Thursday, August 25, 2011

British Medical Journal: Deliberately Obfuscating The Truth


Well? The British Medical Journal is now beginning to admit to their role in the 'shot fired exclusively to be heard by special masters over at vaccine court'.

Thanks to the dogged determination of "not so crazy parents after all" over in England, the editors are slowly revealing they money-laundered payments to Brian Deer from vaccine makers. Just another example of how wired up the media is to screw innocent children harmed by vaccinations the media, once upon a time, helped market in exchange for millions in drug ads.

One commenter made a rather barbed comment in response to an article written by Age of Autism UK editor John Stone.

Someone named media analysis (not to be mistaken for media scholar who would know better to be called media analyst than analysis) asked:

How did the BMJ "clear" the author a freelance journalist to act on it's behalf via 'commission'.[?] Taking into clear account the journalist apparently has no medical or research academic credentials.

Taking such a hard tack isn't exactly well-thought out.

First, the BMJ editors admit they conspired with Brian Deer to plant one on Andrew Wakefield which US Department of Justice trial lawyers and vaccine court special masters then used to throw out Autism test cases.

The corrections popping up at BMJ now provide clear and direct evidence they are just now facing reality. The blow-back against them for their roles as willing partners in the combination of restraint of trade will be monumental.

Secondly, the media analysis person doesn't quite understand science.

For, indeed, anyone can make a scientific observation. However, the fact that Deer found plenty of stuff wrong with the subjects reporting of Wakefield's work, (which isn't exact a crime in the world of science and hardly evidence of fraud)and being a deviant-minded tabloid hacker and wanting to avoid scientific explanation, he fabricated something out of it the same way a tabloid hacker will create UFOs ate my dog stories.

The British Medical Journal shouldn't be confused with the boobs who are abusing it for their other purposes.

For example, a few years ago the British Medical Journal ran the excellent article by Harvard grad student (at the time of publishing), Peter Doshi, which exposed the fraudulent activities of the US Centers For Disease Control and Invention, a place supposedly full of medical doctors, relating to fabricating flatulencing flu statistics.

http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7529/1412.full

This iatrogenic fraud was also noted by CBS News during the exact time when the vaccine industry was fully engaged in the second multi-billion dollar fraudulent flu scamdemic within three years.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/21/cbsnews_investigates/main5404829.shtml

Back to the BMJ politically-motivated character assassination attempt on Andy Wakefield...

If the stupid conflicts of interests forms were really filled out and on file with the stupid "ethics" web site, why do the boobs over at BMJ and the drug company spy want tight control over who actually views them?

Compare these and note that if you get really fearlessly brave and dare to defy the man by clicking on the icmje pdf link at the British Medical Journal web site you get a blank form:

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452.full

Competing interests: All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years. HM chairs GMC fitness to practise panels. He had no association with the Wakefield hearings and the views expressed in this article are his own and do not represent those of the GMC.

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full

Competing interests: The author has completed the unified competing interest form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from him) and declares no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisation that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; BD’s investigation led to the GMC proceedings referred to in this report, including the charges. He made many submissions of information but was not a party or witness in the case, nor involved in its conduct.

The first question is why doesn't the BMJ have Deer's COI form ethically-correct located? You have to ask him? That's not exactly a sound way to provide even the appearances of the avoidance of conflicts of interests. That stupid move proves they are vindictive blood-crazed lynch mobbers ready to attack and destroy whoever doesn't agree with them and certainly not interested in science if it conflicts with their vaccine market buddies.

Tight-fisted control over conflicts of interest material? Come on? It's supposed to be clearly visible at the point of sale. Instead of being up front, the BMJ editors expect the curious invesigator to go to some ridicuolous gator.com-like conflicts of interests forms safe-keeping web site.

Just another change device the new ownership of the British Medical Journal has enacted to keep knowledge out of the hands of scientists and the medical profession.

That's because the media-driven vaccine industry expected to stand behind their products is hiding behind them.

Should "ethics" work in a way to protect those investigating where the allegations of fraud against Andrew Wakefield are actually coming from? Instead of getting the conflicts of interests declarations at the point of sale, the BMJ has devised a nice method of sanistizing inappropriate competitive drug company research interventions and deflecting peer reviewers aside.

A very pretentious trick to fool the reader, oh, by the way, how could Andrew Wakefield have used this form when right-clicking the pdf file reveals it didn't exist until it was created in Sept. of 2009 and interestingly modified in July of 2010. What's even more crude is the fact that the form itself claims an effective date of 2008. What pretense they make.

No comments: