I can’t breathe III

March, 23, 2021 | 8 Comments


  1. (The MHRA was forced to change their weasel wording )

    This is about the corrupt way data is collected but as much to do with it’s use by drugs companies who sell their junk back to us . By the way Greta gets as much flak as Patsy. Both following their conscience both from pretty priveledged bacgrounds. They can do their best but as to becoming leaders maybe they wouldn’t want to join that particular club. There aren’t many like these two who get the publicity to get their message out. Some of us have tried the good old fashioned way of circulating leaflets and posters with little or no success in the past few years, but they may reach more independant minded individuls if circulated amongs protest groups Including the women who make up a large proportion of protesters. They have other agendas and are not usually involved with prescription drugs activism but my guess is they would be more concerned, men as well as women. I have tried to contact a few but presently due to Covid am not getting involved in gatherings. E mails get lost in wherever..

    Revealed: how drugs giants can access your health records
    If we all opt out of allowing our records to be used there would still be plenty for academics in partership with drug companies to use and many of us have naively been fooled into thinking allowing their use is simply altruistic for the good of all Some is but this is not what we expected Medics, academics, politicions Drug companies cashing in to expand the corrupt selling of drugs across the globe while trashing cultures including of Europeans which have never found the need for drugs until psychological mass propaganda makes them seem more sophisticated Young women or men cannot be expected to see through it alone but how the message can be introduced in schools along with mindful classes is possibly a pipe dream as yet
    Experts say information sold on by Department of Health and Social Care can be traced back to individual medical records
    Sat 8 Feb 2020 21.03 GMT

    The Department of Health and Social Care has been selling the medical data of millions of NHS patients to American and other international drugs companies having misled the public into believing the information would be “anonymous”, according to leading experts in the field.

    Senior NHS figures have told the Observer that patient data compiled from GP surgeries and hospitals – and then sold for huge sums for research – can routinely be linked back to individual patients’ medical records via their GP surgeries. They say there is clear evidence this is already being done by companies and organisations that have bought data from the DHSC, having identified individuals whose medical histories are of particular interest.

    In December, the Observer revealed that the government had raised £10m in 2018 by granting licences to commercial and academic organisations across the world that wanted access to so-called anonymised data. If patients do not want their data to be used for research they have to actively “opt out” of the system at their GP surgery.

    Access to NHS data is increasingly sought by researchers and global drugs companies because it is one of the largest and most centralised public organisations of its kind in the world, with unique data resources.

    Washington has already made clear it wants unrestricted access to Britain’s 55 million health records – estimated to have a total value of £10bn a year – as part of any post-Brexit trade agreement. Leaked details of meetings between US and UK trade officials late last year showed that the acquisition of as much UK medical data as possible is a top priority for the US drugs industry.

    Now the DHSC and the agencies responsible for handling and selling data are increasingly under pressure to tighten up controls, to protect patient privacy and prevent information being misused.
    “If it is rich medical data about individuals then the richer that data is, the easier it is for people who are experts to reconstruct it and re-identify individuals.”

    Boiten believes more thought should be given to controlling and limiting the sale of data to prevent it potentially being sold on by the initial purchaser to companies with huge information stores and global reach. “If Google, for instance, were to use this data and end up finding a cure for cancer, and then sold the cure back to the NHS for huge sums of money, then I think we could say we had missed a trick,” he said.

    “Patients must know how their data is used, and by who. Alleging their data is anonymous when it isn’t, then selling it to drugs and tech companies – or, through intermediaries, to heaven knows who – is a gross betrayal of trust. People who are rightly concerned about such guile and lack of respect have every right to opt out, if they want their and their family’s medical information kept confidential and for their own care.”

    Licences to buy data are issued by the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), part of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). A spokesman said any information sold had been “anonymised in accordance with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) anonymisation code of practice”.

    Until early December, the CPRD said on its website the data it made available for research was “anonymous” but, following the Observer’s story, it changed the wording to say that the data from GPs and hospitals had been “anonymised” – meaning only that some measures had been taken to de-identify it.

    Booth added: “Following the ICO’s code of practice does not mean that data is necessarily anonymous. The law now recognises that one of the most common methods of ‘anonymisation’ – the use of pseudonyms to obscure some bits of information – means that data is still identifiable. Indeed, the information commissioner herself says it must be considered personal data.”

    A spokesman for the MHRA said the wording on the website had changed – but only to be consistent: “We have replaced the word ‘anonymous’ with ‘anonymised’ to be in line with the ICO terminology ‘anonymised,’ which is the term we use throughout our website. We have done this to be consistent and to avoid any confusion.”

    Information disclosed by some of CPRD’s customers clearly suggests they can link the information back to individual patient records via their GP surgeries. The Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program in the US, which uses DHSC data, says on its website: “Anonymized information from the CPRD on demographics, outpatient visits, hospitalizations and prescriptions dispensed is available to [our] researchers. Validation of diagnoses, reports of diagnostic tests and anonymized notes from hospitalizations and referrals can be obtained from the general practitioner upon request.”

    This article was amended on 11 February 2020 to include a response from the MHRA that was received after the initial publication deadline.

    • http://enformtk.u-aizu.ac.jp/howard/the_wieler_files/

      Howard Steen is a former engineer/scientist living in Germany

      II. The outrageous revelations about Lothar Wieler

      “Revelation 2 – The PCR test:

      “The crucial point is that we identify as many people as possible with PCR. And then sequencing is a sequential downstream technology that gives us even more information. But first of all, the whole essence of pandemic control is that we identify people…”

      Wieler thus reveals that PCR testing is all about identification. What is particularly suspicious about his statement is that this “testing pandemic” is now apparently being used to advance an agenda of identification and digitisation. As early as 2019, before the first Corona outbreak, he had called for better identification and digital storage to be able to increase vaccination rates.”

  2. ‘The only way is ethics’ …

    Paul John Scott @pauljohnscott

    American doctors must publish for academic advancement as well. Deep look at organized fraud via paper mills in research science with parrallels to what my novel explores in industrial drug and device research — no access to data, ghostwriting, flooding the lit.

    Wolf Mirasol @rwmirasol

    Chinese doctors must publish papers to get promotions/raises. So naturally there’s an entire industry devoted to ghostwriting fake research studies for them. #Malcharist


    The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science

    Some publishers say they are battling industrialized cheating. A Nature analysis examines the ‘paper mill’ problem — and how editors are trying to cope.

    Publishers almost never explicitly declare on retraction notices that a particular study is fraudulent or was created by a company to order, because it is difficult to prove. None of the RSC’s retraction notices, for instance, mentions a paper mill — despite the RSC’s announcement that it thinks the articles did come from one. But Nature has tallied 370 articles retracted since January 2020, all from authors at Chinese hospitals, that either publishers or independent sleuths have alleged to come from paper mills (see ‘Fraud allegations’). Most were published in the past three years (see ‘Chinese hospital papers on the rise’). Publishers have added expressions of concern to another 45 such articles.

    Has it all gone horribly wrong for UK-based global pharmaceutical giant GSK? Profits might be rising, but there still seems to be a nasty smell about the way GSK does business.


    That’s bad news for GSK shareholders and stakeholders, but good news for business students. GSK has quickly become one of the very best examples of the potential costs and reputational damage that can arise when business ethics are seemingly ignored by parts of a complex multinational organisation.

    The news recently has been full of examples of GSK in trouble:

    “In short, conducting GSK’s business with complete honesty, fairness, openness and integrity plays a vital role in ensuring our continued growth and success and helps us achieve our global mission to improve the quality of human life by enabling people to do more, feel better and live longer”

    So Witty believes that delivering on a high standard of business ethics can be a source of competitive advantage for GSK (i.e. by more ethical than its other global pharmaceutical competitors).

    Which will make it even more worrying for Witty that the SFO have decided to investigate GSK.

    The pressure is really on him, having stated so clearly that, for GSK, the only way is ethics.

    • Interesting the female and male perspectives on ‘sexual’ claims –

      “Since February, the highest levels of our company have been working to understand and address what happened,” GSK CEO Emma Walmsley wrote in a note to employees. “Protecting the woman who came forward and her privacy has been a critical priority throughout this time. This will continue. I respect and admire her courage and strength. I’ve spent many nights lately putting myself in her shoes. More than anything, this simply should not have happened.”

      “We are in an age of progress with a female CEO, growing ranks of female leaders, new commitments to diverse representation, and a culture that values speaking up,” Walmsley wrote. 

      “On a personal level, I am shocked and angry about all of this, but I’m resolute,” Walmsley added. “I want to be clear that sexual harassment is strictly prohibited and will not be tolerated.”

      Walmsley added that GSK will rename its Slaoui Center for Vaccines Research in Rockville, Md.


      Read the ‘male’ dominated comments below the article…

      Robert Peston @Peston

      Disappointing press conf with Witty on GSK’s China scandal. He said less than already in public domain, & rowed back from admission of guilt

      12:52 PM · Jul 24, 2013

      Sir Andrew Witty, chief executive of GlaxoSmithKline, speaks publicly for the first time about the cash and sexual bribery scandal that has led to the arrest of four senior executives


      The most obscene version was GSK settling a $3B suit and signing this agreement – then writing a response in a letter to the Chronicle of Higher Education that denies admission of guilt [see the only enduring contract…]. The way this China-gate story is going, it doesn’t at this point look like that’s going to be an option. This is just plain old crime, and one that has the Chinese up in arms [as it should].

      Sex, lies,and videotape …


      And there’s more: …

      • ‘The UK seems not just to have returned to 18th century levels of corruption, but to 18th century lack of shame about it in the governing class.’

        About Craig Murray 

        Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010.

        With super-links…


        Barnard Castle Revisited 

        March 30, 2021  

        I was pretty diffident a year ago in suggesting corrupt backhanders as a potential motive for Dominic Cummings to visit GSK in Barnard Castle, because part of me resisted the idea that even the Tories would seek to make personal profit from a pandemic. Since then, of course, we have learnt of the quarter of a billion pounds (yes, £250,000,000) given to family investment firm Ayanda Capital for PPE procurement for which Ayanda was utterly unqualified and unsuited, numerous other examples of closed bids and completely inappropriate awards. The UK seems not just to have returned to 18th century levels of corruption, but to 18th century lack of shame about it in the governing class.

        I suppose at least yesterday’s announcement by Boris Johnson that 60 million vaccine doses will be “finished” by GSK at Barnard Castle dispenses with the argument that was thrown at me by literally hundreds of trolls that the Barnard Castle facility is only some kind of large garden shed and therefore could not have been involved.

        We now know about Tory corruption in Covid procurement, which I could only surmise a year ago – and let me further commend to you last night’s Panorama on the barely functional private £27 billion (yes £27,000,000,000) test and trace system under Tory serial profiteer Dido Harding. But it does, of course, take two sides to make a corrupt deal.
        Surely a big company like GSK would not be involved in backhanders?

        Well, GSK were fined US $3 billion in 2012 by US regulators for fraud – yes fraud, overcharging and making false claims about medicines. In 2016 UK regulators fined GSK £37.6 million for paying bribes to generics manufacturers not to produce cheap drugs for the NHS. Let me say that again – for paying bribes to generics manufacturers not to produce cheap drugs for the NHS. Defrauding the NHS. That is the moral level we are looking at here.

        So to say that GSK are not averse to paying a bung is to put it very mildly. And to say the Tories are not averse to personal profiteering from Covid procurement is to put it very mildly. It seems like a match made in heaven. Now I do not claim this is what happened, and I have never claimed this is what happened. It is a hypothesis. But it seems a not unreasonable hypothesis. Particularly compared to Cummings’ official explanation for visiting Barnard Castle.

        I came under massive troll attack for the suggestion last year. It was claimed that GSK Barnard Castle is not physically capable of involvement in vaccine production. That is now shown to be untrue. It was also suggested that such a deal would have been struck in the main boardroom in London. I think that is to fail to distinguish between the apparent deal and the backhander. The latter are very seldom arranged in main boardrooms.

        Anyway do read my article from last year. With the extra knowledge we have now, it has matured pretty well given the amount of derision it received from members of our professionally uncurious and unquestioning mainstream media.

        I should also mention that I received a whistleblower tip-off that Cummings had also visited the Honeyman Group while in Barnard Castle. I tried contacting them both by phone and by email and never received any response from the Honeyman Group, and have no further information to stand this up. If anyone can add anything on this I should be most interested to hear from you.

        ‘That is the moral level we are looking at here. …

    • In response to a Bing Jones retired medic and moral eco campaigner
      Re: The medical establishment is failing the UK public on covid-19
      Dear Editor,

      Yes, senior medical figures must speak out; but their efforts will be wasted. We are dealing with a government that has no sense of morality, has no care for the truth, and denies accountability. The prime minister tells us that “now” is not the time for an inquiry into the government’s failings in countering the pandemic [1]. What he means is that “never” is the time for an inquiry, and that even if there is an inquiry the government will dismiss its findings.

      The government got vaccination right, and we should be grateful. But they have stated, wrongly, that Brexit was the reason for the success, and the economic effects of COVID will be used to mask the far greater economic effects of Brexit. We are dealing with a man whose only goal is his self-advancement, and who is surrounded by sycophants. Johnson will say anything [2] – supported by many powerful people, and with the acquiescence of many others – to achieve that goal. If the vaccine continues successfully, all else will be ignored, and a Tory hegemony is assured.

  3. I think Patty was just trying to be Productive – at the moment, we all have more time on our hands than we know what to do with.
    We all have our ways of filling it.

Leave a Reply