This one was too good to pass up.
In
an interview with the National Geographic, Tony Fauci made comments
about "alternative views" of the origin of the coronavirus. But he was
really talking about all unorthodox medical information:
"Anybody
can claim to be an expert even when they have no idea what they're
talking about---and it's very difficult for the general public to
distinguish. So, make sure the study is coming from a reputable
organization that generally gives you the truth---though even with some
reputable organizations, you occasionally get an outlier who's out there
talking nonsense. If something is published in places like New England
Journal of Medicine, Science, Nature, Cell, or JAMA---you know,
generally that is quite well peer-reviewed because the editors and the
editorial staff of those journals really take things very seriously."
Right you are, Tony.
So, Tony, here is a very serious statement from a former editor of one of those "places," the New England Journal of Medicine:
"It
is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research
that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or
authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion,
which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor
of The New England Journal of Medicine." (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review
of Books, January 15, 2009, "Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of
Corruption)
And here is another one, from the editor-in-chief of the prestigious journal, The Lancet, founded in 1823:
"The
case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific
literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies
with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and
flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing
fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn
towards darkness..."
"The apparent endemicity of bad research
behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story,
scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the
world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors
deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst
behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy
competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of
'significance' pollutes the literature with many a statistical
fairy-tale...Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a
perpetual struggle for money and talent..." (Dr. Richard Horton,
editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385,
"Offline: What is medicine's 5 sigma?")
Why stop there? Let's
consult a late public-health expert whose shoes Fauci would have been
lucky to shine: Dr. Barbara Starfield, Johns Hopkins School of Public
Health.
On July 26, 2000, the US medical community received a
titanic shock, when Starfield revealed her findings on healthcare in
America.
The Starfield review, "Is US health really the best in the world?", published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), came to the following conclusion, among others:
Every
year in the US, correctly prescribed, FDA approved medical drugs kill
106,000 people. Thus, every decade, these drugs kill more than a
MILLION people.
On the heels of Starfield's astonishing findings,
media reporting was perfunctory, and it soon dwindled. No major
newspaper or television network mounted an ongoing "Medicalgate"
investigation. Neither the US Department of Justice nor federal health
agencies undertook prolonged remedial action.
All in all, those parties who could have made effective steps to correct this ongoing tragedy preferred to ignore it.
On December 6-7, 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield by email. Here is an excerpt from that interview.
Q: What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000?
A:
The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that
more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet
are completely unaware that the US does not have the 'best health in the
world'.
Q: In the medical research community, have your
medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these
figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame?
A: The
findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only
one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of
attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is
and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and
teaching hospitals (they are his constituency).
Q: Have health
agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to
mitigate the [devastating] effects of the US medical system?
A: NO.
Q:
Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was
published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in
the US?
A: No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot
of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I
calculated.
Q: Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?
A: It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that 'it would not be interesting to readers'!
---end of interview excerpt---
Physicians
are trained to pay exclusive homage to peer-reviewed published drug
studies. These doctors unfailingly ignore the fact that, if medical
drugs are killing a million Americans per decade, the heraldic published
studies on which those drugs are based must be fraudulent. In other
words, the medical literature is completely unreliable, and
impenetrable.
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE TWO ESTEEMED MEDICAL EDITORS I QUOTED ABOVE---MARCIA ANGELL AND RICHARD HORTON---ARE SAYING.
If
you know a doctor who enjoys sitting up on his high horse dispensing
the final word on modern medicine, you might give him the quotes from
Dr. Angell and Dr. Horton, instruct him to read them, and suggest he get
in touch with Angell and Horton, in order to discover what has happened
to his profession.
As in: DISASTER.
But please, continue
to believe everything Fauci is saying. He must be right about the
"pandemic." After all, he has a very important position, and he's on
television.
So what if his policies have torpedoed the economy and devastated and destroyed lives across the country?
So
what if he accepted, without more than a glance, that fraud Neil
Ferguson's computer projection of 500,000 deaths in the UK and two
million in the US? In 2005, Ferguson said 200 million people could die
from bird flu. The final official tally was a few hundred.
So what?
Fauci has an important position, and he's on television.
And that's the definition of science, right? |
No comments:
Post a Comment