Has Snopes Been Snoped? Will Retraction Watch Retract?

Has Snopes Been Snoped? Will Retraction Watch Retract?
Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Celeste McGovern
May 22, 2017

Originally published on CMSRI.org.

The NEVER-retracted vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study that revealed significantly higher odds in risks of chronic illness among vaccinated children is back online. But will Retraction Watch admit it launched the attack to discredit it? Will Snopes fact-check itself? If not, why not?

The first-ever study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated American children (and a subset study) published two weeks ago in the peer-reviewed Journal of Translational Science have reappeared online after briefly disappearing while under fire from a small band of Skeptics and the staff at Retraction Watch, an organization that reports Science retraction news. Snopes, the fact-checking website, is still misreporting that the study has been retracted, even while it sits, published, in the science journal’s pages.

It is a troubling saga unfolding in the scientific publishing world, and it is worth paying attention to because it’s revealing of powerful forces in that realm that are trying to censor scientific research and to shield important data from public viewing. Not at all the methodical and logical sort of thing you would expect from modern scientific types.  It looks more like a secret 17th century Salem witch trial…interrupted.

Most readers here will be aware of Anthony Mawson et al.’s pivotal pilot study on the health of homeschooled American children. It is one of very few studies to examine the explosion of once rare disorders and conditions affecting modern children (all the millions of 21st century First World earaches, allergies, hayfever, ADD, neurodevelopmental disorders and autism, that is damaging young children’s brains in spiking numbers). And it is the only study (yes, the ONLY study to contain totally unvaccinated American subjects.) There are no other studies of American children who have never had a vaccine compared to kids with the motherload of CDC protection.

The researchers cautiously asked a logical, but unorthodox question: is it possible that all this immune –mediated disease has anything to do with the immune-mediating drugs that children are given in doses five times that of their parents?   (And yes, autism is brain damage but it is almost certainly the result of a damaged immune system). Could it have anything to do with the 50 doses of 15 immune-stimulating vaccines before age six compared to the three doses of three vaccines the last generation — that wasn’t so sick — got?

The researchers got some very troubling answers. They reported Odds Risk ratios similar to smoking and lung cancer for vaccination and immune-mediated allergic rhinitis, for example.  And a more than four-fold higher risk of vaccinated children having been diagnosed on the Autism Spectrum than unvaccinated children. We better have another study, the researchers concluded. A bigger and better study.

Round One: Suppressing the Study Results

Enter the Skeptics. When the Mawson paper was under review at Frontiers last year, a Skeptic named Leonid Schneider leapt into action.

“I pride myself to have caused the Frontiers anti-vaxx retraction with one tweet!” he tweeted. “The anti-vaxx paper was published as abstract, a reader alerted me, I tweeted, Frontiers got scared, pulled the paper.” Before it was published. It was never published. NEVER RETRACTED. Just tweeted away by Leonid and his Skeptic friends.

Most scientists are skeptical — they don’t like claims without evidence – but not all scientists are Skeptics. Skeptics are champions of objective scientific inquiry who fight against anything they see as irrational and unscientific, which is everything outside of pharmaceutical manufacturing interests. Functional Medicine is equal to Bigfoot to them.  They know the difference between Good Thinking and Bad Thinking and some theories (like evolution) they think are very good and some ideas, like God, are particularly bad. They don’t like religion, but Skeptics can be quite dogmatic themselves about some things. Like vaccines. According to them, all vaccines are safe and effective. No one is ever injured by vaccines. Every child is healthier because of vaccines. The epidemic of childhood disorders is caused by something that is not vaccines. Questioning vaccines is heresy.

Retraction Watch, which bills itself as “a window into the scientific process,” got a little more involved than window-watching and inaccurately reported that the study was retracted, based on a Tweet. It ignored that accepting science on its merits, and then rejecting it on Tweets from those who disagree, is in violation of the publishing code of conduct.  Not to mention that there is a big difference in the world of science between having a paper retracted – which implies scientific misconduct or gross scientific error – and having a paper declined because of disgruntled Tweets.

Frontiers publicly posts their retraction policy and affirms that they abide by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and recommendations in cases of potential retraction. Frontiers also abides by two other key principles, as recommended by COPE:

  • Retractions are not about punishing authors.
  • Retraction statements should be public and linked to the original, retracted article.

There was no retraction statement ever made or posted by Frontiers; therefore Retraction Watch’s statement about Dr. Mawson’s paper being retracted is inarguably false. This proven lie was used to interfere with and misconstrue Dr. Mawson’s research, resulting in a temporary removal of his article from The Journal of Translational Science pending an inquiry. Inquiry resolved, the articles have been reinstated on the journal’s website, demonstrating sufficient proof that the articles were never retracted as claimed by Retraction Watch.

Round Two: Discrediting the Study Results

Retraction Watch was again the first to misreport the retraction of the Mawson paper from the Journal of Translational Science last week. Rather than reporting on the facts, Retraction Watch took an activist role in the attempted takedown of Dr. Mawson’s research. Misconstruing and misrepresenting another scientist’s research is considered scientific misconduct. Retraction Watch still has (at the time of writing) an article posted that claims the paper has been doubly retracted. Their actions have a ripple effect, furthering the harm to Dr. Mawson and his younger colleagues, actions which are harmful to reputations, careers, and their future livelihoods. Snopes, the “fact-checking” entity, was still reporting that the papers were retracted because of methodological flaws, with only a tiny disclaimer at the bottom showing the papers restored to the Journal’s webpages. I pointed out the error to the editors and they updated the story today, without apology for inaccuracies.

Continuing to retain articles that are demonstrably and provably false on their website shows a lack of regard for the integrity and truth they espouse to protect. The public should be aware that their representations are not well researched and supported by the facts, and that the due diligence they claim to conduct in the interest of scientific integrity is not as it appears once you scratch the surface.

No answers have been forthcoming from Retraction Watch’s editor Alison Cook. She has not replied to my inquiries. Snopes founder David Mikkelson and managing editor Brooke Binkowski did not reply to messages. I did not receive explanations from the journal editors either.

The Digital Media Law Project publishes guidelines for publishing information that “harms the reputation of another person, group, or organization.” Injury to one’s reputation that stems from a falsehood is defamation, and claiming an article was retracted when it wasn’t is false, defamatory and should be corrected when notice and evidence has been provided to the author of the defamatory article. In the case of the Snopes article, the DMLP states “the republication of someone else’s words can itself be defamatory. In other words, you won’t be immune simply because you are quoting another person making the defamatory statement, even if you properly attribute the statement to its source.”

The DMLP also advises publications to “be prompt and give your correction the same prominent position that you gave the inaccurate information you previously posted.”

Can Snopes and Retraction Watch be Trusted? 

The whole ordeal puts scientific publishing into a bad light. Can it be so easy to push editors out of publishing? Is the code of conduct meaningless? Don’t the researchers have recourse to defend their work if there are allegations against it, in a scholarly manner? Has science stooped so low, so beneath accepted standards of professionalism, that it is time to call in lawyers?

This disturbing event leaves the public bewildered. Is there something to worry about for our children’s health or not? Why did these researchers find such a high risk of autism and other disorders in vaccinated children?  What are the possible mechanisms of immune system injury from vaccination in children?

The way the Mawson study was received undermines public trust in a system that is meant to be seeking better health for humanity. It will continue to erode so long as it fails to answer these questions that our children need answers to, now.

Read More At: GreenMedInfo.com
___________________________________________________________

The Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute (CMSRI) is a medical and scientific collaborative established to provide research funding for independent studies on causal factors underlying the chronic disease and disability epidemic.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

Study: Safety Issues Plagued 1/3 of FDA-Approved Drugs from 2001-2010 Even as President Trump pushes for quicker drug approvals

drugs
Source: NaturalSociety.com
Julie Fidler
May 19, 2017

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is tasked with making sure that drugs and medical devices are safe and efficient for Americans to use. However, it appears that the agency doesn’t take its job seriously enough, because a new study shows that nearly 1/3 of medications approved from 2001 to 2010 had safety issues years after they were made widely available to patients, and some were quite serious. [1]

The study, published May 9 in JAMAshows that 71 of the 222 drugs approved during that time period were withdrawn, required a “black box” due to their side effects, or warranted a safety announcement about new risks.

Source: Center for American Progress

Dr. Joseph Ross, an associate professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine, says:

“While the [Trump] administration pushes for less regulation and faster approvals, those decisions have consequences.”

A 2015 independent analysis of drugs approved using the agency’s expedited approval process found that the trend of speeding approval “is being driven by drugs that are not first in class and thus potentially are less innovative.” [2]

But President Trump isn’t the first president to pressure the FDA to speed up its drug approvals.

On December 13, 2016, President Barack Obama signed the 21st Century Cures Act. The law provides speedier routes to approval by pushing the FDA to consider evidence beyond the normal 3 phases of clinical trials. The move upset many researchers who feared the law would allow the approval of drugs that haven’t been adequately studied.

Says Dr. Vinay Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist and professor at Oregon Health and Sciences University, who wasn’t involved in the study:

“I’m actually sympathetic to the idea that there are ways in which the FDA can be more streamlined and do a quicker job. The one place you don’t want to cut a corner is safety and efficacy prior to coming to market.”

According to the study, during the first decade of the millennium, the FDA approved drugs faster than the U.K.’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the majority of clinical trials in drug approvals involved fewer than 1,000 participants, and lasted 6 months or less, according to the findings. [1]

On average, it took 4 years and 2 months after the drugs were approved for safety issues to emerge. The most troublesome drugs included psychiatric medications, biologic drugs, drugs granted “accelerated approval,” and drugs that gained approval at the tail end of the regulatory period.

But drugs that were granted accelerated approval had the worst track record. Dr. Nicholas S. Downing, an author of the study and a resident physician of internal medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, says:

“The key message with all new drugs and technology is that there is an ongoing learning process that will continue through the lifetime of the drug.

Downing says that scientists need to continuously test drugs to make sure they work with a wide range of variables, and used aspirin as an example. The medication has been used for hundreds of years, yet “there are still countless new studies coming out, and we learn more about it all the time.” [2]

Read More At: NaturalSociety.com

Sources:

[1] Kaiser Health News

[2] CNN

Center for American Progress

New Safety Concerns Identified For 1 in 3 FDA-Approved Drugs


Source: News.Yale.edu
Ziba Kashef
May 9, 2017

Nearly one out of every three drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have a new safety issue detected in the years after approval, says a Yale-led study. While most of the safety concerns are not serious enough to require withdrawal of a drug from the market, the finding highlights the need for ongoing surveillance of new drugs in the post-market period, said the researchers.

The findings were published May 9 in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

To assess new drugs for safety and effectiveness, the FDA relies on premarket drug testing and clinical trials. Most of the trials involve fewer than 1,000 patients studied over a period of six months or less, making it difficult to detect safety issues that might be identified once more patients use the drug over a longer time period. To identify factors that might enhance patient safety and regulatory surveillance efforts, the Yale-led team analyzed data on new drugs approved between 2001 and 2010, with follow up through 2017.

The research team, led by associate professor of medicine and public health Dr. Joseph Ross, found that 32% of new drugs were flagged for a safety issue after approval. “That is very rarely a drug withdrawal, but more commonly a black box warning, or drug safety communication issued by the FDA to let physicians and patients know that new safety information has been determined,” said Ross.

The researchers also identified characteristics of drugs that were more likely to be associated with a safety concern, including biologic therapies and drugs that were approved through the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway.

While the study results point to the need for ongoing monitoring of newly approved drugs, they also demonstrate that the FDA’s current process is working. “The fact that the FDA is issuing safety communications means it is doing a good job of following newly approved drugs and evaluating their safety up in the post-market period,” Ross noted.

At a time when the FDA is under pressure to accelerate drug approvals, the study findings provide key information about the agency’s process. “It shows that there is the potential for compromising patient safety when drug evaluation is persistently sped up,” said Ross. At the very least, the study should inform ongoing debate about premarket drug evaluation, the researchers said.

Other authors on the study are Nicholas Downing, Nilay Shah, Jenerius Aminawung, Alison Pease, Jean-David Zeitoun, and Harlan Krumholz. All authors have completed the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest, which are detailed in the study.

There was no funding for this research.

Read More At: News.Yale.edu

Retractions & Errors Driving Loss of Faith in the Peer Review Process

MedicalStudies
Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Jeffrey Jaxen
April 26, 2017

Establishment medical professionals are quick to hold up peer-reviewed studies as the gold standard, argument-ending proof in an attempt to shut down valid discussions around ‘alternative’ health and healing.

Major medical and science journals have long-been considered the sacred cows from which information gets disseminated down through the roots of mainstream medicine with unquestioning adherence mirroring religious dogma. What if this peer-reviewed research was flawed? What if major medical journals acted as gatekeepers long-crafting a health paradigm that favored only limited and dangerous pharmaceutical interventions?

It was recently reported that the journal Tumor Biology is retracting 107 research papers after discovering that the authors faked the peer review process. The same journal pulled 25 research papers the previous year for the same reason. On April 20 Springer, who publishes Tumor Biology, released this statement:

The current retractions are not a new case of integrity breach but are the result of a deeper manual investigation which became necessary after our previous retractions from Tumor Biology in 2016. The extent of the current retractions was not obvious from the earlier investigations in 2015. We are retracting these published papers because the peer review process required for publication in our journals had been deliberately compromised by fabricated peer reviewer reports.

Springer added that since the screening and investigations are still ongoing they cannot give further details at this point. Since the journal recently discovered the “deliberately compromised” [research fraud], what is the medical community and public to make of the accuracy of all the journal’s publications before 2015?

Unfortunately, Springer’s Tumor Biology fiasco is yet another black-eye for a medical community that refuses to clean up its own backyard as it constantly throws stones from its glass house.

Widely reported in May of 2015, Richard Smith, who edited the British Medical Journal for more than a decade, said there was no evidence that peer review was a good method of detecting errors and claimed that “most of what is published in journals is just plain wrong or nonsense”. Smith went further to say “If peer review was a drug it would never get on the market because we have lots of evidence of its adverse effects and don’t have evidence of its benefit…It’s time to slaughter the sacred cow.” The public appears to be witnessing a slow motion admittance of continuous criminal research fraud.

Is the research fraud limited to a few bad apples? In 2015 the journal Science published a paper titled ‘Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science’ in which 270 researchers attempted the first-ever large-scale effort to reproduce 100 previously published psychological science findings. The researchers discovered they could replicate less than half of the original findings concluded by Psychological Science, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. These findings harken back to the words of Dr. Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, when speaking about the mental health profession as a whole he stated, “A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science.”

In 2015 Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of The Lancet, attended a London symposium on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research. Those in attendance were asked not to take photographs of the slides while those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments remain unquoted. Weeks later Horton published a shocking paper in the Lancet titled ‘What is medicine’s 5 sigma?’ Horton writes:

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue….We aid and abet the worst behaviors. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals…The apparent endemicity of bad research behavior is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world.

Former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine Marcia Angell published a research article in 2009 titled ‘Drug Companies and Doctors: A Story of Corruption.’ In the piece Angell states, among other damning claims, the following:

In view of this control and the conflicts of interest that permeate the enterprise, it is not surprising that industry-sponsored trials published in medical journals consistently favor sponsors’ drugs—largely because negative results are not published, positive results are repeatedly published in slightly different forms, and a positive spin is put on even negative results.”

Research having industry ties in which regulatory approval relies on has shown to be no different. The highly publicized 2015 reanalysis [iii of SmithKline Beecham’s 2001 Study 329 illustrates the necessity of making primary trial data and protocols available. Study 329s objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of paroxetine and imipramine with a placebo in the treatment of adolescents with major depression. The reanalysis, under the restoring invisible and abandoned trials (RIAT) initiative, found that neither drug showed efficacy. In addition, both drugs displayed an increase in harm. Far from an isolated incident, Study 329 was corroborated a year later in 2016 by the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology which looked at 185 meta-analyses of antidepressant studies with industry involvement. The researchers found that one-third of the studies were written by pharmaceutical industry employees and concluded:

There is a massive production of meta-analyses of antidepressants for depression authored by or linked to the industry, and they almost never report any caveats about antidepressants in their abstracts.

13 months after the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest and six other organizations, 62 scientists and physicians, and five United States Senators asked the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health to publish the disclosures, PubMed announced in March it will include conflict-of-interest statements with study abstracts. Will these seemingly mild efforts be enough to thwart the temptation of research fraud when careers and billions of industry dollars hang in the balance? How can science be settled if there is, and has been, corruption in the peer review process?”

Read More at: GreenMedInfo.com
________________________________________________________________________

References:

Torgny Stigbrand. Retraction Note to multiple articles in Tumor Biology. Tumor Biol. (2017). doi:10.1007/s13277-017-5487-6

Le Noury, John M Nardo, David Healy, Jon Jureidini, Melissa Raven, Catalin Tufanaru, Elia Abi-Jaoude. Restoring Study 329: efficacy and harms of paroxetine and imipramine in treatment of major depression in adolescence BMJ 2015; 351 doi:10.1136/bmj.h4320

Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 28 Aug 2015:Vol. 349, Issue 6251, aac4716 DOI: 10.1126/science.aac4716

Peter Doshi, Kay Dickersin, David Healy, S Swaroop Vedula, Tom Jefferson. Restoring invisible and abandoned trials: a call for people to publish the findings BMJ 2013; 346 doi: 10.1136/bmj.f2865

Richard Horton. What is medicine’s 5 sigma? the Lancet.Volume 385, No. 9976, p1380, 11 April 2015. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60696-1

Shanil Ebrahim, Sheena Bance, Abha Athale, Cindy Malachowski, John P.A. Ioannidis. Meta-analyses with industry involvement are massively published and report no caveats for antidepressants. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Feb 16 Volume 70, Pages 155–163 doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.021

Collins M. PubMed Conflicts of Interest Statements Updates March 2017. NLM Tech Bull. 2017 Mar­Apr;(415):e2.

Academic Research May Not Be Accurate 85 Percent of the Time

academicresearch
Source: TheDailyBell.com
February 27, 2017

Universities in America have typically been dominated by a liberal
bias. … The mindset of employees at such institutions is quite different than one might think. We’re not going to name any names in this essay; this isn’t about a person or individual University. It’s about the intellectual class, really the only public intellectual class in America with any respect; the Ivory Tower. If you haven’t heard this expression before, it refers to the high brow raised lip attitude class of University Professors and their associates. They have influence on every aspect of society. -ZeroHedge

This article states that academia is changing for the better after so many years of getting worse. It also makes the point that academia doesn’t really have any power, certainly not the way business does.

The intellectual class, the article says, is like Adam Smith’s hidden hand. They are subtle advisers who don’t control things “like the Illuminati does.”

They have influence rather than out-right power but they know how to wield that influence. They’ve influenced “literally every aspect of human life in America.”

More:

…  Have you been hearing recently “Studies show that … Obamacare is more popular after the election” or some such nonsense. Who are they polling? They claim their polls aren’t biased, they are scientific. But these are the polls and methods that had Trump losing by a landslide!

What does this mean? The article states we’re experiencing a major paradigm shift in which the influence exercised by academia is gradually waning.

“Many published research findings are false or exaggerated, and an estimated 85 percent of research resources are wasted.” It’s likely that some researchers are consciously cherry-picking data to get their work published … The problems of false findings often begin with researchers unwittingly fooling themselves: they fall prey to cognitive biases, common modes of thinking that lure us toward wrong but convenient or attractive conclusions.

This is a good deal of falsity, a massive amount actually, enough to render the entire academic infrastructure unworkable. But it feels right to us. We’ve wondered ourselves about the polls that show such a visceral and deep dislike for Donald Trump.

The article states that “We interpret observations to fit a particular idea. Psychologists have shown that “most of our reasoning is in fact rationalization.” Within this context academic “studies” can certainly have a large amount of rationalization. Scientists may ask “How am I right?” instead of asking, “How am I wrong,” which is what should be asked.

Partially as a result of the Trump election, the Ivory Tower Psychosis is happening in an obvious way now, at a class level, as a group.  Reality is crashing down, as it doesn’t fit with a given “reality.”

Their “Reality Based Community” is coming apart. The reality generated by empire is not working properly at a time when the current administration is anti-empire in many ways.

This is a very important point, though we would tend to think that the crashing of this reality is ultimately related to the Illuminati itself. We don’t think any of these realities are entirely de-linked.

In fact to take it a step further, we’ve often observed that, at this point in time, a chief goal is to spread chaos. There’s no reason why at the very top, chaos is being disseminated in academia as well as elsewhere.

Conclusion: In that case, the current chaos will probably grow a good deal worse along with many other kinds of disruption. The ultimate goal is to take down existing society and academia is part of that larger structure. It will therefore be part of the larger chaos and the disruption will continue.

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com

NOAA got caught faking global warming temperature data… so where is the apology for spreading fake science?

climatechange
Source: NaturalNews.com
Robert Jonathan
February 17, 2017

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has yet to apologize for publishing some fake climate science that apparently ushered in the December 2015 Paris Climate Agreement.

The agency claims it is looking into the scandal.

In a bombshell scoop in the Daily Mail, an NOAA whistleblower alleged that the agency rushed out a paper containing manipulated data to influence or convince the COP21 conference that no pause or slowdown in global warming had occurred in the last decade or two.

The politicized NOAA “pausebuster” report that discredited a generally accepted notion of a slowdown or hiatus apparently convinced pandering and science-illiterate world leaders like Barack Obama and then-U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron and others to sign off on the climate change agreement, with the ordinary taxpayer picking up the tab.

Despite all the hype, COP21 imposes no mandates on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that each country must reduce, although countries agreed to limit average global warming to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures.

“The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected…But the whistleblower, Dr. John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail…irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data. It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr. Bates devised,” the Daily Mail explained about the cooked calculations.

Describing the NOAA as the chief advocate for man-made climate change, Health Ranger Mike Adams, the founder of Natural News, asserted earlier this month that the agency fabricates temperature data as a standard practice to justify its doomsday forecasts. Adams has separately detailed that the oft-repeated claim that 97% of scientists agree that man-made climate change is settled science  — as if science is ever settled — is a bunch of hot air. (RELATED: Read more about the climate change movement at ClimateScienceNews.com.)

In a follow-up story, the Daily Mail noted that “flawed as it was, the Pausebuster paper unquestionably helped persuade world leaders to sign an agreement that imposes massive emissions cuts on developed countries.”

The NOAA claims that it will review the Bates allegations, the Washington Times indicated, whatever that means. In the meantime, left-wing websites and climate change industry cultists have predictably circled the wagons around the NOAA. (RELATED: Read more about fake science predictions at FakeScience.news.)

U.S. Rep Lamar Smith, chair of the House Science Committee, says that the NOAA has to date stonewalled requests for background information on the pausebuster paper.

Cameron’s signature on the pact will cost U.K. taxpayers about $400 billion in emissions-reductions commitments by the year 2030 along with additional climate aid to developing countries, the Daily Mail added. It’s likely that Obama put U.S. consumers on the hook for a similar outlay.

President Trump has yet to make a final decision about bailing on the Paris accord. If Trump wants to get out, the Congressional Research Service has come up with three different exit strategies, The Daily Caller noted. One is to withdraw as of November 2019 (as provided for in the text of the agreement), do an end-run by getting rid of Obama’s overall Climate Action Plan, or ditching the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the parent treaty, although this may require Congressional approval.

Parenthetically, in his new movie, grandstanding globalist Al Gore, a.k.a. the climate con man, is also engaged in some reverse-engineering by justifying his apocalyptic weather whopper about the danger of flooding in lower Manhattan by referencing Hurricane Sandy rather than melting ice caps.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

DailyMail.co.uk

DailyMail.co.uk

WashingtonTimes.com

DailyCaller.com

Boom: Thousands Of Medical Studies Found To Be Useless

fakenews

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
February 14, 2017

I’m talking about little defenders of consensus science, bloggers who love and adore every official pronouncement that comes down the pipeline from medical journals and illustrious doctors.

Dear Bloggers: Thousands of published studies you cite and praise are wrong, useless, irrelevant, deceptive—and the medical journals know it, and they’re doing nothing useful about it.

The issue? Cell lines. These cells are crucial for lab research on the toxicity of medical drugs, and the production of proteins. Knowing exactly which cell lines are being studied is absolutely necessary.

And therein lies the gigantic problem.

Statnews.com has the bombshell story (July 21, 2016):

“Recent estimates suggest that between 20 percent and 36 percent of cell lines scientists use are contaminated or misidentified — passing off as human tissue cells that in fact come from pigs, rats, or mice, or in which the desired human cell is tainted with unknown others. But despite knowing about the issue for at least 35 years, the vast majority of journals have yet to put any kind of disclaimer on the thousands of studies affected.”

“One cell line involved are the so-called HeLa cells. These cancerous cervical cells — named for Henrietta Lacks, from whom they were first cultured in the early 1950s — are ubiquitous in labs, proliferate wildly — and, it turns out, contaminate all manner of cells with which they come into contact. Two other lines in particular, HEp-2 and INT 407, are now known to have been contaminated with HeLa cells, meaning scientists who thought they were working on HEp-2 and INT 407 were in fact likely experimenting on HeLa cells.”

“Christopher Korch, a geneticist at the University of Colorado, has studied the issue. According to Korch, nearly 5,800 articles in 1,182 journals may have confused HeLa for HEp-2; another 1,336 articles in 271 journals may have mixed up HeLa with INT 407. Together, the 7,000-plus papers have been cited roughly 214,000 times, Science reported last year.”

“And that’s just two cell lines. All told, more than 400 cell lines either lack evidence of origin or have become cross-contaminated with human or other animal cells at some point in their laboratory lineage. Cell lines are often chosen for their ability to reproduce and be bred for long periods of time, so they’re hardy buggers that can move around a lab if they end up on a researcher’s gloves, for example. ‘It’s astonishingly easy for cell lines to become contaminated,’ wrote Amanda Capes-Davis, chair of the International Cell Line Authentication Committee, in a guest post for Retraction Watch. ‘When cells are first placed into culture, they usually pass through a period of time when there is little or no growth, before a cell line emerges. A single cell introduced from elsewhere during that time can outgrow the original culture without anyone being aware of the change in identity’.”

Getting the picture?

HUGE numbers of published studies are based on knowing which cells are being used and tested. And much of the time, the researchers don’t know. They pretend they do, but they don’t.

Their work is completely unreliable.

Everyone involved (for decades) looks the other way.

It’s the secret no one wants to talk about.

Thousands and thousands and thousands of medical studies are useless, and their conclusions are unfounded, and turn out to be random.

This is like saying, “Well, we built all those buildings in the city, but the concrete we used was probably cardboard. Let’s not talk about it. Let’s just wait and see what happens.”

Millions of patients who are taking drugs are guinea pigs. Researchers originally tested the toxicity of drugs on cells they assumed were relevant, but they were wrong. They said the drugs were safe, but they were working with cells that had no bearing on safety.

This is one reason why, on July 26, 2000, Dr. Barbara Starfield, a highly respected public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, could conclude, in the Journal of the American Association, that FDA approved medical drugs kill 106,000 Americans every year—which becomes a MILLION deaths per decade.

The original researchers on those drugs pretended they knew what they were doing.

Pretended.

Everything I’m describing and citing in this article?

The FDA knows about it.

The CDC knows about it.

The World Health Organization knows.

National health departments all over the world know.

Medical schools know.

Many doctors know.

Many, many researchers know.

Many hospital executives know.

All pharmaceutical executives know.

Many mainstream medical reporters know.

All medical journals know.

But they continue to promote life-destroying fake news.

Blog that.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.