What is corruption – and why does it matter so much?

12th January 2023

Taking a small detour for the moment, I thought I would try and look at bit more closely at corruption. How do you define it? What is it? I believe if you are going to defeat something, you first need to understand what it is. Know thine enemy, as they say.

I began by looking up the word corruption in a dictionary, which defined it thus:

Corruption: ‘dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.’

However, that is not really what I think of, when I think of corruption. An occasional trip to the theatre, or nice meal in a restaurant from time to time. Whilst imperfect, actions like this are not enough to constitute a major problem.

Corruption, to me, is when the entire system is taken over. Where almost everyone either takes part, or instead chooses to remain silent. At which point no actions can be trusted.

This is the situation that developed within FIFA (Fédération internationale de football association meaning International Association Football Federation) under Sepp Blatter’s leadership. Where hosting the football World Cup became an exercise in bribery from which no-one, and nothing, was immune.

Any man, or woman, who refused to take a bribe from FIFA was the exception, not the rule. Envelopes stuffed with cash were handed out in hotel rooms. At which point we had a completely corrupt organisation. Which is bad enough, on a relatively small scale, in an organisation that deals only with football.

On a larger scale, what happens when corruption affects everything? According to a global corruption index, the worst five countries in the world for corruption are:

  • Syria
  • North Korea
  • Congo, Dem. Rep
  • Yemen
  • South Sudan

The lowest five ‘risk’ countries for corruption are – starting with the best:

  • Norway
  • Finland
  • Sweden
  • Denmark
  • Estonia

It is no coincidence that the quality of life, and the wealth and happiness of people in these countries, indeed every country in the world, is closely tied to how corrupt those countries are. Indeed, the association between corruption, and quality of life, moves virtually in lock-stop.

Which means that corruption represents one of the gravest problems humanity faces. The worse it becomes, the more everything else falls apart. Given time, it eventually eats out the very structures that allowed it to exist in the first place. See under “The Roman Empire”.

Moving onto the bribery part of corruption. I also believe that bribery is about far more than just money. Whilst money represents the most obvious way to ‘bribe’ people. there is also power.

I quote you, Frank Underwood, the main fictional character in House of Cards.

‘Such a waste of talent. He chose money over power. Money is the Mc-mansion in Sarasota that starts falling apart after 10 years. Power is the old stone building that stands for centuries. I cannot respect someone who doesn’t see the difference.’

Then there is status. To stand tallest amongst your peers.

‘A good reputation is more valuable than money.’ Publilius Syros.

Nelson Mandela was uninterested in money, but at one time he was probably the most influential and highest status man in the world. Not, I hasten to add, that I think Nelson Mandela was in any way corrupt. But had he chosen to be …

Whilst it is difficult to define corruption perfectly, I would try to define it as … people doing things that are ‘paid’ for by others. Those who are paid gain what they greatly desire. Status, reputation, authority, power – all the same sort of thing, but not quite. And, of course, money. Those paying also gain what they want – usually more money.

For a system to be considered ‘corrupt’ a large number of those within it must take part. Those not actively taking bribes are also complicit, in that they have chosen to do nothing about it. They put up and/or they shut up. Worst of all, I think, is when they try to excuse it.

Money

Sticking to money for the moment and directing the discussion more specifically to the medical world. There was a time when the pharmaceutical industry was happy to pay doctors, and researchers, directly. Straight into the old bank account. No questions asked. Kerrching!

We would like you to give a lecture. Ten grand…kerrching! We want you to chair a think tank on the use of drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Twenty grand … kerrching! We would like you to act as a consultant over the next two years in order to assist in our drug development programme. Fifty grand a year … kerrching! Run a clinical trial (put your name up as one of the main authors anyway). Don’t worry, you won’t actually have to write anything – or probably even read it. Two hundred grand … kerrching!

Or, taking a real-world example, let us have a look at Oxford Professor Sir Richard Doll. This is the man who, along with Bradford Hill, proved that smoking causes lung cancer. He is a hero to many within the medical profession.

As it turns out he was also paid $1,500 a day, for twenty years, by Monsanto. Which is a total of eleven million dollars. Kerrching!

At one point the Chemical Manufacturers Association, along with Dow Chemicals and ICI, dropped £15K into his bank account. This was for a review which cleared vinyl chloride of causing cancer – of any kind. This review was then used to defend the use of this chemical – now well recognised to be a cancer-causing agent – for over a decade.1

In addition:

‘While he was being paid by Monsanto, Sir Richard wrote to a royal Australian commission investigating the potential cancer-causing properties of Agent Orange, made by Monsanto and used by the US in the Vietnam war. Sir Richard said there was no evidence that the chemical caused cancer.’

How does that make you feel? I have to say I was disappointed, to say the least. Up until this revelation I thought he was one of the good guys. A benevolent, Nelson Mandela-like figure:

However, following these revelations, he was not criticised. Instead, he was robustly defended – which I take as a key signal that corruption has taken over the system:

‘Professor John Toy, medical director of Cancer Research UK, which funded much of Sir Richard’s work, said times had changed and the accusations must be put into context. “Richard Doll’s lifelong service to public health has saved millions of lives. His pioneering work demonstrated the link between smoking and lung cancer and paved the way towards current efforts to reduce tobacco’s death toll,” he said. “In the days he was publishing it was not automatic for potential conflicts of interest to be declared in scientific papers.’

It might not have been automatic to declare conflicts of interest Professor Toy. But that does not make it right. If you are paid tens of millions by the industry, you are no longer a disinterested scientist, and you cannot pretend otherwise. It was wrong at the time, just as it is now, as it always will be. [Nowadays conflicts of interest are far more carefully hidden away].

There were other defenders, from Oxford University.

‘Yesterday, Sir Richard Peto, the Oxford-based epidemiologist who worked closely with him, said the allegations came from those who wanted to damage Sir Richard’s reputation for their own reasons. Sir Richard had always been open about his links with industry and gave all his fees to Green College, Oxford, the postgraduate institution he founded, he said.’

This statement was from the same article which began with these words

‘A world-famous British scientist failed to disclose that he held a paid consultancy with a chemical company for more than 20 years while investigating cancer risks in the industry.’

So it seems, Sir Richard Peto, that Sir Richard Doll was not open about his links with industry. Not in the slightest. No-one in the wider world had the faintest idea. Did those in Oxford University really know? If so, did they actually condone his work on Vinyl Chloride and Agent Orange? They certainly did not breathe a word of criticism.

Instead, we get … ‘the allegations came from those who wanted to damage Sir Richard’s eruption for their own reasons.’ In short, it is those making the allegations who are the bad guys. See under … children accusing priests of sexual abuse in the early days. ‘How dare evil children accuse these noble men of such things?’ Such things that they actually did, you mean.

And what reason could anyone have for damaging the reputation of man who was already dead, with these terrible ‘allegations?’ None was given, because there are no such reasons. Also, these were not ‘allegations’, they were facts. What should they have done, kept their mouths shut?

No, here is what those who worked with Sir Richard Doll should have said, or something very like it.

‘Sir Richard Doll did highly important work in proving that cigarettes cause lung cancer. Work that has benefitted hundreds of millions. However, he took large sums of money from commercial companies and then wrote papers in support of those companies, which resulted in a great deal of harm. We cannot condone these actions. This has seriously damaged his reputation, as it should. We will work to ensure that this type of situation never happens again.’

However, it seems that if you are seen as a ‘great’ person, who has done great work, you cannot possibly be accused of corruption. Even if the evidence is laid out before us all, in black and white.

Perhaps you think I am being rather harsh here. Focussing my attack on one ‘great’ man, now dead. In truth, I picked on this case for a couple of reasons. First, I want to make it clear that corruption is not a new thing in medical research – although it has greatly worsened – and gone undercover. Second, I hope to make it clear that those with a reputation for doing ‘great work’ are just as likely to be corrupt as anyone else.

In truth, they are the most likely to be corrupt. How so? Because they have achieved such high status that they have risen beyond suspicion. In addition, the ‘great ones’ have made themselves immensely valuable. Which means that they are actively sought out. They have both status, and influence.

Authority = power = influence

Influence ↔ money.

Influence is the currency here. And currency is very easily converted into money, and back again. If you can find the most influential ‘great person’ or ‘great institution’ or great ‘great medical journal.’ You pay them the money, and you get the influence you desire.

‘Sir Richard Doll himself says that vinyl chloride is perfectly safe, and how dare you argue with him – you pathetic nobody.’

Or, to quote the industry view on such matters:

‘Key Opinion Leader is regarded as the mastermind in the pharma industry. They’ve put in the time and research to be recognized by their peers as experts in their field. As a result, they have gained a reputation as a thought leader within their specific niche. Their expert opinions and actions can significantly affect the adoption of a new product/brand or the ability to influence consumer purchasing decisions.

Key Opinion Leaders are sort of like the avengers of the clinical research world. They can fill many different roles, and their skill sets are highly sought after by those in the know. A key opinion leader can be critically important in helping to educate physicians about a new drug. They can provide information about the working of drugs, which patient demographics can benefit the most, and what treatment regimens are most effective. KOLs can also offer their unique insights as early adopters of new therapies, which can help to identify and create brand acceptance in healthcare.’2  

Nowadays there are entire companies dedicated to nurturing and developing Key Opinion Leaders and helping them work with pharmaceutical industry. Or vice-versa. Here, from the horse’s mouth. An article entitled: ‘KOL management in Pharma and Life Sciences.’

‘As pharmaceutical and life-sciences companies search for the most effective, efficient ways to manage collaboration with the physicians who conduct research, write articles, or speak on their behalf, relationship management of the interaction with these elite physicians, or key opinion leaders (KOLs), has ultimately emerged as an individual business discipline. Similar to CRM, KOL management is an essential component for marketers and medical staff throughout the life-cycle process of a specific drug or product.

By sustaining a business process that creates and maintains meaningful and collaborative relationships between KOLs and business functions from marketing to medical affairs, pharmaceutical and life-sciences companies can experience increased share of voice and accelerated adoptions at the global, national, and regional levels. A CEO of a major pharmaceuticals company recently told a group of analysts that effectively managing KOL relationships was essential to companies’ future products and market expansion.3

Today, almost all of the great people (Key Opinion Leaders), institutions, medical societies and medical journals have been captured by the industry – to a greater or lesser extent. As far back as 2009, the long-time editor of the New England Journal of Medicine wrote these words. Words that I have quoted several times before, but they need almost endless repetition.

‘It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.’

What happened following this scathing attack? Nothing. Yet these words come from the editor of the most influential (highest impact factor) journal in the World. Someone who spent her entire working life reviewing the quality of medical research, assessing how robust medical guidelines are, and how trustworthy our ‘trusted’ physicians might be.

The answers to those questions being ‘rubbish’, ‘biased’ and ‘corrupt’ in that order.

I have occasionally asked myself: “What would be the worst effect of corruption of medical research”? Well, there are the obvious things. First that we cannot believe a damned thing that is published. With certain provisos – there are honest researchers out there.

Equally bad, or perhaps worse, doctors end up prescribing medicines that do no good, and possibly do harm. Based on biased physicians running biased trials, followed up by biased guidelines, to be published in biased journals.

These are, of course, in themselves terrible things.

But there is something else, which may actually be worse in the long run. If research is directed almost entirely towards ideas that support commercial goals, then this will end up crushing work that dares look in different directions. Try publishing a paper suggesting that cholesterol lowering is a waste of time, when the market for cholesterol lowering drugs is worth hundreds of billions.

Yes, you may be lucky enough to get something into a lower impact journal, but the bigger journals will block you completely. Come up with a different hypothesis as to what actually causes cardiovascular disease, and the big journals will not touch it with a bargepole.

Science only lives, and progresses, when the status quo is regularly attacked, and disrupted. But within a corrupt system, where the majority of funding comes from commercial sources, innovation grinds to a halt. Primarily because new ideas threaten profit. Try stating that Type II diabetes can be reversed with exercise and a low carbohydrate diet, and you are threatening a $200Bn market for diabetes medications. So, good luck with that.

Which leads me to perhaps the most soul-destroying article I have read recently. It was a review of disruptive science. By which the authors meant, the degree to which a scientific paper shakes up the field.

‘The authors reasoned that if a study was highly disruptive, subsequent research would be less likely to cite the study’s references, and instead cite the study itself. Using the citation data from 45 million manuscripts and 3.9 million patents, the researchers calculated a measure of disruptiveness, called the ‘CD index’, in which values ranged from –1 for the least disruptive work to 1 for the most disruptive.

The average CD index declined by more than 90% between 1945 and 2010 for research manuscripts (see ‘Disruptive science dwindles’), and by more than 78% from 1980 to 2010 for patents. Disruptiveness declined in all of the analysed research fields and patent types, even when factoring in potential differences in factors such as citation practices.’

Just have a look at the graph 4:

It is hard to think of a more depressing graph. Looking specifically at life sciences and biomedicine – otherwise known as medical research. It would seem that since the mid-1990s there has been virtually no disruptive science published – at all, anywhere.

The article itself states that ‘disruptive science has declined – and no-one knows why?’

