Thoughts on economics and liberty

Are these statements true? To verify in due course

I have a tab on the menu of this blog “critical thinking” – it contains a fair amount on unsorted info.

Some of this (below) will qualify to go into that list once verified. If anyone has time, please help by verifying. I need specific sources/ URLs.


  1. Dr. Marcia Angell, Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ) – “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine”
  2. Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet (considered to be one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world) – “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”
  3. Dr. Herbert L. Ley Jr, former Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration – “The FDA protects the big drug companies, and is subsequently rewarded, and using the government’s police powers, they attack those who threaten the big drug companies. People think that the FDA is protecting them. It isn’t. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it is doing are as different as day and night.”
  4. Dr. Raeford Brown, chair of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Committee on Analgesics and Anesthetics – “Congress is owned by pharma.”
  5. A group calling itself CDC Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research, or (CDC SPIDER), put a list of complaints in writing in a letter to CDC Chief of Staff. The members of the group have elected to file the complaint anonymously for fear of retribution – “It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests… and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception,” the letter states. “These questionable and unethical practices threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health.”
  6. Dr. John P. A. Ioannidis, Editor-in-chief, European Journal of Clinical Investigation (2010 – Present) – “Most current published research findings are false.”
  7. Dr William Thompson Senior Scientist at the CDC (Center for Disease Control) – “I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the M M R before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.”
  8. Assistant Professor Ray Moynihan , one of the leaders of The BMJ’s campaign – “When we want to decide on a medicine or a surgery, a lot of the evidence we used to inform that decision is biased,” “It cannot be trusted. Because so much of that has been produced and funded by the manufacturers of those healthcare products.”
  9. Dr. Fiona Godlee, editor of the BMJ – “I think we have to call it what it is. It is the corruption of the scientific process.”
  10. Susanna Rees, an editorial assistant with a medical writing agency until 2002 – “Medical writing agencies go to great lengths to disguise the fact that the papers they ghostwrite and submit to journals and conferences are ghostwritten on behalf of pharmaceutical companies and not by the named authors,’ she wrote. ‘There is a relatively high success rate for ghostwritten submissions – not outstanding, but consistent.”
  11. Sydney Brenner, winner Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2002 – “..and of course all the academics say we’ve got to have peer review. But I don’t believe in peer review because I think it’s very distorted and as I’ve said, it’s simply a regression to the mean…..I think peer review is hindering science. In fact, I think it has become a completely corrupt system.”
  12. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician and epidemiologist – “When people say follow the science, what I’ve seen is they often mean censor scientists who don’t agree with some scientists…the people who are sort of controlling policy.”
  13. Kamran Abbasi, executive editor British Medical Journal – “Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. C nineteen has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health.”


Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

Sanjeev Sabhlok

View more posts from this author
Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial