COMMONPLACE MEDICAL JOURNAL FRAUD
MEDICAL JOURNAL FRAUD
On No Man’s Word
(Healingtalks) Modern scientific “objectivity” is based on the motto of the Royal Society of England, one of the very first scientific societies. The motto, nullius in verba means “on no man’s word.”
Thus we must not just trust a Pope, Monarch, Prophet, Soothsayer, etc. but rather a collective group of scientists who practice peer review, and who thus look at an issue from all different sides, and in order to there gain reliable and authoritative objectivity.
One Fatal Flaw of Peer Review
There is one fatal and deadly flaw in this “peer review philosophy.” What if the whole group has a powerful bias that is deep, intractable, and delusionary?
Ordinary scientific objectivity applies well to mechanical studies (as when testing whether a race car is going 150 miles per hour or 151 miles). A machine is made of separate parts. Mathematical measurements of such parts then exactly define and objectify beginning and end points of those separate parts being measured. Things that function mechanically therefore can be studied in an ordinary “objective” way through lab measurements.
However living organisms are not made of separate parts.
Thus their functionality can not be so mathematized. Biological life is really organized consciously and where consciousness forms a universal relationship of connection, not separation, the mathematical/mechanical model and ideology breaks down. Math symbols abstract the universal separation of elements of consciousness. It is the wrong symbolism with which to understand life and its consciousness. Math symbols point toward opposite and opposing realms!
It is then not objective for an entire group to then together maintain this mechanical worldview, this ideological bias initiated by Sir Isaac Newton into the fabric of the Royal Society, sheltered by its motto, and then jointly claiming that their combined efforts will “purely objectify” our knowledge of biological realms.
The exact opposite occurs. Don’t be surprised when fraud perpetration is commonplace.
Thus where peer review fails the most is when the group of peer all subscribe to the same blind and blinding and blind-sighted ideology….or where a mechanical/unconscious/separative/dead model of nature (and derivatively allopathic medicine) is forced upon as… as being the most “objectively true.”
This then forms a further and deadly marriage with commercial interests to deep-as-the-ocean corrupt our cultural consciousness. This is one of the primary reasons modern medicine is a shambles, unable to cure any of the major chronic diseases we face in our times.
All Wearing the Same Tinted Glasses
Peer review among peers all wearing common ideological lenses (or if not you are thrown out of the club) then becomes a major tool for deep tentacled cultural deceptions.
In the end it can and does have vastly harmful consequences to us all.
Finally”separative consciousness” (reinforced by a mathematical/mechanical orientation) again is objective in mechanical realms but is by definition is non-0bjective in biological realms where things work consciously together as a whole.
True objectivity then looks at the whole and not the part or some lab-isolate and separate symptom suppression testing – the routine deceptive focus of most all pharmaceutical testing.
Want to test the healing power of drugs objectively, with no more deceptions?
You only need to conduct one test to accomplish this, and it only takes a couple of dollars. Maybe you can get some free chemicals from your local pharmacists which are out of date drugs to conduct the test. So here it is. Take a large random mix of chemicals and throw them into a compost heap. A large and random mix objectifies the view at hand. It looks at the whole of the order of chemistry and of drug mixes ad infinitum. What is the end result? The mix invariably forms a supertoxic environment that kills all of life in the compost heap.
To try to prove otherwise via billion dollar isolate studies is perpetuating the fraud of “better living through chemistry”
This is the peer ideology shared by all allopathic doctors working together as a biased peer and commercial group.
Commonplace Fraudulent Medical Writing
Unfortunately, the use of ghostwriters and guest authored journal papers hasn’t gone away.
Two prominent attorneys are now speaking out to call the practice not just a sham but a legal fraud.
So why be concerned about ghostwriting in the medical profession?
It turns out that Big Pharma and other medical industry sponsored research has been published with the names of academic “guest authors” tacked on — although these highly degreed “authors” may have made little or no contributions to the so-called research.
Yet these very articles have been published in leading “peer-reviewed” medical journals and through the years have helped hype hormone replacement therapy, numerous anti-depressants and countless other potentially dangerous drugs including Vioxx, Neurontin and Fen-Phen. In turn, these articles are often cited by their drug company sponsors to promote off-label use of their products – and bring in more millions, if not billions, to the prescription pharmaceutical industry.
Medical Ghostwriting Raises Legal Issues of Fraud
The ghostwriting and guest authoring of industry-controlled studies clearly raise what the law experts call “serious ethical and legal concerns, bearing on integrity of medical research and scientific evidence used in legal disputes.”
It is such a breach of ethics that Professors Simon Stern and Trudo Lemmens of the University of Toronto law faculty have flat out called for “guest” authors of medical and scientific articles to be charged with professional and academic misconduct and fraud, even if the articles attributed to the “ghost” or “guest” writers contain factually correct information.
The law experts compare the academic “ghostwriting” and tacked on bogus academic authorships to racketeering and even the world’s oldest profession.
In a media release about their article (which was just published in the journal PLoS Medicine), the law professors stated:
“Guest authorship is a disturbing violation of academic integrity standards, which form the basis of scientific reliability. The false respectability afforded to claims of safety and effectiveness through the use of academic investigators risks undermining the integrity of biomedical research and patient care.”
Lemmens, who is also a member of the University of Toronto’s school of medicine faculty, had particularly hard hitting words for academics who participate in guest authorship which involves “lending” their names and receiving substantial credit where little or none is due. “It’s a prostitution of their academic standing,” said Lemmens. “And it undermines the integrity of the entire academic publication system.”
In their article, entitled “Legal Remedies for Medical Ghostwriting: Imposing Fraud Liability on Guest Authors of Ghostwritten Articles,” Stern and Lemmens argue that because medical journals, academic institutions, and professional disciplinary bodies have done little if anything to enforce effective sanctions against this practice of bogus authorship of research papers, a more successful effective approach would be to take legal action. Imposing liability on the guest authors “..may give rise to claims that could be pursued in a class action based on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).”
Wider Uses of Medical Ghostwriting To Perpetrate More Fraud
“The same fraud could support claims of fraud on the court against a pharmaceutical company that has used ghostwritten articles in litigation,” the law professors added. Moreover, that kind of claim could prevent the Big Pharma sponsor of “ghosted” and “guest authored” articles from presenting them as evidence in court, and could result in sanctions against attorneys who try to use any of these articles as legally valid evidence in a malpractice, drug injury or other case.
For more information:
Keywords: Medical Journal Fraud, fatal flaw of peer review, pharmaceutical deceptions fraud, medical ghostwriting, motto of Royal Society, fraud in medical writing testing