The Corruption of Evidence Based Medicine — Killing for Profit

I enjoy reading medical studies. I especially enjoy following medical studies in their progression as they slowly and methodically build upon one another. At its best, the process is a wonder to behold. But at worst, it's an unconscionable and shameful distortion and misrepresentation of the whole truth putting profits before patients. Evidence based medicine sounds wonderful and practical and effective and quite appropriate. Except when that evidence is cherry picked or contrived or otherwise tainted. This article does an excellent job of explaining how this systemic exploitation is done -- at our expense, both in terms of our finances and our health.

The Corruption of Evidence Based Medicine — Killing for Profit

The article first notes that the problem is recognized and known within the medical journal community:

The 2 most prestigious journals of medicine in the world are The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine. Richard Horton, editor in chief of The Lancet said this in 2015:

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue”

Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of NEJM wrote in 2009 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. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor”

Dr. Relman another former editor in chief of the NEJM said this in 2002:

“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”

The article goes on to enumerate the many ways these study results are manipulated and misrepresented to the public, with detailed descriptions and specific examples/statistics in practice. The article is well worth reading in its entirety; I can only provide snippets here:

Selective Publication

 Negative trials (those that show no benefit for the drugs) are likely to be suppressed. For example, in the case of antidepressants, 36/37 studies that were favourable to drugs were published. But of the studies not favorable to drugs, a paltry 3/36 were published. Selective publication of positive (for the drug company) results means that a review of the literature would suggest that 94% of studies favor drugs where in truth, only 51% were actually positive.

Rigging of Outcomes

Prior to year 2000, companies doing trials did not need to declare what end points they measured. So they measure many different endpoints and simply figured out which one looked best and then declared the trial a success. Kind of like tossing a coin, looking at which one come up more, and saying that they were backing the winning side. If you measured enough outcomes, something was bound to come up positive.

In 2000, the government moved to stop these shenanigans. They required companies to register what they were measuring ahead of time. Prior to 2000, 57% of trials showed a positive result. After 2000, a paltry 8% showed good results.

‘Advertorials’

Or this example of a review paper in the NEJM that fracture rates caused by the lucrative bisphosphonate drugs were “very rare”. Not only did the drug companies pay lots of consulting fees to the doctors, three of the authors of this review were full time employees! To allow an advertorial to be published as the best scientific fact is scandalous. Doctors, trusting the NEJM to publish quality, unbiased advice have no idea that this review article is pure advertising.

Money from Reprints

If a company publishes an article in the NEJM, they may order several hundred thousand copies of the article to be distributed to unsuspecting doctors everywhere. These fees are not trivial. The NEJM publisher Massachusetts Medical Society gets 23% of its income from reprints. The Lancet — 41%. The American Medical Association — a gut busting 53%.

Bribery of Journal Editors

A recent study by Liu et al in the BMJ shed more light on the problem of crooked journals. Crooked journal editors. Editors play a crucial role in determining the scientific dialogue by deciding which manuscripts are published. They determine who the peer reviewers are.... Of all journal editors that could be assessed, 50.6% were on the take. The average payment in 2014 was $27,564. Each. This does not include an average $37,330 given for ‘research’ payments.

Publication Bias

Looking at studies in the field of neurodegenerative disease, researchers looked at all the studies that were started but never finished or never published. Approximately 28% of studies never made it to the finish line. That’s a problem. If all the studies that don’t look promising for drug candidates are not published, then it appears that the drugs are way way more effective than they really are. But the published ‘evidence base’ would falsely support the drug. Indeed, Pharma sponsored trials were 5 times more likely to be unpublished.

Financial conflicts of interest (COI)

A national survey in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2007 shows that 94% of physicians had ties to the pharmaceutical industry

The author of the article gives Big Pharma a free pass and places the blame firmly on the shoulders of "doctors and universities" who sold us out:

Unfortunately, doctors and universities have been willing participants in this game of killing for profit. We need to end it now. End the corruption of the universities. Stop the bribery of doctors.

