MEDICAL STUDY PLOYS (JUNK/FRAUDULENT SCIENCE)
[back]
Medical Mind Control

“They (vaccine safety trials) all only use benign placebos – we use the safest most pure vaccines as a placebo."---David Salisbury (source: The Arnica Network)
"We have not studied vaccinated vs. unvaccinated."--- Coleen A. Boyle, Ph.D., Director, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention responds to Congressman Bill Posey during a November 2012 Congressional hearing.

[Classic recent science by design are the endless Government studies  proving that MMR 'doesn't cause autism' (see 1, 2, 3, 4 to dispel that myth).  With their backs to the wall they wheel out  The Cochrane Collaboration & Institute of Medicine (IOM) to put out a more credible smokescreen.
    Vaccine science uses the unproven
Antibody Theory to prove vaccines are effective while never doing any studies using 100% unvaccinated children.  See Dan Olmsted to find out why they don't do that, while using stone age vaccine safety tests (see: Kendrick mouse test Mouse toxicity test Hist test) to get unsafe vaccines on the market.
    They have created a huge market for Hepatitis tests even though they haven't even proven a hep C virus even exists, also hep B virus, (not to mention the HPV vaccine) while the HIV test (see also
CD4 cell counting) makes millions for its inventor, even though no evidence exists it causes AIDS (see Mullis), and some say it doesn't even exist.  Meanwhile thousands of studies proving nutritional medicine is better than pharma medicine just get ignored, some for 57 years, while the
Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine is kept off Medline..
    Recently (2007) a judge
Lord Justice Sedley  ended up with egg on his face when he used the words junk science to rubbish an expert independent witness, who they then took before the GMC to discredit (see).  It backfired.Wink  Turns out he was the one promoting junks science.
    The vaccine industry also rests on the quicksand of the false monomorphic Pasteurian disease theory.]

Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine
Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)

Junk science quotes
Junk science articles
Junk government studies re MMR vaccine

Conflict of interest
Merck MMR mumps component fraud

Pharma shills (deep cover)
The Cochrane Collaboration 
Institute of Medicine (IOM)

Ploys
Anecdotes
Antibody Theory
Anti-Vitamin studies

Clinical Trials
Epidemiology
Evidence/Science based medicine
Foreign studies
Healthy trial babies only
Herd Immunity
Hist test
Never unvaccinated controls
Inadequate safety studies
Kendrick mouse test
Looking were it ain't

Missing Vial
Mouse toxicity test
NEVER ENOUGH STUDIES
No criticism or right of reply
Peer review
Placebos
Placebo washout
Safety studies
Study data kept secret
Suppress studies/research

CD4 cell counting
Third world guinea pigs

Monkey business

DPT Mouse tests
Mouse toxicity test 
Kendrick mouse test 
Hist test

Vaccine autism denial ploys [Vaccine autism]
Autism genetic

Autism increase "due to change in diagnosis"

[2014 Dec] GMO Contamination Denial: Controlling Science

[2014 June] CDC's Vaccine Safety Research is Exposed as Flawed and Falsified in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journal

[vid] The Legacy of Vaccine Injury - Dr. Andrew Wakefield  39 min--how Merck fiddled a vaccine test to get their useless mumps on the market


Harris Coulter


Russell L. Blaylock, M.D.

[2012] Cancer Industry Exposed as Fraud “The Science is False”   Findings published in the journal Nature show that 88% of major studies on cancer that have been published in reputable journals over the years can not be reproduced to show their accuracy. This means that the research findings published are flat out false.  Author of the review and former head of cancer research at Amgen C. Glenn Begley was unable to replicate the results of 47 of the 53 studies he examined. This suggests that researchers are fabricating their findings simply to create the illusion of positive findings instead of publishing their actual results. This ensures the continuation of their steady stream of funding and grants.

[2012 June] Brains Used to Study Autism are severely Damaged in Fridge Disaster by Christina England  before researchers and scientists even begin to study the brain tissue of autistic children they should all read the aforementioned papers and research. I am sure that they would learn far more reading these valuable studies and papers then they ever would studying the brain tissue of autistic children who have passed away. Perhaps they should spend less time in laboratories and more time working with autistic children who suffer from the condition on a day-to-day basis and listening to the parents who have to care for them.

[2012 Jan] Flu vaccine investigator is suspended for four months for research fraud

[2012 Jan]  Confessions of a Frustrated Pharmacist by Stuart Lindsey, PharmD.

[2011 Dec] Pro-Vaccine Immunologist Admits a Shocking Truth About Vaccines  Make sure you tell them they have to do that year shot because the first three [the 2, 4 and 6 month shots] don’t work.’ I was like, ‘Yeah, I know.’ [laughter].

[2011 Dec] Big Pharma’s Scam: U.S. Drug companies rig medication studies

[2011 Nov] Professionals are demanding vast sums of money to write reports on clients that they have never met by Christina England

[2011 Nov] Exposed: CDC deliberately manipulated, covered up scientific data showing link between vaccines containing mercury and autism

[2011 Oct] Shock vaccine study reveals influenza vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults (not 60% as you've been told) The "60% effectiveness" claim is a total lie

[2011 Oct] Misleading Danish Mobile Phones and Brain Tumour Study in BMJ  This misleading study has many flaws and serious confounders and should not give anyone reassurance that mobile phone use is not associated with an increase in brain tumours. In our opinion the paper should not have been published in this form — it should have failed peer-review. We recommend that it is disregarded as low quality science.

[2011 Oct] Astounding Wakefield Lecture to Association of American Physicians & Surgeons Implicates BMJ Editor in Research Fraud  This lecture [see full video below] tells you exactly how the British Medical Journal Editor Dr Fiona Godlee is responsible for the most extraordinary research fraud in recent medical history in trying to cover up the association between vaccines and autistic conditions in children. 

[2011 Aug] Useless Studies, Real Harm  Commercially-driven biomedical research--in particular, research involving prescription drugs, vaccines, and medical devices---has corrupted the entire field of medicine, both academic research and clinical practice. Americans' health is being undermined by expensive, defective, all-too often, treatments that, at best, are useless. A worst, they kill or cause serious permanent damage.

[2011 May] How drug companies' PR tactics skew the presentation of medical research

[2011 May] ANOTHER OUTRAGEOUS MEDICAL LIE  It's called "placebo washout."

[2011 April] Brilliant Wakefield Lecture – Shows BMJ Editor’s & Deer’s Fraud Allegations Were Fraud Themselves  This is an excellent recent lecture by Andrew Wakefield in Austin Texas in which he shows how Deer and BMJ Editor Dr Fiona Godlee perpetrated their own fraudulent allegations that Andrew Wakefield committed fraud when that was not true and in fact impossible.  The fraud is entirely by journalist Brian Deer and the British Medical Journal.
    What Andrew Wakefield also shows is how the work at The Royal Free Hospital with his colleagues not only found a new bowel disease in autistic children but also how the results of that work have been and are today helping autistic children recover some normality in their lives.
    You can also read in detail how it was impossible for anyone to have committed fraud.  Neither Dr Godlee nor Brian Deer have been able to answer these points.  So who are the fraudsters?

[2011 book] Shaken Baby Syndrome or Vaccine-Induced Encephalitis? by Harold Buttram, MD, FAACP and Christina England  In 1971 Norma Guthkelch, retired neurosurgeon,  published the first description of the Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). Within the next several years John Caffey, pediatric radiologist, wrote several articles supporting the SBS theory. Very soon after, when infants were brought into hospital emergency rooms in the U.S.A. with findings of brain hemorrhages without known accidental explanations, these were commonly attributed to SBS, and parents or caretakers were often criminally convicted.  Since that time conclusive evidence has emerged proving that these prosecutions have been founded upon tainted medical opinions and fundamentally flawed scientific methodology  (i.e. junk science). 

[2011 April] Who exactly is mad, Dr Holt?  The Gospel of Dr Holt decrees that homeopathy is madness!  It's just a placebo, is "harmless" but... it's unscientific, and doctors shouldn't use it.  The fact that in 2002, more than half of what conventional doctors used was also scientifically unproven

"Vaccines and Autism - The Wrong Argument - rev. 1 (24 February 2011; 9 pages)"  King, PhD, Paul G.  The keys to maintaining any unsafe commercial activity are misdirection, disinformation, big lies, and pervasive propaganda. To be effective, the commercial interests use persons whom the public trusts. These spokespersons then promote the activity. They lie about its risks. They portray an activity that is less than safe as not only safe but also desirable. In the place of proof of safety, these propagandists invariably tout the "lack of evidence of harm". In addition, the promoters of an unsafe activity do all they can to bury studies that question the activity’s safety under an avalanche of "recognized" studies that are peddled as showing "no evidence of harm". Those who benefit from the commercial activity also do all they can to discredit those persons who dare to publish studies that question the safety of the activity. Further, they use their wealth to buy other "experts" to refute any link between the activity and the harm that it inflicts on the "general public".

[2011 Jan] Big Pharma Vilified Researcher for Threatening Vaccine Program By Russell L. Blaylock, M.D.  The entire vaccine program is based on massive fraud. The so-called H1N1 “pandemic” is a case in point. ......Yet the CDC, the media, medical academia, and the pharmaceutical vaccine manufacturers all participated in this deception....The H1N1 vaccine alone generated $1.5 billion in addition to the $1 billion generated by the seasonal flu vaccine, neither of which has been shown to be either effective or safe. You have been told this safety and efficacy has been scientifically shown, when this is a shocking, provable lie.

[2010 Nov] Basis of Many Medical Studies Found to be Proved Fatally Flawed By Dr. Mercola

[2010 Nov] A VACCINE CHALLENGE TO MAINSTREAM RESEARCHERS---HAS A TRUE CONTROLLED STUDY ON A VACCINE EVER BEEN DONE? By JON RAPPOPORT  Here is my assertion: this kind of controlled study on vaccines has never been done.  It has never been done for any vaccine anywhere, at any time. And I have no reason to believe it will ever be done.

[2010 March] First Fraud: Dr. Poul Thorsen and the original “Danish Study” By J.B. Handley  It’s hard to put into words how dishonest and outrageous a study this is, and I knew after reading it that we were in for a long fight: if scientists will lie this explicitly and call it a study and if Pediatrics will publish something this dishonest, they are playing to win at all costs.

[2010 March] Joan Cranmer’s Fateful Decisions and the Suppression of Autism Science By Mark Blaxill

[2009 Nov] Federal Health Agencies Continue to Deceive Americans: Congressional Report on a Vaccine Mercury-Autism Link Ignored for Six Years by Richard Gale and Gary Null, Ph.D “study after study of spurious and flawed research that would likely never pass a graduate school examination, scientist after scientist affiliated or with financial ties to the vaccine industry now dominating our academies and health agencies, have determined that there really is no safety risk with thimerosal.”

[2009 Oct] Hertz-Picciotto's blood mercury autism study: what the researchers omitted by Teresa Binstock

[2009 Oct] Bracing Ourselves for More Sham Vaccine Studies by Richard Gale and Gary Null

[Swine flu vax 2009 Aug] Injecting one thing for testing and then adding adjuvant later

[2009 July] Organic food has no added nutritional benefit, says Food Standards Agency

[2009 June] Publisher consulted drug firm on journal content  THE world's largest medical publisher (Elsevier, which produces The Lancet) asked the manufacturers of anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx which articles they wanted to include in a so-called medical journal on bone health.....The plaintiff in the class action has alleged the journal was fake and it was simply a marketing exercise designed to promote Vioxx. The court has also heard Merck put the names of high-profile arthritis experts on the editorial board of the phoney journal without telling them they had done so.

[2009 April] Merck published fake journal Merck paid an undisclosed sum to Elsevier to produce several volumes of a publication that had the look of a peer-reviewed medical journal, but contained only reprinted or summarized articles--most of which presented data favorable to Merck products--that appeared to act solely as marketing tools with no disclosure of company sponsorship.

[2009 Feb] Vaccine Studies: Under the Influence of Pharma by Barbara Loe Fisher

[2007] Help Wanted: Human Guinea Pigs by Betsy Model

Our health officials continue to pump out junk science, for example the recent, seriously flawed NIAID study on H1N1 vaccine safety in pregnant women reported over the major media, to deceive Americans and enroll them in their national vaccination campaigns. The protocol in that study listed any pregnant woman who had a history of alcohol or drug abuse during a 6 year period, diabetes, compromised immune systems, asthmatic and allergic conditions, history of cancer-treatment drugs for 3 years, prescription to psychiatric drugs, and many other conditions as unqualified for the study. These conditions alone would disqualify the large majority of the nation’s pregnant women. Furthermore, any pregnant woman who enrolled in the trial, who spiked a temperature of 100 degrees or greater during the first 72 hours following vaccination, were excluded from the trial. Nevertheless, the CDC and its cronies in the media, particularly the pharmaceutical shills at The New York Times, touted this deranged trial as conclusive evidence that the swine flu vaccine was safe for all pregnant women. These are the kinds of medical distortions we have come to expect from the Federal health agencies. [2009 Nov] Federal Health Agencies Continue to Deceive Americans: Congressional Report on a Vaccine Mercury-Autism Link Ignored for Six Years by Richard Gale and Gary Null, Ph.D

Whether a drug makes it to market simply only means that someone has had enough money to put it through, and pay the right politicians. That's all. It doesn't mean it works or it doesn't work....... we're very familiar with the people who developed the double-blind, placebo-controlled study. And we know what they know about medicine and science, and they all admit that they don't know anything about it. ......The problem with the placebo controlled, doubled-blind study is that you are using two human beings as controls against one another. There is no more out-bred species on Earth than two human beings. A person from the North Pole can procreate with a person from the South Pole, and can have an infant. There is no animal on Earth that is as out-bred as human beings, including two identical twins, they are not the same. Because, as soon as the zygote divides there are different positions, there's different antigens to which they are exposed. The bottom line is that these double-blind, placebo-controlled studies are run by people who don't know much about science. [1993 Interview with Dr. Alan Levin.] Modern Medicine and its Military Links

'The results were also so unexpected that many experts simply refused to believe them. Jackson’s papers were turned down for publication in the top-ranked medical journals. One flu expert who reviewed her studies for the Journal of the American Medical Association wrote, “To accept these results would be to say that the earth is flat!” When the papers were finally published in 2006, in the less prominent International Journal of Epidemiology, they were largely ignored by doctors and public-health officials. “The answer I got,” says Jackson, “was not the right answer.”[2009 Oct] Does the Vaccine Matter? by Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer  '

Organized medicine quickly adopted the stance that his alleged "cures" fell into three categories: those who never had cancer in the first place; those who were cured by prior radiation and surgery; and those who died. When Healing Becomes a Crime --Kenny Ausubel

Francis M. Pottenger, MD and "The Hazards of a Health Fetish" By Ron Schmid, ND We've seen that the "Health Fetish" authors used technically (logically) true statements to completely distort Dr. Pottenger's findings. Only careful study of Pottenger's article would allow the choice of precisely the right words to accomplish this while avoiding making false statements. We may hope that the authors gained considerable understanding of Pottenger's work and its implications for the health of people everywhere. Perhaps they may someday use that knowledge in the way Dr. Pottenger intended.

Allowing other than sterile saline to be used as the placebo in short-term vaccine adverse-reaction studies to suppress the relative incidence rates to the point that these relative adverse-event rates show “no statistically significant” increase over the “placebo” (that, in some cases, has been allowed to be an experimental vaccine or the vaccine formulation without the biological antigens).
   
Permitting vaccine safety studies to be restricted to a few days or, at most, a few of months even though some severe adverse outcomes do not begin to emerge until several years after vaccination (e.g., childhood MS 4 years after vaccination).
   
Consenting to reductions in the size and number of persons in the phase-III clinical trials that not only reduce the vaccine makers costs but also reduce the risk that the study will find the rare but deadly adverse effects that a vaccine may have.
   
Allowing surrogate endpoints (e.g., the reactivity of the patient’s blood to animal anti-sera) for specific antibodies to be used to assess vaccine efficacy instead of requiring comprehensive testing to establish both general and specific immunity in those vaccinated that is comparable to the immunity found in those who have had the disease.
   
Recommending widespread use of new vaccines long before the long-term (at least 10-year) outcomes can be assessed in the trial population, and
   
Licensing vaccines and recommending their “universal” use in populations that have near-zero risk of contracting a disease (e.g., the hepatitis B vaccine in young children or the HPV vaccine in non-sexually-active children) or where the clinical cases of the disease occur at low rate and are virtually absent in most demographic segments of U.S. population (e.g., the rotavirus vaccine). Key realities about autism, vaccines, vaccine-injury compensation, Thimerosal, and autism-related research----Gary S. Goldman, Ph.D & P.G. King PhD

"A story was told to me about an article written which detailed serious side effects to the whole-cell whooping cough vaccine in a large group of children. The medical journal refused to publish it, saying that before it would publish the article, the author must state categorically in the conclusion, that "the vaccine was safe and effective". Thinking this was a joke, the author added the required sentence, and the article was published. When told this story, I didn't believe it. I was handed a copy, and was flabbergasted.
      I was told that in order to have ANYTHING published, the only way that authors could voice reservations was to couch them in as bland a language as possible, and hide these reservations in the body of the article unless the "problem" was blatantly obvious to a blind man."--Hilary Butler p. 203

When intellectual dishonesty becomes a crime: Nature and its cynical promotion of bad science
http://www.aidsorigins.com/content/view/219/2/  I think it is now high time for me to make a frank public statement about Nature and its nefarious role in this debate. The fact that Nature regularly publishes alleged "refutations" of the OPV theory and that it does so to enormous fanfare, the fact that it has competed vigorously with its rival Science in order to publish such "refutations", and the fact that it has never published an exposition of the OPV theory, or allowed a single paragraph of space to any proponent of the OPV theory, reveal that the rejection slips from Nature have nothing whatsoever to do with the volume of correspondence that that journal receives. Instead, they are reflections of Nature's determination to promote an explanation for how AIDS began that is supported only by certain powerful governments, and by a perversion of sound scientific method.
   ....In short, on this particular topic, Nature has abandoned the most basic principles of scientific enquiry. Instead the journal has consistently acted as if it is a stooge of certain powerful governments and interst groups.

[2010 Nov] Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science He charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical information that doctors rely on is flawed......he worries that the field of medical research is so pervasively flawed, and so riddled with conflicts of interest, that it might be chronically resistant to change—or even to publicly admitting that there’s a problem...80 percent of non-randomized studies (by far the most common type) turn out to be wrong, as do 25 percent of supposedly gold-standard randomized trials, and as much as 10 percent of the platinum-standard large randomized trials. The article spelled out his belief that researchers were frequently manipulating data analyses, chasing career-advancing findings rather than good science, and even using the peer-review process—in which journals ask researchers to help decide which studies to publish—to suppress opposing views.
......Of the 49 articles, 45 claimed to have uncovered effective interventions. Thirty-four of these claims had been retested, and 14 of these, or 41 percent, had been convincingly shown to be wrong or significantly exaggerated. If between a third and a half of the most acclaimed research in medicine was proving untrustworthy, the scope and impact of the problem were undeniable.

[2010 March] First Fraud: Dr. Poul Thorsen and the original “Danish Study” By J.B. Handley  It’s hard to put into words how dishonest and outrageous a study this is, and I knew after reading it that we were in for a long fight: if scientists will lie this explicitly and call it a study and if Pediatrics will publish something this dishonest, they are playing to win at all costs.

Is The Schizophrenia Mortality Study In The Lancet CREDIBLE?
A study purporting to analyze mortality rates of 66, 881 schizophrenia patients in Finland (1973 to 2005) was published in the prestigious journal, The Lancet. A critical analysis by psychiatrist, Grace Jackson, MD, identifies fatal flaws in the study design and numerous methodological artefacts that introduced bias which minimized the detection of drug-related mortality. The authors’ conclusions favoring the long-term use of second-generation antipsychotics, and Clozaril in particular, as Dr. Jackson demonstrates, are not supported by their study design: indeed, their "favorable" conclusions about patients' mortality were based upon numerous confounders (methodological tricks and problems) which mitigated the detection of actual drug-associated mortality.
Vera Hassner Sharav, AHRP/The Lancet

[2009 May] FDA Waved Through Asthma Drugs Despite Falsified Trials by Martha Rosenberg

Patient Advocacy Group Calls For Suspension Of JAMA Editors, Investigation
"We are deeply concerned about the unbecoming and unethical conduct of the Editor-in-chief and Executive Deputy Editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, who were reported to have used unprofessional and intimidating tactics against a conscientious academic, Dr. Jonathan Leo. Their behavior undermines the integrity of the JAMA peer review process, first, by failing to properly vet a manuscript for the accuracy of scientific reporting and for author conflict of interest and bias and, second, by launching an ad hominem attack on the scientist who was attempting to correct the record...."

Griffin MR, et al.  Risk of sudden infant death syndrome after immunization with the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine. N Engl J Med. 1988 Sep 8;319(10):618-23. PMID: 3261837; UI: 88318811.
Griffin MR, et al. Risk of seizures and encephalopathy after immunization with the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine. JAMA. 1990 Mar 23-30;263(12):1641-5. PMID: 2308203; UI: 90172513.
"Two studies by teams of epidemiologists headed by Marie R. Griffin represent perhaps the absolute worst I have encountered in many years of reading this literature.......It is amazing that such a study (1988 NEJM) could be accepted by a reputable scientific journal. The reason was doubtless that the study was funded by the CDC and the FDA, and that two of the coauthors (Griffin and Ray) were at the time "Burroughs Wellcome Scholars in pharmacoepidemiology" (whatever that is). Burroughs-Wellcome is, of course, a major producer of the pertussis vaccine. Have these people never heard of conflict of interest?........These kinds of articles bring the Public Health Service, the CDC, the FDA, the "peer-reviewed" journals, and the rest of the medical-industrial-government complex into disrepute. Physicians can swallow this garbage if they want, since they make their living from it, but parents who expect at least elementary honesty from those who call themselves "scientists," and whose children are being maimed and crippled by the very vaccines which are proclaimed innocuous by authors such as Griffin et al. are already taking steps to put this invalid out of its misery. The relations between the public and the vaccine establishment are surely going to get a lot worse before they start getting any better."---Harris Coulter http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/coulter/vacc-deb.html