In essence, society’s attention has become focused on vaccination, focused solely on this health treatment. But TREATMENT is not what creates health, treatment is what changes or manages a persons’ symptoms of poor health. Instead of focusing solely on the treatment, there needs to be a shift. We need to evaluate the treatment in the context of the whole - what is working about the treatment? What needs improving? What is failing completely? How does the treatment affect evolution of the species? And how can health be supported moving forward so that the treatment is no longer needed?
United States

May 18, 2018

March 30, 2017

Please reload

Recent Posts

Table of Contents

May 18, 2018

Please reload

Featured Posts

The Pharmaceutical Reach: Part 6 of 14 - Scientific Research

Feel free to jump to the heading "Safety Net #3" below, everything stated until then is a repeat of what was written on the first post.


When it comes to products that are available for purchase, there are many safety nets that are established, to protect consumers from dangerous products, and to ensure that products are designed, manufactured, and distributed in such a way that potential harms can be more easily minimized, and/or identified more quickly once in distribution. Unfortunately, there are shortcomings in many of these consumer safety nets, or industry has found a way to bypass some of those protective measures. As a result, unsafe products continue to be made and distributed widely. What’s more unique to vaccines though, is that every single safety net that was established to protect people and ensure product safety, all those protective measures have actually all been neutralized by the pharmaceutical industry. This neutralization has happened either by direct financial funding from pharma, or indirectly through Governmental conflicts of interest that affect internal policy, bureaucracy, and legislation. But before explaining how the consumer protective safety nets have been neutralized when it comes to vaccines, I’ll first list what those protective measures were, or should be. (Bolding in the list below denotes which topic point will be discussed in this article).


The consumer safety nets for vaccine products are:

  1. Government and our political leaders who represent the people

  2. Federal agencies that oversee vaccine regulation, research, safety, and distribution: These agencies include: Health and Human Services (HHS), The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), The Centers for Disease Control (CDC), The Institute of Medicine (IOM). Yes, these agencies are all based in the United States, however their policy are often adopted on a global scale.

  3. Scientific research and medical journals

  4. Our doctors and the institutions where they are educated and employed

  5. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)

  6. The media

  7. The legal system

ADD Dr. HARPER - testing to show any efficacy/safety

ADD Dr. HORTON/ANGELL - Research is false


Safety Net #3: Scientific Research and the Medical Journals

In this article, we will be discussing how scientific research plays a role in protecting the public, and how scientific research has been compromised by pharmaceutical financial influence.


Scientific research has been neutralized as a consumer safety net, because pharma conducts a good portion of the vaccine research. It is a proven fact that industry funded research is more likely to show favourable conclusions for the drug or vaccine.


In a lecture (link Here) given by Dr. Marcia Angell, she states:

  • clinical trials, which are sponsored by the industry are usually designed by industry to optimize the potential of favourable conclusions for the drug

  • clinical trials test drugs in young, healthy people, because they are less likely to experience side effects

  • clinical trials provide important information, but that data is not a true representation of all potential side effects. Angell describes how once a drug is licensed for use in the general population, people of varying health conditions, people with different exposures to various medications are all given the drug, and because of that, the drug side effects increase and can include much more serious reactions than was observed during the clinical trial.

  • an effective post marketing surveillance program is necessary, to monitor drug side effects once a drug is licensed for use by the general public

Cochrane has also stated that favourable vaccine conclusions are often reached, even when the data within the study doesn’t support the final conclusions made. To quote Cochrane (Link Here):

Conclusions favourable to the use of influenza vaccines were associated with a higher risk of bias. In these studies, the authors made claims and drew conclusions that were unsupported by the data they presented. In addition, industry-funded studies are more likely to have favourable conclusions, to be published in significantly higher-impact factor journals and to have higher citation rates than non-industry-funded studies. This difference is not explained by either their size or methodological quality


A British Medical Journal (BMJ) Paper (Link Here) concluded (direct quote, emphasis mine):


What is already known on this topic:

  • Study sponsorship is associated with optimistic results

  • Influenza vaccination continues to be recommended globally, despite growing doubts about the validity of the scientific evidence underpinning policy recommendations

What this study adds:

  • Evidence is of poor quality, and studies with conclusions in favour of vaccines are of significantly lower methodological quality

  • Influenza vaccines studies sponsored by industry are published in journals with higher impact factors and are cited more but are of similar size and quality to the others

To quote a Radio Canada International article (link Here):

In terms of clinical research for new drugs, the huge pharmaceutical companies fund the bulk of such research.


Dr Lexchin feels those who fund the research create the evidence.


He says pharmaceuticals funding of the research can create biases in favour of their new drugs tests in terms of the choice of standards, other drugs to be compared against, publishing only positive trials, and not the negative or inconclusive ones, and potentially re-interpreting data submitted to regulatory agencies.


He notes that when drug companies submit data to Health Canada towards gaining approval for new drugs, the government considers that data as “proprietary” to the drug companies and does not release it for review by others unless agreed to by the company.


I encourage you to listen to a 10 minute interview on that page, with Dr. Lexchin (Link Here), where he summarizes how compromised medical research is becoming.


Article Sources

  • Lecture by Dr. Marcia Angell - Corruption and Influence of Pharma Here

  • Cochrane Review - favourable research is often pharma biased Here

  • BMJ paper - research that is favourable towards the vaccine is often of poorer methodological quality Here

  • Dr. Lexchin - those who fund the research create the evidence Here


Continue to the next post in this series: Here


You are currently on Part 6 of a 14 Part Series.

View a Post in the Series Using the Links Below:

Part 1: Consumer Safety Nets Here

Part 2: HHS

Part 3: The FDA Here 

Part 3: The CDC Here 

Part 4: The DHHS & IOM Here 

Part 5: Scientific Research (You are on this page)

Part 6: Scientific Research Corruption Here 

Part 7: The Medical Journals Here 

Part 8: Our Doctors Here 

Part 9: Doctors Responsibility Events Here 

Part 10: Medical Institutions Here 

Part 11: VAERS Here 

Part 12: The Media Here 

Part 13: The Legal System Here 



Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Please reload

Follow Us
Please reload

Search By Tags
Please reload

  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square