Well, to my mind, there are two possibilities for this decline. The first is that we now know virtually everything across all scientific fields. Therefore, disruptive science has inevitably declined, because there is nothing new to be discovered. We simply know it all.

Of course, this echoes a famous comment by Lord Kelvin at the end of the nineteenth century. ‘There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.’ Ahem, have you come across this chap Einstein by any chance?

The second possibility is that some factor, we shall call it factor K (for corruption) has virtually taken over science, particularly medical science. This factor when combined with money, factor M, has the effect of destroying innovation (I). Thus, squashing disruptive research (DR) flat.

The equation is simple. I ÷ (K x M) = DR

Innovation, divided by (corruption multiplied by money) = Disruption Index.

As the flow of industry money into research has multiplied, innovation and new ideas have shrivelled and died. This, anyway, is my working hypothesis. You may feel there are other reasons. In which case, I would be interested to hear them.

So, yes, I think that corruption is incredibly important. Particularly within the world of science, where mavericks and innovators are absolutely essential. Graphene, for example, an actual major scientific breakthrough. This was discovered by two scientists, Andrei Geim and Kostya Novoselov playing about with pencils and sticky tape in a laboratory in Manchester University.

Playing about in a lab! Research nowadays is driven by funding. Funding is driven by commercial applications. The ‘best’ researchers today know how to bring in money for their labs, and for their universities. Today, researchers need to be productive and drive the income stream. To quote Peter Higgs: ‘I wouldn’t be productive enough for today’s academic system.’

‘Peter Higgs, the British physicist who gave his name to the Higgs boson, believes no university would employ him in today’s academic system because he would not be considered “productive” enough.

The emeritus professor at Edinburgh University, who says he has never sent an email, browsed the internet or even made a mobile phone call, published fewer than 10 papers after his ground-breaking work, which identified the mechanism by which subatomic material acquires mass, was published in 1964.

He doubts a similar breakthrough could be achieved in today’s academic culture, because of the expectations on academics to collaborate and keep churning out papers. He said: “It’s difficult to imagine how I would ever have enough peace and quiet in the present sort of climate to do what I did in 1964.5

Collaborate and keep churning out papers.’ This is the Henry T Ford school of research. We need more research! Quantity is what matters. Churning out papers requires money. To get money we have to sell … ourselves.

But innovative research, disruptive research, is not about quantity. It is about quality. One paper on subatomic materials acquiring mass. This is worth an infinite number of papers on how wonderful statins are. But an infinite number of papers on statins is what we now get.

Today, universities sell themselves on their collaboration with industry. Opinion leaders are hugely valuable to the industry, and therefore to their universities. They cannot afford to consider doing research which threatens the flow of money. So, they don’t.

This has become the medical research world that we live in today. It is no longer innovative, disruptive, or challenging. It is almost entirely bought and paid for. It has become Zombie Science. To quote Bruce Charlton, once again, from his paper. ‘Zombie science: a sinister consequence of evaluating scientific theories purely on the basis of enlightened self-interest.’

In the real world it looks more like most scientists are quite willing to pursue wrong ideas for so long as they are rewarded with a better chance of achieving more grants, publications and status. The classic account has it that bogus theories should readily be demolished by sceptical (or jealous) competitor scientists. However, in practice even the most conclusive ‘hatchet jobs’ may fail to kill, or even weaken, phoney hypotheses when they are backed-up with sufficient economic muscle in the form of lavish and sustained funding. And when a branch of science based on phoney theories serves a useful but non-scientific purpose, it may be kept-going indefinitely by continuous transfusions of cash from those whose interests it serves.’ 6

When the journal Nature notes that disruptive science has declined, and no-one knows why … I think this is utter balls. There are plenty of people who know why. The journal Nature also probably knows why. However, if they were to say why, it would open the door to something so big and ugly that no-one wants to even look at it, let alone deal with it.

Better to keep that door firmly shut. That door to the Zombie room. The place where undead science roams. Where innovation, disruption and science itself … died. In the end corruption consumes the host.

1: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/dec/08/smoking.frontpagenews

2: https://viseven.com/key-opinion-leaders-in-pharma/

3: KOL Management in Pharma and Life Sciences (destinationcrm.com)

4: ‘Disruptive’ science has declined — and no one knows why (nature.com)

5: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/06/peter-higgs-boson-academic-system

6: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18603380/

376 thoughts on “What is corruption – and why does it matter so much?

  1. AhNotepad

    An interesting topic, but I would have thought the USA and UK should be high up the list for corruption. For me, the whole system does not have to be included to have corruption, any part will do.

    Reply
    1. cavenewt

      It depends on how they’re measuring the corruption, possibly something along the lines of the dictionary definition involving “bribery”.

      I agree that the USA and UK should be higher up on the list based on the degree of regulatory capture and industry influence on elected officials.

      Reply
      1. Sasha

        You change the definition of “bribery” and now call it “campaign contribution”. Magically, corruption disappears

        Reply
    2. Paul Fruitbat

      “According to a global corruption index, the worst five countries in the world for corruption are:

      Syria
      North Korea
      Congo, Dem. Rep
      Yemen
      South Sudan”

      Yes… those are definitely the most corrupt countries in the world – apart from those willing and able to pay enough (in various currencies) to get themselves pushed way, way down the list!

      Many of the nations we think of as exceedingly corrupt are simply those in which corruption is still illegal and reprehended by most people. In the USA, especially, and other countries like the UK that slavishly imitate it, corruption has been almost entirely legalised and institutionalised.

      Reply
  2. andy

    It’s true. Everytime I see someone taking a favour, it is always at the expense of both the employer and the customer. From mere money taken, to employing your family, friends over others, (or your wife as your well-paid MP’s secretary). Baroness Mone and the millions. What happened there?
    It’s as true in the arts councils of the world (Nottingham Castle, £33million in public and lottery funding, now in liquidation) as it is in transport and medicine.
    When you can’t get care, it’s at the direct expense of what has been taken from it on its way to you.

    Reply
    1. Harry de Boer

      Unfortunately the size of this echo chamber is a bit too limited to have much of an influence. What we need is to ‘take over’ the MSM and start publishing our acquired knowledge in there. An I’m not talking about Musk taking over a newspaper (conglomerate).

      Reply
  3. Hamish Soutar

    “Disruptive” science is still there. But it’s swamped by the ever rising volume of papers published for no reason other than to get published. So the rest of us have to search harder and harder to find the gems hidden in the ever growing muck heap.

    Reply
    1. Steve

      Not just scientific papers though is it ?. Go into any bookshop (remember those ?) Or supermarket, or Amazon. The amount of cr@p that gets published is unbelievable. And, try to find any classical literature and you’ll have real difficulty. Keep ’em stupid !

      Reply
    2. Paul Fruitbat

      It’s simply a matter of incentives. The great mass of run-of-the-mill scientists go to work to earn a living; and what they earn – or even whether they keep their job – depends on how many papers they publish.

      There may well be too many scientists, with most of them doing trivial make-work to “look busy”. On the other hand, there may not be enough, doing – as Dr Kendrick emphasises – quite the wrong work.

      It’s a question of who sets the priorities. Ideally, we would like scientists to be motivated by two things: the spirit of sheer curiosity, and the desire to do good. Instead, most of them today are on a pointless treadmill, and what work they do is chosen for them by governments and corporations.

      Reply
  4. Tim Fallon

    I now see most Doctors (present company exclude) as pimps, they whore out their poor unsuspecting patients to pharma who medically and financially rape them, in return the pimp gets his wad of cash.

    Reply
  5. Jerome savage

    Thanks for this – mighty piece. TOM WOODS recent piece has a resonance but gives hope in that the public is not always fooled.
    “Academia loves its pomp and its little letters after everyone’s name and its endless self-congratulation. There are many genuinely brilliant people teaching at the university level. But a great many college faculty are — let’s face it — mediocrities.
    Instead of being bold, original thinkers, they got their good grades as students by being excellent tape recorders. In their own classrooms, in turn, they do little more than repeat the conventional wisdom to hapless generations of students.
    The resentment that academic historians had for people like David McCullough, who wrote bestselling works of history without being a “trained historian,” tells you all you need to know.”

    Reply
    1. AhNotepad

      There are rubbish ones teaching at university level too. Chris Witty and Jonathan van Tam to name but two who were obviously corrupt(ed)

      Reply
      1. ShirleyKate

        Corrupt? Were they? Are they? I don’t know these men as you obviously do but perhaps you would give a few details for your opinion – your statement of fact?

        Reply
        1. AhNotepad

          They were quite prepared to make statemments of “Fact” not supported by any evidence. Witty would say one thing, and completely the oppoite a few days later.

          Reply
          1. Roland Ayers

            The objective was not to inform, but influence behaviour. The statements were influenced by a kind of science: the social science of behavioural psychology.

