Infection Super-Spreaders, with Michael Hengartner’s comment…
I cannot recommend rejection, as this would mean to reject about 90% of clinical research and call into question everything EBM has achieved, including the Cochrane collaboration.
.. opens up an unsettling vista. Calling into question EBM, and the Cochrane Collaboration, has echoes that are little short of well ……
How about Pius XII’s failure to intervene in the Holocaust ? Pius presumably was operating on some basis like to do so would have called into question the people that gave us Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, as well as Pasqualini Lehnert (google her).
No one suggests Pius turned on the gas in any of the ovens and no one will ever suggest Andrea Cipriani put any of the pills in the mouths of any teenager whose suicide is caused by the antidepressant they take or Stephen O’Neill who was killed by the Zoloft he took. Stephen may well have been put on Zoloft by his family doctor, Dr Brannigan, on the basis of Andrea’s promotion of Zoloft. Hard to know if promotion is the right word here but a lot of Zoloft has been shifted on the back of articles by Andrea.
Andrea has a defence – he is not responsible for producing the Fake literature he puts through his network meta-analytic sausage maker. It’s not his job to blow the whistle on fine people like Marty Keller and Charlie Nemeroff publishing in the very best journals. His job is a technical one – push the articles through the sausage grinder. Who cares where the rockets come down!
But there is an outrage here on the scale of the Holocaust or the Slave Trade that someone needs to get to grips with. Close to the entire medical literature on on-patent drugs is ghostwritten and there is zero access to the data from these trials. By definition, these trials are not science, but they are idolatrously enshrined in our most sacred journals (data-launderers in the Temple).
As a result, day by day our medicines – which are chemicals plus information – get ever more dangerous leading to more and more unnecessary, often grisly, deaths, as the death of Stephen O’Neill showed.
Pontius Pilate like, the NICE guideline apparatus, or at least their former Chair David Haslam, and former CEO Andrew Dillon, NICE before Christmas, which depends totally on this Fake Literature, have washed their hands of the matters.
The first Cochrane High Priest, Iain Chalmers, and one of the most Senior Medical Journal Rabbis, a promoter of EBM, and the medical journal editor who has thundered most furiously against the corruption of the scientific literature, Richard Horton, helped create the problem we now have in 2005 by dismissing all this ghosty-wosty, data access nonsense in front of a British Health Select Committee – Spotlight on the Suicides Behind the Scenes. This has made it very difficult, for someone like Michael Hengartner, to do the right thing and call EBM and Cochrane to account.
This month the question of what to do with the borders on the island of Ireland and in the Irish Sea and potentially between England and Scotland, has become one of the hottest political issues in both North America and Europe. But politicians in health departments in England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic are all quite happy to have no border at all – hard, soft or invisible – between science and junk. Its fine by us if you want to smuggle chlorinated lies into the pills our citizens take or to have the supposed very best assessments of the harms a drug might cause based on ‘data’ from non-existent patients in India or foster-homes in the US.
We know the academic literature is full of chlorinated clinical trials but what can we do about it – Vaughan von Gething’s office said.
Even turning to a Super-Hero, SpiderWoman Brenda Hale, doesn’t get anywhere as outlined in There is no Sanity Clause. Maybe contrary to appearances it was Brenda and the Supreme Court rather than BJ, the British Prime Minister, whose noses got bloodied last year when she tut-tutted him. Maybe no-one in her gang is willing to take BJ on again when he’s pushing to get a vaccine licensed and force us to take it without any transparency as to the risks we might be taking, while denying us any comeback in the event of an injury.
An old phrase comes to mind – first, they came for a bunch of us with nothing wrong with us and hypnotized us into taking chemicals for risk factors, then they came for our teenagers turning those who don’t kill themselves into eunuchs, male and female, and now – well if you’re sleeping soundly good on you.
Doctors are conspicuously absent in pretty well all considerations of these issues. But these are the people who turn the gas on/ put pills in our mouth. The one point in my correspondence with politicians, NICE, regulators, pharma, on which they and I appear to agree – is that whoever else might be blamed doctors are central to the problem.
When writing to the Departments of Health, around the Western European Archipelago about this, as well as to NICE, MHRA, Brenda and others, I copied the British Medical Association (BMA), through their Chair Chand Nagpaul, into everything.
Martin Davies responded on behalf of BMA:
Thank you for sending Dr Nagpaul your recent correspondence on ghost-written medical literature, which has been passed onto my team in the BMA’s policy directorate.
I’m not aware of current BMA policy on this issue, however we will read through the letter and documents and will share with colleagues internally as appropriate.
Kind regards Martin
I’ve heard nothing since from BMA despite copying them in on ongoing correspondence with other bodies – see letter to Matt Hancock April 2020.
BMA are a trade body rather than an ethical or academic body. My correspondence with them made it clear that I thought this was a trade issue as much as an ethical or academic one. If the meds work wonderfully well, and are free of any hazards, as even the bits of the current Fake Medical Literature without links to industry suggests – like Andrea’s article – and if politicians and managers figure that they at least are going to be fireproof if everyone just sticks to the Guidelines, then the cost-effective money-saving option is to get rid of doctors and replace them with cheaper prescribers, like nurses or pharmacists.
So my letters aimed at alerting BMA to the risks of doctors being replaced. Chances are no-one in the BMA apparatus, whatever about BMA’s members, will be much bothered by this. Spending time in committees as they do, they probably already see the medical future in management rather than in having to deal with human beings, where since the 1970s or so the terms of engagement have been increasingly messy – and equal. Managers in contrast – accountable to no-one – have it sorted.
So MAGA is in BMA’s interest. It’s a terrible acronym and will never take off – but Medically Assisted Garbage Acclamation is even worse. So its the acronym or bust.
As Onora O’Neill put it in a Reith lecture from some years ago:
Confucius told his disciple Tsze-kung that three things are needed for government: weapons, food and trust. If a ruler can’t hold on to all three, he should give up the weapons first and the food next. Trust should be guarded to the end: “without trust we cannot stand” .
Our current governments are technocracies. Technocrats love bureaucrats (managers) and technicians – people who are ethical by keeping to their job descriptions. In these technocratic – Deep State – times, our rulers can trust an increasing number of people. We meanwhile are increasingly atomised. This is Evil.
Tis The Season to Rebel – perhaps by calling for a Retraction of Andrea’s article.