MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘New England Journal of Medicine’

Sweden Has Had Schools Open, Over One Million Kids & No Deaths – Collective Evolution

Posted by M. C. on January 13, 2021

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2021/01/08/study-sweden-has-schools-open-millions-of-kids-no-masks-no-lockdown-no-deaths/

In Brief

  • The Facts:A letter to the editor published in the New England Journal of Medicine outlines how despite no lockdowns, school closings, or mask mandates no school children have died from Covid-19, and 1 in 130,000 have been admitted to the ICU.
  • Reflect On:How dangerous is Covid for children? Is it less dangerous than the flu? Does the data justify lockdown measures and school closing? All of this is discussed within the article.

What Happened:  A letter to the editor published in the New England Journal of Medicine titled “Open Schools, Covid-19, and Child and Teacher Morbidity in Sweden” has found that “Despite Sweden’s having kept schools and preschools open, we found a low incidence of severe Covid-19 among schoolchildren and children of preschool age during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic…No child with Covid-19 died…Among the 1,951,905 million children who were 1 to 16 years of age, 15 children had Covid-19, MIS-C, or both conditions and were admitted to an ICU, which is equal to 1 child in 130,000.”

Sweden was one of the few countries that decided to keep schools open. The study points out that the number of deaths from any cause among the 1,951,905 children in Sweden (as of December 31, 2019) who were 1 to 16 years of age was 65 during the pre-Covid-19 period of November 2019 through February of 2020 was 65, and 69 during 4 months of exposure to Covid-19 between March and June of 2020. The data shows that there was no significant difference here.

When it comes to teachers, the study showed that  “fewer than 10 preschool teachers and 20 schoolteachers in Sweden received intensive care for Covid-19 up until June 30, 2020 (20 per 103,596 schoolteachers, which is equal to 19 per 100,000). As compared with other occupations (excluding health care workers), this corresponded to sex- and age-adjusted relative risks of 1.10 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49 to 2.49) among preschool teachers and 0.43 (95% CI, 0.28 to 0.68) among schoolteachers (see the Supplementary Appendix).

In a Karolinska Institute press release, lead author and pediatrician Jonas Ludvigsson, MD, PhD, indicated he was hopeful about the results. “It is very gratifying that serious COVID-19, defined here as needing treatment in an intensive care unit, is so rare among children despite schools being open during the pandemic,” he said.

“The next step will be to follow up the children who were treated in an intensive care unit for COVID-19 to see if they have recovered fully. My gut feeling is that children who have been seriously ill because of MIS-C seem to recover fully eventually.”

The point is, children are not being admitted to the ICU in Sweden for C0vid-19, and children are not dying from Covid-19. Severe Covid-19 among children seems to be rare, and also has a 100 percent recovery rate. Given the fact that many infections are also asymptomatic, it really has no impact on their life. So, while we continue to hear that cases are soaring, it’s important to ask if this is really a big deal? And why is it that other viruses prior to this one that infect hundreds of millions and kill tens of millions a year were not subjected to the same scrutiny? Is it because authorities are worried that children will be a vector of transmission? Do asymptomatic people spread Covid?

This data also echoes what many doctors and scientists have been expressing regarding the severity of the virus, not just for children but for everybody. For example, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, from the Stanford University School of Medicine in California recently appeared on a JAMA (The Journal of the American Medical Association) Network conversation alongside Mark Lipsitch, DPhil and Dr. Howard Bauchner, who interviews leading researchers and thinkers in health care about their JAMA articles.

During the conversation, Dr. Bhattacharya said that the survival rate from COVID-19, based on approximately 50 studies that’ve been published providing seroprevalence data, for people over 70 years of age is 95 percent. For people under the age of 70, the survival rate of COVID-19 is 99.95 percent. He went on to state that the flu is more dangerous than COVID-19 for children, and that we’ve (America) had more flu deaths in children this year than Covid deaths.

Bhattacharya is one of the initiators of The Great Barrington Declaration. The declaration has an impressive list of renowned scientists who have come on board as co-signers, and has now been signed by more than 50,000 doctors and scientists. It’s an initiative that strongly opposes lockdown measures.

Why This Is Important: This information is important because lockdown measures, according to many, aren’t really doing anything to stop the spread of the virus and may be delaying “herd immunity.” Furthermore we are taking all of these measures based on case counts, and a virus that has an extremely low mortality rate. Respiratory viruses prior to Covid already infected hundreds of millions and killed tens of millions a year. What’s even more concerning is the fact that medical professionals and scientists who share information that opposes the measures being taken by multiple governments are being subjected to extreme amounts of censorship. Scientific discussion is being shut down and we are seeing one opinion and side receive all of the attention.

Be seeing you

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

No more boys or girls? America’s oldest medical journal says birth cert sex designations ‘HARMFUL for trans’ and must be ABOLISHED — RT USA News

Posted by M. C. on December 18, 2020

https://www.rt.com/usa/510018-medical-journal-trans-birth-certificates/

An article published in the New England Journal of Medicine argues that having birth certificates display gender could harm “intersex and transgender people,” leading to concerns that the NEJM could have been pranked or hacked.

“Sex designations on birth certificates offer no clinical utility, and they can be harmful for intersex and transgender people,” says the abstract of the article, authored by doctors Vadim M. Shteyler and Eli Y. Adashi, and lawyer Jessica A. Clarke, and tweeted out by NEJM on Thursday.

Sex designations on birth certificates offer no clinical utility, and they can be harmful for intersex and transgender people. Moving such designations below the line of demarcation would not compromise the birth certificate’s public health function but could avoid harm.— NEJM (@NEJM) December 17, 2020

“Moving such designations below the line of demarcation would not compromise the birth certificate’s public health function but could avoid harm,” the trio argue in the article, titled ‘Failed Assignments’ and published on December 12.

While the rest of the article is behind NEJM’s paywall, the tweet quickly got ratioed by an incredulous public, wondering if the journal had been hacked, or if it the article was a prank by ‘Titania McGrath’, a famous ‘woke’ online persona invented by a British comedian.

How bizarre. I don’t see Dr. @TitaniaMcGrath listed there…— Gavin Hart (@SarcySuchas) December 17, 2020

That was my thought. This has to be a joke.— Anecdotitis (@violet4436) December 17, 2020

Shteyler and Adashi are affiliated with Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, while Clarke lists as her affiliation the Vanderbilt University Law School in Nashville, Tennessee.

Dating back to 1812 and operating under its current name since 1928, the NEJM is the oldest continuously published medical journal in the world, and is considered one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed publications in the US. 

That hasn’t prevented it from wading deep into controversial political waters, however. In October, the journal issued a veiled political endorsement of the Democrats in the upcoming US election, echoing Joe Biden’s talking points about the Covid-19 pandemic without naming any names. 

At the end of September, the NEJM published a study advocating for mandatory vaccinations against Covid-19 under penalty of job loss or home confinement, but stopping short of criminal charges as they would “disadvantage the poor” and minorities.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

Be seeing you

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

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.”

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/08/no_author/censorship-in-medical-journals-is-harmful-also-for-patients/

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 »

They Don’t Care About the Data, and They Never Have – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on June 6, 2020

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/06/allan-stevo/they-dont-care-about-the-data-and-they-never-have/

By

The number of viruses in you, or any other perfectly healthy human, at this moment outnumber your own cells by a factor of 100, as virologist Dr. John Mokili points out: “In the human holobiont, the 10^13 human cells are outnumbered 10-fold by bacteria and 100-fold by viruses.” Is the world really turning upside down over a virus?

Data Is Readily Available Today Like Never Before 

We live in the age of the Internet. That means with a few clicks, viewpoints that used to take hours of library work can be found in seconds.

Before the corona bans were put into place, there was vociferous opposition from all manner of perspectives as to why those bans were an awful idea.

Despite extensive datasets against lockdowns already existing, within weeks, the wrongheadedness of the lockdowns were being further demonstrated using the American datasets.

Belying the easy access to information, the useful demonstration of why the lockdowns were not effective was being censored from the internet. Introducing a new disappointing low in internet censorship, Medium quickly took down the above-linked piece by the pseudonymous Professor Hinkley. Its tech brethren from YouTube to Amazon, Google to Duck Duck Go followed suit censoring Covid-19 debate.

The Lockdown Took Place With Widespread Data Against The Lockdown 

Dozens of others have recounted the same experience with their Covid research, some using publicly available data to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the lockdown and calling for more effective policies.

Among those dozens who made good faith efforts to perform research, provide data, and contribute to the discussion through sharing their informed perspectives were:

Dr Sucharit Bhakdi,

Dr Wolfgang Wodarg,

Dr Joel Kettner,

Dr John Ioannidis,

Dr Yoram Lass,

Dr Pietro Vernazza,

Frank Ulrich Montgomery,

Prof. Hendrik Streeck,

Dr Yanis Roussel et. al.,

Dr. David Katz,

Michael T. Osterholm,

Dr Peter Goetzsche,

Dr. Sunetra Gupta et al.,

Dr Karin Mölling,

Dr Anders Tegnell,

Dr Pablo Goldschmidt,

Dr Eran Bendavid and Dr Jay Bhattacharya,

Dr Tom Jefferson,

Dr Michael Levitt,

German Network for Evidence-Based Medicine,

Dr Richard Schabas,

Dr John Lee,

Dr. John Oxford,

Prof Knut Wittkowski,

Dr Klaus Püschel,

Dr Alexander Kekulé,

Dr Claus Köhnlein,

Dr Gérard Krause,

Dr Gerd Gigerenzer.

The New England Journal of Medicine ran a piece March 26, 2020 by Dr. Anthony Fauci, two weeks after the earliest lockdowns and before some lockdowns had been implemented, that claimed in its third paragraph a much lower death rate than was being reported: “This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%)…”

The CDC itself has now demonstrated the death rate to be much lower than is being reported in the media, yet some states are increasing restrictions while others drag their feet in loosening them.

Large swaths of the media including Matt Drudge, CNN, the New York Times, and sadly a contributing editor at the Spectator report grossly inaccurate death rates of 5.9%, using weasel words to get away with continuing to use that scary number.

1 in 20 are not dying of Covid.

Some of these people may claim good intentions. Those who seek to control are aided by those who Mises in his 1947 essay “Planned Chaos,” described as “useful innocents,” who help them do their mischief, or “useful idiots,” as some call them. The time for permissible naïveté in aid of tyrants has passed.

Those Who Want To Control You Don’t Care About The Data, They Care About Controlling You  Read the rest of this entry »

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

The delusion called Fauci « Jon Rappoport’s Blog

Posted by M. C. on May 29, 2020

On July 26, 2000, the US medical community received a titanic shock, when Starfield revealed her findings on healthcare in America.

The Starfield review, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), came to the following conclusion, among others:

Every year in the US, correctly prescribed, FDA approved medical drugs kill 106,000 people. Thus, every decade, these drugs kill more than a MILLION people.

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/05/28/the-delusion-called-fauci/

by Jon Rappoport

This one was too good to pass up.

In an interview with the National Geographic, Tony Fauci made comments about “alternative views” of the origin of the coronavirus. But he was really talking about all unorthodox medical information:

“Anybody can claim to be an expert even when they have no idea what they’re talking about—and it’s very difficult for the general public to distinguish. So, make sure the study is coming from a reputable organization that generally gives you the truth—though even with some reputable organizations, you occasionally get an outlier who’s out there talking nonsense. If something is published in places like New England Journal of Medicine, Science, Nature, Cell, or JAMA—you know, generally that is quite well peer-reviewed because the editors and the editorial staff of those journals really take things very seriously.”

Right you are, Tony.

So, Tony, here is a very serious statement from a former editor of one of those “places,” the New England Journal of Medicine:

“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 an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption)

And here is another one, from the editor-in-chief of the prestigious journal, The Lancet, founded in 1823:

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…”

“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…” (Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”)

Why stop there? Let’s consult a late public-health expert whose shoes Fauci would have been lucky to shine: Dr. Barbara Starfield, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

On July 26, 2000, the US medical community received a titanic shock, when Starfield revealed her findings on healthcare in America.

The Starfield review, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), came to the following conclusion, among others:

Every year in the US, correctly prescribed, FDA approved medical drugs kill 106,000 people. Thus, every decade, these drugs kill more than a MILLION people.

On the heels of Starfield’s astonishing findings, media reporting was perfunctory, and it soon dwindled. No major newspaper or television network mounted an ongoing “Medicalgate” investigation. Neither the US Department of Justice nor federal health agencies undertook prolonged remedial action.

All in all, those parties who could have made effective steps to correct this ongoing tragedy preferred to ignore it.

On December 6-7, 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield by email. Here is an excerpt from that interview.

Q: What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000?

A: The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the ‘best health in the world’.

Q: In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame?

A: The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency).

Q: Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the [devastating] effects of the US medical system?

A: NO.

Q: Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?

A: No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.

Q: Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?

A: It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that ‘it would not be interesting to readers’!

—end of interview excerpt—

Physicians are trained to pay exclusive homage to peer-reviewed published drug studies. These doctors unfailingly ignore the fact that, if medical drugs are killing a million Americans per decade, the heraldic published studies on which those drugs are based must be fraudulent. In other words, the medical literature is completely unreliable, and impenetrable.

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE TWO ESTEEMED MEDICAL EDITORS I QUOTED ABOVE—MARCIA ANGELL AND RICHARD HORTON—ARE SAYING.

If you know a doctor who enjoys sitting up on his high horse dispensing the final word on modern medicine, you might give him the quotes from Dr. Angell and Dr. Horton, instruct him to read them, and suggest he get in touch with Angell and Horton, in order to discover what has happened to his profession.

As in: DISASTER.

But please, continue to believe everything Fauci is saying. He must be right about the “pandemic.” After all, he has a very important position, and he’s on television.

So what if his policies have torpedoed the economy and devastated and destroyed lives across the country?

So what if he accepted, without more than a glance, that fraud Neil Ferguson’s computer projection of 500,000 deaths in the UK and two million in the US? In 2005, Ferguson said 200 million people could die from bird flu. The final official tally was a few hundred.

So what?

Fauci has an important position, and he’s on television.

And that’s the definition of science, right?

Be seeing you

 

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