Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Lancet’

Censorship Covers Up Corruption by Big Pharma And Its Doctors – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on August 10, 2020

“Crewdson has the reasonable view that what people do with taxpayers’ money must be open to public scrutiny. He beleaguered Tabár for several days until he got away with data sheets that described causes of death, which he showed to me. These documents were very interesting and Crewdson worked on them for quite a while but never published anything. Several people have informed me that this was because the Tribune had been threatened with litigation, but Crewdson has not confirmed this. Crewdson published other articles. He noted various irregularities in the Two-County trial, e.g. that 750 women disappeared from published reports of the Kopparberg part of the trial after 1989.”

By Professor Peter C. Gøtzsche, MD

It has become increasingly difficult to publish articles in medical journals that are critical of drugs or the drug industry, or that expose fraud and other wrongdoing committed by doctors. It is also difficult to publish articles documenting that the status quo in a medical specialty is harmful for the patients even though such articles should be warmly welcomed. Particularly in psychiatry, it has been amply documented that guild interests are far more important than the patients’ survival and well-being.1,2

For top general medical journals, e.g. Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine, the conflicts of interest are obvious, as the revenue from drugs ads and selling reprints of trial reports constitutes a substantial proportion of their income.3 Top specialty journals have similar conflicts. In addition, they usually have part-time editors who are keen to protect the specialty’s guild interests and prevailing dogmas.

Another problem is the threat of litigation. The BMJ has an insurance that mandates the editors to adhere to their lawyers’ advice; otherwise, the insurance won’t cover the costs of a libel lawsuit.

The corruption of our most prestigious medical journals has been exposed by current or previous editors-in-chief of the top journals, e.g. BMJ, Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine.4

Aggravating the situation is the fact that big publishers buy smaller enterprises all the time. This means that there are fewer players on the market, which are therefore easier to corrupt than if there had been many. The five big publishers are Reed-Elsevier, Springer, Wiley-Blackwell, Taylor & Francis and Sage. They published more than half of all academic papers in the peer-reviewed literature in 2013.5 In 1973, the five largest publishing houses controlled 20% of scientific papers published, but by 2006, that number had already risen to 50%.5

Not surprisingly, there has been increasing concern that journals may be censoring scientific research and stymieing debate, and there are many examples of gross violations of publication ethics and even of journals violating their own rules.2,4,6-8

The HPV vaccines

A particularly egregious recent example was when a Springer journal refused to publish two papers from my research group9,10 even though its editors had accepted them after peer review, and we had paid the fees for open access. Researcher and medical reporter Maryanne Demasi described these events in an article from 13 July 2020.4

By using clinical study reports we had obtained from the European Medicines Agency, we found evidence suggesting that the HPV vaccines in rare cases may cause serious harm.9 This finding contradicts the official reassurances that there is nothing to be worried about but agrees with other independent research, e.g. from the Uppsala Monitoring Centre,8,11 which is a WHO collaborating centre that accepts reports of suspected harms of vaccines and other drugs.

Our systematic review of the HPV vaccine trials9 is much more reliable than the 2018 Cochrane review as we based it on clinical study reports and not on journal publications. It was accepted for publication in Systematic Reviews on 6 March 2019.8 However, a year later, it had still not been published although the journal promises publication within 20 days of acceptance. Our email correspondence took up an astonishing 74 pages,4 and we had been given a total of 20 apologies and a variety of odd, contradictory and implausible reasons why our paper had not been published. One of the excuses was that the journal lacked staff to publish our papers, which was clearly not the case, as Systematic Reviews had published 309 papers during that year.

On 16 February 2020, we wrote to Springer that it seemed they deliberately delayed the publication and highlighted that, “If this is the case, it is scientific censorship that borders on scientific misconduct and fraud. We have a big network with renowned scientists, many connections with the international media, and a strong social media presence. If Springer Nature, BMC and Systematic Reviews fail to publish our papers before 1 March 2020, we are obliged to alarm our fellow scientists and the international and social media about Springer Nature’s, BMC’s and Systemic Reviews’ editorial practices. We will also involve the Nordic Cochrane Centre’s and the Danish taxpayers’ legal teams if the 1 March 2020 deadline is not met.”

