Scientists And Doctors Falsifying Research Data
March 11, 2012 by admin
Filed under News Stories
March 12, 2012
Natural Society
By Mike Barrett
“Not all doctors are this evil – some really do care. But you really need to be careful about who you go see regarding your health.” –KTRN
Medical doctors are nearly revered by many individuals for their medical knowledge accumulated after years of schooling. These doctors have gone through years of training in what is regarded as the western based medicine philosophy, where drugs and surgery are more or less their specialties. In addition to knowing virtually nothing about nutrition, natural solutions, and how to address the root causes of health conditions, many doctors, as well as scientist, have also been shown to be falsifying data in order to have research published. What’s more, many colleagues of the scandalous individuals are urged to keep quiet about what they know.
A survey of nearly 2,800 scientists and doctors in the UK has found that 13 percent of them admitted to witnessing the falsification and fabrication of data created by their colleagues. Additionally, 6 percent of the nearly 2,800 individuals surveyed were aware of research misconduct at their own workplace which had never been properly investigated to looked into. Needless to say, there could very well be more scientists or doctors not speaking up, further increasing the scandal rate.
Dr. Fiona Godlee, editor for the British Medical Journal, for which the poll was conducted, says:
“While our survey can’t provide a true estimate of how much research misconduct there is in the UK, it does show that there is a substantial number of cases and that UK institutions are failing to investigate adequately, if at all…The BMJ has been told of junior academics being advised to keep concerns to themselves to protect their careers, being bullied into not publishing their findings, or having their contracts terminated when they spoke out…This survey chimes with our experience where we see many cases of institutions not co-operating with journals and failing to investigate research misconduct properly.“
Interestingly enough, there is so much fraud occurring in the medical field that websites are popping up solely to target these numerous cases. Another medical fraud coming to light is the case involving Duke University and Anil Potti, a researcher formally known by mainstream medical experts for transforming cancer research for the better. However, the scientific papers published by Potti turned out to be completely falsified and skewered – a case showing and ultimately convincing many individuals that medical fraud can happen anytime and anywhere, even at high-status universities.
Click here for the full report.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield Sues BMJ, Journalist Brian Deer For Defamation
January 13, 2012 by admin
Filed under News Stories
January 13, 2012
Natural News
By Ethan A. Huff
“Dr. Andrew Wakefield should be given an award. Instead, he’s mistreated in the media.” –KTRN
The man has been shamelessly mocked, repeatedly lied about, and cruelly defamed for his legitimate scientific research into the combination measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism in children. But Dr. Andrew Wakefield is now fighting back against those responsible for viciously denigrating his work and his character by filing a lawsuit against the British Medical Journal (BMJ), which published lies about him, and journalist Brian Deer, who authored many of those lies.
The lawsuit cites several articles and editorials published in BMJ that include “false and defamatory allegations” about Dr. Wakefield and his work. Secrets of the MMR scare: how the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed, an article written by journalist Brian Deer that was published in BMJ, and an accompanying editorial by Fiona Godlee, editor-in-chief of BMJ, are two of the defamatory writings named in the suit.
BMJ and Deer, not Dr. Wakefield, have spread lies and misinformation to the public
Contrary to what the UK’s General Medical Council (GMC), BMJ, Brian Deer, and the host of whoring media outlets continue to claim, Dr. Wakefield’s original study was a case series that made no actual claims about a definitive link between MMR and autism. And the observations, which do happen to suggest a link between MMR and autism regression, are not just unique to Dr. Wakefield’s research. Professor Walker-Smith and Dr. Amar Dhillon together documented their own independent research that also points to a link between MMR vaccine and autism (http://www.naturalnews.com/031116_Dr_Andrew_Wakefield_British_Medical_Journal.html).
Click here for the full report.
Medical Journal ADMITS Fraud Claim Against Dr. Andrew Wakefield Had No Basis!
August 26, 2011 by admin
Filed under News Stories
August 26th, 2011
Natural News
By: PF Louis
Big Pharma, the FDA, AMA and other medical associations falsely accuse conscientious healers of crimes that they themselves routinely commit or cover up. Unfortunately, they get away with it since they are the “authority”, and the mainstream media (MSM) usually favors authority’s version of events. Dr. Andrew Wakefield was a victim of the BMJ’s (British Medical Journal) injustice, which also helped hide vaccine injury science from public awareness.
What Wakefield Actually Did
Dr. Wakefield was organizing clinical research on Crohn’s disease, colitis and gastrointestinal disorders in young children. The research intended to determine if there was a link between those disorders and measles at the Royal Free Hospital in England. Dr. Wakefield published the results of this clinical study in the U.K. medical journal Lancet in 1998.
Children were brought to him because of his interest, but contrary to all accusations, he never treated them. He described himself as “the thinker” when Health Ranger Mike Adams recently interviewed him. In this particular study, he was the thinker for the team of doctors directly involved with the treatment.
Another accusation, that Dr. Wakefield asserted a definite link of MMR vaccines to autism was never published. He never made that claim. Some of his team colleagues put forth their interpretation that MMRs were linked to autism, but that was not part of Wakefield’s Lancet paper. Dr. Wakefield was looking into the possible link of those commonly experienced gut disorders in children under five years old as a precursor to their autism related behavior.
That link to MMRs was actually made by the parents of those 12 participating children. They were doing fine until they received MMR vaccinations, and the parents reported this to Dr. Wakefield’s team. Dr. Wakefield included the parents’ reports in the case study findings. Including parents’ observations in case study reports is highly appropriate.
Dr. Wakefield’s only conclusion was the measles/gut disorder connection to autistic behavior possibilities merited further study.
Other Discoveries that Corroborate Wakefield’s Findings
According to a Mike Adams article, fourteen months before Dr. Wakefield’s paper was published, two other researchers discovered the same problems of gut disorders and autistic behavior in seven children. Their 1996 presentation was called “Entero-colitis and Disintegrative Disorder Following MMR – A Review of the First Seven Cases.” Those seven cases became part of the final twelve cases in Dr. Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet paper. This and other facts disprove accusations that Wakefield fabricated the twelve reports.
A more recent Wake Forest University study determined that 70 of 82 autistic children they studied had measles virus in their guts. Interestingly, the measles virus strain they discovered was not a wild virus — it was the same strain used in MMR vaccines.
A Russian born U.K. pediatrician, Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride, has not only established the connection of gastrointestinal tract disorders among the very young to autistic and other behavioral problems, she cures them with proper diet and supplementation. She learned how the hard way, by curing her own autistic son.
Dr. McBride coined the acronym GAPS for her book Gut and Psychology Syndrome. She describes the dietary solutions to her explanations of how the gut and the brain are connected. This relationship has been known by traditional Chinese medicine for centuries.
In a recent U.S. lecture, she mentioned that her colleagues were afraid to mention Dr. Wakefield due of the witch-hunt conspired against him earlier. But she acknowledges his research efforts as accurate contributions to her practice.
The U.K. government refuses to compensate cases of encephalitis (brain disease) due to vaccine injury. Here we may have one motive for a conspiracy against Dr. Wakefield.
There Really Was a Conspiracy
There are other motives from the usual suspects. The allegedly corrupt Murdoch empire’s Sunday Times is run by Rupert Murdoch’s son James. The Murdoch family is heavily invested in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), a vaccine manufacturer. James Murdoch is even on GSKs board of directors.
James hired a freelance hack journalist, Brian Deer, to fabricate the Wakefield fabrication. It created a firestorm in London that ignited another vaccine promoter, Dr. Fiona Godlee, who happens to be the editor in chief for the British Journal of Medicine (BMJ). She propagated Deer’s lies officially.
This pincer move encircled the U.K. Government’s medical establishment and forced a five member GMC (General Medical Council) hearing on Dr. Wakefield. Perhaps the hearing intended to defend the U.K.’s stance on not awarding vaccine injury victim?
The Sly Admission: Too Late; Damage Done
Private admission of wrong doing by the BMJ to newsletter Age of Autism, spoken evasively out of both sides of Dr. Fiona Godlee’s mouth, is insufficient for the public damage done to Dr. Wakefield’s integrity. But it has served to inspire a stronger alliance among medical professionals and aware parents of vaccine injured children on both sides of the Atlantic.(7)
Click here for the full report from Natural News
The Kevin Trudeau Show: 7-8-11
Today, Kevin Trudeau and Dr. Andrew Wakefield join forces to expose Big Pharma and the media! Find out why Dr. Wakefield has lost his medical license, career, and country ALL because he stood by his research that links the MMR vaccine to autism and bowel disease in children.
Read For Yourself:
Vaccine Safety First
Everything Kevin:
Become An Insider!
Kevin is on YouTube!
Sign Up For Kevin’s FREE Podcast
Follow Kevin on Twitter
Become Kevin’s Friend on Facebook
Kevin’s Film Club
Kevin’s Book Club
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
Click Below to Watch the Kevin Trudeau Show LIVE!
Dr. Andrew Wakefield
Click the picture or link below to hear Kevin’s interview with Dr. Andrew Wakefield and click here to read his research linking the MMR vaccine to autism and bowel disease in children.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield on The Kevin Trudeau Show 2/10/11
The Kevin Trudeau Show: 2-10-11
Today, Kevin Trudeau and Dr. Andrew Wakefield join forces to expose Big Pharma and the media! Find out why Dr. Wakefield has lost his medical license, career, and country ALL because he stood by his research that links the MMR vaccine to autism and bowel disease in children.
Read For Yourself:
Vaccine Safety First
Everything Kevin:
Become An Insider!
Kevin is on YouTube!
Sign Up For Kevin’s FREE Podcast
Follow Kevin on Twitter
Become Kevin’s Friend on Facebook
Kevin’s Film Club
Kevin’s Book Club
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
Click Below to Watch the Kevin Trudeau Show LIVE!
Study Shows Antidepressant Ineffective and Potentially Harmful
October 13, 2010 by admin
Filed under News Stories
October 13, 2010
Daily Telegraph
Stephen Adams
They discovered that reboxetine, marketed as Edronax by Pfizer, was no more effective at countering major depression than a placebo sugar pill, after studying all available data on the drug.
In the study, published in the British Medical Journal today (WED), the German researchers found that some trials which failed to show reboxetine worked well were not submitted for publication by academic journals.
This, they said, was “a striking example of publication bias” – where academics or drug companies decide not to publish unfavourable results in peer-reviewed journals.
Overall, data on nearly three in four patients who took the drug went unpublished, claimed the researchers, working for the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care.
“Data on 74 per cent of the patients included in our analysis was unpublished, indicating that the published evidence on reboxetine so far has been severely affected by publication bias,” they wrote.
If all the studies were taken into account – both published and unpublished – then the evidence showed that the risks of taking the drug outweighed the benefits.
Their analysis found that those who took reboxetine were more likely to have “at least one adverse event” than those given a placebo. However, there was no significant difference in the rate of suicide attempts between the two groups.
They noted that guidance issued by Britain’s National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice), that “reboxetine is superior to placebo and as effective as other antidepressants” was in their opinion, a conclusion that “can no longer be upheld”.
A spokesman for Pfizer said: “Pfizer discloses the results of its clinical trials to regulatory authorities all around the world. These regulatory authorities carefully balance the risks and benefits of each medication, and reflect all important safety and efficacy information in the approved product labelling.
“Pfizer will review the meta-analysis relating to reboxetine published in the British Medical Journal on 13th October 2010 in detail and will provide further comment after completing the review.”
Doctors & Patients Misled Over Drug Trials
October 13, 2010 by admin
Filed under News Stories
October 13, 2010
BBC News
Michelle Roberts
Doctors and patients are being misled about the effectiveness of some drugs because negative trial results are not published, experts have warned.
Writing in the British Medical Journal, they say that pharmaceutical companies should be forced to publish all data, not just positive findings.
The German team give the example of the antidepressant reboxetine, saying publications have failed to show the drug in a true light.
Pfizer maintains its drug is effective.
But its rejection by US drug regulators raised doubts about its effectiveness, and led some to hunt for missing data.
This is not the first time a large drug company has come under fire about its published drug trial data.
Trial informationPharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) was criticised for failing to raise the alarm on the risk of suicidal behaviour associated with its antidepressant Seroxat.
GSK rejected claims that it improperly withheld drug trial information.
But GSK has also been forced to defend itself over allegations about hiding negative data regarding another of its drugs, Avandia, which is used to treat diabetes.
Now researchers from The German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care say there is unpublished trial data for Pfizer’s antidepressant reboxetine that should be made public because it could change views about the drug.
Dr Beate Wieseler and colleagues carried out their own assessment of reboxetine, looking at the results of 13 trials, including eight previously unpublished trials from the manufacturer Pfizer.
They found the drug was no better than a placebo in terms of remission and response rates. And its benefit was inferior when compared with other similar antidepressants.
Furthermore, a higher rate of patients had side effects with reboxetine than with placebo. And more stopped taking the drug because of side effects compared with those taking a placebo or a different antidepressant.
Biased pictureThe researchers said there has been a publication bias and this had overestimated the benefit of reboxetine and underestimated potential harm. And, they said, it was a widespread problem that applied to many of the drugs in use today.
“Our findings underline the urgent need for mandatory publication of trial data,” they say in the BMJ.
They warn that the lack of all information means policy makers are unable to make informed decisions.
In the US, it is already a requirement that all data – both positive and negative – is published. The UK is also striving to achieve this.
The UK’s regulator, the MHRA, said: “There is a European initiative to provide public access to the results of clinical trials. The currently planned timeline is that this information could become available in late 2011/early 2012.”
A spokeswoman for Pfizer said: “In the UK, Pfizer’s reboxetine is licensed for the acute treatment of depressive illness/major depression and for maintaining the clinical improvement in patients initially responding to treatment.
“This medicine presents an effective treatment option to clinicians for the use in patients suffering from these conditions.
“Pfizer discloses the results of its clinical trials to regulatory authorities all around the world. These regulatory authorities carefully balance the risks and benefits of each medication, and reflect all important safety and efficacy information in the approved product labelling.
“Pfizer will review the meta-analysis relating to reboxetine published in the British Medical Journal on 13th October 2010 in detail and will provide further comment after completing the review.”
Others lay at least some of the blame with the medical journals that publish drug trial data.
In response, the BMJ has promised to devote an entire issue to the topic next year.
BMJ Editors Dr Fiona Godlee and Dr Elizabeth Loder said: “It is time to demonstrate a shared commitment to set the record straight.”
Click here for the full report from BBC News.
Big Pharma Exaggerate Female Libido Problems For Profit
October 1, 2010 by admin
Filed under News Stories
October 1, 2010
Daily Telegraph
Stephen Adams
Writing in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), Ray Moynihan said pharmaceutical firms were guilty of wrongly giving the impression that “hypoactive sexual desire disorder” was widespread.
Mr Moynihan, a broadcaster and lecturer at Newcastle University in Australia, said companies funded surveys designed to suggest the problem affected large numbers of women, and also took a lead in “educating” professionals and the public about it.
For example, he said a Pfizer-funded course for US doctors claimed that up to 63 per cent of women had sexual dysfunction and it went on to suggest taking testosterone and Viagra as a treatment. But he said studies later showed that using Viagra for such a purpose had no effect.
By comparison, Mr Moynihan said scientific studies of the prevalence of the condition, conducted without industry funding, questioned whether the disorder was widespread.
He warned: “The drug industry shows no signs of abandoning plans to meet the unmet need it has helped to manufacturer.”
However, in an accompanying editorial Dr Sandy Goldbeck-Wood, a London-based specialist in psychosexual medicine, said: “His argument that female sexual dysfunction is an illness constructed by pathologising doctors under the influence of drug companies will fail to convince clinicians who see women with sexual dysfunction, or their patients.”
She added: “Faced with a woman in tears whose libido has disappeared and who is terrified of losing her partner, doctors can feel immense pressure to provide an immediate, effective solution.”
Click here for the full report from The Daily Telegraph.
Green Leafy Vegetables Reduce Risk Of Diabetes
August 23, 2010 by admin
Filed under News Stories
August 23rd, 2010
BBC News
By: Emma Wilkinson
In an analysis of six studies into fruit and vegetable intake, only food including spinach and cabbage was found to have a significant positive effect.
A portion and a half a day was found to cut type 2 diabetes risk by 14%, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) reports.
But experts urged people to continue to aim for five portions of fruit and vegetables a day.
The researchers from Leicester University reviewed data from the studies of 220,000 adults in total.
They found that eating more fruit and vegetables in general was not strongly linked with a smaller chance of developing type 2 diabetes but “there was a general trend in that direction”.
Yet when it came to green leafy vegetables, which the researchers said also includes broccoli and cauliflower, the risk reduction was significant.
The team calculated that a daily dose of 106g reduced the risk of diabetes by 14% – a UK “portion” is classed as 80g.
It is not clear why green leafy vegetables may have a protective effect but one reason may be they are high in antioxidants, such as vitamin C and another theory is that they contain high levels of magnesium.
Study leader Professor Melanie Davies, professor of diabetic medicine at the University of Leicester, said the message to eat five portions of fruit and vegetables a day remains an important one.
But she added: “People like very specific health messages.
“We know that intake of fruit and vegetables is important, but this study suggests that green leafy vegetables seem to be particularly important in terms of preventing diabetes.”
The team are now planning a study in people at high risk of developing the condition to see if increasing their intake of vegetables like spinach and kale can help to reduce their chances of being diagnosed with diabetes.
Fruit and veg
In 2008/09, the National Diet Nutrition Survey showed that, although fruit and vegetable intake has risen over the past decade, only a third of men and women eat the recommended five-a-day.
In an accompanying editorial in the BMJ, Professor Jim Mann from the University of Otago in New Zealand, stressed that the message of increasing overall fruit and vegetable intake must not be lost “in a plethora of magic bullets,” even though green leafy vegetables clearly can be included as one of the daily portions.
Dr Iain Frame, director of research at Diabetes UK said: “We already know that the health benefits of eating vegetables are far-reaching but this is the first time that there has been a suggested link specifically between green leafy vegetables and a reduced risk of developing type 2 diabetes.”
But he warned the evidence was limited and it was too early to isolate green leafy vegetables and present them alone as a method to cut the chances of developing the condition.
“We would be concerned if focusing on certain foods detracted from the advice to eat five portions of fruits and vegetables a day, which has benefits in terms of reducing heart disease, stroke, some cancers and obesity as well as type 2 diabetes.”
Diabetes UK is currently funding research into whether fermentable carbohydrates found in foods such as asparagus, garlic, chicory and Jerusalem artichokes could help weight loss and prevent Type 2 diabetes.
