Thoughts on economics and liberty

Category: Bad ideas!

Examples of unethical medical doctors/researchers

Came across an excellent book Confessions of a medical heretic by Robert S. Mendelsohn


Doctors can’t be counted on to be entirely ethical, either. The dean of Harvard Medical School, Dr. Robert H. Ebert, and the dean of the Yale Medical School, Dr. Lewis Thomas, acted as paid consultants to the Squibb Corporation at the same time they were trying to persuade the Food and Drug Administration to lift the ban on Mysteclin, one of Squibb’s biggest moneymakers. Dr. Ebert said that he “gave the best advice I could. These were honest opinions.” But he also declined to specify the amount of the “modest retainer” Squibb Vice-President Norman R. Ritter admitted paying both him and Dr. Thomas. Dr. Ebert later became a paid director of the drug company and admitted to owning stock valued at $15,000.

In 1972, Dr. Sariruel S. Epstein, then of Case-Western Reserve University, one of the world’s authorities on chemical causes of cancer and birth defects, told the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs that “the National Academy of Sciences is riddled with confict of interest.” He reported that panels that decide on crucial issues such as safety of food additives frequently are dominated by friends or direct associates of the interests that are supposed to be regulated. “In this country you [204] can buy the data you require to support your case,’ he said.

Fraud in scientific research is commonplace enough to keep it off the front pages. The Food and Drug Administration has uncovered such niceties as overdosing and underdosing of patients, fabrication of records, and drug dumping when they investigate experimental drug trials. Of course, in these instances, doctors working for drug companies have as their goal producing results that will convince the FDA to approve the drug. Sometimes, with competition for grant money getting more and more fierce, doctors simply want to produce results that will keep the funding lines open. Since all the “good ol’ boy” researchers are in the same boat, there seems to be a great tolerance for sloppy experiments, unconfirmable results, and carelessness in interpreting results.

Dr. Ernest Borek, a University of Colorado microbiologist, said that “increasing amounts of faked data or, less flagrantly, data with body English put on them, make their way into scientific journals.” Nobel Prize winner Salvadore E. Luria, a biologist at the Massachussetts Institute of Technology, said “I know of at least two cases in which highly respected scientists had to retract findings reported from their laboratories, because they discovered that these findings had been manufactured by one of their collaborators.”

Another now classic example of fraud occurred in the Sloane-Kettering Insitute where investigator Dr. William Summerlin admitted [205] painting mice to make them look as though successful skin grafts had been done. A predecessor to Dr. Summerlin was Paul Kammerer, the Austrian geneticist, who early in the twentieth century was accused of injecting india ink into the foot of a toad in order to prove the Lamarchian theory of transmission of acquired traits. Kammerer shot himself, but the whole story implicating others appears in Authur Koestler’s book, The Case of the Midwife Toad.

Dr. Richard W. Roberts, director of the National Bureau of Standards, said that “half or more of the numerical data published by scientists in their journal articles is unusable because there is no evidence that the researcher accurately measured what he thought he was measuring or no evidence that possible sources of error were eliminated or accounted for.” Since it is almost impossible for the average reader of scientific journals to determine which half of the article is usable and which is not, you have to wonder whether the medical journals serve as avenues of communication or confusion.

One method of judging the validity of a scientific article is to examine the footnote for the source of funding. Drug companies’ records regarding integrity of research are not sparkling enough to warrant much trust. Doctors have been shown not to be above fudging and even fabricating. research results when the stakes were high enough. Dr. Leroy Wolins, a psychologist at Iowa State University, had a student write to thirty-seven authors of scientific [206] reports asking for the raw data on which they based their conclusions. Of the thirty-two who replied, twenty-one said their data either had been lost or accidentally destroyed. Dr. Wolins analyzed seven sets of data that did come in and found errors in three significant enough to invalidate what had been passed off as scientific fact.

Of course, research fraud is nothing new. Cyril Burt, the late British psychologist who became famous for his claims that most human intelligence is determined by heredity, was exposed as a fraud by Leon Kamin, a Princeton psychologist. It seems that the “coworkers” responsible for Burt’s research findings could not be found to have actually existed! There is even evidence that Gregor Mendel, father of the gene theory of heredity, may have doctored the results of his pea-breeding experiments to make them conform more perfectly to his theory. Mendel’s conclusions were correct but a statistical analysis of his published data shows that the odds were 10,000 to one against their having been obtained through experiments such as Mendel performed.

Continue Reading

Fauci the Lying King – Part 2

Continuing from


I’ve transcribed key comments (excluding the China origin stuff which doesn’t interest me) from this video:

Unfortunately, the video is only partly useful since the precise dates/location of the comments is not provided in most cases.


Fauci: But they’re really criticizing science. Because I represent science.


MSNBC journalist: If you’re vaccinated you really don’t need to worry about getting it in a way that’s serious or transmitting it.

Fauci, May 2021: That is true. That is correct, Chris. They’re really to protect you completely against infection and the chances are very likely that you’ll not be able to transmit it to other people. The risk is extremely low of transmitting it to anybody else. Full stop.

* * *

Fauci, July 2021: Vaccinated people are clearly capable of transmitting the infection.


Fauci, March 2020: When you’re in the middle of an outbreak wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better.

* * *

Fauci, October 2020: If people are not wearing masks then maybe we should be mandating it.

* * *

Fauci, February 2021: I often myself wear two masks.

* * *

Journalist, April 2023: I’m quoting you now: “At the population level masks work at the margin – maybe 10 per cent”. To hear that they only work at the margin, maybe 10 per cent, would make a lot of people ask “OK, then why was I wearing a mask?”.


Fauci: You’re really attacking not only Dr Anthony Fauci you’re attacking science.

November 2022: When you say that this is going to go away tomorrow like magic, when you know that there’s no chance it’s going to just disappear.

Fauci: We hope this just goes away. Burns itself out.

* * *

Journalist December 2020: So my question is why weren’t you straight with the American people about this to begin with?

Fauci: So the bottom line is it’s a guesstimate. I gave a range.

Journalist December 2020: It seemed in that quote to suggest that you were basing your recommendation on polling and what people could accept. Is that not what you meant?

Fauci: No, I mean it’s a bit of that.


Journalist, March 2020: We’re seeing all of these school closures around the country. Is that the right move for children and families?

Fauci: Yeah, I think what’s going on right now is generally an appropriate approach. You want to start doing something to socially distance yourself. How dramatic that is – closing schools and doing other things – should be proportionate.

* * *

Journalist August 2022: It went too far that particularly for kids who couldn’t go to school except remotely. That it’s forever damage them.

Fauci: Well, I don’t think it’s forever irreparably damaged anyone.

* * *

Journalist September 2022: The U.S. Surgeon General has called it an urgent public health crisis, a devastating decline in the mental health of kids across the country. According to the CDC, the rates of suicide self-harm anxiety and depression are up among adolescents.

* * *


Fauci, August 2022: And the record will show Neil, that we didn’t recommend shutting everything down.

* * *

Fauci July 2022: First of all I didn’t recommend locking anything down.

* * *

Fauci October 2020: I recommended to the President that we shut the country down. And that was a very difficult decision because I knew it would have serious economic consequences, which it did.


Fauci May 2021: Because if you look at the people that are politicizing me, they’re somebody that all the way over on one level. But there are a lot of other people who look upon me the way they should, as a non-political person that I am.

* * *

Fauci undated: They’re not doing it because they say they don’t want to get their Republicans. They don’t like to be told what to do, and we’ve got to break that.

* * *

Fauci undated: But now is the time to do what you’re told.

Continue Reading

Southwood Smith condemns the lockdown-type stupidity of “experts” like Henry Halford in 1831-32

In this footnote in his book, Smith makes clear that the medical profession of his time was suffering from the SAME KIND OF STUPIDITY that it suffers today:

The wide difference between the qualifications of the accomplished popular physician and the scientific investigator into the causes of epidemic sickness was strikingly exhibited in the first outbreak of Asiatic cholera in 1831, when the emergency required not merely a knowledge of the practice of medicine, but the power also of applying the philosophy of public health to the exigencies of the moment. How were these exigencies provided for?

A board, comprising all the most eminent and skilful physicians of the day, was assembled in the College of Physicians, under the presidency of Sir Henry Halford; and, after declaring, in opposition to the unanimous opinion of the physicians of Bengal, “that no measures of external precaution for preventing the introduction of the cholera morbus by a rigorous quarantine have hitherto been found effectual,” [NOTE: THIS NEEDS TO BE STUDIED FURTHER – WHO WERE THESE SENSIBLE PHYSICIANS!?] they issued the following official notification:—

“To carry into effect the separation of the sick from the healthy, it would be very expedient that one or more houses should be kept in view in each town or its neighbourhood, as places to which every case of the disease, as soon as detected, might be removed, provided the family of the afflicted person consent to such removal; and, in case of refusal, a conspicuous mark, ‘SICK,’ should be placed in front of the house, to warn persons that it is in quarantine; and even when persons with the disease shall have been removed, and the house shall have been purified, the word ‘CAUTION’ should be substituted, as denoting suspicion of the disease; and the inhabitants of such house should not be at liberty to move out or communicate with other persons until, by the authority of the local board, the mark shall have been removed.

“It is recommended that those who may fall victims to this most formidable disease should be buried in a detached ground, in the vicinity of the house that may have been selected for the reception of cholera patients. By this regulation, it is intended to confine, as much as possible, every source of infection to one spot: on the same principle, all persons who may be employed in the removal of the sick from their own houses, as well as all who may attend upon cholera patients in the capacity of nurses, should live apart from the rest of the community.

“Whenever objections arise to the removal of the sick from the healthy, or other causes exist to render such a step not advisable, the same PROSPECT OF SUCCESS IN EXTINGUISHING THE SEEDS OF THE PESTILENCE cannot be expected. Much, however, may be done, even in these difficult circumstances, by following the same principles of prudence, and by avoiding all unnecessary communication with the public out of doors: all articles of food or other necessaries required by the family should be placed in front of the house, and received by one of the inhabitants of the house after the person delivering them shall have retired. Until the time during which the contagion of cholera lies dormant in the human frame has been more minutely ascertained, it will be necessary, for the sake of perfect security, that convalescents from the disease, and those who have had any communication with them, should be kept under observation for a period of not less than twenty days.

“All intercourse with any infected town and the neighbouring country must be prevented, by the best means within the power of the magistrates, who will have to make regulations for the supply of provisions.

Other measures of a more coercive nature may be rendered expedient for the common safety, if unfortunately so fatal a disease should ever show itself in this country, in the terrific way in which it has appeared in various parts of Europe; and it may become necessary to draw troops or a strong body of police around infected places, so as utterly to exclude the inhabitants from all intercourse with the country: and we feel sure that what is demanded for the common safety of the state, will always be acquiesced in with a willing submission to the necessity which imposes it.”

This announcement by the English physicians of 1831 was published throughout the land in the form of an Order of the King in Council. But the strong good sense of the public averted many of the mischiefs which these scientific advisers would have produced, had their counsels been carried into execution. The preventive measures which were eventually adopted by them consisted in prohibiting intercourse between one town and another by sea, and permitting it by land; thus, communication between London and Edinburgh by stage coach was perfectly free and uninterrupted, while communication between those capitals by sea was prohibited with such rigour that no interest, however powerful, could procure an exemption. Francis Jeffrey—at this time holding the high office of Lord Advocate of Scotland, and whose influence, from his personal and official connections, was very great—was unable to obtain permission for his faithful servant, in the last stage of dropsy, to go from London to Leith by water, lest he should carry with him to his native country, by that mode of conveyance, not the dropsy, which he had—but the cholera, which he had not.

“You will be sorry,” writes Jeffrey to Miss Cockburn, “to hear that poor old Fergus is so ill that I fear he will die very soon. I have made great efforts to get him shipped off to Scotland, where he most wishes to go; but the quarantine regulations are so absurdly severe, that, in spite of all my influence with the Privy Council, I have not been able to get a passage for him, and he is quite unable to travel by land; he has decided water in the chest, and swelling in all his limbs. The doctors say he may die any day, and that it is scarcely possible he can recover.”—Cockburn’s Life of Jeffrey, p. 247.

These examples are not adduced for the purpose of casting obloquy on Sir Henry Halford, Dr Maton, and the other eminent physicians their colleagues, who vainly attempted to reduce to practice in the nineteenth century, the standard but obsolete doctrines taught, almost universally, in the medical schools in the country; but solely for the purpose of displaying the state of the science of Public Health in the year 1831–2, as far as the physicians of highest reputation and largest practice may be taken as its exponents.—Origin and Progress of Sanitary Reform, by T. Jones Howell.

Continue Reading

Bill Gates is a neo-Malthusian – obsessed with reducing global/African population.

I’ve now finished my study of Gates’s ideology. He’s definiteely a Malthusian. My proofs in a nutshell:

First, he is ABSOLUTELY OBSESSED with reducing world population.

An executive from his Foundation said publicly that Gates has “legitimate concern over the burgeoning population of the world”.

In Gates’s his Ted talk of 2010 he was into reducing population (even though he admitted, the rich nations emit 20 times more CO2 than the poor ones)

He is OBSESSED with reducing Africa’s population:

“Population growth in Africa is a challenge,” Gates told reporters.

ANYONE WHO CLAIMS THAT POPULATION GROWTH INCREASES POVERTY IS A FULL-BLOWN MALTHUSIAN. To that extent as well, Gates is a Malthusian. Only one thing increases poverty: Socialism. And liberty is the only thing that eliminates poverty.

Why – if these people emit less than 1/20th the CO2 of rich nations?

Second, he is a GREAT FRIEND OF WEF – Klaus Schwab, who comes straight from the Malthusian camp (e.g. Maurice Strong with 2/3rd reduction in world population).

Third, he is a great fan of CCP – its totalitarian methods to control population, presumably, as well.

Fourth, I’ve NEVER heard him MENTION EVEN ONCE the need to reduce poverty by advancing liberty (how can he, when he supports CCP?).

He’s not interested in the removal of poverty but in REDUCING THE NUMBER OF THE (FILTHY?) POOR.

African youth need to be educated. That’s great, but that’s NOT going to reduce poverty. Education is NOT the solution (just see Cuba). Liberty is. If liberty increases, people will get their children educated themselves.

Finally, I’ve not explored in detail, but Gates is almost certainly a supporter of coercive ways of population control:



Continue Reading
Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial