The few times I visited a hospital I met people there with complications from previous drugs. One with liver failure. Thanks to that experience no covid shot for me, plus I actually read the pfzier study the judge forced them to release. I now view drug companies on the level of Cartels in Mexico with politicians in their pockets.
> The few times I visited a hospital I met people there with complications from previous drugs.
Well… yeah? All medications have a list of possible side effects in the leaflet. It’s just that the disease tends to be worse.
"For more than 150 trials, Carlisle got access to anonymized individual participant data (IPD). By studying the IPD spreadsheets, he judged that 44% of these trials contained at least some flawed data: impossible statistics, incorrect calculations or duplicated numbers or figures, for instance. And in 26% of the papers had problems that were so widespread that the trial was impossible to trust, he judged — either bec…
As someone who works in Data Science at FAANG - if you look hard enough - there is something questionably wrong in every step of the data funnel. And that's when I believe people do have a somewhat best effort to maximize profits. There are plenty of people that only care about career progression and think they can get away with lying and cheating their way to the top. They wouldn't believe that if it didn't work som…
I know someone who’s fabricated almost all their work. Their lab leads always cover it up and don’t retract their work. The crazy part is this person has failed upwards and is currently a senior researcher at a major research institution. They’ve been at UCLA and UCSF for medical research.
"For more than 150 trials, Carlisle got access to anonymized individual participant data (IPD). By studying the IPD spreadsheets, he judged that 44% of these trials contained at least some flawed data: impossible statistics, incorrect calculations or duplicated numbers or figures, for instance. And in 26% of the papers had problems that were so widespread that the trial was impossible to trust, he judged — either bec…
Two relevant perspectives to share: "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." -Marcia Angell "If the image of medicine I have conve…
Ah, but don’t worry folks, those vaccines which generated $40B in profits for Pfizer and Moderna, those are just A-ok. Trust the science, which in this case is perfect, unassailable and uncorruptible (unlike everything else the pharma industry does). Don’t question the faith.
Two relevant perspectives to share: "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." -Marcia Angell "If the image of medicine I have conve…
Ah, but don’t worry folks, those vaccines which generated $40B in profits for Pfizer and Moderna, those are just A-ok. Trust the science, which in this case is perfect, unassailable and uncorruptible (unlike everything else the pharma industry does). Don’t question the faith.
And those weren't simple studies they were self-policed and self-reported trials. Trials that determined FDA green lighting. How can the FDA operate like that when the incentives to profit are 40B x more than being honest.
Valid as in meaningfully peer reviewed to avoid flawed/badly designed studies as well as total garbage (for example https://nerdist.com/article/fake-star-wars-midi-chlorian-pap... ) but the gold standard should be replication. We should reward quality work, not simply the number of research papers (since it's easy to churn out trash) or what the results are (because until they are verified they could be faked).
The few times I visited a hospital I met people there with complications from previous drugs. One with liver failure. Thanks to that experience no covid shot for me, plus I actually read the pfzier study the judge forced them to release. I now view drug companies on the level of Cartels in Mexico with politicians in their pockets.
> The few times I visited a hospital I met people there with complications from previous drugs. Well… yeah? All medications have a list of possible side effects in the leaflet. It’s just that the disease tends to be worse.
Sorry, I'm no longer convinced of this. I think there's a large range of procedures/treatments being done that don't work, that kill people all the time. And in the end you are often just trading short term risk, for a longer payoff.
Say you have prostate cancer. Should you risk the low chance of dying of prostate cancer 10 years from now, or the higher chance of incontinence, and medical complications from the treatment you undertake now.
Two relevant perspectives to share: "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." -Marcia Angell "If the image of medicine I have conve…
Ah, but don’t worry folks, those vaccines which generated $40B in profits for Pfizer and Moderna, those are just A-ok. Trust the science, which in this case is perfect, unassailable and uncorruptible (unlike everything else the pharma industry does). Don’t question the faith.
"Trust the science" is dumb, but "trust that the single-most reviewed medical studies of the past decade with 30k+ participants aren't outright bullshit" is enough for me. The risk for those studies is probably closer to what happened with Astrazeneca, where a very rare side effect got missed because 30k people weren't enough to detect it.
I think skepticism is healthy to a degree, but ironically, the more adversarial the general public is to an area of study the more rigorous it usually is.
Google made it impossible to find, found a link on yandex. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarke...
Are there any particular sections in the paper which were alarming to you?
Pfizer was contracted to deliver a vaccine that works that is safe. Instead defrauded taxpayers for tens of billions of dollars, and delivered a medication with pages worth of side effects that has higher risk profile than covid for almost anyone under 50.
"For more than 150 trials, Carlisle got access to anonymized individual participant data (IPD). By studying the IPD spreadsheets, he judged that 44% of these trials contained at least some flawed data: impossible statistics, incorrect calculations or duplicated numbers or figures, for instance. And in 26% of the papers had problems that were so widespread that the trial was impossible to trust, he judged — either bec…
"So, 70% fake/flawed." I think you miss read that section? Only were 44% fake or flawed acording to this study. The 26% that were very flawed is a subset of the 44% that were flawed in general. So those precentages should not be added together.
Are you saying the comment's analysis was ... flawed?
Which, ironically, just shows how easy it is to make mistakes not just in complicated statistical methods, but in basic interpretation of what numbers mean in the first place.
not to mention that everyone here forgets to mention that the majority of submitted papers with suspected fraud came from countries with known issues with fraudulent science publishing. e.g. China. The USA, for example, looked much better (although not perfect) at 6% zombie.
This. Scientific corruption probably correlates well with political corruption by nation and region.