As an ob/ gyn , our medical journals are so captured, I stopped reading them . Despite the real time data , the ACOG still wants the jab in every pregnant woman’s arm . Medical schools and resident programs need to be revamped . We have residents who meet the minimum amount of surgical cases in order to graduate and never scrub another case unless they are on call . There is no disciplinary action . There is no intellectual curiosity. Stay healthy everyone, nobody is coming to save us .
You know the work of John P.A. Ioannidis? He has been exposing this for years and years. Highly respected but ignored. A colleague of Jay Bhattacharya.
Notably, some high-profile editors have publicly criticized the state of medical research or publishing, particularly around issues like conflicts of interest, biases, and the influence of pharmaceutical companies. Here are a few notable examples:
1- Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet:
In 2015, Horton reportedly said:
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”
This comment was made in the context of discussing issues such as small sample sizes, conflicts of interest, and an overemphasis on sensational findings.
2- Dr. Marcia Angell, former Editor-in-Chief of The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM):
In 2009, she stated:
“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.”
This was in relation to her concerns about the pharmaceutical industry's influence over research and journal publications.
3- Dr. Jerome Kassirer, also a former Editor-in-Chief of NEJM:
Kassirer has spoken out against the commercialization of medical research and its impact on journal integrity. He has criticised how journals may prioritise studies funded by industries with vested interests.
4- Dr. Fiona Godlee, former Editor-in-Chief of The BMJ (British Medical Journal):
Godlee has criticized the over-reliance on pharmaceutical industry-funded studies and the lack of transparency in medical research, arguing for reforms in how journals evaluate and publish findings.
The reality of the corruption of peer reviewed journals is tragic, disgusting and downright dangerous for each of us. I now trust nothing regarding "medical advancements". We are on our own.
"This assertion surprised the study authors, given LNPs are specifically designed to deliver genetic material to the inside of cells."
This sentence will probably draw the attention of all the deniers because it seems to confuse the difference between delivering the genetic material into a cell vs delivering it into the nucleus.
Subsequence paragraphs do discuss the mechanisms for delivery into the nucleus but I would have worded that differently.
(Posted here because I am not a subscriber to the other stack.)
And let us not forget that peer review in no way guarantees unbiased or lofty publishing standards, as infamously exemplified by the gibberish that managed to pass peer review and that included an AI generated image of a rat with a gargantuan phallus.
Frontiers | RETRACTED: Cellular functions of spermatogonial stem cells in relation to JAK/STAT signaling pathway
Perhaps the existing paper sources should be dissolved/replaced
and have this function taken over by several other groups.
EXAMPLES
IMA (formerly FLCCC), AIMPA, NAHAC, IPA, AAPS, etc.
. .
I'm thinking that the majority of content of the new publications should come from practicing clinical treatment doctors/associations, independent of healthcare companies' ownership.
. .
Advocacy groups for specific illnesses/conditions could jointly operate a publication.
. .
A government operated paper may be useful to balance out - or be balanced by - such publications. Due diligence requires watching the good guys too!
. .
It could also set or recommend minimum health and business performance standards
and set or recommend recourse for patients who have been neglected, wronged,
or harmed. It could work with - but be independent of - government agencies/programs. [Good luck with that!]
I myself once was assured they did not write my illness in the journal, because there should not be written so much in journals....! This was in 1980, Uppsala, Sweden.
Unfortunately these publications have become truly tyrannical, corrupted, bought and paid for by big Pharma resulting in vested interests promoted front and centre… my advice, take a leaf out of the book of how individuals have treated corporates and media whose behaviour is antithetical to belief, vote with your wallets… cancel the subscription, run campaigns to ensure their agenda and unprofessional practices are highlighted and called out… in other words do all you can to turn the tables and hurt them where it hurts most… the bottom line… finally, funds permitting issue suit where cases exist, hit them with everything contemporaneously such that they will be spinning given the attacks they face… then, they might just get the message and change, albeit whilst owned by billionaires the likelihood of that occurring is probably zilch… start a new journal, take them on… if enough scientists of repute publish within a new offering before long the new journal will gain a reputation as being the gold standard where premium high quality research is published.. note to intended creators of a new journal/s… get the set up correct from the get go, that will be what defines you… from acorns grow mighty oaks… just saying.
Since science is corrupted, avoid using the products. I put a paper on a preprint site and am wondering if it is worth the effort to send it to journals. It shows how imbalances in the sympathetic nervous system cause homosexuality.
As one who has written journal articles and watched many other, the system has been really broken for many years.
Think about the Mitchell hypothesis; he researched it in his mansion, Glynn, became a research center as well as his home. He couldn’t get support from established academia. Apparently, he was too imaginable.
As an ob/ gyn , our medical journals are so captured, I stopped reading them . Despite the real time data , the ACOG still wants the jab in every pregnant woman’s arm . Medical schools and resident programs need to be revamped . We have residents who meet the minimum amount of surgical cases in order to graduate and never scrub another case unless they are on call . There is no disciplinary action . There is no intellectual curiosity. Stay healthy everyone, nobody is coming to save us .
Never forget the lawyers … we follow protocols, otherwise people forget we get sued for not following specialty guidelines, I’m sad to say.
As a cancer patient I am aware that doctors follow orders, and treatments are not necessarily the best, but the most lucrative to pharma shareholders.
🙏get better Katarina
I'm trying! Thanks x
You are perfect.
Yes, when the journals get anywhere from 50 to 70% of the ad revenue from Big Pharma advertising it’s like the Fox guarding hen house
🎯
It didn’t used to be like that. I observed this trend about 25 years ago. : (
I wonder if Charles Darwin could get published today.
I would hope not, his work was not scientific experimentation, it was theological exploration.
Doubt it. Unless he accepts $$$ from Pharma.
I have always wondered about Lamarck and Darwin. I think Darwin & his group had more influence and/or money.
Did you forget Alfred Russell Wallace?
Kevin,
You know the work of John P.A. Ioannidis? He has been exposing this for years and years. Highly respected but ignored. A colleague of Jay Bhattacharya.
Ioannidis saved me from going insane in early 2020, helping me wade through the lies being showered down on us!
Me as well! Very, very early...he is instrumental in my 'awakening'. And he is Greek! ☦️
Notably, some high-profile editors have publicly criticized the state of medical research or publishing, particularly around issues like conflicts of interest, biases, and the influence of pharmaceutical companies. Here are a few notable examples:
1- Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet:
In 2015, Horton reportedly said:
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”
This comment was made in the context of discussing issues such as small sample sizes, conflicts of interest, and an overemphasis on sensational findings.
2- Dr. Marcia Angell, former Editor-in-Chief of The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM):
In 2009, she stated:
“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.”
This was in relation to her concerns about the pharmaceutical industry's influence over research and journal publications.
3- Dr. Jerome Kassirer, also a former Editor-in-Chief of NEJM:
Kassirer has spoken out against the commercialization of medical research and its impact on journal integrity. He has criticised how journals may prioritise studies funded by industries with vested interests.
4- Dr. Fiona Godlee, former Editor-in-Chief of The BMJ (British Medical Journal):
Godlee has criticized the over-reliance on pharmaceutical industry-funded studies and the lack of transparency in medical research, arguing for reforms in how journals evaluate and publish findings.
The reality of the corruption of peer reviewed journals is tragic, disgusting and downright dangerous for each of us. I now trust nothing regarding "medical advancements". We are on our own.
Peer review is possible, but just barely.
https://gsconlinepress.com/journals/gscarr/content/are-mrna-vaccines-inducing-sanarelli-shwartzman-phenomenon
https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/12
https://figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/Vitamin_C_Mitigating_and_Rescuing_from_Synergistic_Toxicity_Sodium_Fluoride_Silicofluorides_Aluminum_Salts_Electromagnetic_Pollution_and_SARS-CoV-2/13580318/1
Hydrophobic Catalysis by L-Ascorbic Acid: A supramolecular Strategy to counter the SARS-CoV2 ADP Ribose Glycohydrolase (figshare.com)
From the substack:
"This assertion surprised the study authors, given LNPs are specifically designed to deliver genetic material to the inside of cells."
This sentence will probably draw the attention of all the deniers because it seems to confuse the difference between delivering the genetic material into a cell vs delivering it into the nucleus.
Subsequence paragraphs do discuss the mechanisms for delivery into the nucleus but I would have worded that differently.
(Posted here because I am not a subscriber to the other stack.)
And let us not forget that peer review in no way guarantees unbiased or lofty publishing standards, as infamously exemplified by the gibberish that managed to pass peer review and that included an AI generated image of a rat with a gargantuan phallus.
Frontiers | RETRACTED: Cellular functions of spermatogonial stem cells in relation to JAK/STAT signaling pathway
New journal: https://journalofindependentmedicine.org/
Supposedly independent....I sent to Kevin McKernan, too....hopefully y'all can get some real science published!
CALLING TEAM MAHA?
Perhaps the existing paper sources should be dissolved/replaced
and have this function taken over by several other groups.
EXAMPLES
IMA (formerly FLCCC), AIMPA, NAHAC, IPA, AAPS, etc.
. .
I'm thinking that the majority of content of the new publications should come from practicing clinical treatment doctors/associations, independent of healthcare companies' ownership.
. .
Advocacy groups for specific illnesses/conditions could jointly operate a publication.
. .
A government operated paper may be useful to balance out - or be balanced by - such publications. Due diligence requires watching the good guys too!
. .
It could also set or recommend minimum health and business performance standards
and set or recommend recourse for patients who have been neglected, wronged,
or harmed. It could work with - but be independent of - government agencies/programs. [Good luck with that!]
I myself once was assured they did not write my illness in the journal, because there should not be written so much in journals....! This was in 1980, Uppsala, Sweden.
"understand why people don't have easy access to very important scientific evidence."
Because of paywalls?
Unfortunately these publications have become truly tyrannical, corrupted, bought and paid for by big Pharma resulting in vested interests promoted front and centre… my advice, take a leaf out of the book of how individuals have treated corporates and media whose behaviour is antithetical to belief, vote with your wallets… cancel the subscription, run campaigns to ensure their agenda and unprofessional practices are highlighted and called out… in other words do all you can to turn the tables and hurt them where it hurts most… the bottom line… finally, funds permitting issue suit where cases exist, hit them with everything contemporaneously such that they will be spinning given the attacks they face… then, they might just get the message and change, albeit whilst owned by billionaires the likelihood of that occurring is probably zilch… start a new journal, take them on… if enough scientists of repute publish within a new offering before long the new journal will gain a reputation as being the gold standard where premium high quality research is published.. note to intended creators of a new journal/s… get the set up correct from the get go, that will be what defines you… from acorns grow mighty oaks… just saying.
Kia Kaha from New Zealand
Since science is corrupted, avoid using the products. I put a paper on a preprint site and am wondering if it is worth the effort to send it to journals. It shows how imbalances in the sympathetic nervous system cause homosexuality.
As one who has written journal articles and watched many other, the system has been really broken for many years.
Think about the Mitchell hypothesis; he researched it in his mansion, Glynn, became a research center as well as his home. He couldn’t get support from established academia. Apparently, he was too imaginable.