Ever since my fledgling days at UCSF I have refused to take gifts and reprints from pharmaceutical reps. I did that to remain evidence based, and unbiased. But the window to unbiased quality studies is closing fast as someone mentioned, because of agency capture, journal capture and medical practice capture.
When I work with young public health physicians I tell them to review papers carefully for who requested the study, who did the study, who funded the study. Then read the paper with a critical eye.
Took vaccinated rates of myocarditis (no covid infection) and compared it to unknown vaccinated status, with a covid infection.
Divided one by the other and came to the number claiming that infection was 7 times more likely to cause it than vaccination. Truly trash methodology, considering that probably more than 2/3 of the infection arm were vaccinated. They most likely had the data to compare these properly but chose not to.
I entirely agree, John. I am a lifetime subscriber to the NEJM and have been revolted by their partisan editorial bias which has persevered for decades. I remember the Nov 22 masking article and the criticism that I read on Substack at that time. Your analysis is spot on. If the conclusions are important enough AND support the policy preferences of the editorial board, they have published rarely deeply flawed articles. Yes, it is notoriously difficult to do randomized controlled trials of masking but that is no excuse for both publishing deeply flawed studies and then supporting them with a biased editorial. Too many physicians are busy lemmings who have eschewed their responsibilities to hold their leaders and journal editors to the historically high standards of science. The current situation is appalling.
I don’t know that I can help you feel better about the situation, and I’m betting you won’t like my suggestion of a better way, but here are my few cents (however poorly written).
I believe today’s situation rests on a few historical antecedents.
According to a thesis written by a UC Berkeley grad student (I wish I could find it again!) the AMA was created with the intention of elevating “doctors” above all other health care providers (osteopaths, eclectics, herbalists, etc.) and achieving for them greater power, prestige, and money.
Now stir in some philosophical influences: First, Descartes’ division of mind and body is, for one, inaccurate, but also angst-inducing. Second, the primary motivation of Western medicine is to prevent death (versus, for example, promoting health). We are thus left swimming in internal conflict while avoiding the certain future we all face. Creating a medicine devoid of or separate from spiritual significance, whether technically correct or not, invites an existential gap in the mind of creatures who need meaning.
Sprinkle in the dehumanizing effects of technology*, the primal drive for wealth, and other modern-day cultural phenomena, and it is very easy for us to want to believe in something so badly we can’t think clearly any more. Or to simply stop caring about the impacts of what we do. Money, power, fame, or even just the band-aid of hope or delusion… anything is better than the emptiness we experience on a daily basis. Especially since we really are not reckoning with our ultimate fate.
Death gives life meaning. How about taking some inspiration from Atul Gawande and reshaping medicine (and everything else) around what is ahead for all of us? (“The stronger civilization becomes, the more deeply the love of death is buried in the subconscious.” — Antal Szerb)
And… One way of achieving greater awareness of our shared destiny as well as our interconnectedness it to use our hands. *I am convinced that buying all of our daily supplies – rather than making them – creates a void, a sense of inadequacy and insufficiency. Knowing that we can make something useful (clothing, shoes, housing, furniture, tools, food, etc.) and seeing just how productive our hands can be create a fundamental sense of confidence and strength. Understanding how much work goes into what we eat, wear, live in, sleep on, etc. helps us recognize the contributions that others make to our lives. That is how we begin seeing how much we truly depend on each other, valuing each other, and recognizing the impact we have on each other. That, I think, is how we start to see how we harm each other, as well as ourselves, when we cut corners…. say, for example, publishing false information in medical journals.
(One concrete suggestion, for example, is to redesign education from K-8, and perhaps high school, around agriculture, animal husbandry, furniture, building construction, textile production & sewing, etc.)
It's the same in politics. Who sneaks in a policy from a senator's lobbyists under the all-inclusive bill for the President to sign? Who is really running the country, the Democrats, the Republicans, or the NAR, Pharma, NRA? Corruption, short cuts, manipulation run rampant across every platform.
Dr. Mandrola, Thank you for speaking out. You, and other truth speakers, give me hope. I am trying to tell everyone I know to research their choice of physician to try to find someone who is like minded. This is going to be more and more important as future PLandemics are launched on us. Please know how appreciated you are.
My conclusion: Those "top" journals are GARBAGE, not worthy to waste your time even looking at them. The system is indeed broken. It's not health care, it's a get rich scheme, how to make tons of money off of human illness and suffering.
