This damning op ed just came out on the most prestigious British Medical Journal (BMJ) and shocked a lot of people.
But, as I’ll show you, there’s been even more shocking and more based research out there pointing the same direction ages ago, and it’s been largely overlooked. So maybe it’s time to stop the awe and start going after the blind sentinels we’re paying to safeguard our body of knowledge that keeps us alive.

Oh my, oh my!
How do these academic fucktards (don’t excuse my accuracy) expect anything “evidence-based” to fare in a post-truth world where men are pregnant and virus isolation is done “in cultures”?! I mean, evidence was an endangered species on Planet Science even before woke science and the macarenavirus…
What can the price of evidence be in an economy where “a patient cured is a customer lost”?!
How do they discover hot water in 2022 and expect to maintain a prestige?!

Whatever the answers may be, we can use this and the references I’ll add after to awaken any NPC that still exhibits signs of intelligent life trapped inside:

The illusion of evidence based medicine

BMJ 2022; 376 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.o702 (Published 16 March 2022) Cite this as: BMJ 2022;376:o702

  1. Jon Jureidini, research leader1,  
  2. Leemon B. McHenry, professor emeritus2

Evidence based medicine has been corrupted by corporate interests, failed regulation, and commercialisation of academia, argue these authors

The advent of evidence based medicine was a paradigm shift intended to provide a solid scientific foundation for medicine. The validity of this new paradigm, however, depends on reliable data from clinical trials, most of which are conducted by the pharmaceutical industry and reported in the names of senior academics. The release into the public domain of previously confidential pharmaceutical industry documents has given the medical community valuable insight into the degree to which industry sponsored clinical trials are misrepresented.1234 Until this problem is corrected, evidence based medicine will remain an illusion.

The philosophy of critical rationalism, advanced by the philosopher Karl Popper, famously advocated for the integrity of science and its role in an open, democratic society. A science of real integrity would be one in which practitioners are careful not to cling to cherished hypotheses and take seriously the outcome of the most stringent experiments.5 This ideal is, however, threatened by corporations, in which financial interests trump the common good. Medicine is largely dominated by a small number of very large pharmaceutical companies that compete for market share, but are effectively united in their efforts to expanding that market. The short term stimulus to biomedical research because of privatisation has been celebrated by free market champions, but the unintended, long term consequences for medicine have been severe. Scientific progress is thwarted by the ownership of data and knowledge because industry suppresses negative trial results, fails to report adverse events, and does not share raw data with the academic research community. Patients die because of the adverse impact of commercial interests on the research agenda, universities, and regulators.

The pharmaceutical industry’s responsibility to its shareholders means that priority must be given to their hierarchical power structures, product loyalty, and public relations propaganda over scientific integrity. Although universities have always been elite institutions prone to influence through endowments, they have long laid claim to being guardians of truth and the moral conscience of society. But in the face of inadequate government funding, they have adopted a neo-liberal market approach, actively seeking pharmaceutical funding on commercial terms. As a result, university departments become instruments of industry: through company control of the research agenda and ghostwriting of medical journal articles and continuing medical education, academics become agents for the promotion of commercial products.6 When scandals involving industry-academe partnership are exposed in the mainstream media, trust in academic institutions is weakened and the vision of an open society is betrayed.

The corporate university also compromises the concept of academic leadership. Deans who reached their leadership positions by virtue of distinguished contributions to their disciplines have in places been replaced with fundraisers and academic managers, who are forced to demonstrate their profitability or show how they can attract corporate sponsors. In medicine, those who succeed in academia are likely to be key opinion leaders (KOLs in marketing parlance), whose careers can be advanced through the opportunities provided by industry. Potential KOLs are selected based on a complex array of profiling activities carried out by companies, for example, physicians are selected based on their influence on prescribing habits of other physicians.7 KOLs are sought out by industry for this influence and for the prestige that their university affiliation brings to the branding of the company’s products. As well paid members of pharmaceutical advisory boards and speakers’ bureaus, KOLs present results of industry trials at medical conferences and in continuing medical education. Instead of acting as independent, disinterested scientists and critically evaluating a drug’s performance, they become what marketing executives refer to as “product champions.”

Ironically, industry sponsored KOLs appear to enjoy many of the advantages of academic freedom, supported as they are by their universities, the industry, and journal editors for expressing their views, even when those views are incongruent with the real evidence. While universities fail to correct misrepresentations of the science from such collaborations, critics of industry face rejections from journals, legal threats, and the potential destruction of their careers.8 This uneven playing field is exactly what concerned Popper when he wrote about suppression and control of the means of science communication.9 The preservation of institutions designed to further scientific objectivity and impartiality (i.e., public laboratories, independent scientific periodicals and congresses) is entirely at the mercy of political and commercial power; vested interest will always override the rationality of evidence.10

Regulators receive funding from industry and use industry funded and performed trials to approve drugs, without in most cases seeing the raw data. What confidence do we have in a system in which drug companies are permitted to “mark their own homework” rather than having their products tested by independent experts as part of a public regulatory system? Unconcerned governments and captured regulators are unlikely to initiate necessary change to remove research from industry altogether and clean up publishing models that depend on reprint revenue, advertising, and sponsorship revenue.

Our proposals for reforms include: liberation of regulators from drug company funding; taxation imposed on pharmaceutical companies to allow public funding of independent trials; and, perhaps most importantly, anonymised individual patient level trial data posted, along with study protocols, on suitably accessible websites so that third parties, self-nominated or commissioned by health technology agencies, could rigorously evaluate the methodology and trial results. With the necessary changes to trial consent forms, participants could require trialists to make the data freely available. The open and transparent publication of data are in keeping with our moral obligation to trial participants—real people who have been involved in risky treatment and have a right to expect that the results of their participation will be used in keeping with principles of scientific rigour. Industry concerns about privacy and intellectual property rights should not hold sway.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: McHenry and Jureidini are joint authors of The Illusion of Evidence-Based Medicine: Exposing the Crisis of Credibility in Clinical Research (Adelaide: Wakefield Press, 2020). Both authors have been remunerated by Los Angeles law firm, Baum, Hedlund, Aristei and Goldman for a fraction of the work they have done in analysing and critiquing GlaxoSmithKline’s paroxetine Study 329 and Forest Laboratories citalopram Study CIT-MD-18. They have no other competing interests to declare.
  • Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned, externally peer reviewed

References

    1. Steinman MA, 
    2. Bero LA, 
    3. Chren MM, 
    4. Landefeld CS. Narrative review: the promotion of gabapentin: an analysis of internal industry documents. Ann Intern Med2006;145:284-93. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-145-4-200608150-00008 pmid:16908919CrossRef PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar
    1. Mukherjee D, 
    2. Nissen SE, 
    3. Topol EJ. Risk of cardiovascular events associated with selective COX-2 inhibitors. JAMA2001;286:954-9. doi:10.1001/jama.286.8.954. pmid:11509060 CrossRef PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar
    1. Doshi P. Pandemrix vaccine: why was the public not told of early warning signs?BMJ2018;362:k3948doi:10.1136/bmj.k3948. FREE Full Text Google Scholar
    1. Jureidini J, 
    2. McHenry L, 
    3. Mansfield P. Clinical trials and drug promotion: Selective reporting of Study 329. Int J Risk Saf Med2008;20:73-81doi:10.3233/JRS-2008-0426. CrossRef Google Scholar
    1. Popper K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery.Basic Books, 1959. Google Scholar
    1. Bok D. Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education.Princeton University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  1. IntraMed. Criteria Used to Develop Influence Score. 2008. https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/drug/docs/#id=shbn0225
  2. Schafer A. Biomedical conflicts of interest: A defense of the sequestration thesis—Learning from the cases of Nancy Olivieri and David Healy. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2004;30:8-24.
    1. Popper K. The Poverty of Historicism. Routledge, 1961: 154-5. Google Scholar
    1. Howick J. Exploring the asymmetrical relationship between the power of finance bias and evidence. Perspect Biol Med2019;62:159-87. doi:10.1353/pbm.2019.0009 pmid:31031303 CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar

As you can see, their references range mostly from classical to old. Experienced tinfoil hats must already be yawning by now, but they’re not the primary target for this piece.

Here are some really good comments on this from Bret Weinstein:

Now let me provide some more reading recommendations along this line.

The very same BMJ, almost 10 years ago:

Education And Debate

Who pays for the pizza? Redefining the relationships between doctors and drug companies

BMJ 2003; 326 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1189 (Published 29 May 2003)

“Twisted together like the snake and the staff, doctors and drug companies have become entangled in a web of interactions as controversial as they are ubiquitous (box). As national drug bills rise at rates that vastly exceed those of inflation (fig 1), this entanglement and the subsequent flows of money and influence are attracting increasing public and academic scrutiny.

Studies from several countries show that 80-95% of doctors regularly see drug company representatives despite evidence that their information is overly positive and prescribing habits are less appropriate as a result.1 2 Many doctors receive multiple gifts from drug companies every year, and most doctors deny their influence despite considerable evidence to the contrary.3 Industry interactions correlate with doctors’ preferences for new products that hold no demonstrated advantage over existing ones, a decrease in the prescribing of generics, and a rise in both prescription expenditures and irrational and incautious prescribing, according to a recent analysis of the ethics of gift giving.4 The number of gifts that doctors receive correlates with beliefs that drug representatives have no impact on prescribing behaviour.3

Accepting meals and expenses for travel or accommodation for sponsored educational meetings is common despite evidence that this is associated with an increase in formulary requests for and prescribing of the sponsor’s drug.2 3 Most doctors attend company sponsored events providing continuing medical education, 2 yet evidence shows that these preferentially high-light the sponsor’s drug.3 Many professional societies rely heavily on industry sponsorship, …”

Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Myth of Safe and Effective Drugs

Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 2013, Vol. 14, No. 3: 590-610, Posted: 20 Jun 2013 Last revised: 11 Apr 2020

Donald W. Light – Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine ; Center for Migration and Development; Institute for Advanced Study

Joel Lexchin – York University

Jonathan J. Darrow = Harvard Medical School

Date Written: June 1, 2013

Abstract

Over the past 35 years, patients have suffered from a largely hidden epidemic of side effects from drugs that usually have few offsetting benefits. The pharmaceutical industry has corrupted the practice of medicine through its influence over what drugs are developed, how they are tested, and how medical knowledge is created. Since 1906, heavy commercial influence has compromised Congressional legislation to protect the public from unsafe drugs. The authorization of user fees in 1992 has turned drug companies into the FDA’s prime clients, deepening the regulatory and cultural capture of the agency. Industry has demanded shorter average review times and, with less time to thoroughly review evidence, increased hospitalizations and deaths have resulted. Meeting the needs of the drug companies has taken priority over meeting the needs of patients. Unless this corruption of regulatory intent is reversed, the situation will continue to deteriorate. We offer practical suggestions including: separating the funding of clinical trials from their conduct, analysis, and publication: independent FDA leadership; full public funding for all FDA activities; measures to discourage R&D on drugs with few if any new clinical benefits; and the creation of a National Drug Safety Board.

Most scientists ‘can’t replicate studies by their peers’

BBC, 22 February 2017

Test tubes
Image caption,Scientists attempting to repeat findings reported in five landmark cancer studies confirmed only two

Science is facing a “reproducibility crisis” where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments, research suggests.

This is frustrating clinicians and drug developers who want solid foundations of pre-clinical research to build upon.

From his lab at the University of Virginia’s Centre for Open Science, immunologist Dr Tim Errington runs The Reproducibility Project, which attempted to repeat the findings reported in five landmark cancer studies.

“The idea here is to take a bunch of experiments and to try and do the exact same thing to see if we can get the same results.”

You could be forgiven for thinking that should be easy. Experiments are supposed to be replicable.

The authors should have done it themselves before publication, and all you have to do is read the methods section in the paper and follow the instructions.

Sadly nothing, it seems, could be further from the truth.

After meticulous research involving painstaking attention to detail over several years (the project was launched in 2011), the team was able to confirm only two of the original studies’ findings.

Two more proved inconclusive and in the fifth, the team completely failed to replicate the result.

“It’s worrying because replication is supposed to be a hallmark of scientific integrity,” says Dr Errington.

Concern over the reliability of the results published in scientific literature has been growing for some time.

According to a survey published in the journal Nature last summer, more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments.

Marcus Munafo is one of them. Now professor of biological psychology at Bristol University, he almost gave up on a career in science when, as a PhD student, he failed to reproduce a textbook study on anxiety.

“I had a crisis of confidence. I thought maybe it’s me, maybe I didn’t run my study well, maybe I’m not cut out to be a scientist.”

The problem, it turned out, was not with Marcus Munafo’s science, but with the way the scientific literature had been “tidied up” to present a much clearer, more robust outcome.

“What we see in the published literature is a highly curated version of what’s actually happened,” he says.

“The trouble is that gives you a rose-tinted view of the evidence because the results that get published tend to be the most interesting, the most exciting, novel, eye-catching, unexpected results.

“What I think of as high-risk, high-return results.”

The reproducibility difficulties are not about fraud, according to Dame Ottoline Leyser, director of the Sainsbury Laboratory at the University of Cambridge.

That would be relatively easy to stamp out. Instead, she says: “It’s about a culture that promotes impact over substance, flashy findings over the dull, confirmatory work that most of science is about.”

She says it’s about the funding bodies that want to secure the biggest bang for their bucks, the peer review journals that vie to publish the most exciting breakthroughs, the institutes and universities that measure success in grants won and papers published and the ambition of the researchers themselves.

“Everyone has to take a share of the blame,” she argues. “The way the system is set up encourages less than optimal outcomes.”

Top of a copy of Nature magazine
Image caption,Scientific journals can play a role in helping improve the reliability of reporting

For its part, the journal Nature is taking steps to address the problem.

It’s introduced a reproducibility checklist for submitting authors, designed to improve reliability and rigour.

“Replication is something scientists should be thinking about before they write the paper,” says Ritu Dhand, the editorial director at Nature.

“It is a big problem, but it’s something the journals can’t tackle on their own. It’s going to take a multi-pronged approach involving funders, the institutes, the journals and the researchers.”

But we need to be bolder, according to the Edinburgh neuroscientist Prof Malcolm Macleod.

“The issue of replication goes to the heart of the scientific process.”

Writing in the latest edition of Nature, he outlines a new approach to animal studies that calls for independent, statistically rigorous confirmation of a paper’s central hypothesis before publication.

“Without efforts to reproduce the findings of others, we don’t know if the facts out there actually represent what’s happening in biology or not.”

Without knowing whether the published scientific literature is built on solid foundations or sand, he argues, we’re wasting both time and money.

“It could be that we would be much further forward in terms of developing new cures and treatments. It’s a regrettable situation, but I’m afraid that’s the situation we find ourselves in.”

“UP TO 90% OF THE PUBLISHED MEDICAL INFORMATION IS FLAWED” – PSYCHOLOGY TODAY

“Can any medical research studies be trusted?” – Psychology Today

Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?

Abstract

Background

The number of retracted scientific publications has risen sharply, but it is unclear whether this reflects an increase in publication of flawed articles or an increase in the rate at which flawed articles are withdrawn.

Methods and Findings

We examined the interval between publication and retraction for 2,047 retracted articles indexed in PubMed. Time-to-retraction (from publication of article to publication of retraction) averaged 32.91 months. Among 714 retracted articles published in or before 2002, retraction required 49.82 months; among 1,333 retracted articles published after 2002, retraction required 23.82 months (p<0.0001). This suggests that journals are retracting papers more quickly than in the past, although recent articles requiring retraction may not have been recognized yet. To test the hypothesis that time-to-retraction is shorter for articles that receive careful scrutiny, time-to-retraction was correlated with journal impact factor (IF). Time-to-retraction was significantly shorter for high-IF journals, but only ∼1% of the variance in time-to-retraction was explained by increased scrutiny. The first article retracted for plagiarism was published in 1979 and the first for duplicate publication in 1990, showing that articles are now retracted for reasons not cited in the past. The proportional impact of authors with multiple retractions was greater in 1972–1992 than in the current era (p<0.001). From 1972–1992, 46.0% of retracted papers were written by authors with a single retraction; from 1993 to 2012, 63.1% of retracted papers were written by single-retraction authors (p<0.001).

Conclusions

The increase in retracted articles appears to reflect changes in the behavior of both authors and institutions. Lower barriers to publication of flawed articles are seen in the increase in number and proportion of retractions by authors with a single retraction. Lower barriers to retraction are apparent in an increase in retraction for “new” offenses such as plagiarism and a decrease in the time-to-retraction of flawed work.

Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications

Ferric C. FangR. Grant Steen, and Arturo Casadevall arturo.casadevall@einstein.yu.edu

October 1, 2012 | 109 (42) 17028-17033 | https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109

Abstract

A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic. The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ∼10-fold since 1975. Retractions exhibit distinctive temporal and geographic patterns that may reveal underlying causes.

The number and frequency of retracted publications are important indicators of the health of the scientific enterprise, because retracted articles represent unequivocal evidence of project failure, irrespective of the cause. Hence, retractions are worthy of rigorous and systematic study. The retraction of flawed publications corrects the scientific literature and also provides insights into the scientific process. However, the rising frequency of retractions has recently elicited concern (12). Studies of selected retracted articles have suggested that error is more common than fraud as a cause of retraction (35) and that rates of retraction correlate with journal-impact factor (6). We undertook a comprehensive analysis of all retracted articles indexed by PubMed to ascertain the validity of the earlier findings. Retracted articles were classified according to whether the cause of retraction was documented fraud (data falsification or fabrication), suspected fraud, plagiarism, duplicate publication, error, unknown, or other reasons (e.g., journal error, authorship dispute).

Retracted scientific paper persists in new citations, study finds – Illinois University, JAN 5, 2021

“Pharmaceutical companies often manipulate the word innovation for rhetorical purposes and seldom develop clinically superior drugs, thus corrupting the R&D process. He cited studies indicating that over the past 30 years, on average fewer than 2 major clinical advances and 7-13 superior drugs were developed each year, compared with the 85-90 drugs that are developed with few or no advantages. With 113,000 deaths a year caused by adverse drug reactions just in hospitalized patients and 2.5 million serious reactions, Professor Light believes there is an epidemic of harmful side effects from drugs that often have few offsetting advantages.”

“The Pharmaceutical Industry, Institutional Corruption, and an Epidemic of Harms” – Donald Light Harvard seminar

Conflicts of Interest as a Health Policy Problem: Industry Ties and Bias in Drug Approval – Harvard University 2014

“A staggering 94% of surveyed physicians acknowledged receiving financial compensation of some form from pharmaceutical companies, ranging from small perks such as free gifts and meals to stipendiary speaking invitations and salaried positions as industry consultants.”

Drug Companies and Medicine: What Money Can Buy – Harvard University, 2009

The Haunting of Medical Journals: How Ghostwriting Sold “HRT”

Summary Points

  • Some 1500 documents revealed in litigation provide unprecedented insights into how pharmaceutical companies promote drugs, including the use of vendors to produce ghostwritten manuscripts and place them into medical journals.
  • Dozens of ghostwritten reviews and commentaries published in medical journals and supplements were used to promote unproven benefits and downplay harms of menopausal hormone therapy (HT), and to cast raloxifene and other competing therapies in a negative light.
  • Specifically, the pharmaceutical company Wyeth used ghostwritten articles to mitigate the perceived risks of breast cancer associated with HT, to defend the unsupported cardiovascular “benefits” of HT, and to promote off-label, unproven uses of HT such as the prevention of dementia, Parkinson’s disease, vision problems, and wrinkles.
  • Given the growing evidence that ghostwriting has been used to promote HT and other highly promoted drugs, the medical profession must take steps to ensure that prescribers renounce participation in ghostwriting, and to ensure that unscrupulous relationships between industry and academia are avoided rather than courted.

Introduction

In recent litigation against Wyeth, more than 14,000 plaintiffs brought claims related to the development of breast cancer while taking the menopausal hormone therapy Prempro (conjugated equine estrogens [CEEs] and medroxyprogesterone acetate [MPA]). Some 1500 documents revealed in the litigation provide unprecedented insights into how pharmaceutical companies promote drugs, including the use of vendors to produce ghostwritten manuscripts and place them into medical journals. These documents became public when PLoS Medicine and The New York Times intervened in the litigation. Both intervenors successfully argued that ghostwriting undermines public health and that documents proving the practice should be unsealed.

In this Policy Forum article, I use these documents, which are available through PLoS at http://www.plosmedicine.org/static/ghostwriting.action or at the Drug Information Document Archive at http://dida.library.ucsf.edu/documents.jsp to show how industry uses ghostwriters to insert marketing messages into articles published in medical journals. As a paid expert witness, I had access to these documents during the litigation but I have received no payment for researching or writing this Policy Forum.

Hormone Therapy History

In 1942, Premarin (CEE) became the first FDA-approved treatment for hot flashes. Promotional efforts implied that estrogen could preserve youth and health. By the early 1970s, physicians, under the mistaken impression that menopause was an endocrine disease similar to hypothyroidism, were prescribing estrogen to millions of asymptomatic women. In 1975, an eight-fold increase in endometrial cancer was linked to estrogen use, and estrogen sales decreased [1].

After adding a progestin pill to counteract estrogen-induced endometrial cancer, hormone “replacement” therapy (HRT; now properly termed menopausal hormone therapy, or HT) became popular in the 1980s. Through the 1990s, HT was touted to prevent cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, Alzheimer’s disease, colon cancer, tooth loss, and macular degeneration [1]. Prempro, which combined CEE and the progestin Provera (medroxyprogesterone acetate), was approved in the U.S. in 1995. In 1998, the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS), a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in women with cardiovascular disease, found no benefit of HT for preventing cardiovascular events [2]. In 2002, the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), a large RCT in healthy women, demonstrated conclusively that HT failed to prevent cardiovascular disease, increased the risk of breast cancer and stroke, and reduced fracture risk [3],[4]. Later analyses revealed that HT increased the risk of dementia [5] and incontinence [6].

Today, despite definitive scientific data to the contrary, many gynecologists still believe that the benefits of HT outweigh the risks in asymptomatic women [1],[7][8]. This non-evidence–based perception may be the result of decades of carefully orchestrated corporate influence on medical literature.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

ORDER

This little video is not my research, I just found it. but it corroborates and checks with everything I know, it’s fast and on the money. A good summary and starting point if you’re documenting or learning about the Pfizer criminal cartel. Plus bonuses.

SOURCE

Also see:

WHO OWNS PFIZER? TOP STOCKHOLDERS AND TRADERS LIST – VERY INTERESTING LISTS VIL #4

PHARMAFIA’S TOP 10 BIGGEST HEALTHCARE FRAUD FINES IN US HISTORY

JUST THE TOP 3
Study: Pfizer, GSK, Eli Lilly Topped Military Industry in Defrauding US Govt (2010)

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone.
You can even eat some of them.
CLICK HERE

If a person had Pharmafia’s criminal record, you’d instantly ask for a restraining order.

Study: Pfizer, GSK, Eli Lilly Topped Military Industry in Defrauding US Govt (2010)

10

Sanofi-Aventis

DEC 2012

Sanofi-Aventis agreed to pay $109 million to resolve allegations that the company gave doctors free units of Hyalgan (an injection to relieve knee pain) to encourage those doctors to buy their product. Sanofi lowered the effective price by promising these free samples to doctors, but at the same time got inflated prices from government programs by submitting false price reports, alleged the United States. Medicare and other government health care programs “paid millions of dollars in kickback-tainted claims for Hyalgan,” according to the DOJ announcement.

9

Endo

FEB 2014

Endo Health Solutions Inc. and its subsidiary Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. agreed to pay $192.7 million to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from Endo’s marketing of the prescription drug Lidoderm. As part of the agreement, Endo admitted that it intended that Lidoderm be used for unapproved indications and that it promoted Lidoderm to healthcare providers this way.

8

AstraZeneca

APRIL 2010

AstraZeneca was fined $520 million to resolve allegations that it illegally promoted the antipsychotic drug Seroquel. The drug was approved for treating schizophrenia and later for bipolar mania, but the government alleged that AstraZeneca promoted Seroquel for a variety of unapproved uses, such as aggression, sleeplessness, anxiety, and depression. AstraZeneca denied the charges but agreed to pay the fine to end the investigation.

7

Amgen

DEC 2012

Amgen agreed to pay a $762 million fine to resolve criminal and civil charges that the company illegally introduced and promoted several drugs including Aranesp, a drug to treat anemia. Amgen pleaded guilty to illegally selling Aranesp to be used at doses that the FDA had explicitly rejected, and for an off-label treatment that had never been FDA-approved.

6

Merck

NOV 2011

Merck agreed to pay a fine of $950 million related to the illegal promotion of the painkiller Vioxx, which was withdrawn from the market in 2004 after studies found the drug increased the risk of heart attacks. The company pled guilty to having promoted Vioxx as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis before it had been approved for that use. The settlement also resolved allegations that Merck made false or misleading statements about the drug’s heart safety to increase sales.

5

Eli Lilly

JAN 2009

Eli Lilly was fined $1.42 billion to resolve a government investigation into the off-label promotion of the antipsychotic Zyprexa. Zyprexa had been approved for the treatment of certain psychotic disorders, but Lilly admitted to promoting the drug in elderly populations to treat dementia. The government also alleged that Lilly targeted primary care physicians to promote Zyprexa for unapproved uses and “trained its sales force to disregard the law.”

4

Abbott

MAY 2012

Abbott was fined $1.5 billion in connection to the illegal promotion of the antipsychotic drug Depakote. Abbott admitted to having trained a special sales force to target nursing homes, marketing the drug for the control of aggression and agitation in elderly dementia patients. Depakote had never been approved for that purpose, and Abbott lacked evidence that the drug was safe or effective for those uses. The company also admitted to marketing Depakote to treat schizophrenia, even though no study had found it effective for that purpose.

3

Johnson & Johnson

NOV 2013

Johnson & Johnson agreed to pay a $2.2 billion fine to resolve criminal and civil allegations relating to the prescription drugs Risperdal, Invega and Natrecor. The government alleged that J&J promoted these drugs for uses not approved as safe and effective by the FDA, targeted elderly dementia patients in nursing homes, and paid kickbacks to physicians and to the nation’s largest long-term care pharmacy provider, Omnicare Inc. As part of the agreement, Johnson & Johnson admitted that it promoted Risperdal for treatment of psychotic symptoms in non-schizophrenic patients, although the drug was approved only to treat schizophrenia.

2

Pfizer

SEPT 2009

Pfizer was fined $2.3 billion, then the largest health care fraud settlement and the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States. Pfizer pled guilty to misbranding the painkiller Bextra with “the intent to defraud or mislead”, promoting the drug to treat acute pain at dosages the FDA had previously deemed dangerously high. Bextra was pulled from the market in 2005 due to safety concerns. The government alleged that Pfizer also promoted three other drugs illegally: the antipsychotic Geodon, an antibiotic Zyvox, and the antiepileptic drug Lyrica.

Also see: CORRUPTION UNLTD. 2: PFIZER IN NIGERIA – DEAD KIDS, DEATH THREATS AND DEADLY DRUGS

Pfizer sent this message to physician early 2021:

1

GlaxoSmithKline

JULY 2012

GlaxoSmithKline agreed to pay a fine of $3 billion to resolve civil and criminal liabilities regarding its promotion of drugs, as well as its failure to report safety data. This is the largest health care fraud settlement in the United States to date. The company pled guilty to misbranding the drug Paxil for treating depression in patients under 18, even though the drug had never been approved for that age group. GlaxoSmithKline also pled guilty to failing to disclose safety information about the diabetes drug Avandia to the FDA.

Sources:
US Department of Justice
ProPublica

RECAP:

Also see: CORRUPTION UNLTD: GSK AND “TRUMP’S VACCINE CZAR”. SEX TAPES, DEAD BABIES, BRIBES AND PROSTITUTES

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone.
You can even eat some of them.
CLICK HERE

It’s as simple as 1,2,3,4: You make them audit each other.

Do something like we did:

  1. Create an UNLISTED video on YouTube. Don’t share the link to anyone.
  2. Make a PRIVATE blog post with the video (and not much else to attract people) on another platform, one with detailed and credible traffic reports like WordPress preferably live traffic reports similar to YouTube’s. Set it private so that no one can find the link unless you give it to them. And DON’T share the link with anyone, except… see below
  3. Make a PUBLIC Facebook post with the PRIVATE blog link. Now the only access gate to the blog post and the video is Facebook. Boost the post immediately, even if only for 5-10 bucks, it’s enough to generate good comprehensive statistics from Facebook. Make sure there’s no other links or distractions included so the audience can’t go anywhere else or come from anyone else, that compromises the experiment
  4. Compare the Facebook reports with the ones from the blogging platform and the one from Youtube.
    If they are honest, the numbers vary only about 5-10%.
    If you have my luck, Facebook reports 2-300% more than the blog, while YouTube has capped your numbers and deletes views same way Dominion deleted Trump votes, so it has no relation whatsoever with the other two.
    That’s the case for the Fauci Fashion song below, which has not been allowed to cross 9k for over half a year, despite some intense promo efforts.
Click here to join THE PEOPLE FOR FAUCI FASHION now!

5. (Optional): Feel free to add more elements to the scheme, the only rule is to be able to accurately monitor the traffic, numbers as well and sources, destinations, gates etc. This model is in 3D, but any number can go if you extrapolate the method intelligently.

Bad idea again, Susie

IMPORTANT: As time passes, if people start sharing the links organically, they can create distortions and interferences in your controlled audience funnel, first 2-3 days are the most accurate, from there things can go either way. Nevertheless, that can’t explain my numbers either, but can explain smaller deviations from the general rule.

If you think a whole industry went away with Cambridge Analytica, I lol

This post is an upgrade of an earlier post focused on Facebook only. I promised I will do my best to come up with something similar for YoutTube, came up with something even better: This one is like an integrated 3D version of that experiment, and can be expanded, no theoretical limits to it.
But on the original post you can read more details evidence on the day-to-day Facebook ripoff and gaslighting of its audience, CLICK HERE TO READ.

Later update:
Funniest thing: people figuring out I’m right not from monitoring their own numbers, as I advised, but from watching Biden’s. Ok, whatever you can…

Source
This is AFTER they “Dominioned” the numbers. Unlisted link

Later-er update: They started to cover their tracks and burn more evidence, but too late, The Gateway Pundit got on the case too :))

Source
This one looks exactly like my screenshots for my Fauci Fashion video above, but in reverse, I’ve watched my views counter going backwards. And I wasn’t alone. Click here to read

Latest edit: I had to

State of the Union 2021. Source

Biden’s message is clear: “Learn more if you want to open. Comments closed”.
So I had to do this. Launching the #FuckYoutube hashtag. On Youtube, see the description of the video below. On Youtube.

Btw, same goes for Facebook. I can’t research Twitter now, but if I am to bet I don’t hesitate

The President of the US of A, Big Joe-Un, and his Big Tech lemmings, are a buncha retarded pathetic thieves and nothing can stop the awareness, especially not imbeciles like themselves
Read more, it’s juicy!

Get involved, share this as wide as you can, make and share your own experiments, let’s crash this monster and its stock market value by outing its schemes!

Imagine getting 115k likes and no heart 😀 What numbers do you see? Check it here

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Among other things, I have a 25years-long career in music. Electronic, mainly.
And one thing led to anoher…
If you think this is a joke, you are correct. If you think this is damn serious, you are sharp.

Hello World! We’re here to take over all screens with a message of love and acceptance for the Fauci Fashion phenomenon.
Too many people still prioritise brain oxygenation and freedom over Fauci Fashion and that is wrong. (We have established that oxygen fits all definitions for “drug”).
Youtube is stealing our views and we were helplessly watching our counter going backwards. That is very wrong! (good thing they don’t count Rona cases with the same accuracy and intentions)
Our muse and guiding lighthouse in Covidiocracy, Dr. Tony Fauci, gets diminished and that’s unacceptable!!! (almost used caps…)
So enough of that!
We’re asking your help to get Fauci Fashion (as seen below) into all music charts, and send out a message to everyone that we can’t be silenced. (it’s actually very doable)
Fauci Fashion is here to stay and give you Maskne! (it’s like acne, but from the mask, we’ll post links later if you need)
If you want to join the movement, read all our posts and follow your conscience. A developed conscience will know what to make of this, the rest won’t and they won’t matter 

The People for Fauci Fashion
Fauci IS Fashion

This is the introductory word to the work of an enthusiastic supporter, with all the help I and other supporters can provide. Can’t put it in words how grateful I am!
Yes, with your support, we want to attack official charts with this tune, as a way to get our voice where only Eminems and Cardi Bs can. The track is officially registered and every official stream and download counts, just use these sources.

As a music industry insider, I have the data and the method to mathematically calculate that it’s doable. We planned this carefully and we can mobilise a few thousand involved supporters that can move millions more, that can move billions. If we put together a few of your clicks with our products, know-how and strategy, we have a good shot at it.

Media is already starting to show interest, but it’s way too early to brag, we’ve just launched the initiative.

The music track (and many more)is available for free download from our Bandcamp page, this is not a business or about sales, this is about breaking a blockade. It’s “name your price” release, feel free to insert 0 if that’s the case, I still want you to have them all when you need them, even if you can’t contribute now.
We contribute what we can, when we can, IF we WANT.

And we devised a few simple and effortless ways you can get involved in our fake grassroots movement with a secret dark agenda to sabotage Covidiocracy. Because this can’t work without people like you, but can move things in the right direction with you aboard.

The short help course reads like this:
 It’s all about attention, we live in an attention economy now, we need a bit of yours to join ours and kickstart until this provides for itself. You can basically help us get more attention two main ways:
– By streaming, sharing and downloading the F out of Fauci Fashion from these official links: https://fanlink.to/cc1
– By using the Donate button on our shadow organisation’s webpage, which is right here, see the main menu on top 🙂
These funds are meant to buy ads, hire promoters and bribe media. Of course we will use most of it like Gates and Bono’s charities: in personal interest; but the rest will achieve our goals and everyone will be happy.
If you really need serious money talk: all money in the world are worthless when you have no future, like humanity under Covidiocracy. So I’m already putting everything in this work, with or without help, but it might not be enough without you. Either way, sponsoring change is the only way I can make money worth anything now.

The true Faucy Style

If you want to achieve maximum impact with your resources, here’s the details you need to know:
most efficient tools you have are
* official downloads from sites like Amazon or Juno, one track download equals 100 free streams. And one stream from a paid/premium account = about 5-6 free streams. They are also better reported and accounted too, there’s less accounts of fraud, while Youtube robbed us blind to our faces, turning back the counter;
Bundle purchases help less than individual track purchases, for some reasons related to how the charts are calculated.
* direct donations; because we have the data on how and where funds can make the best impact at a certain moment and its technically impossible to share all that knowledge and know-how.
For Paypal, use the button on this website, for cards hit the Bandcamp page, download what you like and pay what you like.
Unfortunately no crypto wallets available.
* website embeds and social shares. All platforms love that and google favors it a lot. However, Facebook hates external links, so if it’s not a paid post, it’s best to share the Facebook page itself.
Here’s a win-win trick you can do if you have a Facebook page, let’s say:
Instead of donating to us, make a dope post with the video or the Spotify player and use the money to buy promotion for it. This way you drive attention to both your page and our initiative, double win!

Soon we will devise more ways to grow this.

https://www.facebook.com/FauciFashion/

And if you really don’t like Fauci Fashion, we understand, feel free to purchase Covidiocracy T-shirts and hats from our shop. But most of those money won’t go to us, our percentage is tiny.
We don’t make any blood money on the masks, that’s manufacturer’s price.

updates:

This will most probably become like a running thread because we have interesting developments almost daily. Here are some of them

August 3rd 2020:
This happened. And even more interesting than the video is what happened when we uploaded it on Facebook, see below!

We uploaded this video on our Facebook page too and guess what happened to two people (me and a friend, in fact) the second we started to share it in private messages, verbatim copy incidents: We get locked out by Facebook who was claiming the accounts got hacked and they need to re-secure them. So we went through password changing and a whole f-ing test to regain access.
The hacking never actually happened, it was basically a false flag by Facebook, who have been long time shilling for China and Fauci.
Most of you users must have got the news that Fakebook’s just launched the new official private message censorship policy, which is basically an AI set to ban keywords and links. Much more complicated than that, but basically that. And the new toaster wasn’t set yet to the right temperature when we started to share inconvenient content.
Facebook’s pretense that two of our accounts were attacked, coincidentally and precisely when they were sharing the same video in PM’s – that’s dumb af, Suckerborg!

In other news, EDM Nations mag is with us more vigorously than China 🙂

The Swag is strong with this one

September 13th:
This escalated faster the we anticipated and we had to re-title our video to better reflect the developments:

Ever watched a heist live online? Hit the video and watch the counters.

Long story short:
Our target with The People for Fauci Fashion was 10,000 Youtube views and about as many streams on Spotify first half of September. Spotify went well since Day#1, no worries there.
First days we got the video some bumps in traffic, a solid few hundred views went away, we hardly documented it because we couldn’t believe our eyes we’re watching the counter going backwards.
We went over the shock, took it as an accident, got some more press, tricked the Facebook robots to approve our clips and literally paid Suckerborg to distribute out video across Facebook, mobilised some supporters and got things going, with a few ups and downs.
By Friday 11th we were at about 8,500 Youtube views and imaginary Champagne bottles went to the freezer before I went to bed.
Saturday morning I woke up to only about 8,900 views, I raised an eyebrow, but OK.
Before I finished my coffee we were down to around 7,300. Took me a while to process and react, mobilise some people etc, so first screenshot is from the afternoon at around 6,300 views.
Made noise, tons more people watched the video, Sunday afternoon we’re down 100 views and about 10 likes.
Regardless of what you think of our initiative, from Youtubers’ household budgets to entire industries, we all are hugely influenced by Youtube, Facebook and Twitter numbers and reports. And they are arbitrary. They insert there whatever figures they damn please. If you have doubts about that, read here how you yourself can prove Facebook is pick-pocketing users and advertisers, we learned it the hard way, and a lot more while promoting this project.

Meanwhile, reality has become even harder to distinguish from memes and parodies.


Is it a meme, is it “fake news”, is it “real news”?

By Sunday afternoon everything turned again…
#LMAO @ #Youtube: I Did a little roll call, pushed back, outed them everywhere and whatcha guess, the power is back. Not the views, though.
Did everyone just die this week-end?!
Youtube almost brags and rubs in our face the thick chunk of views they took from our video. Globalist scum, basically.

Monday: Same story reloaded, this time we kinda streamed it live on Facebook and other socials.

Before
Now



“Fauci Fashion” is part of a larger music release that has just been made available on most quality digital platforms that support electronic dance music.

Imagine a fist with five middle fingers up. Even 6 on Bandcamp or Youtube.
This is the official description of Alien Pimp’s newest EP.
Straight from the depths of the deepest Coronavirus mental and emotional depression, with one hand swinging the sword of comedy and with the other – the hammer of tragedy, here comes the sound of the “New Normal”. It’s angry, pissed, acid, deep, dark, ironic, silly, it’s everything punk aspired to be, but with computers and true care for the sound engineering. It doesn’t even matter if you like it, this EP is here to take a snap of history and set a stone. Alien Pimp did that before a few times, he pushed the bass music hybridization 10 years ago, and precisely 20 years ago he got featured on CNN for the pioneering internet as a medium for audio-visual collaborations. And now a new age awaits a new turn, especially in arts, you can be part of it or part of the past. And it’s pointless to even try stopping it, berating and belittling it, as it is pointless to ignore it. It is, it happened and it won’t go away, more so than the times that lead to its creation.
Every track comes ‘equipped” with visual support created by the musician himself. He practices something he calls “new media” or “Silview media” (from his own name and website), it’s a fusion of formats and aesthetics shaped by the current times and technology. It blends a bit of everything, from retro-futurism to memes and tiktok. Some tracks have vertical videos designed for phones, other resemble animated gifs and so forth.
In short: this is the sound o’ the times.
“Don’t like it? Imagine how much I love living the times that inspired it! Like it? You know what to do…”, says Alien Pimp.

Alien-Pimp.com

Enough blah now, this will be updated, it’s action time, thank you for everything!