Tom's Blog on Life and Livingness
“Corruption is creeping into the system,” admits Oxford University professor.
Skyrocketing peer-review fraud has caused a record-breaking 10,000+ sham research papers to be retracted in 2023 alone.
Experts are calling the startling revelation “only the tip of the iceberg.”
Last year’s deluge of fraudulent papers means that the total number of retractions issued so far has passed 50,000, according to a recent Nature analysis.
https://jonfleetwood.substack.com/p/trust-the-science-drug-development
58.9% of journal reviewers received pharmaceutical industry payments, revealing massive industry conflict of interest.
A new research letter published October 10, 2024 in the peer-reviewed publisher JAMA reveals that reviewers for major medical journals have received $1.06 billion in pharmaceutical industry payments, highlighting significant conflicts of interest within medical research.
The letter begins by emphasizing the existence of “conflicts of interest of journal editors and authors” and that “the traditionally opaque nature of peer review has hindered their evaluation among peer reviewers, despite their crucial role in academic publishing.”
The authors point out that while most journals have established conflict of interest policies for authors, “fewer extend these policies to peer reviewers.”
They write that “reviewer conflict of interest disclosures are rare” and “leading medical journals may have industry ties due to their academic expertise.”
The U.S., Canadian, and Japanese researchers sought to characterize payments by drug and medical device manufacturers to U.S. peer reviewers of major medical journals.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, these journals experienced an unprecedented surge in citations, particularly for their COVID-related publications.
The new letter raises questions about these journals being relied upon for accurate and unbiased information, especially during a pandemic.
The authors conclude by calling for “additional research and transparency regarding industry payments in the peer review process.”
Top Medical Journals
The letter identified peer reviewers for The British Medical Journal (BMJ), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) using each journal’s 2022 reviewer list.
“These journals were selected for their high impact factor and reputation as leading publications of original general medical research,” the letter reads.
After extracting general and research payments to the identified peer reviewers between 2020 and 2022 from the Open Payments database, the researchers captured payments from drug and medical device manufacturers to US-licensed physicians.
Nearly 60% of Reviewers Took $1.06 Billion from Pharma Industry Over 3 Years
A total of 1,962 unique reviewers were identified, with 145 (7.4%) reviewing for more than one journal.
Between 2020 and 2022, 1,155 reviewers (58.9%) received pharmaceutical industry payments: 54.0% accepted general payments, and 31.8% received payments for research.
Between 2020 and 2022, reviewers received an astounding $1.06 billion in industry payments, with 94.0% ($1 billion) going to individuals or institutions and a median research payment of $153,173.
“Reviewers received $1.06 billion in industry payments between 2020 and 2022, including $1.00 billion (94.0%) to individuals or their institutions and $64.18 million (6.0%) in general payments,” the letter reads.
“Consulting fees and speaking compensation unrelated to continuing medical education programs accounted for $34.31 million and $11.80 million, respectively. Over the 3 years, the median general payment was $7614 (IQR, $495-$43 069) and the median research payment was $153 173 (IQR, $29 307-$835 637) among reviewers receiving such payments.”
https://jonfleetwood.substack.com/p/big-pharma-paid-over-1-billion-to
(Tom: The gaslighting, misinformation, disinformation, manipulation and downright lying continues…)
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/urgent-authors-of-a-big-new-paper
The orthodox “health industry” is claiming that wellness is a bad idea. Why? It eats into their profits, of course!
So their platform is that all aspects of self-care, alternatives to drugs and surgery, diet and nutrition are bad, could kill the patients (as if) and is morally, even legally, wrong. Besides, it’s “not scientific”.
“Wellness companies use the same strategies as evidence-based medicine, they claim, to sell tests for diseases that don’t exist and treatments that don’t work, recommended by individuals who aren’t qualified.” So says a rant by a couple of apologists, Andrea Love, PhD, and Katie Suleta, DHSc, MPH, MS, writing for MedPage Today.
No mention in this publication of the fact that MILLIONS of patients are being killed by the clumsy, pseudo-scientific orthodox medicine approach that they are boasting of.
Of course the medical profession peddles diseases that don’t exist and treatments that don’t work, but that’s OK. Forget the fact that outcomes are deplorable. It’s business as usual, fighting down the competitors!
We all remain conscious of the startling paper in 2000 published by the late Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, which revealed that doctors are the 3rd leading cause of death in the US! (after cancer and heart disease).
These deaths consist of:
• 12,000 – unnecessary surgeries
• 7,000 – medication errors in hospitals
• 20,000 – other errors in hospitals
• 80,000 – infections acquired in hospitals
• 106,000 – non-error, negative effects of drugs
The last figure needs some explanation. She is saying that over 100,000 patients a year are dying of medications correctly prescribed, at the correct dose (in other words, not errors) but still proved fatal.*
That’s a total of 250,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes! Iatrogenic is a Greek word which means “caused by doctors”.1
I don’t know if you consider that a quarter of a million deaths per year is a lot, in a population of around 300 million. But it ought to be zero, or very close. 250,000 a year is equivalent to a million people killed by doctors every four years, in just one country.
Gary Null et al. gives a far higher number but we’ll stick with Starfield. See Gary’s piece here.
Now Starfield only calculated deaths. What about permanent injury or damage? Frederick van Pelt, a doctor who works for The Chartis Group, a health care consultancy, said another element of harm that is often overlooked is the number of severe patient injuries resulting from medical error.
“‘Some estimates would put this number at 40 times the death rate,’ van Pelt said.”
*Actually, according to Starfield, who prepared the report for The Journal of the American Medical Association, doctors are actually the number one killer, because they do not inform patients properly of the hazards of the procedures they offer (why would they? The patient might have second thoughts and that would lose income for the doctor!)
It’s not just about errors of judgement and treatments. Misdiagnosis resulting in (of course) inappropriate and potentially harmful treatments is also rampant. A recent groundbreaking study published in BMJ Quality & Safety (2024) that found approximately 795,000 Americans suffer permanent disability or death annually due to diagnostic errors.2
Cancer blunders seem exceptionally likely. In 2012 The National Cancer Institute convened an expert panel which determined that MILLIONS of individuals may have been wrongly diagnosed with “cancer” of the breast, prostate, thyroid, and lung, when in fact their conditions were likely harmless, and should have been termed “indolent or benign growths of epithelial origin.”
Importantly, no radical change occurred in the conventional practice of cancer diagnosis, prevention, or treatment. Nothing improved. The harvesting of human suffering continued as before.
This is overdiagnosis to raise funds (not to help patients).
Along with overdiagnosis is the problem of overtreatment. When non-threatening abnormalities are labeled as “cancer,” women often undergo aggressive treatments that can cause significant harm with no real benefit. Surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy are not without serious dangers, never mind side-effect.
Yet these are handed out as if there was not, and could not be, any complications. Mastectomy can be very hurtful. If it’s not necessarily then it becomes a major criminal assault, as in indictable offence in my view.
Then there are the numerous multiple hormone treatments, messing about with a woman’s sacred physiology, all in pursuit of profits, not better health.
The scale is just mind boggling. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine some years ago estimated that over a 30-year period, 1.3 million U.S. women were over-diagnosed and overtreated for breast cancer.3
If you do the math, that’s 70,000 women a year receiving unnecessary treatment. Most appallingly, that includes an estimated 20,000-25,000 women undergoing needless mastectomies or lumpectomies annually.4 A quarter of a million breast “amputations” per decade. Makes me shudder.
Yet orthodox apologists and the goons they defend dare to criticize alternative healers who, in a way, are protecting patients from the full onslaught of this greed and industrialized medicine. There are days when I wake up ashamed of my beloved profession!
https://alternative-doctor.com/sanctimonious-wellness-hypocrisy-by-prescription/
One of the fundamental principles in statistics is that variable phenomena tend to distribute on a bell curve, with the average value (e.g., adult American men being 5’9—which is a bit above the global average) being by far the most common, while values become exponentially rarer as they move further away from that mean (e.g., only 15% of adult American men are at least six feet tall).
Sensitivity to pharmaceuticals and environmental toxins (e.g., synthetic chemicals) follows a similar pattern, with a minority of the population existing which is extremely sensitive to these things (and conversely, on the end of the bell curve, another minority exists on the opposite end which has a very high tolerance to them).
The important thing about this principle is that it can frequently allow you to infer a great deal from limited data. For example:
•Shortly after the COVID-19 vaccines entered the market, I had multiple people contact me to share that a loved one had died suddenly—something I’d never seen with any other vaccine. Given how frequently the standard vaccines cause significant injuries (e.g., the independent studies that have been done collectively show that the childhood vaccines cause between a 1.5 to 40 times increase in the rates of chronic illness), I immediately inferred that around 10% of recipients would experience significant side effects—which is insane for something being given to everyone. Later, large surveys showed 7% of recipients believed they’d had a “major effect from the vaccine,” 13.4% stated they’d developed a “severe health issue” after COVID vaccination, and 34% reported “minor effects” from the vaccine.
•After Ozempic hit the market, I began seeing a large number of people with minor or moderate issues from it. Because of this, I correctly inferred serious side effects would begin emerging, especially once the higher dose for weight loss began being used.
https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/how-your-clothes-and-their-materials-231
Researchers at the University of Auckland are investigating cataract treatments that enhance the antioxidant glutathione (GSH) in the lens. Cataracts, a leading cause of vision impairment, are often treated with surgery, but the risks and long wait times have prompted growing interest in alternative approaches, such as antioxidant-based therapies, to prevent or delay their development. Risk factors include age, diabetes, and prior eye surgeries like vitrectomy, making non-invasive solutions an appealing option.
While cataract surgery is a common solution, it carries significant risks. In 42% of cases, patients experience dry eyes, and in 20%, a droopy eyelid can occur. Other side effects may include floaters, retinal detachment, eye infections, glaucoma, further vision loss, and even secondary cataracts. These risks highlight the importance of exploring natural remedies and preventative measures before opting for surgery. Although scientific evidence for natural treatments may be limited, they present minimal risk and could offer benefits over time.
Oxidative stress plays a big role in the development of cataracts, but antioxidants like glutathione (GSH) can help slow this process. However, getting GSH into the lens of the eye is difficult due to natural barriers. Some strategies, like activating the Nrf2 pathway, show promise in boosting glutathione levels and protecting against cataracts. Lutein, a nutrient found in dark leafy greens, eggs, and other foods, also helps shield the eyes from oxidative stress and blue light, which can speed up cataract formation and other issues like macular degeneration. Keeping a healthy gut and getting enough antioxidants like glutathione and lutein is key to maintaining long-term eye health and preventing vision problems.
I spoke in both Tokyo and in DC regarding the self-replicating mRNA COVID vaccine that began deployment in Japan on October 01, 2024. The product is named “Costaive”.
This variant on the original mRNA vaccine concept and patents does not involve use of pseudouridine, so there is that upside. It requires much lower doses of mRNA/lipid nanoparticle complexes than used by either Pfizer or Moderna, so this is also encouraging. However, it does rely on delivery of an mRNA molecule which is “self replicating”, so once it makes its way into your cells (cytoplasm, not nucleus) it will reproduce itself to yield large numbers of genomic copies, and in this way drive your cells to produce of large amounts of the “payload” protein. In the case of the COVID vaccine version the payload is the toxic SARS-CoV-2 “spike” protein. All this is based on one version of the equine encephalitis virus alphavirus type. As you can tell from the name, the native form of these alphaviruses cause infections and inflammation of the brain – ergo “encephalitis”.
Once again, as we saw during Operation Warp Speed, regulatory testing norms have been bypassed on the fast track to approval to market this product, and the central safety issues of potential shedding and uptake by other (non-injected) humans, or animals has not been assessed. To provide context, “naked” single stranded RNA virus RNA can be infectious – the notable example being polio virus RNA. The key concept here is that, when you have a self-replicating system, a rare event of “naked” RNA “transfection” can eventually lead to a lot of RNA. Of course this is important both for spread to other organs and tissues in the intended vaccine recipient as well as in others who may be in close contact with the vaccine recipient. Furthermore, this alphavirus – self replicating RNA technology has been plagued by a chronic problem throughout the preceding three+ decades of development. Neurotoxicity. So you would think that the responsible regulatory authorities would require careful assessment of the risks that these products and technology to the central and peripheral nervous system. This has apparently not been done. In fact, there has been little or no long term safety assessments of the risk profile of these products. What we do know is that virtually all humans across the globe have already been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and have some level of “natural” immunity to the disease, and that methods for treating the disease (COVID) involving early drug treatment are inexpensive and widely available.
As you might infer from my prior comments, the human test bed for initial deployment of this product and technology is Japan and the Japanese people. A highly compliant population, much like was the case with Israel.
Which brings me to the present situation, recent travels to Tokyo, the massive protest against using the Japanese people as lab rats, and the deployment of this product into the elderly Japanese population.
Those paying attention to this story may recall that the CEO of the Japanese corporate partner who is behind this drive to expose Japanese elders to this novel, innovative, technology which lacks shedding and long term toxicity data has threatened legal action or arrest of any raising concerns about this technology and its deployment. Nothing says “safe and effective” quite like threatening any who question safety with legal consequences or jail.
This just in from one of our Japanese colleagues who played a central role in enabling the International Crisis Summit #6:
It looks like no one wants to take the self-replicating mRNA shot. It is said that even the nursery homes don’t want to apply it. For Meiji Seika Pharma and the consortium behind it is a major business disaster. Therefore, they need someone to blame. This is a big point for us in the first round, with special thanks to the international speakers at the ICS6. But we need to make sure that it stays like this and be even more proactive. We wish to counter the lawsuit (or its announcement) with an international front of scientists against the mRNA shots, in particular the self-replicating type. Please post this news on X or write an article on Substack. Thanks a lot!
Ginkgo biloba has been researched to have potential value in the treatment of over 100 diseases. Here are just 17 proven ways it can heal
https://nexusnewsfeed.com/article/food-cooking/17-proven-health-benefits-of-ginkgo-biloba/