This caused Springer to publish our review with record speed, only 12 days later, on 28 February, during which time we checked the proofs and corresponded several times with a high-ranking person, William F Curtis, PhD, Executive Vice President Journals, Medicine & Life Sciences, Springer Nature. We had clearly made Springer nervous.

During the stalling of our papers, we sought an explanation from the journal’s editor-in-chief, David Moher, who put the blame on Springer: “The delay is a substantial embarrassment … We have experienced some internal issues at Springer Nature.”4 Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Doug Casey on How Fake Science is Used as Propaganda

Posted by M. C. on June 18, 2020

The main effect of COVID isn’t medical; it’s the hysteria that’s destroyed the economy. And political actions are even more insane than those after 9/11.

Politics thrives on hysteria. The politicization of everything is the real problem.

by Doug Casey

International Man: The Lancet recently retracted an anti-hydroxychloroquine study, which the media had used to attack Trump.

Trump had admitted to taking hydroxychloroquine as a preventative measure against the coronavirus. The media then went into a frenzy. The talking heads often cited The Lancet study as proof hydroxychloroquine was dangerous.

The bottom line is that bogus research made its way—likely deliberately—into one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. People then used this “science” as a political weapon.

What is your take on this?

Doug Casey: I’d say the whole charade is tragic, except that “tragic” has become the most overused word in the language today. It bears a short discussion.

Look at the recent death of a small-time career criminal, George Floyd. It’s as if “tragic” were part of his name. It’s as if people no longer understand the meaning of the word. A tragedy used to mean that a heroic protagonist succumbed to a cosmic force. There are no heroes in the degraded melodrama, just villains, where a costumed thug murdered a street thug under the color of law.

Sorry to go off on a tangent. But it’s a timely instance of another word whose meaning has been twisted. It’s Orwellian, like so many other things in our devolving society.

Let’s talk about something that’s actually tragic: the corruption of science over the last couple of generations.

I’ve subscribed to Scientific American, Discover, and New Scientist  for many years. During this time, I’ve noticed a distinct change in their respective editorial policies. They’ve all been politicized, captured by the PC left. These popular magazines are nowhere near the quality they once were. But this is just symptomatic of a bigger problem.

You might recall the 2018 hoax where three academics, disgusted with widespread incompetence and dishonesty in research, submitted absurd “spoof” papers to twenty leading journals. They were written in gobbledygook, full of made-up facts and flawed reasoning. But most, as I recall, were peer-reviewed and published.

If you research the subject a bit, you come to the conclusion half the peer-reviewed papers—absolutely in “soft” fields like psychology, sociology, political science, race and gender studies, etc.—are unreadable, dishonest, useless, and pointless.

Why might this be? If an academic wants to advance in today’s university system, he has to publish research. It’s Pareto’s Law in action, the 80–20 rule. It’s pretty reliable, 80% of this sort of thing is crap because it’s written mainly to fabricate credentials, not advance knowledge.

This is a bad thing.

It’s causing the average guy, who may not know anything about science but still has some respect for it, to lose that respect. That’s because science has become politicized.

You can see it with the conflicting information about COVID-19. Is it deadly or just another seasonal flu? Does it affect everyone, like the black death, or mainly the old and sick? Does almost everyone who contracts the virus get very sick or die or only a tiny percentage? Should you quarantine or live normally?

So far, as near as I can tell, the great virus hysteria has gone from being the next black plague to basically a big nothing. It’s not nearly as bad as the Asian Flu from the 50s or the Hong Kong Flu from the 60s. Forget about the Spanish Flu—there’s no comparison whatsoever. The main effect of COVID isn’t medical; it’s the hysteria that’s destroyed the economy. And political actions are even more insane than those after 9/11.

Politics thrives on hysteria. The politicization of everything is the real problem. And it’s not just about the total disruption of society and multitrillion-dollar deficits. For instance, I’ve played poker with a bunch of guys in Aspen every Monday night for years. Now, even though the lockdown in town is easing, the group is breaking up because most of them insist that everyone wear a mask. I won’t, nor will a couple of other guys. So, between that and a few guys who are now scared to socialize no matter what … game over. It may also mean the end of a larger Friday business lunch group I belong to that’s been around for decades.

There are millions of similar small rips in the social fabric taking place everywhere now. And they’re largely justified by “the science.”

The real problem is that the knock-on effects of the virus will last much, much longer than the trivial virus itself—which will soon burn out and be forgotten. The political, economic, and social changes, however, will linger for years, as will attitudes toward “science.”

International Man: What are the implications of people corrupting the scientific process to launder their political propaganda to shape mainstream opinions?

Doug Casey: You might think this is a new thing, but the left, in particular—who have always been advocates of social engineering— love using “science” to further their political agenda.

The first important instance of this was Karl Marx and his notion of “scientific socialism”—a totally bogus idea.

Since he first promoted it over 150 years ago, the concept has become ingrained in the culture, especially academia. People have been taught to believe there’s such a thing as “scientific socialism,” and that it’s not just inevitable, but desirable. In fact, it’s pseudoscience. But that’s just the first example of corruption of science in modern times.

Keynesianism is another example. Keynesians believe that they can manipulate the economy as if it were a machine.

A machine is a horrible analogy for the economy, however. It’s not a machine or a factory where you can pull levers to make magic happen—which is precisely what the Keynesians (who run the economic world today) think they can do.

The economy is more like a rainforest, which is very complex. It can’t be manipulated from outside by apparatchiks enforcing rules. And if you do try to manipulate a rainforest from outside, you’re likely to destroy it.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Jon Rappoport’s Blog « Fake Study, Fake Drug, Fake Land of Loons

Posted by M. C. on June 11, 2020

The authors of the study and the Lancet reviewers now confess the
data can’t be found. The strong suggestion is, the data never existed.

The relentless and brilliant journalist, Celia Farber, covers the
whole sordid story at She points out that “Remdesivir,
[the toxic COVID drug] ‘touted’ by Anthony Fauci…costs $1,000 per pill,
whereas HCQ’s generic price is $0.64.” That’s called a clue.

by Jon Rappoport

As many of you know, a major study on the drug, Hydroxychloroquine
(HCQ), has been retracted by the Lancet, a mere 13 days after it was
published. That might be a world record.

The study, using a gigantic data set of 96,000 patients in 671
hospitals, concluded the drug was useless for treating COVID-19
patients, and posed health dangers.

The study (briefly) had the effect of convincing medical
professionals, governments, media, and the public that HCQ was a total
failure. A COVID drug would have to come from somewhere else.

Only one problem:

The authors of the study and the Lancet reviewers now confess the
data can’t be found. The strong suggestion is, the data never existed.

The relentless and brilliant journalist, Celia Farber, covers the
whole sordid story at She points out that “Remdesivir,
[the toxic COVID drug] ‘touted’ by Anthony Fauci…costs $1,000 per pill,
whereas HCQ’s generic price is $0.64.” That’s called a clue.

And, of course, the plan is to keep the whole COVID farce going long
enough to make the Bill Gates vaccine the primary instrument of
treatment, through “prevention.”

The next part of this article was prompted by a story a friend told
me: a graduate student, when informed about the Lancet retraction, blew
up and said, “Don’t you care about SCIENCE?” Scratching an inch below
the surface of his non-sequitur outburst, his meaning was clear—he hates
Trump, Trump said he was taking HCQ, so HCQ must be terrible, so the
discredited Lancet study must actually be accurate. And that’s science.
Isn’t this charming? And how many thousands of dollars did this
student’s education cost?

So let’s focus on one sector of the massive population of loons who
are dutifully wearing masks and trudging down life’s path hypnotized by
the COVID myth:

College students.

Several years ago, I posted a staggering statistic from the National
Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI): “More than 25 percent of college
students have been diagnosed or treated by a professional for a mental
health condition within the past year.”

Aside from the zombifying effects of the psychiatric drugs (made even
more dangerous by any effort to quickly withdraw from them), the
students gain a new perspective from the mental-disorder diagnosis:
they’re victims. And now a COVID pandemic? They can wear their masks
and deepen that self-image. Wonderful.

Big Brother has given them a psychiatric diagnosis, meds, and an
excuse for not succeeding in life. Big Brother has also given millions
of them student loans. An illusion of a free ride.

Victim mindset, free ride. Perfect.

Throw off those COVID masks? Not a chance. That would suggest the possibility of independence. Goes against victimhood.

Victims try and whine and moan but never really succeed. That
lifestyle sounds interesting. Put it on. Have fun with it. Adjust
attitudes. Become a “heroic victim.” Who knew there was such an

Who is Big Brother? The college students hazily think about who is
supplying them with the “free” psychiatric meds, who is issuing orders
about the pandemic, and who is handing out their loans. Seems to be the
government on all counts. OK, love Big Brother, love the government.

If these students are learning anything at all in college, what is
it? Well, at the top of the list would be: “science is truth.” Simple,
easy, graspable.

In this “pandemic,” who is the main figure? Who is the one who SEEMS
to be on the side of science, with no political ax to grind? Fauci.

Well, good. Fauci represents the government, Big Brother. Love Fauci. Follow Fauci.

Where are the students’ brothers and sisters in the cult of victims?
Where are they to be found, whining and bitching and moaning? On
Twitter. Good. Love Twitter. Quick, easy, no thinking necessary.
Type three sentences, that’s work for the day. Whew. Relax.

Watch YouTube videos. Let the images and the voiceover flow by.

Creative vision, energy, ambition, logic? Empty words from a gone world.

Besides, AI is taking over everything. An automatic system from Big Brother. No effort necessary.

“Going outside for a few minutes now. Put on my mask. No problem.
When I’m out on the street, all I do is look at my cell phone anyway.
Just need to stay six feet apart. I can do that. Victim hero behind
the mask.”

The student vaguely remembers a moment last year when he was at the
museum and stopped at a painting by Goya. It ripped his heart out. It
sent torrents of energy up his spine. But…the memory passes. The meds
kick in. That was life as it used to be.

No more. Now it’s signs and signals of social justice and the cell
phone and twitter and the drugs and the mask and the victimhood and the
loans and Fauci and the pandemic, etc., etc.





Note: the NAMI figure of 25%, which I found several years ago and
cited above in this article, seems to have been scrubbed from search
engines. NAMI is now pegging the figure at closer to 20%.

Instead of accepting diagnoses of made-up mental disorders, parents
seeking to understand their children’s anxieties at college ought to
consider the following: “…National Center for Education Statistics [is]
reporting that many 12th grade students in the United States are reading
and writing at a fifth grade level. Many college students take
transitional coursework to improve their literacy skills in their first
year of college. The National Center for Education Statistics reported
that about one third of first-year college students take transitional
courses… At some post-secondary institutions [colleges], the percentage
of first-year students who enroll in transitional classes is as high as


Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Lancet: The Only Way to Stop Racism Is ‘to Eliminate Whiteness All Together’

Posted by M. C. on January 14, 2020

So what do all you white feminist, female, male, alphabet person, 99%er, non-elite, working stiffs think about caucasian holocaust?

Are you beginning to realize you too are expendable? After the election of course!

In reality, Boyd concludes, the only real solution “is to eliminate whiteness all together.”

The fact that some people think this way is frightening enough. That the Lancet, which once represented serious medical journalism, would decide to publish it points to a devastating deterioration of the institutional academy as reasoned discourse gives way to incoherent ranting.

How can one interpret this as anything other than advocating genocide?

White is a combination of all colors so a white trying to save themselves from extinction shouldn’t be difficult.  One could identify as a Fill-In-The-Blank color adding non-binary for a safety factor.

Aren’t most Jewish people white?…Rock/hard place. Notice how that combination never comes up in the conversation.

The Lancet is a product of the British government. That explains why it has gone to PC hell.

Harvard. Accepted Fauxcahantas Warren as faculty.

Just when you think the discussion cannot become more ridiculous…

by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.

The once prestigious Lancet medical journal has published a bizarre book review asserting that “white Americans continue to mobilise to maintain or extend the exclusive advantages whiteness offers those who can become white.”

