Categories
Videos

Dr. Peter McCullough interview by John Leake

Dr. Peter McCullough has been the world’s most prominent and vocal advocate for early outpatient treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection in order to prevent hospitalization and death. On May 19, 2021, I interviewed him about his efforts as a treating physician and researcher. From his unique vantage point, he has observed and documented a profoundly disturbing policy response to the pandemic—a policy response that may prove to be the greatest malpractice and malfeasance in the history of medicine and public health.”

Link to interview audio format released by Julian Charles of The Mind Renewed podcast.

Backup mirror:

Categories
Opinion

I’m a doctor, but Covid’s broken my faith in medical research. I can’t believe anything I read or accept any mainstream facts – Dr Malcolm Kendrick, RT

The main purpose of science is to question and attack. To subject ideas to the greatest scrutiny. Those who decide to shut down and stifle debate – whatever they may believe themselves to be doing – are, in fact, traitors to the cause of science. Stranglers of the enlightenment, assassins of progress.

They are not alone, and things have gotten far worse in the past year or so. Science has taken a terrible battering during Covid-19, though I have always known that dissent against a widely held scientific hypothesis is difficult.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/525071-doctor-covid-medical-research/

Categories
News Publications

Seven Peer-Reviewed Studies That Agree: Lockdowns Do Not Suppress the Coronavirus – Lockdown Sceptics

There have been at least seven peer-reviewed studies which look at the question of lockdowns from a data point of view, and all of them come to the same basic conclusion: lockdowns do not have a statistically significant relationship with Covid cases or deaths. Here is a list of them with a key quote for ease of reference.

https://lockdownsceptics.org/2021/04/15/seven-peer-reviewed-studies-that-agree-lockdowns-do-not-suppress-the-coronavirus/

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/