The Gary Null Show Gary takes on the real issues that the mainstream media is afraid to tackle. Tune in to find out the latest about health news, healing, politics, and the economy.

March 29, 2019  

The fallacy of deadly infectious disease outbreaks and epidemics and the failures of vaccine efficacy

Dr. Meryl Nass is an internal medicine physician and activist who specializes in treating patients with Gulf War syndrome, adverse reactions fro the anthrax vaccine and vaccine safety and efficacy in general.  In the past she has testified on six separate occasions before Congress on behalf of veterans suffering from the causes of Gulf War syndrome. Meryl is also active in opposing vaccine mandates and critiquing the false claims and fear mongering about infectious disease epidemics and corruption within the medical industrial military complex.  She serves on the Board of the Alliance for Human Research Protection, a non profit organization run by Vera Sharav that advances medical ethics that uphold human rights and protect humans from wrongful medical interventions. Her work is cited in many professional articles and publications. She holds degrees from MIT and her medical degree from the Mississippi School of Medicine.  Dr Nass' website where she blogs isAnthraxVaccine.blogspot.com

March 28, 2019  

Wikipedia: Big Pharma’s Propaganda Machine

Every day, hundreds of millions if not billions of people worldwide wake up suffering from various maladies. From heart disease, depression, cancer, diabetes, obesity, inflammatory conditions and the ravages of aging, including dementia, memory loss, and Alzheimer’s. In the US and Western Europe, the vast majority of those individuals, if they can afford it, seek out mainstream orthodox medical treatment. Even when these therapies produce no improvement or actually cause greater impairment, patients continue to believe in the underlying principle that their doctor knows best and what that doctor is providing represents the latest in proven scientific efficacy and safety standards for treatment. In only two countries in the world – the US and New Zealand – every day, millions are conditioned to believe that the drugs they see advertised on TV are the preferred drugs of medical science - irrespective of their known side effects. Any questioning of whether this is truly the proper approach to disease prevention and treatment is anathema in the eyes of authority.

At every level of our society, there are firewalls and gatekeepers protecting the medical-pharmaceutical-industrial complex. There are more than 900,000 physicians in the US. There are several million scientists working for government agencies and universities subsidized by government, in addition to unknown numbers working for Big Pharma. All are ostensibly pursuing the development of medications and applications that will help the patient. But what if these therapies, drugs or procedures weren’t actually supported by quality controlled studies, double-blind placebo-controlled trials, and most importantly reproducible results data, with patients reporting their conditions had been reversed or improved without serious side effects? Surely such a scandal would dominate both lay media and scientific journals?

To make sure there is no dissent in the scientific ranks - that everyone is onboard and there is only one dominant medical model - US states have medical boards. No matter how many mistakes you make, no matter how many patients injured or killed on your watch, as long as you are using approved medical methods you’re indemnified: you will not lose your medical license unless you’re simply practicing objectively bad medicine. Any doctor who chooses to cure a patient using a different modality, however, especially if it’s natural and non-toxic, will immediately be attacked, no matter how successful the treatment. They will be brought up on charges of fraud and medical malfeasance and endangerment of the patient. The logic holds that you’re either using currently accepted medical practice or you’re not. Curing or helping patients is no defense – it’s more important to uphold the protocols that medicine has designed in collaboration with Big Pharma, taught in medical school curricula, promoted in medical journals and sponsored right through to the consumer in advertisements. As a result, there are less than 3,000 physicians out of 900,000 who are using what is commonly known as holistic, complementary and alternative medicine.

The problems are obvious. Using only the criticisms and studies from orthodox medical science itself, we can see that the system has failed miserably and has been extraordinarily deadly in the process, killing more than 700,000 patients per year and disabling and injuring many more. But even those pharmaceutical companies found to be serial offenders – such as Merck and Johnson & Johnson – who knew full well the products they were offering to physicians were actually harming people are never held accountable beyond fines or settlements that amount to a fraction of their annual revenue. No one goes to jail; no one’s career is even ruined. If we criticize these companies and the physicians using their products, shame them and limit their ability to practice as we do with common criminals, 90% of American medicine would cease to exist.

How, then, are people to learn that there are natural ways of both preventing and treating diseases? Positive results from peer-reviewed studies of holistic therapies are commonplace in the Library of Medicine. On the subject of nutrition and supplements, there are over half a million articles available. But where can the average person – the patient who’s just received a disturbing diagnosis, or the healthy person who wants to take steps now to prevent disease later – find this information? Most people go to Google, which sends them to Wikipedia, the largest, most successful and significant firewall ever built to deter the casual browser from ever wanting to try any alternative therapies. Non-pharmaceutical treatments for diseases from arthritis to asthma, treatments and practitioners alike condemned out of hand as “lunatic charlatans” by Wikipedia’s co-founder and spiritual father Jimmy Wales along with his Skeptic palace guard. Faced with such categorical dismissals of entire disciplines of healing, what is the likelihood that an individual will give them a chance? You’d think the vast majority of Americans were throwing out their prescriptions and running out to buy herbs. This is clearly not the case – Americans spent $3.5 trillion in 2017 on orthodox treatments. But where are the cures for AIDS, cancer, heart disease, Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis? Alternative therapies have produced major improvements in all of these, but you won’t hear about them on Wikipedia.

The “encyclopedia anyone can edit” has set itself up as the #1 propagandist and PR spokesperson for the entire medical-industrial complex. While one might assume the editors’ ultra-orthodox zeal - similar to what you’d find in a cult - would be supported by reams of high-quality reproducible data, posted by deeply qualified people with clinical laboratory experience in the fields they criticize, one would be wrong. Instead, one finds self-styled Skeptics with nary a clinical round between them – a retired portrait photographer, a ghost-hunter debunker, an “academic neurologist” who doesn’t actually see patients but has no trouble weighing in on how they should be treated. Nearly a million Americans are dead each year due to the failures of orthodox medicine, so it’s a good thing they’re rewarded for their efforts and not their results. Don’t blame us; blame the disease.

We’re going to show you collusion. Wikipedia is luring in curious people who ask legitimate questions about medical conditions, leading them into the heart of orthodox pharmaceutical-based medicine and convincing them that no further inquiry is necessary. If this was where it ended, this would just be merely reckless and irresponsible reporting, but we find it’s worse. The very companies whose drugs are being promoted in Wikipedia articles happen to be the same companies donating to the Wikimedia Foundation. We also find the National Institutes of Health, the regulator wholly captured by Big Pharma, is involved in editing Wikipedia to such an extent that the agency’s own website has a step by step guide to doing so effectively without setting off alarm bells in other editors who may be wary of conflicts of interest. We believe it reaches the level of a conspiracy, and that these people should be held accountable through investigation by the IRS, state Attorneys and Inspectors General, ethics boards, etc.

Wikipedia has gone far beyond setting itself up as the champion of orthodox pharmaceutical-based medicine, insisting that “Big Pharma” is a wholly benevolent, noble force for scientific progress. Its Skeptic editorial elite also smear anyone who thinks differently as believers in a risible “Big Pharma conspiracy theory.” Wikipedia has several articles devoted to mocking this canard, sparing no laughs at the expense of those poor benighted folks who believe that pharmaceutical conglomerates have anything other than their best interests in mind. Those who doubt the forward march of science deserve no better than to be crushed beneath its boots – and those who persist in clinging to the “old wives’ tales” of alternative medicine are to be scorned above all.

“Pharmanoia” is defined on Wikipedia as the belief that “pharmaceutical companies represent an all-powerful, profit-oriented entity that either directly controls, or works with government regulatory agencies to the detriment of the general consumer.” There is nothing particularly controversial about such a statement, and Wikipedia’s need to pathologize those who regard it as truth speaks more about their own insecurities than anything else. Just because you’re “pharmanoid,” doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.

