Child Health Safety Group[Note: This is Part IX in a series of articles adapted from the second Children’s Health Defense eBook: Conflicts of Interest Undermine Children’s Health. The first eBook, The Sickest Generation: The Facts Behind the Children’s Health Crisis and Why It Needs to End, described how children’s health began to worsen dramatically in the late 1980s following fateful changes in the childhood vaccine schedule.]
The vaccine business and its authorities, as well as scientific companions, routinely block significant science and produce deceptive analysis into vaccines. Nevertheless, they might not do this they didn’t appeal to medical magazines to mutually useful trade. Pharmaceutical corporations deliver magazines with the crucial revenue, and in return, the magazines play a key position in preventing research that raises important questions on vaccine reserves that jeopardize profit.
The magazines are prepared to simply accept even extremely deceptive advertisements. The FDA has reported quite a few advertising violations, comparable to advertisements which have overestimated or minimized the risks of drug use.
Unique and Dependent Relationship
Advertising is one of the most useful medical practices in the magazines 'exclusive and dependent relationship' with the pharmaceutical business. In accordance with the 2006 PLOS analysis, drugs, prescription drugs and medical units are the solely products for which medical journals settle for ads. Analysis exhibits that newspaper advertising generates "the highest return on all promotional strategies used by pharmaceutical companies". The pharmaceutical business is especially priceless in promoting its products in printed magazines, as the magazines reach docs – "the gatekeeper between drug companies" and patients. “Nearly nine out of ten drug advertising competitions are directed to doctors.
In the United States in 2012, drug companies used $ 24 billion in marketing for doctors, with only $ 3 billion spent directly on consumer advertising. However, by 2015, consumer advertising had risen to $ 5.2 billion, an increase of 60 percent, which has received a lot of awards. In 2015, Pfizer's Prevnar-13 vaccine was the eighth most advertised medicine in the country; After launching an intensive advertising campaign, Prevnar's "awareness" grew by over 1500% over a period of eight months, and "44% of targeted consumers talked to their doctors about being vaccinated specifically with Prevnar." Advertising has also helped to increase
Advertising is such a well-established part of the modus operandi of magazines that high-end magazines, such as the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), boldly call medical marketers ” cornerstone, "promises" that your advertisements would not show, learn, and work better. "In addition, medical journals benefit from the large purchases of pharmaceutical companies for the sponsorship of thousands of Magazine Printing and Industry
In 2003, BMJ editor wrote a number of ways in which drug advertising can take place in objective medical journals (and medical practice) – which is still true today. For example:
- Advertising costs give prestigious magazines the opportunity to get thousands of copies into the hands of doctors for free, which "virtually definitely" affects prescriptions.
- The magazines are ready to accept even highly misleading ads. The FDA has reported numerous ad violations, including ads that have overestimated or minimized the risks of drug use.
- The magazines guarantee the ads that advertise the product to earn the company's advertising costs.
- The magazines can earn considerable rewards for publishing additional fees, even though they are written in "paid industrial hack" – and the extra favorable the content of the supplement to the sponsoring firm, the larger the profit of the journal
medical trials, BMJ editor added: “The great experiments are very good for magazines where doctors around the world want to see them and so likely to subscribe to their magazines. Such trials also create a lot of publicity and magazines, such as publicity. Finally, companies buy large quantities of reprints of these experiments … and the publisher's profit margin is huge. These reprints are used to market medicines to doctors, and the name of the magazine in reprint is an important part of selling it. ”
… although these poor high quality research – funded by the pharmaceutical business – took far more attention than comparable research that are not funded by business.
In accordance with the American Medical Association (JAMA) magazine, almost three-quarters of all US medical analysis funding – in all probability together with vaccine experiments – came from company sponsors since the early 2000s. Pharmaceutical Analysis (and Researchers) is a factor that helps determine which studies are revealed and where. As Johns Hopkins University researcher has admitted, funding can result in impartiality – and even when the state or departmental funding opportunities produce neutrality, "the worst supply of prejudice is business-funded."
In 2009, researchers published several hundred influenza vaccination studies. Considering "growing doubts about the validity of the scientific evidence [influenza vaccine] on which the coverage recommendations are based mostly", the authors demonstrated that the vaccine-friendly studies were "considerably much less methodological"; even though these poor quality studies – funded by the pharmaceutical industry – received much more attention than comparable studies that were not funded by industry. The authors commented:
[Studies]which was sponsored by the industry, was more prominent as they were more likely to be published in high-impact magazines, and international science and art media probably gave greater visibility, even though they were apparently similar methods. quality and size compared to other donor surveys
In their discussion, the authors also reported how the enormous resources in the industry allow for superior and strategic dissemination of favorable results. For example, companies often share "value-effective" summaries and reprints (translated into different languages) for "determination-makers, their advisers and their native researchers", while systematically integrating studies into symposia and conferences.
RELATED INFORMATION:  World Health Organization standards describe the results of clinical trials as "scientific, moral, and ethical duty". However, it seems that up to half of all clinical trial results are unreported – especially when their results are negative. A European official involved in drug assessment has described the problem as "widespread", for example the results of GSK's four clinical trials on an anti-anxiety drug, which showed that it is possible for children and adolescents to commit suicide. Experts warn that "unreported studies give a poor and probably misleading image of the risks and advantages of remedies."
Many vaccination studies illustrate glaring distortions and selective reporting that produce distorted writings that are more than marketing
Decomposed and impartial results
The significant link between financial sources and industry conclusions can vary in many ways, especially method calculations and rejection of study plans and analysis strategies. Abuses can occur in the form of inadequate sample sizes, short follow-up periods, inappropriate placebos or comparisons, the use of false endpoints, inappropriate statistical analyzes, or "misleading disclosure".
Sometimes, excessive-degree diaries are blowing out the corruption of science revealed in the whistle. In a widespread quote, Dr. Marcia Angell, a former editor-in-chief of NEJM, admitted that “it is no longer possible to believe a large part of the published clinical trial or rely on trusted doctors or authoritative medical instructions. "Dr. Angell added that he "[took] is not happy with this conclusion, which [she] reached slowly and reluctantly" over two decades in a prestigious journal.
Many vaccine studies apparently illustrate bias and selective reporting that produce distorted writings that are more marketing than science. In formal articles that are just too happy to be published by medical journals for publication, the conclusion is almost always the same whether or not the vaccine is: "We did not identify new or unexpected security problems." As an example of using inappropriate statistical techniques to overcome the benefits of the vaccine, an influenza vaccination study reported "69% efficiency rate "Even though the vaccine failed" almost everyone who [took] did it. " As Dr. David Brownstein explained, the authors of the study used a technique known as relative risk analysis to get 69% of their data because it can "make a poorly performing drug or treatment better than it is." However, the absolute risk difference between the vaccine and the placebo group was 2.27%, which means that the vaccine was almost 98%
… the evaluators had done a poor job and ignored important evidence of bias.
In 2018, the Cochrane Collabora, who charges its systematic appraisals as an international gold standard for high-quality, reliable evidence, drew conclusions about a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine that clearly showed a sector vulnerability. In May of the same year, a very favorable review of Cochranen undoubtedly declared the vaccine to be at increased risk of serious side effects and estimated deaths in HPV studies "not related to the vaccine." Cochrane claims to be without any conflict of interest. but its role is funded by national governmental bodies and international organizations that require HPV vaccine assignments and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, both sponsors and supporters of HPV vaccination. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Chair is a former CDC officer who served as CDC Director during the H1N1 Pandemic Pandemic in 2009, which guaranteed millions of random gains for vaccine manufacturers.
Two months after the publication of the Cochran HPV review, the researchers criticized the Nordic Cochrane Center (one of Cochran's member centers), which concluded that the evaluators had done incomplete work and "ignored important evidence of bias." Critics defined a number of methodological and ethical errors. Cochrane assessors, including the failure of nearly half of the acceptable HPV vaccine tests, inadequate assessment of serious and systemic adverse events, and ignoring the fact that many of the revised studies were industry-funded. They also supported the Cochrane evaluators for not paying attention to the major design errors in the original clinical trials, including the non-use of true placebo and the use of cervical cancer replacement results
The Cochrane editor first stated that the supplier group examines the claims "urgently." Instead, Cochran's board of directors quickly expelled one of the critics, Danish medical researcher Peter Gøtzsche, who helped find Cochrane and was the director of the Nordic Cochrane Center. Gøtzsche has been the vocal critic Cochranen's "ever more commercial business model", which he suggests leading to "stronger and stronger resistance to say anything that could jeopardize the interests of the pharmaceutical industry." Increasing injury to injury, Gøtzsche's direct employer, Rigshospitalet Hospital in Denmark, then shot by Gøtzsche. In response, Dr. Gøtzsche said: "Sending me sends a regrettable signal that if your research results are cumbersome and cause public turmoil or threaten the pharmaceutical industry … you will be destroyed." In March 2019, Gøtzsche launched an independent institute
In 2019, the editor-in-chief and research editor of BMJ Evidence Based Medicine, who published the criticism of Cochran's party review, defended the criticism that he "provoked [d] healthy conversation and posed [d] important questions, "Confirming the importance of publishing articles that keep organizations in the account." They stated that "Academic freedom means conveying ideas, facts and criticisms without censoring, targeting, or praying" and calling on publishers to be
excuses for abandoning raw or pulling objects that are critical to high-risk vaccine ingredients, even if they were written by international top researchers, although peer reviewers recommend their publication) or by handling excuses In recent years, numerous magazines have invented false excuses for pulling out or pulling objects that are critical to risky vaccine ingredients, even if they have written top researchers. I will mention just three examples:
- The magazine Vaccine canceled a study that questioned the safety of the aluminum adjuvant used in Gardasil
- The article in Ethics in Science and Technology recaptured an article that made it possible to increase transparency Mercury and autism
- The pharmacological study withdrew from a published veterinary article which contained aluminum-containing vaccines in a sheep-destroying mystery, referring to the "concerns" of an anonymous reader. These journals include experience of creating counterfeit magazines for placing Merck drugs on the market, and Springer, which publishes the third magazine and influential publications such as Nature and Scientific American, has been just too willing to take censorship requests. However, these forms of censorship may seem attractive compared to the fact that the censorship of vaccine-critical data is now taking place through social media and other platforms. This co-ordinated campaign to prevent the spread of the vaccine content, which is not a party line, makes it more difficult for American families to take proper care of the risks and benefits of vaccines.
”© [July 16, 2019] Youngsters's Health Protection, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Youngsters's Health Protection, Inc. Need to study more about defending youngsters's health? Subscribe to free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Youngsters's Health. Your donation will assist us help our efforts.
Copyright 2019 – Permission for reprinting absolutely granted, hyperlinks to unique story?>
(perform (d, s, id)
var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName (s) ;
if (d.getElementById (id))
js = d.createElement (s);
js.id = id;
js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.0";
fjs.parentNode.insertBefore (js, fjs);
(document, script, facebook-jssdk)) (perform (d, s, id)
var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName (s) ;
if (d.getElementById (id)) returns;
js = d.createElement (s); js.id = id;
js.src = & # 39; https: //connect.fb.internet/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&model=v3.1&appId=1184360661727447&autoLogAppEvents=1' ;;
fjs.parentNode.insertBefore (js, fjs);
(document, script & # 39; facebook-jssdk & # 39;))