Jul 10, 2023·edited Jul 10, 2023Liked by William H Bestermann Jr MD
I don't think you realize the peer-reviewed journals are corrupted also. If you actually read the studies, many of them argue for the repurposed drugs, even though their headline and abstract was negative. Many were set up to fail using dangerously high doses or choosing patients far too late into the sickness. You have to actually read each paper to see the corruption. The censorship of very good studies is breathtaking and so depressing. I have read countless papers that have come out both pro and con. The evidence is overwhelming In favor of using effective repurpose drugs along with solid protocols. See for instance flccc.net excellent protocols . Around the world many countries use similar early treatment protocols, but the US with the highest covid deathrate remains stiff necked and blind.
Among others, the FLCCC also provide wonderful analysis of the big papers as they came out, both " peer reviewed" and censored. I am a peer reviewer for scientific papers so I know how to read them. It is tragic how many unnecessary deaths there were. The corruption is complete throughout the medical industry. I battled it personally 20 years ago when my eyes were opened about statins and niacin. Sadly it's the same across the board. If you have only read mainstream medical papers, then you are correct, you have not seen much evidence and you also did not critically assess the methods in those papers. I cannot help you on that. But you need to read all the papers and talk to the real doctors who treated hundreds and thousands of patients using effective early treatment protocols. Their patients did not get long COVID and did not die. Early treatment must be started as soon as symptoms appear. Prophylactic protocols also are extremely effective.
The scientific method compares treatments for diseases using the techniques that you obviously know about. I share your frustration, but I don't agree that corruption is universal in the peer reviewed literature. That system needs to be reformed but not discarded. For example, I could find an article on metformin that has dramatic beneficial effects on COVID. That is a repuposed drug that works. The answer to corrupted science is to push hard for valid science. Ditching the entire concept of peer review will not work in the long run
The concept is noble. However, the racketeers have hijacked the process, Bill. We need a completely new system of distributed data access, an independent, argumentative, noisy, uncensored, unadulterated, lucid, objective, reproducible, and replicable system of reviews without the tainted Pay-to-Paly schemers. In addition, dissenting voices must be allowed and not silenced without taboo.
It is long overdue. Silence is complicity over this deep systematic corruption, Bill. This appalling systematic corruption and refusing to be morally injured were the major reasons I walked away from ALL these in 1997 to start my journey to create the MCG Technology Platform to spearhead building the new brave world.
For myself, I went further. I asked for the datasets and original protocols of some "groundbreaking" trials. What did I get in return? NADA! What does that tell you? There was zero transparency and accountability. These people are hiding the truth and their misdeeds.
a for profit scheme paid for by taxpayers and health insurance. This isn't "health "at all we really are off track. If you consider benefit vs risk this system is very high risk.
I would not use any information from this link. It takes money to fund science. That science and subsequent data needs to be valid, true, and reproducible. Scientists are very concerned about some articles appearing as credible only to be refu
For myself, I went further. I asked for the datasets and original protocols of some "groundbreaking" trials. What did I get in return? NADA! What does that tell you? There was zero transparency and accountability. These people are hiding the truth and their misdeeds.
Completely agree. Pharma has taken over medicine, corrupting the doctors and healthcare, completely forgetting the patients. Push more and more $$$ expensive drugs. The covid fiasco put it all on center stage as the medical cartel preferred seeing people die rather than recommending early treatment with repurposed very effective drugs to stop the virus in its tracks. It is shameful and in every sector. The diabetes study is just more of the same. So sad for trusting consumers who do not know better. Sad state of affairs.
There is a difference between COVID and diabetes. I have found all of this diabetes information in the peer reviewed literature. There are still good articles there and there are very misleading articles. I have not found articles in the peer-reviewed medical literature to support ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine use. You are on the right track but it is important to follow the scientific method.
Just like how CDC/FDA/NIH Fauchi and Collin’s attacks on the effectiveness of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, these people will attack OMT and Metformin to ensure they succeed in their relentless campaign pushing these less effective but high cost drugs instead. The same propaganda games they play in the American Medical Industrial Complex sponsored kabuki dance theatrics. Shameless.
The ones presented to you were hit pieces by the paid mouthpiece of the establishment. There are hundreds of trials published from around the world by honest researchers. These people have no bones in the story. Look them up. They are “not promoted” as this one you mentioned, Bill.
Or was it political spin doctors? I work with these agencies they have no power to act alone. They have a chain of command. There is no evidence at all of your claims. Yes bad articles were written that were able to fool people. It caused confusion and sadly bad advice. Dr. Bestermann is pointing this out that we are turning towards very expensive choices where we already have the tools to create healthier people. But our current system needs improvement and we want to point people in right direction and stop the spin doctoring.
I attended a seminar where it was discussed we need science not politics making decisions based on true fact not for benefit of increased profits. Listen to Dr. Bestermann who highlights optimal medical therapies based off of valid data and not deep pockets. We do need politicians ensuring science is funded and that money is well spent not squandered. Keep in mind we don’t need political spin Doctors. This causes tainted advice and harm. In United States clearly we need to be careful not to scapegoat scientists or science. Politics seems to get in the way leading to bad outcomes as we have all observed in the past few years. Imagine if politicians push the more expensive drugs.
The FauxScinceGuy Fauxi typified the kind of “spin doctor” who controlled the purses of NIH to dictate the narratives favoring the big pharmaceutical and device companies. The end result was disastrous.
Decentralization of the data sources and open access for research purposes and unbiased reporting are key factors required to achieve this goal. Everyone who contributes to this initiative should be encouraged and supported with digital tools to monetize their work. The goal is to discover the best ways for the best possible patient-centered solutions with the best outcomes for the lowest costs.
We can blame Fauci but you now see how bad evil science harms and misleads. How do we moving forward avoid situations like this and arrive at reasonable cost effective solutions that add value to human life?
Peer reviewed? Yes many articles were published by mills proven later to be fabricated but non the less people and Doctors led many down that rabbit hole only later to find out these claims had no validity. Another example of bad tainted political science
What is PubMed? Is it a search engine? A credentialing system? A filter? Is it a publisher? An enabler of open access (OA) publishing? A technology provider? A competitor? Depending on the situation, you can answer each of the above in the affirmative, despite the contradictions many of the combinations may cause.
Twenty years ago, PubMed was a credentialing system, an online port of the MEDLINE index. This shift of medium quickly made it a search engine, but one built on a manual and highly curated index. If your journal was in MEDLINE/PubMed, it had gone through an exhaustive evaluation, and had earned a badge of legitimacy. You were searching a credentialing system. You were getting filtered results based on MEDLINE inclusion criteria, which were well-accepted.
laptop user asking for help
Starting with E-Biomed and stretching to PubMed Central, the credentialing system pegged in many users’ minds morphed into a publisher (a primary publisher in the case of at least two journals, and, for a time, three), a competitor (here, here, and here, as well as here and here), and a technology provider. Its management also has advanced the cause of OA publishing, in both legitimate and controversial ways. Part of the extension of PubMed’s original purpose has come through brand extension via PubMed Central, which has been used to muddy the waters about what is PubMed and what is not. PubMed inclusion has been used, for example, as an incentive for journals to include themselves in PubMed Central, eroding the idea that PubMed is a neutral arbiter of quality.
Now, a new twist is emerging, and that seems to be that PubMed may be consciously or unwittingly acting as a facilitator of predatory or unscrupulous publishing.
In a paper published in Neuroscience, the authors analyzing the neurology and neuroscience journals included in PubMed found that:
Twenty-five predatory neurology journals were indexed in PubMed, accounting for 24.7% of all predatory neurology journals.
Fourteen predatory neuroscience journals were indexed in PubMed, accounting for 16.1% of all predatory neuroscience journals.
Only one of the 188 predatory neuroscience or neurology journals appeared in the DOAJ index.
Only 54.6% of the journals deemed predatory in neuroscience actually contained articles.
The funding sources must come from a decentralized network of people who have the will to make the fundamental changes of the system to rusher in a new era of transparency, objectivity, accountability in research and reporting without the interference from the corrupt centralized administrative “authorities” of the current legacy system. We are working on creating that new paradigm.
It must be independently replicated, reproduced, verified and validated. Independent Unbiased Reporting must be conducted. The best outcomes for the lowest possible cost endpoints will be the final arbiter, not the reporters.
For myself, I went further. I asked for the datasets and original protocols of some "groundbreaking" trials. What did I get in return? NADA! What does that tell you? There was zero transparency and accountability. These people are hiding the truth and their misdeeds.
I don't think you realize the peer-reviewed journals are corrupted also. If you actually read the studies, many of them argue for the repurposed drugs, even though their headline and abstract was negative. Many were set up to fail using dangerously high doses or choosing patients far too late into the sickness. You have to actually read each paper to see the corruption. The censorship of very good studies is breathtaking and so depressing. I have read countless papers that have come out both pro and con. The evidence is overwhelming In favor of using effective repurpose drugs along with solid protocols. See for instance flccc.net excellent protocols . Around the world many countries use similar early treatment protocols, but the US with the highest covid deathrate remains stiff necked and blind.
Among others, the FLCCC also provide wonderful analysis of the big papers as they came out, both " peer reviewed" and censored. I am a peer reviewer for scientific papers so I know how to read them. It is tragic how many unnecessary deaths there were. The corruption is complete throughout the medical industry. I battled it personally 20 years ago when my eyes were opened about statins and niacin. Sadly it's the same across the board. If you have only read mainstream medical papers, then you are correct, you have not seen much evidence and you also did not critically assess the methods in those papers. I cannot help you on that. But you need to read all the papers and talk to the real doctors who treated hundreds and thousands of patients using effective early treatment protocols. Their patients did not get long COVID and did not die. Early treatment must be started as soon as symptoms appear. Prophylactic protocols also are extremely effective.
The scientific method compares treatments for diseases using the techniques that you obviously know about. I share your frustration, but I don't agree that corruption is universal in the peer reviewed literature. That system needs to be reformed but not discarded. For example, I could find an article on metformin that has dramatic beneficial effects on COVID. That is a repuposed drug that works. The answer to corrupted science is to push hard for valid science. Ditching the entire concept of peer review will not work in the long run
The concept is noble. However, the racketeers have hijacked the process, Bill. We need a completely new system of distributed data access, an independent, argumentative, noisy, uncensored, unadulterated, lucid, objective, reproducible, and replicable system of reviews without the tainted Pay-to-Paly schemers. In addition, dissenting voices must be allowed and not silenced without taboo.
I totally agree with we need a patient-centered system that is apolitical and free of conflicts of interest.
It is long overdue. Silence is complicity over this deep systematic corruption, Bill. This appalling systematic corruption and refusing to be morally injured were the major reasons I walked away from ALL these in 1997 to start my journey to create the MCG Technology Platform to spearhead building the new brave world.
and even despite highlighting Fauci is to blame nothing has changed. That is the beauty of a flawed system maximized for profit.
Yup spin doctors likely to keep current profit based systems for maximum profit over our health.
This post covers my journey thus far: https://open.substack.com/pub/mcgdoc/p/a-curious-mitharvard-guy-wants-to?r=q7iae&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
excellent and thank you
We have been working long and hard to make the changes: https://open.substack.com/pub/mcgdoc/p/a-glimpse-into-the-mind-of-the-mcg?r=q7iae&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
I support this 100%.
There is more money and profit implanting patients. Profit is the bottom line. We do nothing proactive or to save money and take a long view.
Here is another reality check, Bill:
https://ahrp.org/gates-foundation-buys-cochrane-integrity-for-1-15-million/
For myself, I went further. I asked for the datasets and original protocols of some "groundbreaking" trials. What did I get in return? NADA! What does that tell you? There was zero transparency and accountability. These people are hiding the truth and their misdeeds.
a for profit scheme paid for by taxpayers and health insurance. This isn't "health "at all we really are off track. If you consider benefit vs risk this system is very high risk.
I would not use any information from this link. It takes money to fund science. That science and subsequent data needs to be valid, true, and reproducible. Scientists are very concerned about some articles appearing as credible only to be refu
For myself, I went further. I asked for the datasets and original protocols of some "groundbreaking" trials. What did I get in return? NADA! What does that tell you? There was zero transparency and accountability. These people are hiding the truth and their misdeeds.
Not surprised.
Yup. Precisely so. The "peer reviewed publishing" business has been deeply tainted.
Completely agree. Pharma has taken over medicine, corrupting the doctors and healthcare, completely forgetting the patients. Push more and more $$$ expensive drugs. The covid fiasco put it all on center stage as the medical cartel preferred seeing people die rather than recommending early treatment with repurposed very effective drugs to stop the virus in its tracks. It is shameful and in every sector. The diabetes study is just more of the same. So sad for trusting consumers who do not know better. Sad state of affairs.
There is a difference between COVID and diabetes. I have found all of this diabetes information in the peer reviewed literature. There are still good articles there and there are very misleading articles. I have not found articles in the peer-reviewed medical literature to support ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine use. You are on the right track but it is important to follow the scientific method.
Politics gets their hands in deep pockets. We need true science not politicized spin doctors
Just like how CDC/FDA/NIH Fauchi and Collin’s attacks on the effectiveness of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, these people will attack OMT and Metformin to ensure they succeed in their relentless campaign pushing these less effective but high cost drugs instead. The same propaganda games they play in the American Medical Industrial Complex sponsored kabuki dance theatrics. Shameless.
I just have not seen credible evidence to support the ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine claim.
The ones presented to you were hit pieces by the paid mouthpiece of the establishment. There are hundreds of trials published from around the world by honest researchers. These people have no bones in the story. Look them up. They are “not promoted” as this one you mentioned, Bill.
I have searched pubmed and I have not seen them
Or was it political spin doctors? I work with these agencies they have no power to act alone. They have a chain of command. There is no evidence at all of your claims. Yes bad articles were written that were able to fool people. It caused confusion and sadly bad advice. Dr. Bestermann is pointing this out that we are turning towards very expensive choices where we already have the tools to create healthier people. But our current system needs improvement and we want to point people in right direction and stop the spin doctoring.
I attended a seminar where it was discussed we need science not politics making decisions based on true fact not for benefit of increased profits. Listen to Dr. Bestermann who highlights optimal medical therapies based off of valid data and not deep pockets. We do need politicians ensuring science is funded and that money is well spent not squandered. Keep in mind we don’t need political spin Doctors. This causes tainted advice and harm. In United States clearly we need to be careful not to scapegoat scientists or science. Politics seems to get in the way leading to bad outcomes as we have all observed in the past few years. Imagine if politicians push the more expensive drugs.
The FauxScinceGuy Fauxi typified the kind of “spin doctor” who controlled the purses of NIH to dictate the narratives favoring the big pharmaceutical and device companies. The end result was disastrous.
How can we avoid one guy making bad decisions for humanity?
Decentralization of the data sources and open access for research purposes and unbiased reporting are key factors required to achieve this goal. Everyone who contributes to this initiative should be encouraged and supported with digital tools to monetize their work. The goal is to discover the best ways for the best possible patient-centered solutions with the best outcomes for the lowest costs.
But we did, for fifty years!
We can blame Fauci but you now see how bad evil science harms and misleads. How do we moving forward avoid situations like this and arrive at reasonable cost effective solutions that add value to human life?
https://open.substack.com/pub/mcgdoc/p/the-american-industrial-complex-and?r=q7iae&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
https://open.substack.com/pub/mcgdoc/p/medical-military-cendorship-and-goverment?r=q7iae&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
I saw it in the 1990’s and walked away from that to start my journey to the creation of a brave new world.
How many have you found? There are at always 90+ of these published on Ivermectin’s effectiveness.
send me some
Peer reviewed? Yes many articles were published by mills proven later to be fabricated but non the less people and Doctors led many down that rabbit hole only later to find out these claims had no validity. Another example of bad tainted political science
Yup!
Pubmed’s credibility is in question, Bill.
What is PubMed? Is it a search engine? A credentialing system? A filter? Is it a publisher? An enabler of open access (OA) publishing? A technology provider? A competitor? Depending on the situation, you can answer each of the above in the affirmative, despite the contradictions many of the combinations may cause.
Twenty years ago, PubMed was a credentialing system, an online port of the MEDLINE index. This shift of medium quickly made it a search engine, but one built on a manual and highly curated index. If your journal was in MEDLINE/PubMed, it had gone through an exhaustive evaluation, and had earned a badge of legitimacy. You were searching a credentialing system. You were getting filtered results based on MEDLINE inclusion criteria, which were well-accepted.
laptop user asking for help
Starting with E-Biomed and stretching to PubMed Central, the credentialing system pegged in many users’ minds morphed into a publisher (a primary publisher in the case of at least two journals, and, for a time, three), a competitor (here, here, and here, as well as here and here), and a technology provider. Its management also has advanced the cause of OA publishing, in both legitimate and controversial ways. Part of the extension of PubMed’s original purpose has come through brand extension via PubMed Central, which has been used to muddy the waters about what is PubMed and what is not. PubMed inclusion has been used, for example, as an incentive for journals to include themselves in PubMed Central, eroding the idea that PubMed is a neutral arbiter of quality.
Now, a new twist is emerging, and that seems to be that PubMed may be consciously or unwittingly acting as a facilitator of predatory or unscrupulous publishing.
In a paper published in Neuroscience, the authors analyzing the neurology and neuroscience journals included in PubMed found that:
Twenty-five predatory neurology journals were indexed in PubMed, accounting for 24.7% of all predatory neurology journals.
Fourteen predatory neuroscience journals were indexed in PubMed, accounting for 16.1% of all predatory neuroscience journals.
Only one of the 188 predatory neuroscience or neurology journals appeared in the DOAJ index.
Only 54.6% of the journals deemed predatory in neuroscience actually contained articles.
Science needs funding and just like drugs, advice, and everything else do we want truthful advice or for profit advice?
The funding sources must come from a decentralized network of people who have the will to make the fundamental changes of the system to rusher in a new era of transparency, objectivity, accountability in research and reporting without the interference from the corrupt centralized administrative “authorities” of the current legacy system. We are working on creating that new paradigm.
Also is it possible to have non biased data or written in such a way as to promote increased profit. I think we all agree something if off.
It must be independently replicated, reproduced, verified and validated. Independent Unbiased Reporting must be conducted. The best outcomes for the lowest possible cost endpoints will be the final arbiter, not the reporters.
For myself, I went further. I asked for the datasets and original protocols of some "groundbreaking" trials. What did I get in return? NADA! What does that tell you? There was zero transparency and accountability. These people are hiding the truth and their misdeeds.