Someone suffering from pharmanoia might, for example, suspect a whole coven of GlaxoSmithKline employees of editing Wikipedia as part of an initiative coordinated with Google. They’d be right – this happened in 2010, when several dozen GSK employees created Wikipedia entries as part of the Health Speaks Initiative, designed to flood the non-English-language encyclopedias with the same “high-quality health information” that dominates the English-language version. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=1&search=user%3A+%2C+gsk&fulltext=Search&ns0=1 Participants even generated 3 cents in charitable donations per word translated from English pharma-speak to Swahili or Arabic pharma-speak. But simply being right is no defense against charges of Big Pharma conspiracy theorizing. One could point out the Medtronic employees who aggressively edited the articles on vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty, medical procedures of dubious therapeutic value that employ the company’s star devices. These conflict-of-interest edits only became public because the small band of editors paid by the medical device manufacturer ran afoul of James Heilman, a Wikipedia trustee who’s also a medical doctor.  https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/wikipedia-editors-for-pay/393926/ And even Heilman – a true believer in most aspects of medical orthodoxy, including vaccines and psychiatric drugs – seems to be afflicted with a touch of pharmanoia. “I do not consider the goals of the pharmaceutical companies to be educating people about pharmaceuticals,” he told the Atlantic, admitting he’d been on the receiving end of communications from dozens of pharma companies including Glaxo, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, IMS Health, and others who had eagerly requested information from him about Wikipedia’s procedures for adding medical content.

If Wikipedia’s own resident physician doesn’t believe in the integral goodness of Big Pharma, what hope is there for the rest of us? Never fear, the Skeptic brigade is working overtime to mischaracterize popular distrust of these corporations as something naïve and irrational. They’re unable to deny the first ‘claim’ made by proponents of this “conspiracy theory” - “Big PharmaTM just wants to maximize its profits at the expense of the general consumer” – but they try to deflect from this inconvenient truth by claiming all non-pharmaceutical healers are similarly motivated solely by profits, as if – all things being equal – Big Pharma’s products didn’t kill hundreds of thousands of people every year, vs homeopathic remedies, for example, killing exactly zero individuals. What was it the Hippocratic oath said? “First, do no harm”?

Wikipedia’s parent foundation, the Wikimedia Foundation, openly collaborates with the National Institutes of Health, one of the many US “captured regulators” that enable Big Pharma’s dominance of the health sphere today. The “How to edit Wikipedia” page for NIH staffers helpfully points out that the Foundation actually has a volunteer-staffed switchboard specifically set up for NIH editors.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150219012129/http://www.nih.gov/icd/od/ocpl/resources/wikipedia/ In 2012, the NIH launched its “new therapeutic uses” program in conjunction with Pfizer, Eli Lilly and AstraZeneca to find new uses for old drugs – generic molecules that may have fallen off patent and ceased to be of interest to the profit-driven drug companies can be picked up by NIH researchers, applied to novel medical mysteries, and joyfully re-patented as new therapies. Everybody wins! Notably, it was this process that gave the world AZT, a failed chemotherapy drug considered too toxic to give to cancer patients but somehow just right for those suffering from AIDS. Hundreds of thousands would die thanks to the public-private partnership between Burroughs Wellcome and the NIH.  https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-launches-collaborative-program-industry-researchers-spur-therapeutic-development In the internet age, such partnerships essentially give Big Pharma carte blanche to edit Wikipedia in their NIH capacity – conflict of interest problem solved!

It is part of the “Big Pharma conspiracy theory” to suggest that large pharmaceutical companies operate “against the public good,” yet this is precisely what they are caught doing, again and again. GlaxoSmithKline has paid for prestigious studies to show its drugs are safe, even when they are not. A 2012 article in the New England Journal of Medicine purported to show GSK’s diabetes drug Avandia was superior to three other medications while concealing the fact it had been associated with 83,000 heart attacks and deaths – and those were just the FDA’s numbers. Of 11 study authors, four were actual GSK employees, while seven had received research grants or consulting fees from the company. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/as-drug-industrys-influence-over-research-grows-so-does-the-potential-for-bias/2012/11/24/bb64d596-1264-11e2-be82-c3411b7680a9_story.html In 2012, GSK agreed to pay out $3 billion for off-label drug promotion, failure to report safety data, and kickbacks to physicians – the largest-ever healthcare fraud case and the largest drug company settlement to date. Is it conspiracy theory to call GSK a bad actor? Are we to believe it is no more than coincidence that a panel of scientists paid by a drug company to generate favorable studies for that drug company might have concealed adverse effects in order to keep the gravy train running, or that doctors took bribes in the form of hunting trips and spa treatments to prescribe dubiously effective drugs? If GSK was interested in the public good before profits, why did it take the intervention of the Department of Justice to impose a “corporate integrity agreement” banning the kickbacks and ending prescription targets for sales reps?

The Washington Post looked at 73 NEJM articles on new drugs approved since 2000 and found 60 had been funded by a pharmaceutical company. Fifty were actually co-written by pharma employees, while 37 featured a lead author who’d received money from the drug company at some point, whether through consulting or speaker fees or research grants.

One of those NEJM articles was a glowing review of notorious Merck arthritis drug Vioxx. The drug manufacturer not only funded the clinical trial but removed three heart attacks in patients taking the medication from the raw clinical data, permitting the disingenuous conclusion that Vioxx’s cardiovascular adverse effects only struck those patients with preexisting heart trouble. Merck ghostwrote 20 glowing articles about its blockbuster drug under the names of respected scientists, publishing them in multiple journals, even though they knew about the heart attack risk of the drug as early as November 1996. Dr. Gurkipal Singh, adjunct clinical professor of medicine at Stanford University, testified in a congressional hearing that he had read emails between Merck scientists in which they argued over whether to include patients taking aspirin in clinical trials. One scientist felt the aspirin might “negate the gastrointestinal benefits of rofecoxib,” while the other made the comment that forbidding aspirin use would cause patients to have more heart attacks, which would “kill the drug.” “Better to kill the drug than to kill the patient,” Singh said, denouncing Merck’s choice not to undertake a cardiovascular outcome study as a “marketing decision” – the institutional turning of a blind eye to heart attack and stroke risk. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC534432/ Five years, 55,000 deaths, and hundreds of thousands of heart attacks after the drug was approved, Merck’s malfeasance should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Big Pharma values profits over patients.

Among the many devious practices Merck deployed to get its arthritis drug in as many medicine cabinets as possible were so-called “seeding trials,” considered ethically dubious because they deceive patients and doctors alike as to their true nature. Merck seeded Vioxx through a trial purporting to evaluate its gastrointestinal side effect profile vs. naproxen, but the ultimate purpose was to familiarize physicians with it – for trial administrators to “gain experience with Vioxx prior to and during the critical launch phase” in which the drug would be rolled out to the public. https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/742239/advantage-seeding-trial-review-internal-documents Merck even nominated the employees who’d drawn up the trial for an internal marketing award – one which they well deserved, given that the drug was pulling in $2.5 billion annually before its reign was so rudely curtailed by the reality of a mounting pile of corpses.

Wikipedia’s article on Merck reflects a struggle between attempts to whitewash Vioxx’s history and attempts to hold the company accountable. The “Vioxx” subsection claims the company began warning patients about cardiovascular side effects in 2002; a “citation needed” tag reflects the dubious reality of that assertion. There is no mention of the company’s foreknowledge of the drug’s adverse effects – instead, the article claims the adverse effect reports began only after the drug was approved by the FDA in 1999 – but the text does mention the infamous internal emails discussing the need to “neutralize” and “discredit” Vioxx-skeptical doctors: “We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live.” Yet in the mind of Wikipedia’s Skeptics, believing in Big Pharma’s corporate malfeasance is “cynical and intellectually lazy.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Pharma_conspiracy_theory

Wikipedia even seeks to dispel claims that pharmaceutical companies suppress negative research about their products using financial pressure – a widespread industry phenomenon that most scientists, journals, and regulatory agencies acknowledge and lament while trying to fix the problem to a greater or lesser extent. Financial pressure is only one tool in Pharma’s arsenal for tweaking the results of clinical trials, at any rate – the industry pays for over half the studies conducted every year and can weigh in on every step of the process, from experimental design, to hiring “friendly” scientists, to choosing not to publish at all. Industry-funded papers are regularly challenged by independent researchers, particularly where they purport to showcase wonder drugs. Entire treatment paradigms since adopted as medical orthodoxy, such as the serotonin-imbalance model of depression, have arisen from faulty or fudged studies, and it is difficult to stop a pharmaceutical juggernaut like Prozac or Paxil once it has taken off. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2412901/ Even when later, more cautious studies and reviews show no therapeutic benefits and very real harms, including increased risk of suicide and even homicide, Paxil continues to fly off the shelves. https://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4320 Pharmaceutical companies control the vast majority of advertising in the scientific literature, so any suggestion they do not have some financial clout in what is published borders on the absurd.

A lot is riding on Big Pharma’s positive image on Wikipedia. A 2015 study of the most frequently visited disease-specific Wikipedia pages found a clear relationship between page visits and prescriptions for related medications – meaning a significant number of visitors to a particular disease page were researching their own diagnosis or that of a family member. Since most internet users begin their research journeys on any topic with a Google search, which typically leads to Wikipedia, this is no surprise – indeed, this is one of the reasons Skeptics fight so fiercely to control Wikipedia’s medical articles. These pages, properly curated, have the potential to act as top-notch pharmaceutical advertisements, so long as they can be kept clean of undesirable information about Big Pharma. http://magazine.imshealth.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/IMSH_Nexxus_Social_Correcting_Pharmaceutical_Product_Information_WP.pdf The pharmaceutical companies - Pfizer, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb - then donate to the Wikimedia Foundation, and the circle is complete. https://wikimediafoundation.org/support/benefactors/ At what point can we concede conspiracy theory has become conspiracy fact?

March 27, 2019  

For over two decades, American families have faced an unscrupulous foe that threatens the public health and welfare. It is a rogue, unmanageable institution within our federal government, now seemingly beholden solely to private interests. Citizens have been horribly mistaken in believing that the nation’s leading health agency, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), honors its mandate to protect the public from “dangerous health threats,” both domestic and foreign. We are expected to assume the CDC relies upon the most advanced and cutting-edge medical science and data to make its policy decisions. However, the agency’s history of corruption and fraud contradict its own pledge, as outlined on its website. Instead of protecting the “health security of our nation,” the CDC uses bromides and meaningless pageantry to hide its true nature.

During the past year, especially in recent months, the fear-mongering spewing forth from the CDC has become virulent. It is a classic Orwellian script. The recent measles outbreak – although nowhere near as alarming as the flare-ups of bygone eras – has been seized upon as an opportunity to brainwash the public and reshape it into obedient livestock in order to increase vaccination compliance. Worse, this disinfo campaign ignores everything we know about measles infection and the failures of the MMR vaccine.

Unfortunately, we are no longer permitted to debate the pros and cons of the measles vaccine. The CDC consistently shuts down debate when its decisions are challenged.  Physicians, medical researchers, immunologists and former vaccine advocates who challenge the loose claims for vaccine safety and efficacy are frustrated and eager to publicly debate the best vaccine advocates the CDC and vaccine industry have to offer, but none will take up the challenge because the science is so clearly not on their side. The agency consistently fails to conduct and apply the gold standard in its own medical research and ignores the best independent peer-reviewed science. In short, this agency is a mouthpiece for the pharmaceutical-industrial complex and operates for its own financial advantage, rather than for the benefit of society. Its revolving doors are kept spinning with a constant influx of pharmaceutical industry and vaccine insiders. In fact the lines separating corporate influence and public health are grossly blurred and distorted. It is no surprise that documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests paint the CDC as rotten in its core and one of the greatest health threats to the nation. The agency, in Robert Kennedy Jr’s words, is a “cesspool of corruption.”

What you will never hear in the mainstream media is that there is another medical institution that is supposed to have been granted the responsibility to assure the CDC receives quality and reliable scientific research to use as the basis for its healthcare decisions.  The Institutes of Medicine (IOM) does not possess the CDC’s legislative clout; however, it represents a far superior body of scientists and researchers in their medical fields.

Founded in 1970, the Institute of Medicine falls under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences started by President Abraham Lincoln and Congress in 1863. The Academy was founded for the purpose of bringing together the nation’s best scientific minds to advise the government on scientific matters. The IOM was founded later to provide expert advice and reliable medical research to the White House and Congressional legislators to guide their decisions, keeping them informed about the social, economic and political impacts of healthcare. According to its principles, and unlike the CDC, IOM members deliberating on vaccine research and policies are expected to be independent and not represent private interests.

During a press conference this month at Yale University, Children’s Health Defense founder Robert Kennedy Jr presented data from his investigations into the CDC’s culture of medical negligence and efforts to cover up of the compelling evidence for vaccine-induced injuries, including autism. Over the course of twenty years, the IOM has monitored and reviewed the medical literature to determine the most- and least- likely injuries associated with specific vaccines and provided recommendations to the CDC. In 1991, 22 illnesses were identified, 6 were confirmed as vaccine-related and 12 remained uncertain due to insufficiently reliable studies. Those cases with confirmed causation included learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, and childhood diabetes. This data was collected subsequent to President Ronald Reagan signing the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act, a point when autism rates started to climb exponentially. Three years later, the IOM identified 54 medical conditions, the medical literature supported 10 diseases as vaccine-induced and 38 were uncertain. Among the confirmed illnesses were seizures, demyelinating disease, sterility, transverse myelitis and, for the first time, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Again in 2011, the IOM reported a whopping 155 adverse conditions with 16 vaccine-induced injuries supported by the science, including a correlation between the DTaP vaccine and autism. Unfortunately, the IOM holds no official authority over our federal agencies; consequently, its recommendations to the CDC to further investigate vaccines’ adverse effects went unheeded. Today, nothing has changed at the CDC. Instead, the agency has dug itself into a deeper hole of secrecy and corruption. With a budget of $11.5 billion and a pathetic $20 million designated for vaccine safety, the CDC is crying out for a thorough public audit.

These early IOM reports are extremely valuable. They identify many of the same childhood diseases that have grown to epidemic proportions in the intervening years, and they indict vaccines as a causal factor. Yet regrettably, the IOM has recently showed signs of becoming as compromised as other health agencies. It, too, may have become another pawn of the Medical Deep State that is infiltrating every state legislative body to pass draconian immunization laws with the end goal of vaccinating Americans by lies and even threats and force if necessary.

For example, in a 2013 report on the safety of the CDC’s Childhood Immunization Schedule, the IOM gave its stamp of approval while ignoring the fact that no vaccine trial, except for a poorly designed Gardasil trial, has conducted safety tests with a scientifically valid placebo. Nor are there credible and reliable studies to support claims that no synergistic health risks arise from administering multiple vaccines concurrently. Now the IOM, too, is basing its conclusions on junk corporate science.  Its recent reports also omit reviews of the scientific literature that note the toxicity of the aluminum adjuvant used in many vaccines, including the MMR.

Recent research conducted by Dr. Chris Exley at Keele University in the UK has uncovered the pathways by which high amounts of vaccine aluminum accumulate in brain tissue rather than being excreted. High brain aluminum levels were found in deceased autistic children whose tissues were donated for his research. Autistic children can have as much as ten times the amount of aluminum lodged in the brain compared to a normal adult.

The CDC’s crimes are a matter of public record. These are not secrets or confidential information. The documents and voices of whistleblowers within the CDC are readily found on the internet to support all of our charges against the agency. They are readily available to anyone who wishes to investigate. Unfortunately, our media has again failed to do its job in accurately reporting on federal corruption, instead becoming an instrument of the Medical Deep State and a mouthpiece to deceive the public.

CDC misconduct includes widespread corporate nepotism favoring private pharmaceutical interests, illegal destruction of clinical data that showed a correlation between the MMR vaccine and a 250 percent increase in autism among African American boys, hiring a criminal(s) to conduct fraudulent research to conceal the neurological risks of mercury-containing vaccines, the silencing of internal officials and whistleblowers, serving as the go-between on behalf of the beverage industry concerning the World Health Organization’s restriction of sugary soft drinks, etc. The CDC has fudged firearm safety statistics; that report led Harvard University’s Injury Control Research Center director David Hemenway to declare that no one should trust the CDC’s estimates.[1]

During the 1970s, it was the CDC’s Dr. Colleen Boyle who covered up the hideously toxic nature of Agent Orange and dioxin that thousands of Vietnam War veterans were exposed to. Although the IOM and Congress revealed Boyle’s chicanery, the agency duly rewarded her loyalty with a promotion.

The CDC and the vaccine industry have been colluding for a long time. In 2004, Congress accused the agency of operating as a public relations firm for private interests, rather than as a watchdog ensuring the integrity of vaccine science. That same year, the US Office of Special Counsel uncovered potential evidence that the CDC and pharmaceutical companies were destroying data linking the vaccine preservative thimerosal with neurological disorders. Senator Tom Coburn’s expose reveals the agency’s widespread budgetary mismanagement has wasted millions of tax dollars and concludes that the CDC cannot demonstrate it is controlling disease.

In October 2017, Congressman Bill Posey sent a letter to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions calling on him to resume efforts to extradite and prosecute Dr. Poul Thorsen for money laundering of over $1 million from the CDC. The catch is that Thorsen was contracted by the CDC to conduct fraudulent research in Denmark that would mask any association between the vaccine preservative thimerosal and autism. In 2011, Thorsen was placed on the Inspector General’s most wanted list; nevertheless, the CDC has continued to erect obstacles to extradition efforts. More worrisome, Rep Posey discovered that for at least three years after the FBI issued its arrest warrant, the CDC and National Institutes of Health continued to collaborate with Thorsen and even joint-published more junk science together.  

Another misdemeanor involved the CDC providing erroneous data to Congress about its women’s health program, WISEWOMAN, commissioned to provide preventative health services to women between 40 and 65 to reduce cardiovascular disease. Native Americans were also targeted for assistance in the program. The data was cooked and enrolled far less women than the CDC reported to Congress.[2]

These ethical violations are systemic throughout the agency and Congress has been paralyzed in any efforts to rein in the rottenness that saturates the agency’s leadership.  

In 2016, a group of scientists within the agency submitted a letter stating their concerns to the CDC’s chief of staff:

“We are a group of scientists at the CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency. It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests…. What concerns us most is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception. Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right.”

Out of fear of retribution, this group of CDC employees filed their complaint anonymously.

Over the years, Congressional subcommittees have voiced warnings to CDC officials to clean up their act. A House Government Reform Committee reported that both the CDC’s and FDA’s advisory committees for vaccines were thoroughly compromised with pharmaceutical conflicts of interest.  Paul Offit, the poster boy of vaccine McCarthyism and a darling of the mainstream media, participated in closed-door sessions to draft a rotavirus vaccine recommendation for a vaccine Offit co-developed and eventually sold to Merck for over $180 million. Another voting advisory committee member held a patent on a rival rotavirus vaccine. Neither advisory committee complies with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires a diversity of medical opinions; instead, the committees are stacked with corporate shills advocating for fast-tracking poorly developed vaccines with insufficient and untrustworthy safety and efficacy data to otherwise support their approval. In 2009, the Office of the Inspector General conducted an investigation of conflicts of interests within the CDC. The Office discovered that 97 percent of its advisors failed to declare their links to the pharmaceutical industry.

Consider for the moment the kinds of people who have held the CDC Directorship in recent years:

Brenda Fitzgerald MD – One of Trump’s short-lived appointments. She resigned after 5 months due to conflicts of interest with the tobacco industry and investing in a Japanese tobacco company while in office.

Tom Frieden MD – Appointed by Obama, resigned and founded the Resolve program funded by Mark Zuckerberg’s and Bill Gates’ foundations. In 2018, Frieden was charged with one count of sex abuse and a count of second degree harassment.

Julie Gerberding MD – Appointed by Bush. Following her success in getting Merck’s HPV vaccine, Gardasil, fast tracked through regulatory hurdles, she joined Merck and is now the president of its vaccine division ($2.5 million annual salary and $38 million in stock options).

The Nuremberg trials indicted Nazi doctors with crimes against humanity for conducting inhumane experiments with highly toxic drugs on innocent people. Yet the Code generated at Nuremberg does not apply to modern vaccines such as the HPV vaccine Gardasil. Dr. Bernard Dalbergue used to work for Gardasil’s manufacturer Merck. In an interview in the French magazine Principes de Sante, Dalbergue said Merck fully knows the vaccine is worthless in protecting against cervical cancer. He stated, “I predict that Gardasil will become the greatest medical scandal of all times because at some point in time the evidence will add up to prove that this vaccine, technical and scientific feat that it may be, has absolutely no effect on cervical cancer…. The very many adverse effects which destroy lives and even kill, serve no other purpose than to generate profit for the manufacturers.”  Meanwhile, the National Institutes of Health profits from Gardasil sales with royalties and will benefit more as the vaccine is mandated by state legislators.

We have deep reservations towards accusing the federal health agencies of engaging in a revival of eugenic technologies. But we ask readers to consider a recent analysis published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health that reveals a lowered probability of pregnancy among American women between 25 and 29 years of age who have received the HPV vaccine. Since the launch of Gardasil, birth rates have been falling. For women aged 25 to 29 – within the range of the new Gardasil Generation – rates fell from 118 in 1000 to 105. This may appear coincidental. However, 60 percent of unvaccinated women became pregnant at least once compared to only 35 percent who received the HPV vaccine. For married women, 75 percent who were unvaccinated conceived versus 50 percent of vaccinated women.  The study suggests that if 100 percent of women had received the HPV vaccine, there would be 2 million more women likely infertile.

We have reported in the past how the CDC operates more like a private intelligence and surveillance firm rather than a federally funded public health service. In the meantime, epidemics of autism, neuro-developmental disorders, autoimmunity, childhood diabetes, febrile seizures, asthma and allergies roll on and federal health officials embrace the superstitions of vaccine magic and reside in a culture of medical denialism.

Finally, there is a fundamental question.

Would you hire someone with such an extensive rap sheet to care for your child, let alone a newborn infant?  Would you trust them to undertake the correct measures in an emergency, or use sound judgment to assure your child’s well-being?  For the hundreds of thousands of vaccine-damaged children, the CDC remains a felon on the loose. And the rest of our government is less competent than inebriated Keystone cops to authorize a thorough housecleaning. The agency displays no sincere interest in your child’s well-being and health, nor those of any American for that matter. And the mainstream media, every major network, newspaper and magazine, are similarly unconscionably complicit in preserving the CDC’s culture of deception. The entire media should be stamped with a warning as life-threatening dangers to the public health.

March 26, 2019  

The Gary Null Show is here to inform you on the best news in health, healing, the environment. In this episode Gary talks about Breast cancer may be likelier to spread to bone with nighttime dim-light exposure, One Serving of Greens Daily Slows Brain Aging by Over a Decade, Research: Black Seed Oil Protects Pancreas Damage from Diabetes – Helps Heal Wounds, Sex hormone levels in older men are linked to lower biological age, Antibiotics before age 2 increases risk for childhood obesity, Screen time plus snacking a risk for metabolic disorder in teens, Meta-analysis adds evidence to antidepressant effect for omega-3, Replacing sitting time with physical activity associated with lower risk of death. 

March 25, 2019  

Artificial Intelligence: The Coming Storm

Michael Harrison - Michael holds a Bachelor of Science degree with a major in theoretical physics minor in quantum chromodynamics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He earned distinction in his master’s program in aerospace systems architecture at the University of Southern California. He was selected as the TRW Space Technologies Black Engineer of the Year. He also is active as a filmmaker, and had one of his projects debut at the Cannes International Film Festival. Michael holds a Bachelor of Science degree, with a major in Theoretical Physics, minor in Quantum Chromodynamics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He earned distinction in his Master’s program in Aerospace Systems Architecture at the University of Southern California. He was selected as the TRW Space Technologies Black Engineer of the Year. He is also creative and active as a filmmaker and had one of his projects debut at the Cannes International Film Festival.

March 22, 2019  

The Gary Null Show is here to inform you on the best news in health, healing, the environment. In this episode Gary talks about Study in mice examines impact of reused cooking oil on breast cancer progression, Red raspberry exhibits anti-metastatic properties against human nasopharyngeal carcinoma cells, Black elderberry supplementation effectively treats upper respiratory symptoms: A meta-analysis of randomized, controlled clinical trials, High-fructose corn syrup promotes colon tumor growth in mice, When neurons are out of shape, antidepressants may not work,

Gary plays audio clips on 

5G Is “Stupidest Idea in the History of the World”

What Every Parent Needs to Know | Jordan Peterson

 

March 21, 2019  

The Gary Null Show is here to inform you on the best news in health, healing, the environment. In this episode Gary opens up the program giving a long commentary on how to heal the body naturally. Gary also covers health topics such as Early exposure to pesticides linked to increased risk of autism spectrum disorder, Omega-3 intake may be associated with decreased asthma symptoms, Active substance from plant slows down aggressive eye cancer, Depression in 20s linked to memory loss in 50s, find Sussex psychologists, Drinking hot tea linked with elevated risk of esophageal cancer. To wrap up the program Gary takes your calls. 

 

Voicemail Line 862-800-6805
 
This new feature will allow listeners to call in and leave a voicemail question to all their favorite shows. All you have to do is call the number, Say your name, what show and what your question is. This will allow your voice to be heard on your favorite PRN shows and will allow a better host/listener connection.
March 20, 2019  

The Gary Null Show is here to inform you on the best news in health, healing, the environment. In this episode Gary gives most of his time to talking about health issues. Some of the topics Gary talked about was A nutty solution for improving brain health, Curcumin improves muscle function and increases exercise capacity, Mindfulness could be a key to recovering from substance abuse, experts say, Meditation enhances social-emotional learning in middle school students, Short walk once-a-week can lower risk of death: study, Study: Research ties common heartburn medications to kidney disease and failure. How to treat a new rescue animal. And how LSD is bad for the brain.  

March 19, 2019  

The Gary Null Show is here to inform you on the best news in health, healing, the environment. In this episode Gary spends the entire show doing a investigative report on AIDS/HIV. In this episode Gary goes into his history on getting the truth out there on curing AIDS/HIV

March 18, 2019  

Why you shouldn’t trust Wikipedia: Propagandists for a Broken Establishment

By Gary Null & Helen Buyniski

 

Science, whether in academia or in the mainstream media, television or popular online outlets, is the rarefied domain of “experts,” we are told. To prove they are experts, the gatekeepers of the Academy present a pedigreed background, bristling with prestigious degrees, honors and awards, publication in the top journals of their field, and other trappings of success. Virtually any important topic involving medicine, healthcare, finance, even behavior is directed and codified by these preeminent spokespersons, marching in ideological lockstep. Every major medical organization from the AMA to the College of Physicians and Surgeons to the National Academy of Science to the leading scientific publications such as the Lancet and BMJ all are staffed by people who rarely if ever challenge the consensus, and virtually every one of our government agencies is likewise staffed with consensus scientists. Medical theory and practice are controlled by local and state medical boards that watch carefully to ensure that physicians are practicing “science-based medicine,” with an absolute unwavering belief that this is the only way to practice medicine.

Scientific evidence published in a peer-reviewed journal lives or dies by reputational association. If it comes from a respected institution, it must be true. And the alternative is also true: if one day a board-certified physician in any specialty realizes that maybe his patients are not improving or recovering because there is something wrong with the standard protocols, and hypothesizes that the truth lies outside some officially accepted paradigm, the scientific powers that be shake their heads and say: what a foolish thought. There are millions of scientists working every day in private labs, government agencies, universities, and corporate research centers, dedicated not just to finding the truth but to repeating it ad nauseam, obsessively polishing it, buffing the uncertainty out – surely they can’t all be wrong. These epistemological overseers view any part of medicine outside the generally-accepted paradigm as – in the frequently-cited words of Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales – the work of “lunatic charlatans.” Supporting Wales are a limited number of self-styled Skeptics who believe in an even more radical or ultra-orthodox form of “science-based medicine” than the rest of the medical establishment, many of whom have – after years in actual clinical practice, dealing with the realities of patients and disease – begun to grudgingly admit there might be something to these complementary and alternative modalities that have persisted, some of them, for thousands of years.

These Skeptics, free of intrusion from clinical reality, are the ultimate keepers of the scientific faith, guarding the gates against any heretics who question the prevailing wisdom. Hence despite the trillions of dollars flowing into the medical-industrial complex, we have no cures for major diseases from Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and ALS to anxiety, depression, PTSD, to chronic heart failure, cancer, and diverticulitis. We do have treatments for everything – indeed, our life today has been pathologized so heavily that the normal behaviors of people going through life issues, behaviors like grieving and stress, are now pathology. Millions of children every day take medications, none of which are curative but all of which are to be dutifully taken in order to maintain symptoms, creating lifetime customers for the pharmaceutical industry.

There is a growing discontent among millions of parents who have obediently followed the instructions of their physicians and given their children vaccines, assuming they are safe and effective only to watch their child have an adverse reaction to the vaccines- anything from delayed learning to autism to death. At least half the people dying of cancer are dying from the treatments. People are prescribed antipsychotic medications for off-label uses who then become psychotic and commit horrific acts of violence. The majority of mass shootings are committed by individuals taking psychiatric medication. Veterans, active and retired, many of them on these same drugs, are committing suicide at a rate of 20 per day – putting a gun in their mouths and killing themselves. Almost 60,000 people died after taking the “painkiller” Vioxx – more than all American casualties in the Vietnam war, yet Medicine chose not to change its ways, no matter how horrific the casualties of the dominant paradigm. Merck, the drug’s manufacturer, merely paid a fine and moved on to the next fraud. As with any pharmaceutical company, the deaths of patients are merely the cost of doing business, collateral damage in the pursuit of the almighty bottom line. Medicine doesn’t change, it doesn’t apologize, and no one is held accountable – not the physician, nurse, pharmacist, hospital, nor the corporations profiting from this. In effect, the entire medical industrial complex has been indemnified.

It is little wonder that some individuals have finally said, “enough!” Parents are fighting back, but only after they are victimized. They begin to study and read the literature to uncover the discrepancies between CDC lies and actual scientific facts, the contradictions and counterindications. They get angry. Instead of addressing seven million parents’ grievances, the CDC and FDA and the entirety of the medical-industrial complex aided by the full weight and power of the medical media are now pushing the line that if you question vaccines, you’re now one of the most deadly threats to health on the planet – as bad as the Ebola virus. Those who have dealt with injury or loss of a child face the additional hardship of being attacked for trying to become informed and educated. Think of how Orwellian that is. The moment you become fully aware, informed, and educated on a particular subject, one of deep personal importance to you, you’re the enemy. Who better to vilify you than those self-appointed ultra-orthodox Skeptics and Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia?

Let us take a moment to bring some sanity to this discussion. If science is all we are told that it is, if every miracle drug is truly a miracle, if the cure for cancer will arise from our next tax-deductible check to the American Cancer Society, we should be able to prove their case. We have taken the time to review all of the science in “science-based medicine” to see if there are any cracks in the facade of this indomitable paradigm of healing and virtue and authority. And we are absolutely overwhelmed at how the American public has been lied to and manipulated, according to orthodox science’s own record – of lawsuits, settlements, investigations into the accuracy and legitimacy of the entire medical-industrial complex. The results – fully footnoted and sourced – are shocking. Today’s science is rife with fraud: why isn’t Wikipedia challenging it?

A scientific experiment’s status rests on whether it can be replicated. By those standards, oncology is very, very sick. A large-scale six-year undertaking by Dr. Tim Errington and the University of Virginia’s Centre for Open Science was unable to replicate any of the findings from three out of five seminal cancer studies. Two were inconclusive, while a third wasn’t even in the ballpark. “It’s worrying because replication is supposed to be a hallmark of scientific integrity,” says Dr. Errington. Given the toxicity of popular cancer treatments, these results are doubly disturbing. If the trials demonstrating chemotherapy’s effectiveness cannot be reproduced, the validity of the therapies must be reconsidered.1 Who on earth would undergo the pain and suffering of chemotherapy if they did not believe there was remission at the end of the rainbow? A 2012 examination of cancer studies published in Nature found the circumstances even direr, with only 10% of studies holding up to attempts at reproduction. The authors found the low success rate neither sustainable nor acceptable and urged researchers to do better. The Nature study cited a German study (conducted by pharmaceutical conglomerate Bayer, no less) that found only 25% of preclinical cancer trials were reproducible and noted that despite this fact, some of the drugs tested had moved on to clinical trials – meaning patients were being subjected to experimental regimes that had never been shown to be effective. The researchers pleaded for their fellow scientists to focus less on flashy results based on flawed preclinical and animal models, “poorly characterized tumor cell lines that inadequately recapitulate human disease,” and other corner-cutting and time-saving measures like artificial endpoints and criticized journal editors and grant review committees for looking for the “perfect story.”2

Because researchers depend on publication in order to obtain funding, jobs, promotions, and tenure, the incentive to fudge results is enormous; editors, then, “must allow for the presentation of imperfect stories, and recognize and reward reproducible results, so that scientists feel less pressure to tell an impossibly perfect story to advance their careers.” Once one researcher gets on the front page of Nature with a fudged study, the goalposts have been moved, and all others – even the most honest and scientifically rigorous – are now measured by those standards. Beyond those who “want to believe” – researchers with conflicts of interest testing drugs in which they’re financially invested – phony results turn even honest scientists into agents of Big Pharma.

And cancer researchers are no better than the rest of institutional science when it comes to reporting results. A STAT investigation in 2015 found that every single trial conducted by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center was published late or not at all, in violation of a 2007 law mandating the speedy publication of clinical trial results. Of the 39 trials examined, two involved an experimental drug, ganetespib, that caused serious adverse effects in more than a third of study participants, with complications including bowel and colon obstructions and even death. While those results languished in publication limbo, other doctors were no doubt running their own trials without the benefit of knowledge that this drug could kill their patients before the cancer did. And Sloan Kettering is far from an exception – STAT also called out the Hoosier Cancer Research Institute, which ended a 2009 study of Avastin in breast cancer patients because of potentially life-threatening adverse effects, for its failure to report the negative results of the trial, allowing other doctors to potentially treat patients with the dangerous drug.3

With more and more attention on the prevalence of fraud in the literature on cancer treatment, we should be at the brink of a major medical paradigm shift, yet a glance at Wikipedia suggests there is absolutely nothing wrong with the status quo in oncology. Wikipedia’s editors spend the lion’s share of their time “debunking” “quack” cancer treatments instead of questioning the prevailing wisdom on chemo, radiation, and the rest of the “slash and burn” protocols that are at least as likely to kill patients than cure them. And oncology is just the tip of a rotten, fraudulent iceberg.

A 2016 study published in Nature found over 70% of researchers had tried and failed to reproduce experiments conducted by another scientist. Worse, half could not even reproduce their own experiments. The study’s results were no fluke – 1,576 researchers were queried about their experiences – but the cognitive dissonance revealed in their answers to the study questionnaire was illuminating. More than half (52%) agreed there was a “crisis” of reproducibility, but most still trusted the published literature over their own experiences, and less than a third (31%) believed failure to reproduce published results meant a study was wrong.4

Some researchers blame the culture of scientific research for driving scientists to publish flashy results without attempting to verify them with follow-up studies. Bristol University biological psychology professor Marcus Munafo says the emphasis on “high-risk, high-return results” nearly scared him out of science entirely when the results of his experiments didn’t square up with those in his textbook, and only later did he realize that the textbook science had been “tidied up” to look more impressive. Published literature “promotes impact over substance, flashy findings over the dull, confirmatory work that most of science is about,” according to Dame Ottoline Leyser, director of Cambridge University’s Sainsbury Laboratory, who stresses it’s less about fraud than it is about trying to excite and impress – other scientists, peer-reviewed journals, and grant-giving institutions.5

An (ironically unpublished) study conducted by the American Society for Cell Biology found at least two-thirds of survey respondents had been unable to reproduce results they had published, while even pharmaceutical companies’ own researchers admit that less than a quarter of prominent papers are reproducible, according to Nature, one of the publications which has been the loudest in demanding scientific reform. “There is a very real temptation to ignore a result that does not conform to our preconceptions, or to recast it so that it does. Data-dredging is used to find statistically significant results that justify a publication,” Begley et.al. write. Worse, institutional pressure to publish shoddy science can push jerry-rigged data into print: a third of trainees at the MD Anderson Cancer Center said they felt pressure to “prove a mentor’s hypothesis” despite data that did not agree, while a fifth had published their own results despite doubt, often because their course of study required the publication of a “high-impact paper.”6 Becoming a true believer is thus a survival mechanism, allowing the fledgling scientist to reimagine the time and money wasted pursuing a pharmaceutical dead end as worthy causes. Researchers capable of making silk purses from the sows’ ears of dud experiments win the day, while “the core instinct of science – skepticism – is punished by the current system.”

The same Nature study that found scientists trusted the published literature even while admitting there was a crisis of reproducibility also found that there were few incentives to publish replications of previous researchers’ studies – whether successful or not. Some even reported that they were only able to publish their failed replication after “playing down comparisons” with the study they had tried to replicate. While only 13% had ever published an unsuccessful reproduction, only 10% had ever been rejected from doing so – meaning most had simply never tried. Reproducing studies is expensive and time-consuming, but as it becomes clear that a large body of science is simply not reproducible, it becomes equally clear that even more unreproducible science has merely flown under the radar.

A study conducted the following year focusing on social science studies published in Nature and Science from 2010 to 2015 found suspect results were rampant. One third of the 21 studies examined could not be reproduced at all, and those effects they could replicate were only about half as strong as in the original studies. This study, it should be noted, was conducted with the full cooperation of the original researchers – a favorable condition most experimenters attempting to reproduce results do not have – and clearly represents the best of all possible scientific worlds.7A 2015 study in Science focusing on psychological studies turned up a similarly dismal rate of one-third to one-half of findings that were reproducible, but found the highest single predictor of reproducibility was strength of original results.8 Essentially, if the original study showed borderline-significant results, it was much less likely to be confirmed in a repeat study.

And these are merely the honest mistakes. Conflicts of interest further complicate the matter. Big Pharma has largely taken up the slack every time the National Institute of Health’s budget is cut, and by 2014, pharmaceutical companies were paying for six trials for every one funded by the NIH. A University of Sydney study confirmed last year what everyone has long suspected: pharmaceutical companies prioritize “lines of inquiry that focus on products, processes or activities that can be commercialized and marketed” over methods of healing that don’t present an easy profit opportunity.9 Pharmaceutical firms will not fund research into the benefits of deep breathing, or the curative properties of high-dose vitamin C, because they can’t cash in. They will fund novel ways to profit off existing drugs – former NEJM editor Marcia Angell revealed in 2009 that only 11% of the 667 drugs approved by the FDA between 2000 and 2007 represented innovations or even improvements on existing treatments, while a full three-quarters represented old wine in new bottles – off-patent or soon-to-expire drugs subjected to molecular tweaks allowing a company to file for another patent.10 They will help trials along every step of the way, taking care that their money is spent wisely – it costs as much as $2 billion to develop a new drug, according to DrugWatch. A Washington Post review analyzed a year’s worth of studies on new drugs published in the NEJM, finding of 73 studies, 60 were funded by a pharmaceutical company, 50 included authors who were drug company employees, and 37 lead researchers had accepted drug company money.11

Because so much of what passes for medical orthodoxy today is based on low-quality evidence in which the drug is only marginally superior to a placebo, it’s very likely the clinical trials used to approve that drug are not themselves reproducible at all. Since we know that as many as half of clinical trials funded by the National Institutes of Health never make it to publication,12 and that negative results are less likely to be published than positive results,13 we can be sure the studies hailed as “proof” of the drug’s efficacy were cherry-picked from a slew of less favorable results, especially with pharmaceutical companies themselves funding an ever-larger portion of clinical trials. Findings of adverse effects, particularly serious ones, often escape publication entirely,14while the weak positive findings, no matter how dubious, are stretched even further to maximize prescribing possibilities. A 2008 study of antidepressant drug trials confirmed that the SSRI paradigm – which frames depression as a neurochemical imbalance – is built on just such a fraudulent foundation. The drug companies published 97% of positive studies, while just 39% of “questionable” or “negative” results ever saw the light of day, and a third of those were spun to make the results appear positive. Because of this distortion, the effect size of the positive studies appeared almost a third larger than the data actually showed, and any clinician consulting the literature would be unable to accurately evaluate the drugs’ risk-benefit profile without data on side effects.15 This was GlaxoSmithKline’s modus operandi in selling its antidepressant Paxil, which was never approved for treatment of teenagers and which demonstrated an increased likelihood of suicidality in depressed patients during clinical trials. This alarming adverse effect was swept under the rug, Paxil was marketed off-label to millions of doctors illegally for prescriptions to teens who became suicidal or psychotic and died. Glaxo eventually pleaded guilty to criminal and civil fraud charges and paid $3 billion in what was then the largest fraud payout ever by a drug company, agreeing to place a “black box warning” on their prescribing labels.16 An effort to reproduce the clinical trials that had led to the approval of Paxil not only found no clinically significant effectiveness versus placebo, but turned up significant increases in suicidal ideation and behavior among the test population. This is a drug that should never have gone to market.17 But $3 billion is nothing next to the $25 billion GSK made in profits through the illegal sales of those drugs.18

John Ioannidis famously made the case in a 2005 paper that most published scientific findings are false. The overwhelming bias against publishing negative results favors the one study that claims Paxil is manna from heaven for depressives over the 19 that claim it leaves patients worse than it found them, and drug marketers do the rest. Ioannidis even stated “The greater the financial interests in a given field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.” If most studies do indeed measure science’s prevailing bias rather than the facts, it’s no surprise that these journals keep toeing the party line – they have no choice.19 All researchers want results they can publish – and negative results are the second-class citizens of the experimental world. If they do manage to see the light of day, it’s often in journals set up by well-meaning publishers to solve the reproducibility problem that instead end up ghettoizing it. Negativland, Positively Negative – cutesy names aside, publishing in these does not carry the same promise of prestige that a BMJ or a National Academy of Sciences offers.20 Pharmaceutical companies have “bought” senior doctors, institutions, and universities, according to the University of Copenhagen’s Peter Gotzsche, who likens the industry to organized crime; with this power, they dictate where the lines are drawn that scientific research is then forced to color between.21

The stubborn persistence of this phenomenon despite legal and institutional remedies indicates that it goes much deeper than the defenders of orthodox medicine would like to believe. In 2007, the FDA Amendments Act required that “applicable clinical trials” register and report their results within a year of the trial’s completion on ClinicalTrials.gov, with a penalty of $10,000 per day if researchers failed to report. Yet the FDA rarely levies these fines, with both sides preferring to merely ignore the law. STAT conducted an investigation in 2015 that found 74% of industry trials were reported late or not at all. For academic institutions, fully 90% were late or not reported. Had the FDA chosen to collect the daily fines starting in 2008, it would have been $25 billion richer by the time STAT’s study was published.22 But it’s no surprise that individual institutions don’t follow the law, because neither does the National Institutes of Health itself. STAT found just 38% of the NIH’s own scientists reported results within the legal deadline in 2013. If those who set the rules do not follow them, they can hardly expect anyone else to do so. NIH’s casual disregard for the rules draws curious parallels with both the behavior of pharmaceutical companies – caught time and time again pushing drugs off-label and covering up adverse effects, paying massive fines dwarfed only by their massive profits – and even Wikipedia’s administrators, who stringently enforce the rules against “newbies” while violating them at every turn when it permits them to push their own religion of science-dogma.

As Ioannidis points out, much of fake science merely reinforces existing scientific dogma. A self-sustaining feedback loop is set up that does not permit dissenting views to interfere with its groupthink. But the danger of believing in propaganda over checking one’s own work is that shoddy and corrupt consensus science can become law, as is happening with vaccines all over America. Parents – seven million with vaccine-damaged children – are told to trust pharmaceutical companies with truly egregious track records over their own experiences. Unlike the scientists in the Nature study who believe what’s published in scientific journals over the results of their own experiments, however, these parents cannot merely close the cover on an autistic or otherwise brain-damaged child.

Merck, makers of the MMR vaccine (which, as mainstream media has tirelessly reminded us since Andrew Wakefield published the study that ended his career, is perfectly safe), was sued by two former employees who claim the company faked the efficacy tests for the vaccine. Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski blew the whistle on their former employer in August 2010, alleging that not only was Merck aware that the vaccine was less than the purported 95% effective, but that it manipulated test results by using the vaccine strain of the measles virus, adding rabbit antibodies to the blood to increase the apparent effectiveness, and fudging pre-vaccine blood data. Not only did Merck defraud the US government – which purchases more than 50% of all MMR doses sold – it also threatened the two scientists with jail time if they told the FDA about the fraud taking place in the company’s labs.23 Merck’s subpar MMR vaccine, they said, used the faked stats to pass off a low-efficacy, much-degraded mumps vaccine as one that was 95% effective. The failure of this vaccine to confer immunity at all – let alone herd immunity – is believed to have resulted in outbreaks starting 20 years ago in the UK and Europe – yet it’s not vaccinating that is presumed to be the cause of the current measles clusters in the US!

Two more class action lawsuits hit Merck in 2012 over its complete control of the MMR market, alleging the pharma giant violated state laws and the Sherman Antitrust Act with monopolistic and anti-competitive practices. Merck’s lies about the 95% effectiveness of its vaccine “deterred and excluded competing manufacturers,” according to one suit which pointed out that had another company known there was a market for an effective mumps vaccine, it would have been willing to sink research funds into developing one. Because Merck is the only company licensed to sell the MMR vaccine, it is critical to maintain the illusion of 95% efficacy, lest a competitor be permitted to enter the market. The other suit alleges that by selling an ineffective vaccine to the government and other purchasers and calling it a 95% effective vaccine, Merck violated the False Claims Act. Merck has since stonewalled and obfuscated at every turn, refusing to show efficacy data yet claiming efficacy as a defense.24 In recent years, it has simply lobbied for the shot to be made mandatory, with no religious or philosophical (such as the philosophy of “I refuse to have my child injected with a vaccine that doesn’t actually vaccinate against the stated disease”) exemptions, ignore all data that does not fit its wholly false narrative, and hope the plaintiffs run out of money first. Sadly, this is usually a winning strategy for Big Pharma. It’s not called “small” pharma, after all.

This year, the Danish Cohort Study was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, purporting to vindicate the beleaguered MMR vaccine once and for all. Dr. Brian Hooker, who exposed the CDC’s cover-up of the 2003 Verstraeten study, carefully dissected this piece of unscientific fraud, showing that it proves nothing except that scientists will publish whatever a pharmaceutical company pays them to. Statistical anomalies are apparent from the beginning – the study ostensibly used Denmark’s population registries to examine children born in Denmark to Danish mothers, yet the autism rate in the sample population was significantly lower than the autism rate of the Danish population – meaning the researchers made some 4,400 autistic children disappear, presumably because their presence pointed toward a conclusion they’d already ruled out. Nearly a third of the children they did include were too young to receive an autism diagnosis, further biasing the results in favor of the vaccine, and children with genetic factors predisposing them to autism were included in the sample. The researchers used two different vaccines, typically given at two different ages, meaning half the children only received one shot before the typical age at which autism is diagnosed – and to further confuse matters, children diagnosed as autistic shortly after receiving their shots were given more statistical weight than those with delayed diagnosis, even though age of diagnosis varies wildly depending not only on severity but on socioeconomic status, environment, other health conditions, and myriad other factors.25

Perhaps most importantly, the authors did not disclose their flaming conflicts of interest. Two of the three researchers are employed by vaccine manufacturer Statens Serum Institut, and the study itself was funded by Novo Nordisk, a multinational pharmaceutical firm.26 Lead author Anders Hviid also co-authored a 2002 MMR-autism paper that never even passed its ethics review, an “oversight” the CDC helped cover up.27

A few tenacious editors have pointed out to Wikipedia that the results of clinical trials are often contradictory, and that it’s almost always possible to find a result to back up one’s personal beliefs, especially if they align with a drug company’s star product. As a result, editors imposed a higher burden of proof on medical articles, mandating information must come from reviews such as Cochrane or medical textbooks – mere journal articles are not enough. A review of flawed studies necessarily yields flawed results, but using second-order articles would appear on the surface to be a useful bulwark against fraud. Skeptics, however, merely tag articles they consider scientifically impure as “FRINGE,” and they are exempted from these “MEDRS” (medical reliable sources) guidelines. “FRINGE” is Wikipedia’s scarlet letter, applied accusingly to complementary and alternative medical treatments and their practitioners alike, serving as a beacon for Skeptics wishing to make a name for themselves by tearing apart the life’s work of healers and counselors who’ve helped millions – and ensuring millions more are never helped. MEDRS might force Wikipedia to admit that taking vitamin C increases the odds of survival in breast cancer patients, but it does not prevent Wikipedia from claiming the very notion of “Big Pharma” itself is a conspiracy theory – that anyone criticizing the reckless behavior of multinational drug companies is being “cynical and intellectually lazy” – and attributing this “fact” to the personal blog of one of the leading “Skeptics,” which is considered a reliable-enough source when compared to those “lunatic charlatans” who promote complementary and alternative medicine.

This term – “lunatic charlatans” – has become Wikipedia’s equivalent of the McCarthy-era smear of “communist sympathizer.” When Wikipedia’s Jimmy Wales and his merry band of Skeptics attack with all the zeal and zealotry of a troop of medieval witch-hunters, they see no irony whatsoever in the incompleteness and inaccuracy of the scientific findings they have embraced as gospel. Researchers like Ioannidis are true skeptics, questioning the preconceived notions of pharmaceutically-driven science with the goal of improving the discipline – but Skeptics have nothing in common with their lower-case counterparts. Question received wisdom – on vaccines, for example – and you are immediately excommunicated from public discourse.

So, who do we believe? A growing body of independent scientific research showing all vaccines are inherently unsafe, in the words of the Supreme Court? Seven million parents of vaccine-damaged kids? Or the pharmaceutical industry, which buys science tailor-made to fit its specifications and leaves a trail of bodies in its wake? Big Pharma, including those companies that manufacture vaccines, is perfectly pathological in its capacity to lie, deceive and manipulate for profit. If patients die or are sickened, it’s merely the cost of doing business. What have we become when we’re this mercenary, this predatory? We can choose to believe physicians and clinicians who’ve spent thousands of hours researching the literature, working with patients, and sorting the good science from the bad. Or we can choose to believe a layperson with no background in medicine who shoots portraits for JC Penney, a surgical oncologist who has no clinical experience outside his very narrow specialty, or Jimmy Wales himself, who has no scientific or medical background at all yet feels qualified to judge and dismiss entire fields of study and healing as so much quackery. With the crusader’s zeal, Wales and his spiritual children sally forth to cleanse the kingdom of Wikipedia of the pharmaceutical infidels – those who do not believe in a pill for every ill, who hold patients above profits, who still believe in the Hippocratic oath.

Ultimately, the result of their scorched-earth propaganda campaign is that millions of people in the scientific and medical community are being exploited and lied to, year in and year out, all for financial and personal gain. This is not something new. The next time Wikipedia’s editors demand your trust, insisting they have the light of scientific progress on their side, remember how much of official science has been corrupted. Scientific publications, to their credit, are beginning to address the problem. Wikipedia is not.

 

NOTES

 

1 Feilden, Tom. Most scientists ‘can’t replicate studies by their peers.’ BBC. 22 Feb 2017. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778

2 Begley, CG & LM Ellis. Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature. 28 Mar 2012. https://www.nature.com/articles/483531a

3 Piller, Charles. Failure to report: A STAT investigation of clinical trials reporting. STAT. 13 Dec 2015. https://www.statnews.com/2015/12/13/clinical-trials-investigation/

4 Baker, Monya. 1500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature. 25 May 2016. https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970

5 Feilden, op.cit.

6 Begley, CG et.al. Robust research: Institutions must do their part for reproducibility. Nature. 1 Sep 2015. https://www.nature.com/news/robust-research-institutions-must-do-their-part-for-reproducibility-1.18259

7 Camerer, CF et.al. Evaluating then replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nature: Human Behavior. Sep 2018:2;637-644. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0399-z.epdf?referrer_access_token=n899xrmd2VnTym070KzV4dRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0ODPoD_DniKOJV85YbvYREV4WYg3rUMkw4Dn3xQpiS36Qo5paLwrIPkIBbqLwaSWTL8LjoFz27rT6wVmEWMypaomhiEgEAKp0Yt4naHvayYf7Kc5fPTiynVlcIp4aGnCug2I2YSaK-Y6-hmTPLuowcj4Zscwa4HSJYBNOzDh1pxRdWWp__YHE6k4bB7qr9kAUNDXCNqu_IprjVxo6LD4-fxEbHOFNOdiupS0ZgH47js7um1DSsFBwzlPNRVmnHXkGNrAgk5tl59S46lSUaK3n3aPFniXOjRTYd4ZBXezeUlLKme3ebo6QfdrgmFBo-mqpU%3D

8 Aarts, AA et.al. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science. 28 Aug 2015:349(6251):aac4716. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716

9 Pash, Chris and Ruqayyah Moynihan. Big pharma really does prioritize funding for profitable research over public health, a new study shows. Business Insider Australia. 27 Sep 2018. https://static7.businessinsider.com/pharma-puts-profitability-before-public-health-when-funding-research-2018-9

10 Hodgekiss, Anna and Ben Spencer. How Big Pharma greed is killing tens of thousands around the world: Patients are over-medicated and often given profitable drugs with ‘little proven benefits,’ leading doctors warn. Daily Mail. 23 Feb 2016. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3460321/How-Big-Pharma-greed-killing-tens-thousands-world-Patients-medicated-given-profitable-drugs-little-proven-benefits-leading-doctors-warn.html

11 Llamas, Michelle. Big Pharma’s role in clinical trials. DrugWatch. 19 Apr 2018. https://www.drugwatch.com/featured/clinical-trials-and-hidden-data/

12 Ross, JS et.al. Publication of NIH funded trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: cross sectional analysis. BMJ 2012;344:d7292. http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.d7292  

13 Ioannidis, JPA. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS One Med. 30 Aug 2005. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

14 Riveros, C et.al. Timing and completeness of trials results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and published in journals. PLoS Med. 2013 Dec:10(12):e1001566. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24311990

15 Turner, EH et.al. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. New England Journal of Medicine. 17 Jan 2008;358:252-260. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa065779

16 Office of Public Affairs. GlaxoSmithKline to Plead Guilty and Pay $3 Billion to Resolve Fraud Allegations and Failure to Report Safety Data. Department of Justice. 2 Jul 2012. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/glaxosmithkline-plead-guilty-and-pay-3-billion-resolve-fraud-allegations-and-failure-report

17 Le Noury, Joanna et.al. Restoring Study 329: efficacy and harms of paroxetine and imipramine in treatment of major depression in adolescence. BMJ 2015;351:h4320. https://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4320

18 Hodgekiss, op.cit.

19 Ioannidis, op.cit.

20 Mudrak, Ben. Negative Results: The Dark Matter of Research. American Journal Experts. https://www.aje.com/en/arc/negative-results-dark-matter-research/ Retrieved 12 Mar 2019.

21 Callaghan, Heather. Dr Peter Gøtzsche Exposes Big Pharma As Organized Crime. Natural Blaze. 23 May 2017. https://www.naturalblaze.com/2017/05/dr-peter-gotzsche-exposes-big-pharma-organized-crime.html

22 Piller, op.cit.

23 Sharav, Vera. Former Merck Scientists Sue Merck Alleging MMR Vaccine Efficacy Fraud. Alliance for Human Research Protection. 5 Mar 2016. https://ahrp.org/former-merck-scientists-sue-merck-alleging-mmr-vaccine-efficacy-fraud/

24 ibid.

25 Hooker, Brian S. A Scientist’s Rebuttal to the Danish Cohort Study. Focus for Health. 13 Mar 2019. https://www.focusforhealth.org/scientists-rebuttal-to-danish-cohort-study/

26 Hviid, Anders et.al. Measles, Mumps, Rubella Vaccination and Autism: A Nationwide Cohort Study. Annals of Internal Medicine. 5 Mar 2019. https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2727726/measles-mumps-rubella-vaccination-autism-nationwide-cohort-study

27 Clay, Beth. Poul Thorsen, Fugitive Researcher. World Mercury Project. Aug 2017. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/world-mercury-project-report-on-poul-thorsen-9-7-17.pdf

- Older Posts »