Yes, there are deep flaws in American medicine. However, as a longtime consumer of the NEJM and a retired professor of pediatrics, I can assure that there is great research that is ongoing, uncorrupted by bias or dollars, and progress continues to happen. The smear of the entire pharmaceutical industry and the entire medical profession is ignorant and detrimental. I did NOT get rich working in academic pediatrics for over 40 years. Many surgeons acquire wealth but the majority of physicians do well without getting rich. My greatest objection is that too many physicians do not read and confront the issues of public health malfeasance and transgender care.
It’s a pox on all their houses. The trialists obviously know the methodologies were weak, and/or blatantly biased. Yet they undersold the limitations and oversold their results in the manuscripts. Some of the editorialists had conflicts so huge as to obscure the sun. These journals allowed all of that to occur, without demanding corrections to more clearly and plainly emphasize the limitations while removing the spin.
P.S. Just one more suggestion....Sorry if some of this is repetition from comments on prior articles. Two of the major ethical principles by which doctors are supposed to abide are informed consent, and respecting patient autonomy, which are related, since you can't really respect autonomy if you fail to provide accurate and unbiased information via the consent process. IMO, this is not done well at all. I imagine part of that is due to time constraints, and partly due to lack of knowledge of ARR's and rate of SAE's among physicians. A simple way to communicate that is "The Drug Facts Box." (link below). Perhaps something similar could be created for other types of medical interventions, such as surgeries, although the latter is not always known, given the dearth of studies with sham surgeries. If like-minded physicians lobbied AMA hard to lobby Congress hard to implement this, maybe it would FINALLY be implemented. I've been waiting for 10 years! Ask the FDA what they're waiting for! Maybe ask a known truth teller on an FDA advisory panel like Paul Offit what he knows about it.
I'm a psychologist. Would you like me to do a study of motivations? :) Most people here seem to think money is the main/sole motivation. Probably true, but I don't believe it's conscious most of the time, as our motivations are not always conscious. The other major driver as I see it is ego, which makes it difficult for most people, especially those who are high achievers, to admit they were ever wrong about something, especially within their careers. People are very good at deceiving themselves, and these people are not evil, and not even necessarily narcissists, as some here accuse. They are normal humans operating within a broken system. It will probably get worse before it gets better, but don't give up. Keep speaking up loudly, in as many places as you have access to. I would say to start with the guidelines, because that appears to be about the only thing my PCP ever reads!
ego or money, or both, doesn't much matter. They have lost their direction, lost their purpose, lost their souls, they are no longer seeking to help people heal. Instead, they are feeding off of human suffering. That makes them no better than war mongers or street thugs.
I am a retired pediatric professor and did not acquire wealth during my career nor so most pediatricians. Yes, it matters greatly if the problem is money or values. Pediatricians do seek children for whom to provide care and to heal. They unfortunately have allowed the demands of work to blind them from the larger issues of journal editor political correctness, autocratic public health policies, and the crime of subjecting pubertal children to transgender medical and surgical interventions. We need to confront the education, the worldview, and the ongoing demands of being responsible citizens which have led to so much passivity and silence among responsible physicians.
I very much agree - money is always going to be a motivator BUT in my experience (and that is all I have to go on as I'm unaware of great evidence on this topic) intellectual conflicts of interest are by far the biggest problem. Intellectual COIs are when a researcher/clinician/person has a specific point of view about a topic and that often drives much of what they do and say. All you have to do is look at chronic disease state guidelines (blood pressure, lipids, glucose) to see intellectual COIs in full force. Again in my experience, the recommendations are very much determined not by the best available evidence or patient values and judgements but who is on the committee. That is why our group of primary care clinicians peerevidence.ca decided to abandon being on national guidelines and created our own primary care driven guidelines. Does that mean we have no biases - of course not - but our biases at least aren't driven by lipid beliefs/glucose beliefs/mechanisms but rather by what does the best evidence show for important outcomes and making things simplified and focussing on shared decision-making.
As it happens, I also wrote on this same topic today and it is a real problem. There is an unholy alliance between medical journals, medical academics, and drug company money that distorts the information clinicians use to inform decisions.
NEJM and the Lancet are no longer "top Journals". The Covid experience proved that. The NEJM had one non-doctor (with very limited perspective) Bill Gates, writing an article in the "Perspectives" section, warning us about a "Once in a Century Pandemic" when we hadn't gotten a case yet. While over at the Lancet, they published a letter secretly written by Peter Daszak and signed by 27 leading virology researchers designating anyone who supported the lab origin of the virus, a conspiracy theorist. Sorry, but this disqualifies them from being "top Journals".
don't forget the Lancet published a FAKE study in May 2020 that used FAKE data supplied by a company named Surgisphere. Anyone who knew anything about the "pandemic" knew after reading a couple of sentences that the data was FAKE. The Lancet retracted the "study" two months later in July, but by then the damage had been done. The Lancet is a garbage publication, a marketing arm for Pharma.
Of course I remember that. The NEJM had to retract a fake article too. I left them out of the comment because people keep telling me my comments are too long (which is true,) It's that way because I like to prove everything I say when I say it.
Let’s start with NEJM Porter and Jick - a letter to the editor that states addiction is rare in patients treated with narcotics. A letter that was cited as scientific evidence in 901 scholarly papers, and certainly contributed greatly to the opioid epidemic.
Sadly I have to agree that money is the primary driver of science becoming a business. And of course it is.
Does this mean that all scientists are crooked? Doubt that completely and fully. It seems 99% of people I run across want to do well for their patients. Scientists and doctors are people too - they have families, bills, deal with inflation, and have others to answer to.
I watched the administrative process squeeze docs (and nurses, and plenty of others) into different submissive poses over the years. Some got twisted enough to say, “ENOUGH, I am DONE with trying to help complex patients within 10 minute increments as demanded by admin in order to get a bonus...” or whatever. I have several good friends who tossed in the towel; some changed careers, others (like me) retired early, and still others are twisted into FUBAR shape and don’t have a clue.
I think corporate medicine and science have gone a similar route. And what drives it? Money. It’s ALWAYS money.
Wrong. It is not money. I am a retired pediatric professor and never had a chance to get truly wealthy. I made my choices with a clear mind as have most pediatricians. The real problem relates to the progressive perspective of most medical leaders. Tony Fauci is a prime example He was NOT corrupted by money but by a huge ego and an olympic arrogance. He was wrong about lockdowns and had the temerity to shut out the wisdom of Dr. Scott Atlas, who had legitimate public health expertise, when he was brought to Washington DC by Trump to add a needed perspective to the White House Task Force. Please read Atlas's book, A Plague Upon Our House, to get an unvarnished view of the intellectual corruption endemic in the leadership of American medicine today.
Astounding. Thank you for bringing this to light here.
Ever since my fledgling days at UCSF I have refused to take gifts and reprints from pharmaceutical reps. I did that to remain evidence based, and unbiased. But the window to unbiased quality studies is closing fast as someone mentioned, because of agency capture, journal capture and medical practice capture.
When I work with young public health physicians I tell them to review papers carefully for who requested the study, who did the study, who funded the study. Then read the paper with a critical eye.
Thank you for the discussion
This one is truly awful.
Took vaccinated rates of myocarditis (no covid infection) and compared it to unknown vaccinated status, with a covid infection.
Divided one by the other and came to the number claiming that infection was 7 times more likely to cause it than vaccination. Truly trash methodology, considering that probably more than 2/3 of the infection arm were vaccinated. They most likely had the data to compare these properly but chose not to.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/10/221013104601.htm
I entirely agree, John. I am a lifetime subscriber to the NEJM and have been revolted by their partisan editorial bias which has persevered for decades. I remember the Nov 22 masking article and the criticism that I read on Substack at that time. Your analysis is spot on. If the conclusions are important enough AND support the policy preferences of the editorial board, they have published rarely deeply flawed articles. Yes, it is notoriously difficult to do randomized controlled trials of masking but that is no excuse for both publishing deeply flawed studies and then supporting them with a biased editorial. Too many physicians are busy lemmings who have eschewed their responsibilities to hold their leaders and journal editors to the historically high standards of science. The current situation is appalling.
I don’t know that I can help you feel better about the situation, and I’m betting you won’t like my suggestion of a better way, but here are my few cents (however poorly written).
I believe today’s situation rests on a few historical antecedents.
According to a thesis written by a UC Berkeley grad student (I wish I could find it again!) the AMA was created with the intention of elevating “doctors” above all other health care providers (osteopaths, eclectics, herbalists, etc.) and achieving for them greater power, prestige, and money.
Now stir in some philosophical influences: First, Descartes’ division of mind and body is, for one, inaccurate, but also angst-inducing. Second, the primary motivation of Western medicine is to prevent death (versus, for example, promoting health). We are thus left swimming in internal conflict while avoiding the certain future we all face. Creating a medicine devoid of or separate from spiritual significance, whether technically correct or not, invites an existential gap in the mind of creatures who need meaning.
Sprinkle in the dehumanizing effects of technology*, the primal drive for wealth, and other modern-day cultural phenomena, and it is very easy for us to want to believe in something so badly we can’t think clearly any more. Or to simply stop caring about the impacts of what we do. Money, power, fame, or even just the band-aid of hope or delusion… anything is better than the emptiness we experience on a daily basis. Especially since we really are not reckoning with our ultimate fate.
Death gives life meaning. How about taking some inspiration from Atul Gawande and reshaping medicine (and everything else) around what is ahead for all of us? (“The stronger civilization becomes, the more deeply the love of death is buried in the subconscious.” — Antal Szerb)
And… One way of achieving greater awareness of our shared destiny as well as our interconnectedness it to use our hands. *I am convinced that buying all of our daily supplies – rather than making them – creates a void, a sense of inadequacy and insufficiency. Knowing that we can make something useful (clothing, shoes, housing, furniture, tools, food, etc.) and seeing just how productive our hands can be create a fundamental sense of confidence and strength. Understanding how much work goes into what we eat, wear, live in, sleep on, etc. helps us recognize the contributions that others make to our lives. That is how we begin seeing how much we truly depend on each other, valuing each other, and recognizing the impact we have on each other. That, I think, is how we start to see how we harm each other, as well as ourselves, when we cut corners…. say, for example, publishing false information in medical journals.
(One concrete suggestion, for example, is to redesign education from K-8, and perhaps high school, around agriculture, animal husbandry, furniture, building construction, textile production & sewing, etc.)
It's the same in politics. Who sneaks in a policy from a senator's lobbyists under the all-inclusive bill for the President to sign? Who is really running the country, the Democrats, the Republicans, or the NAR, Pharma, NRA? Corruption, short cuts, manipulation run rampant across every platform.
More evidence that the medical establishment cannot be trusted.
Dr. Mandrola, Thank you for speaking out. You, and other truth speakers, give me hope. I am trying to tell everyone I know to research their choice of physician to try to find someone who is like minded. This is going to be more and more important as future PLandemics are launched on us. Please know how appreciated you are.
My conclusion: Those "top" journals are GARBAGE, not worthy to waste your time even looking at them. The system is indeed broken. It's not health care, it's a get rich scheme, how to make tons of money off of human illness and suffering.
Yes, there are deep flaws in American medicine. However, as a longtime consumer of the NEJM and a retired professor of pediatrics, I can assure that there is great research that is ongoing, uncorrupted by bias or dollars, and progress continues to happen. The smear of the entire pharmaceutical industry and the entire medical profession is ignorant and detrimental. I did NOT get rich working in academic pediatrics for over 40 years. Many surgeons acquire wealth but the majority of physicians do well without getting rich. My greatest objection is that too many physicians do not read and confront the issues of public health malfeasance and transgender care.
“Whoa….I don’t want to go there”.
I’m afraid ur gonna hafta.
It’s a pox on all their houses. The trialists obviously know the methodologies were weak, and/or blatantly biased. Yet they undersold the limitations and oversold their results in the manuscripts. Some of the editorialists had conflicts so huge as to obscure the sun. These journals allowed all of that to occur, without demanding corrections to more clearly and plainly emphasize the limitations while removing the spin.
It is a truly sad state of affairs.
Awesome! Where do I sign up?! :)
P.S. Just one more suggestion....Sorry if some of this is repetition from comments on prior articles. Two of the major ethical principles by which doctors are supposed to abide are informed consent, and respecting patient autonomy, which are related, since you can't really respect autonomy if you fail to provide accurate and unbiased information via the consent process. IMO, this is not done well at all. I imagine part of that is due to time constraints, and partly due to lack of knowledge of ARR's and rate of SAE's among physicians. A simple way to communicate that is "The Drug Facts Box." (link below). Perhaps something similar could be created for other types of medical interventions, such as surgeries, although the latter is not always known, given the dearth of studies with sham surgeries. If like-minded physicians lobbied AMA hard to lobby Congress hard to implement this, maybe it would FINALLY be implemented. I've been waiting for 10 years! Ask the FDA what they're waiting for! Maybe ask a known truth teller on an FDA advisory panel like Paul Offit what he knows about it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3752172/
I'm a psychologist. Would you like me to do a study of motivations? :) Most people here seem to think money is the main/sole motivation. Probably true, but I don't believe it's conscious most of the time, as our motivations are not always conscious. The other major driver as I see it is ego, which makes it difficult for most people, especially those who are high achievers, to admit they were ever wrong about something, especially within their careers. People are very good at deceiving themselves, and these people are not evil, and not even necessarily narcissists, as some here accuse. They are normal humans operating within a broken system. It will probably get worse before it gets better, but don't give up. Keep speaking up loudly, in as many places as you have access to. I would say to start with the guidelines, because that appears to be about the only thing my PCP ever reads!
ego or money, or both, doesn't much matter. They have lost their direction, lost their purpose, lost their souls, they are no longer seeking to help people heal. Instead, they are feeding off of human suffering. That makes them no better than war mongers or street thugs.
I am a retired pediatric professor and did not acquire wealth during my career nor so most pediatricians. Yes, it matters greatly if the problem is money or values. Pediatricians do seek children for whom to provide care and to heal. They unfortunately have allowed the demands of work to blind them from the larger issues of journal editor political correctness, autocratic public health policies, and the crime of subjecting pubertal children to transgender medical and surgical interventions. We need to confront the education, the worldview, and the ongoing demands of being responsible citizens which have led to so much passivity and silence among responsible physicians.
I very much agree - money is always going to be a motivator BUT in my experience (and that is all I have to go on as I'm unaware of great evidence on this topic) intellectual conflicts of interest are by far the biggest problem. Intellectual COIs are when a researcher/clinician/person has a specific point of view about a topic and that often drives much of what they do and say. All you have to do is look at chronic disease state guidelines (blood pressure, lipids, glucose) to see intellectual COIs in full force. Again in my experience, the recommendations are very much determined not by the best available evidence or patient values and judgements but who is on the committee. That is why our group of primary care clinicians peerevidence.ca decided to abandon being on national guidelines and created our own primary care driven guidelines. Does that mean we have no biases - of course not - but our biases at least aren't driven by lipid beliefs/glucose beliefs/mechanisms but rather by what does the best evidence show for important outcomes and making things simplified and focussing on shared decision-making.
As it happens, I also wrote on this same topic today and it is a real problem. There is an unholy alliance between medical journals, medical academics, and drug company money that distorts the information clinicians use to inform decisions.
https://williamhbestermannjrmd.substack.com/p/drug-company-money-and-our-dysfunctional
NEJM and the Lancet are no longer "top Journals". The Covid experience proved that. The NEJM had one non-doctor (with very limited perspective) Bill Gates, writing an article in the "Perspectives" section, warning us about a "Once in a Century Pandemic" when we hadn't gotten a case yet. While over at the Lancet, they published a letter secretly written by Peter Daszak and signed by 27 leading virology researchers designating anyone who supported the lab origin of the virus, a conspiracy theorist. Sorry, but this disqualifies them from being "top Journals".
don't forget the Lancet published a FAKE study in May 2020 that used FAKE data supplied by a company named Surgisphere. Anyone who knew anything about the "pandemic" knew after reading a couple of sentences that the data was FAKE. The Lancet retracted the "study" two months later in July, but by then the damage had been done. The Lancet is a garbage publication, a marketing arm for Pharma.
Of course I remember that. The NEJM had to retract a fake article too. I left them out of the comment because people keep telling me my comments are too long (which is true,) It's that way because I like to prove everything I say when I say it.
Let’s start with NEJM Porter and Jick - a letter to the editor that states addiction is rare in patients treated with narcotics. A letter that was cited as scientific evidence in 901 scholarly papers, and certainly contributed greatly to the opioid epidemic.
Sadly I have to agree that money is the primary driver of science becoming a business. And of course it is.
Does this mean that all scientists are crooked? Doubt that completely and fully. It seems 99% of people I run across want to do well for their patients. Scientists and doctors are people too - they have families, bills, deal with inflation, and have others to answer to.
I watched the administrative process squeeze docs (and nurses, and plenty of others) into different submissive poses over the years. Some got twisted enough to say, “ENOUGH, I am DONE with trying to help complex patients within 10 minute increments as demanded by admin in order to get a bonus...” or whatever. I have several good friends who tossed in the towel; some changed careers, others (like me) retired early, and still others are twisted into FUBAR shape and don’t have a clue.
I think corporate medicine and science have gone a similar route. And what drives it? Money. It’s ALWAYS money.
Wrong. It is not money. I am a retired pediatric professor and never had a chance to get truly wealthy. I made my choices with a clear mind as have most pediatricians. The real problem relates to the progressive perspective of most medical leaders. Tony Fauci is a prime example He was NOT corrupted by money but by a huge ego and an olympic arrogance. He was wrong about lockdowns and had the temerity to shut out the wisdom of Dr. Scott Atlas, who had legitimate public health expertise, when he was brought to Washington DC by Trump to add a needed perspective to the White House Task Force. Please read Atlas's book, A Plague Upon Our House, to get an unvarnished view of the intellectual corruption endemic in the leadership of American medicine today.
I will definitely look at that book! Thank you!