Your Honor
Taking to the witness stand now is accomplice No. 1 of the main accused: Esteemed Research Journals
“Anyone who trusted the reports about the benefits of -
- hormone replacement therapy, or
- COX-2 pain killers, or
- SSRI antidepressants, or
- atypical antipsychotics, or
- cholesterol lowering STATINS,
- hypertensives, etc, etc
… because they were published in respected medical journals were fooled.
Even The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine, The British Medical Journal, not to mention the Journal of the American Medical Association, and …
… the numerous journals in psychiatry that lack even a modicum of scientific substance or objectivity – :all have published fraudulent and biased conclusions without substantiating data.
Medical journals have lost their authority as they became more concerned about 'bottom line' economics rather than accuracy.”
– Vera Hassner Sharav, President, Alliance for Human Research Protection [6]
Laying out the 11 charges against accomplice No. 1 :-
1. Conflict of Interest (COI):
- 2 out of every 3 trials published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) are either totally or partially funded by a drug company – Richard Smith, MD [24].
Dr. Richard Smith was editor of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) for 25 years & has extensively exposed journal editors' unacknowledged significant COI in his book 'The Trouble With Medical Journals' [23].
- Only 2 out of 29 sets of drug-trials released in high-impact journals even mentioned the issue of who funded the original drug trials & none mentioned whether researchers were paid by the drug industry [13].
The rate of disclosure of conflicts of interest is as low as 2% – Warner TD, Gluck JP; Department of Psychiatry, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, USA [3].
Why do the published drug trial reports routinely fail to mention that they were paid for by the manufacturer of that same drug? [9]
- Published drug trials whose authors had a financial COI, were found to yield favorable results for the drug manufacturer more frequently than independently financed trials whose authors had no such conflicts [27].
COI can be in the form of equities, consultancies, gifts, sponsorships, paid engagements, travel grants, etc. [28] More & more, it is being done in a way that it’s difficult to catch.
2. Money talks:
Medical journals with allopathic advertising are more likely than subscription journals to recommend drugs [14, 19].
3. The whole research report may be paid for! – Not just the trial & ads in the journal:
Even prestigious journals accept cash payments from the drug industry to publish commercially-driven reports. [7].
The journals 'established' reputation drowns out any independent analyses contradicting these industry's sponsored reports that were designed to promote marketing goals.
Many of the articles published in medical journals, even the most prestigious ones, are little more than infomercials for the drug. – Dr. John Abramson [15].
4. Not quality, but quantity-driven revenue model:
Many of these reputed journals do not share their financials publicly even though they are granted taxpayers monies. What are they trying to hide? [8]
There is no transparency in reporting of conflict of interest by any of the reputed medical journals because publication of large industry-supported trials may generate many citations resulting in greater journal income through reprint sales [23].
According to Dr. Richard Smith, sales of reprint rights typically earns them a million dollars per article with 70% profit margin. And so journals do not divulge this financial incest [24].
5. Defective approval process:
Before publishing any new research reports submitted to them, they appraise it by 'peer review', where by it is critically reviewed by another competent scientist.
- These reviewers work for free and hence cannot devote sufficient time and effort to detect misconduct. Especially given the fact that top journals are receiving an increasing number of submissions every year [18].
And once a paper has passed peer review it is generally swallowed as holy gospel.
- Peer reviewers' criticisms are only based upon the information submitted by the authors. It cannot detect fraud.
- Publication of a paper only means that, in the view of the referees who green-light it, it is interesting and not obviously false [18].
- Unless someone redoes the entire drug experiment, which generally last several years & costs a lot, there is no way to find out that the raw data was fabricated.
- “peer review does not eliminate mediocre and inferior papers and has never passed the very test for which it is used” – Dr. Lawrence
Altman [6] - The medical journals have outright rejected calls to make their own research vetting process scientific by conducting random audits & other sensible measures [18].
This is because the allopathic research fraternity has vested interests in maintaining the illusion that "passing peer review is the scientific equivalent of the Good Housekeeping seal of approval."
- Dr. Lawrence Altman [17]
6. Fraudulent research is rarely retracted:
- Once a fraudulent paper has been published it is very difficult to remove it because libraries all over the world are stocked with printed copies of journals that cannot be recalled.
- Even from the online databases, they are not retracted by the journals that released them because [18] –
- they are afraid “that angry scientists will withhold the manuscripts that are the lifeline of the journals, putting them out of business”.
- Most journals do not expunge any fraudulent reports from their records unless ALL the authors make a written request to do so thus confessing their fraud.
That's like expecting a criminal to ask for punishment.
- Another reason why allopathic journals are reluctant to pull a paper is because they want to avoid generating bad publicity for their established publication. [18]
7. Rankings are determined by popularity, not substance:
These journals are ranked by an arcane “impact factor” which is just a count of how often they are quoted [16].
Since industry-supported trials are more frequently cited than randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with other types of support [23, 26], hence publishing industry-run field trials jacks up their inter-journal rankings.
More citations also means more profits, as we saw above along with the fact that most of these big-pharma-financed trial reports are primarily a propaganda piece, thinly disguised as research [1].
8. They are all in bed with the main accused:
“Virtually every major scientific and medical journal has been humbled recently by publishing findings that are later discredited." -The New York Times, May, 2006 [17]
Dr. Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, calls medical journals “information laundering operations.” [21]
The high impact medical journals are just a front of the allopathic industry; camouflaging their promotional reports as medical research [20, 22]
9. Self-policing by the perverts?
- On their own, journals “avoid investigating suspected errors” because the more material they publish, the more profits they can make [17].
- Another reason journals seldom investigate frauds they have published is their “desire to avoid displeasing the authors and the experts who review manuscripts”, fuelled by monetary greed ofcourse [17].
- There are no industry-wide standardized Conflict of Interest (COI) policies which could discipline the errant journals [27].
- Even the publicly stated guidelines are not implemented consistently [27].
- Many respected journals do not require authors to sign disclosure statements; Many of those who do, only require it from 1 of the authors [27].
Which means the other authors may have a COI but get away without declaring it. - These disclosures, even if submitted, may not be published by these promiscuous journals [27].
- For the most part, there is no way to discover COI if the authors themselves do not declare it.
"We didn't declare these competing interests because it didn't occur to us to do so " Fiona Godlee, Editor-in-Chief, BMJ; when caught with their pants down in a JV with Glaxo Smith Kline.
If the editor-in-chief of 'top-class' journal underwent sudden memory loss when it comes to declaring blatantly obvious disclosures, how many other officials & authors do? [2]
10. They are actively spreading their tentacles of brain-washing way beyond research reports & ads:
BMJ (British Medical Journal) Learning’s courses on 20 medical therapy areas are controlled by Merck’s subsidiary MSD.
These are targetted towards Doctor’s Continuing Medical Education (CME) and ‘Continuing Professional Development’ (CPD) [6].
‘The Lancet’ has entered into a partnership with Univadis, another Merck trademark, providing “medical education and an information website.” [8].
11. Gatekeepers of science turned jailors:
Journals control the dates when the public gets to know about findings even when they are receiving taxpayer's money.
They impose severe restrictions on what authors can say publicly [18].
As long as the earnings of medical research publications come from allopathic businesses – directly or indirectly – how much can they ever stay true to meaningfully scientific health research? [4, 5, 25]
Dr. John H Noble, Jr., has identified various other factors including dirty politics, which confound the integrity of medical research reports [11]. According to him looking at published findings is not enough [12].
So were shall we look?
The total number of deaths caused by conventional medicine is an astounding 783,936 per year in the US [29].
Worldwide, only 5% – 20% of allopathic mistreatments are ever reported [29].
On top of that, medical books acknowledge how hard it is to separate drug side effects from disease symptoms.
That's why most of the treatment failures are conveniently attributed to the disease and not to the drug or the doctor.
Doctors are told: “Probably nowhere else in professional life are mistakes so easily hidden, even from ourselves.” [29]
Well, what's not hidden is the fact that allopathic research is more like witch-hunting:
Identify some molecule involved in a biochemical reaction behind a symptom & then do whatever it takes to block it; even though it’s just one of the many intermediaries in the whole microvita spectacle forming your disease.
Common sense was long surrendered in lure of patentable research. What about an uncommon non-patentable way out from this allopathic guile?
All that we have to do is focus on maintaining our internal microvita parity – between their constructive & destructive formations.
This will also work for you against other self-limitations.
But wait a minute, there's another crook coming in our way: accomplice no. 2 of the main accused.
Do I have your honor's permission to summon him?
Citations :
1. Research publishers conflict of interest
2. Editors conflict of interest
3. What do we really know about conflicts of interest in biomedical research?
4. Scientific integrity, fidelity and conflicts of interest in research.
5. NYT Editorial: Our Conflicted Medical Journals
6. Just how much ‘new research’ can we trust? Sunday Times
7. Dr. Marcia Angell, former Editor in Chief of The New England Journal of Medicine : Drug Co & Doctors: A Story of Corruption
8. Editors, Publishers, Impact Factors and Reprint Income
10. 90% of the medical information is bogus
11. Meta-analysis: Methods, strengths, weaknesses, and political uses. Review article in Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine, 2006
12. Detecting bias in biomedical research: looking at study design and published findings is not enough. Monash Bioethics Review, Vol 26, Nos1-2, 2007.
13. Conflicts-of-Interest Sneaking Back Into Medical Journals, Say Investigators
14. Roehr B. Medical journals with advertising are more likely than subscription journals to recommend drugs. BMJ 2011;342:d1335
16. Just how much ‘new research’ can we trust? The Sunday Times May 21, 2006
17. Dr. Lawrence Altman, For Science’s Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap. The New York Times May 2, 2006
18. Scientific Misconduct: Cleaning Up the Paper Trail
19. Journals Must Exercise Their Authority as Gatekeepers
20. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review . BMJ 2003; 326: 1167-70.
21. Horton, R. “The Dawn of McScience ,” New York Review of Books, March 11, 2004
22. Smith R. Medical Journals are an extension of the marketing arm of drug companies
24. Medical Journal’s conflict of interest
25. JAMA and Archives Journals (2009, November 25); Substantial variation exists in conflict of interest policies amongst top medical journals. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ScienceDaily.
26. Public Library of Science (2010, October 26). Better transparency needed on medical journals’ competing interests, experts say. Retrieved June 6, 2011, ScienceDaily.
27. The Financing of Drug Trials by Pharmaceutical Companies and Its Consequences: Part 1. A Qualitative, Systematic Review of the Literature on Possible Influences on the Findings, Protocols, and Quality of Drug Trials
28. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review.
29. Death by Medicine By Gary Null, PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; and Dorothy Smith, PhD
Opening session of the trial : Double blind studies are indeed blind – scientifically though.
What are ya’ thinkin’?