While we are on the subject of conflicts, I am still waiting for the Pharmaceutical Purity Priesthood to connect the dots between those who comment on pharmaceutical funding and their funding from George Soros. While doing so, here's a great piece by Michael Fumento in the Weekly Standard on how the Lancet continues to ignore and coverup the Soros funding of the now deeply discredited 2006 Lancet study of Iraqi war deaths. Not only did the Lancet hide the Soros funding and not ask the authors to disclose the funding, it timed the release of the highly inflated numbers to the weeks running up to the 2006 mid-term election where of course it received maximum coverage.
Fumento writes:
"Horton spoke at a rally in 2006 sponsored by Stop the War Coalition, a British group set up on September 21, 2001, which is to say its purpose was to oppose punishing and defeating the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack. At the rally, Horton shouted about the "mountain of violence and torture" in Iraq--and no, he wasn't talking about Saddam. "This axis of Anglo-American imperialism extends its influence through war and conflict, gathering power and wealth as it goes, so millions of people are left to die in poverty and disease," he angrily added. This is not your father's medical journal editor.
As National Journal revealed, Lancet's 2006 study was about half funded by antiwar billionaire George Soros, who in a November 2003 Washington Post interview said that removing President Bush from office was the "central focus of my life" and "a matter of life and death." This no doubt explains the release of the Lancet study four weeks before the 2006 midterm elections, just as Lancet's 2004 study was released days before the presidential election. Even the magazine's ardent defenders don't claim the timing was a coincidence.
The 2006 Lancet report states only, "Funding was provided by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Center for Refugee and Disaster Response of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health." Soros is known for concealing his massive political donations, and the Lancet was complicit on this occasion."
As I have noted before, there are many sources of bias and conflict in publications. Financial conflict is but one. I would say political and ideological bias looms larger and is more problematic. As I will argue in future posts, a new pseusdscience of pseudocertainty is forming around meta-analysis to feed into the desire of trial attorneys to usurp FDA control over drug labeling authority. My guess is that much of the leftist and purist blogosphere will fall into line around using meta-analysis to challenge the FDA's right of pre-emption on the subjective grounds that it is a "captive" of the industry it regulates. Again, this challenge ignores outcomes and risks and arrogates the framing of those risks to trial attorneys and "their" experts who are funded by....George Soros, trial attorney backed groups, etc.
Not coincidentally, though this is entirely speculation on my part, the Lancet was the source of the article that claimed the MMR vaccines caused autism.
http://www.fumento.com/military/lancet2008.html
Fumento writes:
"Horton spoke at a rally in 2006 sponsored by Stop the War Coalition, a British group set up on September 21, 2001, which is to say its purpose was to oppose punishing and defeating the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack. At the rally, Horton shouted about the "mountain of violence and torture" in Iraq--and no, he wasn't talking about Saddam. "This axis of Anglo-American imperialism extends its influence through war and conflict, gathering power and wealth as it goes, so millions of people are left to die in poverty and disease," he angrily added. This is not your father's medical journal editor.
As National Journal revealed, Lancet's 2006 study was about half funded by antiwar billionaire George Soros, who in a November 2003 Washington Post interview said that removing President Bush from office was the "central focus of my life" and "a matter of life and death." This no doubt explains the release of the Lancet study four weeks before the 2006 midterm elections, just as Lancet's 2004 study was released days before the presidential election. Even the magazine's ardent defenders don't claim the timing was a coincidence.
The 2006 Lancet report states only, "Funding was provided by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Center for Refugee and Disaster Response of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health." Soros is known for concealing his massive political donations, and the Lancet was complicit on this occasion."
As I have noted before, there are many sources of bias and conflict in publications. Financial conflict is but one. I would say political and ideological bias looms larger and is more problematic. As I will argue in future posts, a new pseusdscience of pseudocertainty is forming around meta-analysis to feed into the desire of trial attorneys to usurp FDA control over drug labeling authority. My guess is that much of the leftist and purist blogosphere will fall into line around using meta-analysis to challenge the FDA's right of pre-emption on the subjective grounds that it is a "captive" of the industry it regulates. Again, this challenge ignores outcomes and risks and arrogates the framing of those risks to trial attorneys and "their" experts who are funded by....George Soros, trial attorney backed groups, etc.
Not coincidentally, though this is entirely speculation on my part, the Lancet was the source of the article that claimed the MMR vaccines caused autism.
http://www.fumento.com/military/lancet2008.html