But there's plenty of blame to go around. As the author notes, Big Pharma is doing what they are required by law to do: Maximize profits for their shareholders. True enough. But Big Pharma likes these rules and wanted these rules, and it was our congress critters who created these rules, and it's the government which continues to enforce these rules, and the people who accept these rules. None of this is written in stone. We made the rules and we can change the rules.

But more people need to understand how our health -- and our very lives! -- have been sold to the highest bidder for their best interests -- not our best interests. And we all need to understand that questioning a suspect system is not anti-science or denying science, it is rather demanding real and true science. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

What??? Human beings putting their own interests ahead of the interests of others???? No way.

a reply to: Boadicea

In a former position I had as a software engineer, my company made a software package for use by pharma companies in clinical trials. This was an electronic diary on a PalmPilot that would alarm the patient and elicit responses to questions (assessments). While doing the research to determine whether such a program would work, my company did a little test...

We took a paper diary, the kind of paper diary that every drug up until our software came out was "trialed" with, and added a light sensor and a processor to record when the diary was opened and closed. We gave this diary to patients in an actual clinical trial (without telling them the diary was instrumented) and let them do their thing. Compliance is a number that is used to determine how many patients followed the procedures of the studies and answered the question when asked. Wanna guess what the compliance was for this study?

< 25% of patients filled out the diary when they were supposed to. A huge percentage (i can't remember at the moment) of patients filled out the entire diary the day of their check-up appointment - filling out a month's worth of assessments in the 15-20 minutes right before their appointment. A fair percentage (again I can't remember the numbers), actually filled out the entire diary the day they got it! That's right! They pre-filled their diary!

Almost every drug on the market is on the market due to studies just like the above - basing efficacy and safety on a data set that is only 25% accurate...

Our software has greatly improved the process because now patients have to be compliant with regards to when assessments are filled out, so the data is A LOT better.

However, that doesn't help in the case where the Pharma company doesn't report the negative outcomes...

- Sah

I humbly thank you for your post.

This is a GLOBAL issue and as such a reverse extrapolated template can be built showing exactly who is responsible for the CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY that have been committed over many decades and centuries....we can narrow it down to individuals and we can measure levels of culpability of all underlings as we go.

The People now know about everything under the sun...from Tesla being suppressed to the cure for cancer and all disease being suppressed to free energy being suppressed to you name it.....The People no longer defer to peer apporved publications and sectorial manipulated controlled propaganda poisoned libraries for their inputs...they use the internet ...as such their definition of PROOF is now aligned more with the WORD of ANOTHER HUMAN than the words written o the pages of an old book if they even know what a real book is anymore....lol....I understand your view and your ple for everyone to step up and realise they are in fact the vehicles of change....just be patient and continue supporting the truths we see online keep reposting things you believe and supporting freedom of knowledge IMHO cancer is a pleomorphic bacteria very easy to kill and I support that knowledge with no olde style peer approved data swaying me away .....traditional venues of change are not available so The People have created a new one a SUPERHIGHWAY of data that has changed Humanity forever.Gotta love the Net.

a reply to: Sahasrara

Wow. That's mind-boggling. I knew that compliance and accurate record keeping by patients was a concerning factor in many studies; I had no idea the rate would be that low. That actually surprises me -- but probably shouldn't. I would just expect that when dealing with something this crucial, more care and responsibility would be taken by patients. After all, they're the ones to benefit most!

When your company conceived/implemented this software, did they have any particular percentages they thought they were dealing with? Did the numbers surprise anyone? Or were they pretty much what was expected?

It is nice to see someone else reading these articles with an open mind and awareness of what is really happening.

I am starting to think that companies making all these chemicals added to foods are connected to the ones making the medicines to treat diseases created by our food supply. I scrutinize any food that they tout as a superfood, certain combinations of food do more at doping us than actually keeping us healthy. Yogurt cultures contain lactobaccilli which excrete a chemical that inhibits the production of an enzyme that breaks down casomorphin in the milk. On top of that a chemistry found in Salmon, especially the skin, also inhibits this enzyme. So they have been pushing yogurt and salmon on us for years now. These morphins found in all milk calm the crying baby. This goes back many years, they have just discovered how it works in the last ten to fifteen years, or basically since they started pushing yogurt and salmon.

The calming of the masses has always been considered way more important than the health of the masses. Every culture has done it differently through history though, even wheat was pushed because of it's doping quality. It has opiate peptides that calm people too. Although I believe we need this calming chemistry, I do not think that they should trick people into taking forms they are not tolerant metabolically too. Also I feel that people should be taught of some of these properties so society could moderate themselves better instead of tricking people into changing their diet inappropriately and making them sick. This calming chemistry is added to our countries foods and labeled as a different purpose, they have found how to stimulate production of calming chemistry in the food, trouble is this chemistry is not properly regulated, not accounting for intolerances or mixtures of chemistries in the diet. Our health care costs are going to keep increasing until they fix this problem. Even chemistry that calms can actually cause psychosis, anxiety, or depression if taken by someone that does not tolerate it because of low enzyme creation to detox it or improper mixing of food and added chemistry in our foods.

For some people pineapple is good, for others it can have really bad effects, same for onions, same for garlic, same for honey or even turmeric. Everyone is different, we need to understand this.

a reply to: rickymouse

Thank you for commenting and sharing all of that -- it is much appreciated! In fact, I always look forward to your comments on these subjects. I am always learning from you and I thank you for that

For some people pineapple is good, for others it can have really bad effects, same for onions, same for garlic, same for honey or even turmeric. Everyone is different, we need to understand this.

This is so very important. There is no safe and effective "one-size-fits-all" anything -- much less medicine and health care! But that's pretty much what the current system demands and it's just not that simple. The worst part is that any/all dissenting or even alternative voices are silenced by the same system and its regulations/restrictions. And it doesn't help when the industry believes its own publicity. Many good people who are health care providers truly believe they have the right answers, the best answers, the only answers because... well... garbage in, garbage out. They really don't know any better. Others do know, but choose willful ignorance for their own benefit.

The only answer is to take the power away from the few -- who have roundly abused this power and authority -- and give it back to the many. We need to maximize education of the people, as well as research and development of treatments, etc., that must put the patient's best interests first.

This is all we need, a bunch of horny old men with cancer. www.sciencedaily.com...

Goldman Sachs Asks ‘Is Curing Patients A Sustainable Business Model?’

In an April 10 financial report titled “The Genome Revolution,” company analysts allegedly posed the question “is curing patients a sustainable business model?” The report broke down the pros and cons of new gene therapy treatments being worked on by biotech companies. Turning the search for medical remedies into a numbers game, analyst Salveen Richter called potential “one shot cures” a bad business decision that will hurt a company’s bottom line.

newyork.cbslocal.com...

originally posted by: rickymouse
This is all we need, a bunch of horny old men with cancer. www.sciencedaily.com...

Talk about pressure on the wife... can't very well say "no" to your cancer ridden dying hubby, eh???

I do like the idea of re-purposing drugs though. It's a win-win in so many ways, and especially in terms of cost-effectiveness, having already been proven safe. And presumably the new studies for re-purposing would be based upon some evidence from those already taking it, putting the research a few steps ahead in the game.

I believe with the proper research, we would find that many drugs are effective against many conditions and diseases because they are somehow related -- and we just don't understand how. Likewise, we would probably also find that many conditions/diseases can have multiple causes. All depending upon the individual and their specific conditions and circumstances. With further study, we could figure some of this out. Breaking down the body into its individual organs and functions is valuable and has its place, but we cannot lose sight of its synergy and that the various parts work together for the whole.

a reply to: SeaWorthy

Grrrrrr... that makes my blood boil. It represents everything wrong with the current system. The article doesn't say how they got their hands on this report, if it was supposed to be confidential, or if they're just not hiding their greed and avarice any longer.... But what really infuriates me is that the law demands that corporations do exactly this... the corporations fiduciary responsibility is to its shareholders and maximizing their profits. The law could be changed, and should be changed, but it isn't. And then the critters pretend the problem is everything EXCEPT their laws demanding profits before patients.

And at the same time, the laws and regulations by these same critters have locked us into this corrupt system that benefits the few at our expense, creating more and more hoops for us to jump through, making us more and more dependent on greedy sociopaths for questionable healthcare.

We are even told that healthcare is not a right... that we do not have the right to force others to provide medical care. And that's just BS. we sure as hell do have a right - a natural inalienable right granted by nature's God -- to use the fruits of the earth to nurture and nurse our health and lives. Government needs to get the hell out of our way.

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: rickymouse
This is all we need, a bunch of horny old men with cancer. www.sciencedaily.com...

Talk about pressure on the wife... can't very well say "no" to your cancer ridden dying hubby, eh???

I do like the idea of re-purposing drugs though. It's a win-win in so many ways, and especially in terms of cost-effectiveness, having already been proven safe. And presumably the new studies for re-purposing would be based upon some evidence from those already taking it, putting the research a few steps ahead in the game.

I believe with the proper research, we would find that many drugs are effective against many conditions and diseases because they are somehow related -- and we just don't understand how. Likewise, we would probably also find that many conditions/diseases can have multiple causes. All depending upon the individual and their specific conditions and circumstances. With further study, we could figure some of this out. Breaking down the body into its individual organs and functions is valuable and has its place, but we cannot lose sight of its synergy and that the various parts work together for the whole.

You call getting the wife knocked up at fifty safe? Especially when you are probably going to die of cancer

a reply to: rickymouse

D'oh! Shame on me! I should have been more specific there...

I like the re-purposing of established drugs in general... not the re-purposing of these drugs in particular!!!

I had read the quote by Dr. Relman a few days ago. Pure science is great but people seem to refuse to believe that it can be used for political purposes and nearly always used for profit regardless of the human cost. The more the MSM pushes any idea like "climate change" the more I'm convinced it's for power and profit and not to "save humanity". They could care less about that because there is no money in it.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: rickymouse

D'oh! Shame on me! I should have been more specific there...

I like the re-purposing of established drugs in general... not the re-purposing of these drugs in particular!!!

I see some drugs being re-purposed that should not be given in the first place for treating another disease. I am studying a lot of Pharmaceutical chemistry and bio-chemistry now and see that the solutions they derive for a disease does not fix the problem very often. Medicines are given to treat symptoms, not cure diseases. Many are given to dampen our immune system response, not cure the infection. Sometimes that is necessary because our immune system can kill us. Temporarily dampening it is necessary quite often. If you do dampen the system, you can stay sicker longer, but not as intensely.

From my studies I see very few new chemistries being created, I guess that was done prior to the seventies and eighties extensively with funding from our government. Research peaked in the late seventies if I remember right.They did identify a lot of medicines and the effects back then of these meds, this database is what is used to design lots of new meds, they just have to make the chemistry newly patentable and accepted by the FDA for the disease.

Ongoing research these days is a lot less than people think it is overall. This database was actually paid for by our government at great expense. I have read of many drugs being formed from this database in the last five years. Even statin chemistry is an old known chemistry. The present increase of the cost of medicines is actually not justifiable.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Heck yes, flip that MSM narrative 180 degrees and then start searching for the truth. It takes a lot less time to discover the BS that way.

Now if we could just get people to stop consuming this substance labeled as food these conglomerates produce. That would probably remove the need for 90% of these pharmaceutical products and medical services.

a reply to: rickymouse

It all sounds so complicated when you start talking about morphins and peptides. Shouldn't our intuition swiftly guide us away from foods that work against us? Humans have been around a while...

It truly shocks me that it doesn't work that way. I'll use myself as an example. Toward the end of last year, thinking it was no more than a fad, and for the sole reason of supporting my wife's dietary changes, I became one of the "gluten-free" people. Depression and anxiety lifted; joint pain disappeared; ringing ears subsided, and more. (Sadly, my psoriasis remains.) For something that was apparently causing me so much discomfort, I never suspected that my morning toast was causing it.

originally posted by: DictionaryOfExcuses
a reply to: rickymouse

It all sounds so complicated when you start talking about morphins and peptides. Shouldn't our intuition swiftly guide us away from foods that work against us? Humans have been around a while...

It truly shocks me that it doesn't work that way. I'll use myself as an example. Toward the end of last year, thinking it was no more than a fad, and for the sole reason of supporting my wife's dietary changes, I became one of the "gluten-free" people. Depression and anxiety lifted; joint pain disappeared; ringing ears subsided, and more. (Sadly, my psoriasis remains.) For something that was apparently causing me so much discomfort, I never suspected that my morning toast was causing it.

That could be a problem with the lectins in the wheat or the opiate peptides bound to the gluten. Or of course the chemistry of the gluten itself. All three of those different chemistries I just mentioned can cause the problems you were having. Even the roundup preharvest treatment of the grains can leave residues that can cause some of the symptoms you experienced. But no matter what, eliminating the gluten eliminated most of those and your body can manufacture enzymes to properly detox any remaining problems. Problem solved.

I gave up gluten for about a week, it didn't make much difference. I had already started making our own bread though and most of the stuff is organic and I do not have much bad reaction to that bread at all. It is not like the store bought bread with it's azacarbo crap and DATEM. I have positively identified DATEM as a problem for me, it took a couple of years to positively see the correlation. Lots of research too, you can find out what is in the buns at fast food joints and subway on the net. I am happy it is not gluten itself, although the flour we do use is not high gluten. I can eat the rye bread from a local bakery with no problem, it is about sixty percent rye, and I called there, it is let sit after rising for at least eight hours in the cooler, it is a sourdough. Rye enzymes and yeast enzymes do break down gluten and the opiate peptides within eight to ten hours pretty much, longer would reduce them more.

I like sandwiches and toast with my eggs, I figured I wanted to find out more precisely what I am intolerant to. My metabolism is not going to be the same as others, so what I learned may not work for others. I even got sick off the health food coop bread, made with regular organic flours. So I dug deeper and deeper, not many people have time to do that.

Ironically, after I read your post a customer in my store passed out from a Shingles vaccination. Later in the day I overheard an older gentlemen say he got the shingles vaccination and ended up with shingles six months later. His "hair hurts," he said.

I've meet a slim few that receives a flu shot and doesn't get sick! I work in a pharmacy.
I've never had the flu shot and do not fall ill, at all, though I work in a pharmacy and handle all sorts of nasty things sick people touch. If a majority of people knew the cost of most cancer medicines they would revolt over night, or if most people had any idea how medical insurance works. It's a total scam from start to finish.

Another fun fact, and a symbol of just how stupid people are. They just changed the labels of all fish oil supplements to read "Omega oil." And because the labels no longer say fish oil people won't buy them. They don't believe me when I tell them it's the same exact fish oil they have been buying, just labelled differently.

This is how completely stupid people are, and I don't know what's worse: The fact people blindly buy fish oil and have no idea what's in it, or that people were buying fish oil just because a PhD told them too.
We laugh about it all shift. The old bags just don't understand it!

I am starting to think that companies making all these chemicals added to foods are connected to the ones making the medicines to treat diseases created by our food supply.

You are right. If you look at what chemicals and processes are used by the food technicians, you will find that there are drugs prescribed by the doctors that do the exact opposite.

To make meat juicy, they inject the burgers with water. But that water would naturally evaporate, so they have to add surfactants and other chemicals to make the meat retain the water. Guess what some causes of high blood pressure is? Water retention. So a patient is prescribed diuretics to make them pass all that extra water. Drugs like Benzufluorizide.
Caffeine also raises blood pressure. Same with sugars. Phosphorus in soft drinks removes calcium from the body. But calcium and other elements are required for healthy brain function and memory.