The Lancet selected Rhea W. Boyd, a Minority Health Policy Fellow at Harvard’s School of Public Health, to review a 2019 book called Dying of Whiteness by Jonathan Metzl, whose thesis is that “right-wing backlash policies have mortal consequences — even for the white voters they promise to help.”

In his book, Metzl argues that white mortality is up in the United States ever since the 2016 election of Donald Trump, since in order to “maintain an imagined place atop a racial hierarchy,” white Americans who harbor “racial resentment” support policies that seem to limit the freedoms or resources available to non-whites, even though such decisions threaten their own wellbeing as well.

“From expansive gun legislation to broad divestment in government programmes, Metzl characterises white liberties that endanger white lives or imperil white futures as ‘dying of whiteness,’” Boyd observes.

While in her review Boyd fundamentally agrees with Metzl’s contentions, she believes that he is too soft on whites by attributing whites’ self-destructive white political actions to “racial resentment,” which “erases white agency through emotional euphemism.”

“At times, Metzl artfully articulates and historicises the racist origins of white interest in firearm fanaticism and ‘small government’ politics,” Boyd writes. “At others, he turns to ‘racial anxieties,’ racially charged ‘fears,’ or ‘racial resentment’ to describe white people’s political investment in white racial dominance.”

Boyd decries the “common practice” of mis-attributing “white self-destruction and violence to psychological states” or obscuring “the impacts of defending whiteness through emotional euphemisms.”

Drivers of white mortality such as suicide, chronic liver disease, and drug and alcohol poisoning have been described as “diseases of despair,” Boyd notes, while they should be classified as “diseases of disproportionate opportunity (to wield firearms) and access (to prescription opiates).”

The real focus should not be on “mental illness,” “distress,” or “white fragility” underlying increasing white mortality, she contends, but rather on the fundamental “legacy of death in whiteness’s wake.”

It is a mistake — she asserts — to “assert that resentment, despair, or any emotion that arises from being ‘left behind’ accounts for white Americans’ self-destructive actions, violent politics, or declining population health.”

The real population that has been left behind are blacks, she argues, but the difference is that blacks have consistently supported policies that benefit everyone while whites only support policies that benefit themselves.

And so, “despite suffering at every turn of every decade of every century in this nation, generations of Black Americans have sought political reforms that expand electoral participation, increase government protections, and extend public resources beyond their individual or group benefit,” she claims.

Reading between the lines, it seems clear that Boyd believes that the big government policies adopted by the Democrat party benefit the entire population, whereas policies enacted by the GOP only benefit whites.

Thus, she asserts that New Deal politics “forged the greatest advances in social benefits the USA has ever known — from social security and home loan assistance to the administrative precursors to welfare.”

Therefore, “scholars, the media, and the public” have failed to understand “the evolving ways white Americans continue to mobilise to maintain or extend the exclusive advantages whiteness offers those who can become white, even as those advantages place them in increasing proximity to death.”

The simple fact is that “despair isn’t killing white America, the armed defence of whiteness is,” she writes. Thus, death “is the inevitable consequence of the full realisation of structural racism and the exclusive rights and resources it offers those who can become white,” she continues.

Boyd goes on to propose a theory would challenge even the most race-obsessed, in part because it lacks any kind of rational intelligibility.

“For humans to use whiteness to manufacture access and privilege,” Boyd suggests, “they must engineer scarcity and loss. This entanglement between access and scarcity, privilege and loss, means white people’s unearned advantages have always been tethered to a legacy of untold deaths.”

Despite his noble efforts to understand the evils of structural white racism, Boyd suggests, Metzl fails because he anchors it to an emotional foundation, which leads him to conclude that more healthy and self-reflective frameworks of structural whiteness are needed.

In reality, Boyd concludes, the only real solution “is to eliminate whiteness all together.”

The fact that some people think this way is frightening enough. That the Lancet, which once represented serious medical journalism, would decide to publish it points to a devastating deterioration of the institutional academy as reasoned discourse gives way to incoherent ranting.

Be seeing you




Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »