Saturday, July 30, 2011

Dr. Fione Goodlee: Piltdown Smack Down

For those who don't know 'Piltdown man' started out as a two pieces of a medieval skull, a lower simian jaw, an elephant molar, a hippopotamus tooth, and a chimpanzee tooth thrown in. With some finesse (and handy-dandy modeling clay) scientists were able to fabricate an entire caveman.

Manipulation was so easy even a scientist could do it.

"Concerns about conflicts of interest in science hit the headlines earlier this year following publication in the spring of a study by Tufts University in Science and Engineering Ethics. It found that only 16% of 1396 highly ranked scientific and biomedical journals had conflict of interest disclosure policies. And of those, fewer than one percent of articles they published in 1997 contained any disclosures from authors. Nearly 66% of the journals contained no disclosures at all." - Beware A Conflict Of Interest The Scientist, 2001

At the time Piltdown man was a source of nationalistic pride for the UK. They claimed to have found the so called missing link, very important for the UK's evolutionary theory of man's existence to continue.

One problem.

It was a complete fake, but (unless there is evidence that somebody died of aggravation) not the kind of deadly fake you commonly see being perpetrated by world health people, who create mass media scamdemics year after year to steal tax dollars mostly from the US.

"Fiona Godlee, editorial director for medicine at BioMed Central, insists that medical authors are asked what potential conflicts of interest they have. The majority say none, and can be classed as 'none declared' alongside their articles. "I've conducted research into how many authors declare anything and the proportion is very small," says Godlee. "It's something like two per cent." Beware A Conflict of Interests, The Scientist, 2001

The death toll relating to past 'piltdown viruses' stampedes is never examined, but folks over-loaded with media-induced panic do die in each, and many become sick unnecessarily due to unwarranted injection with the complimentary (code for tax dollar supported industry product) experimental Thimerosal-containing vaccine, usually the sole purpose of the panic virus.

"There is certainly more misconduct out there than was thought," says Fiona Godlee, chair of Cope [Committee on Publication Ethics] and editor of the BMJ. "Editors have a responsibility to pursue allegations of fraud, but their resources and remit are limited. The academic establishment in Britain has not taken the problem seriously enough". - Is the spirit of Piltdown man alive and well?, Telegraph, 2005

Sadly, the propensity of doctors is to sulk into a melancholic state relating to their inability to fight the drug giants, who through fear, intimidation, people placement, and cleverly devised exit strategies have the ability to return time and time again to their rainbow pot of gold, your tax dollars.

Open public solicitation, albeit generalized invitation to pharmaceutical companies, is usually something like a bribe bid hiding in plain sight. The astute reader may have a recollection of such a bold, solicitous arrangement most recently.

"Scamdemics are like winning the lottery. Maybe more correctly call them a lootery?", questioned one outside observer. "To the drug companies monopolizing the vaccine marketplace, a vaccine boondoggle is their most successful business model, and it includes the help of billionaires in the media and liability for vaccine injury and death never comes from the drug giant."

Now a decade (2001-2011) after the Tufts University study found "only 16% of 1396 highly ranked scientific and biomedical journals had conflict of interest disclosure policies" do we learn that editors of the British Medical Journal, who gave secret policeman Brian Deer's unproven fraud allegations against vaccine researcher Andrew Wakefield a specious seal of approval, have not only glaring conflicts of interests, but have incriminated themselves as lowly hypocrites dealing in journalistic smut to whatever society it is that reads this poor Kerboblog.

The fact that BMJ and The Lancet-- two of the most prestigious international medical journals would enter into a medical education partnership with the drug manufacturer whose staff drew up a "doctor hit list" to intimidate doctors who dared to discuss the lethal cardiac risks linked to Vioxx--is in itself a betrayal of trust of the worst sort. - Alliance for Human Research Protection, 2011

The disgrace is not only the fact that the issue of drug company influences on medical publication has been completely hi-jacked by Goodlee for the wrong reason of smearing Andrew Wakefield. The editors' zeal to beat the sleeping dog to death in order to appease tyrannical Citizen Deer - and whatever anti-litigation forces remits him his daily bread - has furthered Autism injury research ten years in reverse, only means the continued loss of prestige already severely crippled by drug ad quid gone wild, and effectively condemns the publication inevitably and indefinitely.

"We didn't declare these competing interests because it didn't occur to us to do so." - Fione Goodlee, M.D. BMJ editor, March, 2011

Goodlee, years after pinning herself to the issue of what she indicates are long-standing, long-term habitual patterns of questionable scientific integrity, declaring scientific conflicts of interest as sure telltale of " piltdown science" (she "researched" this) amazingly was said to be "struck by a comparison between researcher Andrew Wakefield's fraud (alleged) and 'Piltdown man'".

"How about that?", said an investigator. "Jesus warned about those who can see a mote caught in thy neighbor's eye, yet can't seem to get the telephone pole out of their own eye."

So why did the hippocriticalpotamus molar decide to bite Andrew Wakefield's bum.

The British Medical Journal's deersay allegations against Wakefield allowed US vaccine court to leap to the wrong conclusion. The medical journal's involvement with Deer had zero to do with "setting the record straight" it has everything to do with cloaking lots of "American babies being shot at dawn" in vaccine court.

Just take a look at how the vaccine manufacturing drug companies live up to their vaccine court promises. The British Medical Journal has just as much innocent blood on their hands as does the rest of the vaccine marketplace.

When one is sacrificed for the safety of all:

"We are in the midst of an international epidemic. Those responsible for investigating and dealing with this epidemic have failed. Among the reasons for this failure is the fact that they are faced with the prospect that they themselves may be responsible for the epidemic. Therefore, in their efforts to exonerate themselves they are an impediment to progress.

I believe that public health officials know there is a problem; they are, however, willing to deny the problem and accept the loss of an unknown number of children on the basis that the success of public health policy - mandatory vaccination - by necessity involves sacrifice.

Neither I, nor my colleagues subscribe to the belief that any child is expendable. History has encountered and dealt with such beliefs. You, the parent's and children, are the source of the inspiration and strength for our endeavours; our quest for truth through science - a science that is compassionate, uncompromising and uncompromised.

I do not mean to stir you to mutiny, but be assured that armed with this science it is in your power to force this issue, in your pediatricians office, in Congress, in the Law Courts. Keep faith with your instincts - they have served you well."
- Andy Wakefield, April 22, 2002

No comments: