as a doctor, complete with a stethoscope around its neck. Its strings represent the hidden hand of the pharmaceutical industry.
'I think we have to call it what it is. It is a corruption of the scientific process.' -Dr. Fiona Godlee, editor, BMJ "
Another quote from the article
"It's led me and others to increasingly question the idea that the manufacturer of the drug could ever be considered the right people to evaluate its effectiveness and safety," Godlee says.
"That seems to me to be very mad idea which has grown up historically, and we have to start questioning it and we have to come up with alternatives, which would mean independent studies done by independent bodies."
And it matters, Godlee says, because bad science can be dangerous.
Would you categorise these journals as part of "legacy media" ? (And thus part of the "out of touch" communication channels you highlight in your excellent article about legacy media)
Sometimes I feel as if we really are living in biblical End of Days. One good recent development is that Trump has taken the US out of the UN. Hopefully other countries will follow but I doubt it. Over diagnosis and over medicalization have become rampant and this is all about power not science. Prior to the politicization of medicine comes the medicalization of everything.
Out of the WHO, not the UN, although that should be considered. The UN seems quite a banal and impotent organisation of late. What actual purpose do they serve ?
[All scientific journals are increasingly acting as gatekeepers, promoting established narratives while sidelining research that challenges the status quo.]
FTFY. c.f. "climate change"
At this point why do we need to publish in scientific journals when we know they are propaganda that doesn’t follow science.
Why can’t researchers publish independently or why not here on X?
They will get plenty of peer and non-peer review if they put their findings out to the masses.
Regulators have dismissed this study largely because it was not “peer-reviewed”. The study out of FDA’s lab was peer-reviewed and they said “we do not comment on individual studies”….. see the pattern? They keep changing the goal posts so that everyone gets dizzy.
Deny Deflect Delay Deceive - The mantra of manipulators
Yeeeeessss!
Fake Mantra is common as cheese
So self publish. X is self publishing the news. Why not medical research as well?
The Cureus rejection notice sounds like a statement written by a first year science student or a non-science trained PR agent.
If anything, your critique understates its egregiousness.
As I have mentioned previously, I have anecdotally seen a huge increase in post-jab cancers, frequently in healthy young people, and often two or more unrelated cancers in one person.
Amazing what you don't see if you don't look!
Yes, they seem to be going for plausible deniability—if they never look, they’ll never have to find a problem. 🤡
We've been warned by journal editors about the corruption in medical science. Funny that the media never investigates it . . .
“Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, big Pharma uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers and the medical profession itself.”
Dr. Marcia Angell, a former long-time editor in Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) resigned in June of 2000 after twenty years in the post. She wrote a book about the corruption she witnessed.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5057.The_Truth_about_the_Drug_Companies Page 336
"Politicisation of science was enthusiastically deployed by some of history’s worst autocrats and dictators, and it is now regrettably commonplace in democracies.20 The medical-political complex tends towards suppression of science to aggrandise and enrich those in power. And, AS THE POWERFUL BECOME MORE SUCCESSFUL, RICHER AND FURTHER INTOXICATED WITH POWER, the inconvenient truths of science are suppressed. When good science is suppressed, people die."
KAMRAN Abbasi, executive editor BMJ, 2020.
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4425
“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. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine” (my emphasasis)
Marcia Angell 2004
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4572812/#!po=87.5000
2016
"It's unusual to watch one of the world's most powerful editors in scientific publishing play with a marionette puppet.
But Dr. Fiona Godlee, editor of the BMJ, specializes in the unexpected.
The puppet she's holding is dressed as a doctor, complete with a stethoscope around its neck. Its strings represent the hidden hand of the pharmaceutical industry.
'I think we have to call it what it is. It is a corruption of the scientific process.' -Dr. Fiona Godlee, editor, BMJ "
Another quote from the article
"It's led me and others to increasingly question the idea that the manufacturer of the drug could ever be considered the right people to evaluate its effectiveness and safety," Godlee says.
"That seems to me to be very mad idea which has grown up historically, and we have to start questioning it and we have to come up with alternatives, which would mean independent studies done by independent bodies."
And it matters, Godlee says, because bad science can be dangerous.
"Patients do get hurt."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/bmj-fiona-godlee-science-1.3541769 6th
"Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?" ( Richard Smith) Former editor of the BMJ).
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/time-to-assume-that-health-research-is-fraudulent-until-proved-otherwise/
Would you categorise these journals as part of "legacy media" ? (And thus part of the "out of touch" communication channels you highlight in your excellent article about legacy media)
I think they all feed each other’s stupidity. 🥴
A bunch of clowns and jokers! 🤡 🃏 Peddling nonsense and buffoonery....but I'm not laughing.
It's a good thing we still have the likes of Dr MaDeM to bring us facts, truth and brilliant analysis! Keep up the great work ! 👍
Not to mention all the money pharma throws their way. They get dependent on the $$.
Such a good summary of the dozens of separate problems and issues.
Sometimes I feel as if we really are living in biblical End of Days. One good recent development is that Trump has taken the US out of the UN. Hopefully other countries will follow but I doubt it. Over diagnosis and over medicalization have become rampant and this is all about power not science. Prior to the politicization of medicine comes the medicalization of everything.
Looking into the WHO exit now....thanks.
Out of the WHO, not the UN, although that should be considered. The UN seems quite a banal and impotent organisation of late. What actual purpose do they serve ?
Banal and impotent puts it mildly in my opinion. I think that they have become a tool for the nefarious forces in our time.
The truth will win in the end. It will prevail.
Science is broken and has lost our confidence.