Categories
Publications

The Treatment of Viral Diseases: Has the Truth Been Suppressed for Decades? – Dr. Lee Merritt, The Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons

None of this, however, explains the 40 years of medical
misinformation and suppression of the pharmaceutical truth.
To have covered up the knowledge for four decades that
viruses could potentially be treated by antimicrobials required
extensive effort:

• Censorship. It is likely that some scientists were never
published again after authoring one paper on the antiviral benefits of CQ.
• Buying silence of news media. This is evident from the
blackout across the political news spectrum concerning
vaccine adverse effects. Pharmaceutical manufacturers
provide the most lucrative advertising for both written
and broadcast news programs.
• Misdirection. For years, pharmacology professors in
medical schools have perpetuated lies of omission.
• Lies by drug companies. Merck was caught publishing its
own “peer reviewed” journal to promote its drugs.54
• Regulatory capture. “Big Pharma” essentially owns the
FDA by being its biggest funder and employing more
than 58 percent of the FDA’s upper-level regulators and
administrators either before or after their tenure.55,56
• Research funding. Big Pharma is the major funder of
nearly all “independent” drug research, and there is no
incentive to research cheap/ less profitable solutions.

The COVID-19 pandemic is calling attention to the
potential for treating viral diseases with currently available
drugs, and exposing long-available but ignored research.
The implications of all this are very disturbing. Where have
the virologists been, and the CDC “experts” who claim to care
about influenza deaths? Has the burgeoning nearly trilliondollar vaccine industry been built at the expense of patients’
lives?

https://jpands.org/vol25no3/merritt.pdf

Categories
Publications

Why Most Clinical Research Is Not Useful – Prof. John Ioannidis

Many clinical research studies, even in the major general medical journals, do not satisfy the identifiable features that make them useful. These features include:

  • problem base;
  • context placement;
  • information gain;
  • pragmatism;
  • patient centeredness;
  • value for money;
  • feasibility;
  • transparency.

Most clinical research findings false. Further, most of the true findings do not result in huge human benefit. Reform and improvement in the clinical research are overdue.

See also: Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals by Richard Smith at the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

Quoted summary points

Blue-sky research cannot be easily judged on the basis of practical impact, but clinical research is different and should be useful. It should make a difference for health and disease outcomes or should be undertaken with that as a realistic prospect.

Many of the features that make clinical research useful can be identified, including those relating to problem base, context placement, information gain, pragmatism, patient centeredness, value for money, feasibility, and transparency.

Many studies, even in the major general medical journals, do not satisfy these features, and very few studies satisfy most or all of them. Most clinical research therefore fails to be useful not because of its findings but because of its design.

The forces driving the production and dissemination of nonuseful clinical research are largely identifiable and modifiable.

Reform is needed. Altering our approach could easily produce more clinical research that is useful, at the same or even at a massively reduced cost.

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002049

Categories
Publications

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals – Richard Smith, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/