  6. anglosvizzera

    Aaargh! Trying to post a comment but somehow not able to. Or was I? Usually the system acknowledges that I’ve posted something, but not just now.

    Reply
  7. anglosvizzera

    I tried to post a link to something that I think is highly relevant to the post, but the “system” blocked it. It is a blog post by another doctor, in the US. Here’s my comment I attempted to post:

    “Well said. It made me wonder whether you have been thinking of certain “medical interventions” being rolled out to all and sundry (whether they stand to benefit or not), the alarming numbers of non-Covid, non-NHS-crisis related excess deaths that have been happening over the past 8 or so months and how this could possibly not be newsworthy or of apparent interest to the government (both here and those around the world!)”

    I read your post and thought of this (I can’t post the link as it keeps getting blocked, but if you Google “A Midwestern Doctor” substack, you’ll find his latest blog post.

    Reply
    1. Gary Ogden

      Anglosvizzera: “A Midwestern Doctor” is absolutely worth reading. I highly recommend him. It has been an excellent medical education for me.

      Reply
      1. Tom Morgan

        I concur about ‘A midwestern Doctor’ on SubStack. He makes a lot of sense – check him out and decide for yourself.

        Reply
      2. anglosvizzera

        It’s odd, though, that I wasn’t able to post the link to this particular blog post on this site! I didn’t know there was some kind of immediate censorship at that stage…I wonder which other sites might be automatically blocked?

        Reply
        1. Gary Ogden

          anglosvizzera: I don’t think I’ve ever had that problem here. I simply highlight, copy, and paste the link, a neat trick my daughter taught me. By the way, another doctor worth reading is DrJohnDay, although besides medical stuff, we writes about the clown show and current events such as the horror in Ukraine. He was fired for refusing the jab.

          Reply
          1. anglosvizzera

            See if you are able to post it as it should be!

            I also copy and paste links, rarely use any kind of “share” facility – but every time I included this one in my post (even to his home page) it failed to even come up with the usual acknowledgement that I’d posted something which would be checked before it appears here.

            I’ll try changing the “full stop” to the word “DOT” (with a space either side) in the address…see if that works. Then people can just copy and paste the link and replace “DOT” with a “.” and remove the spaces.

            https://amidwesterndoctor DOT substack DOT com/p/we-now-have-definitive-proof-pfizer

        2. Ben the Layabout

          I have posted here many times and never successfully a URL. I think it’s a bug of the blog platform. Posting tip: always save a draft in a text file until you confirm it has posted, as sometimes WP disappears them.

          Reply
          1. Gary Ogden

            Ben: Good idea. I often write my comments in Pages so they won’t be lost, then save, highlight, copy, and past them into the comment box.

    2. Marion

      I was reading ‘A Midwestern Doctor’ only today, and his sub stack is what I’m going to read later this evening. There are so many interesting substacks, and many list their favourite substack writers, so there’s a great deal of information there about the plandemic.

      Reply
    3. Harry de Boer

      If your link gets ‘blocked’, here is a tip: replace all dots (.) by typing in a space, followed by a dot, followed by a space. That mostly works.

      Reply
      1. Martin Back

        Alternatively, leave off the https:// then we can copy and paste the url without fiddling with closing up spaces or replacing DOT. The browser will automatically supply the missing https://

        Reply
    4. Eggs ‘n beer

      I found that it would only accept my links if there were no blank lines after the text, e.g.

      Hi anglosvizzera, here’s a link

      Link.com.au

      Would not work,

      But hi AS,
      Link.com.au
      would work.

      Never used to have this issue though, something’s changed.

      Reply
  8. dorothy.findlay@sky.com

    I love to read your articles.  I would love to know the truth regarding the wonder drug Statins. Just make people afraid not to take it !!!!  I wouldn’t take it, however did suffer a Stroke, and of course I was blamed for not taking the Statin. I was even contacted in hospital, one week post Stroke by my GP’s surgery(pharmacist) to say to me ‘How do you feel now, about not taking the Statins?      They have me on a high dose of  Statins now with awful side effects, but equally have me afraid to stop taking it,. when in fact the Stroke may have had absolutely nothing at all to do with high cholesterol. Interesting that I have had further small strokes since, and cholesterol is  within normal range now.

    Just confuse the patient, then they comply!!! Many kind regards, Dorothy Findlay.

    Reply
    1. D

      This is all smoke and mirrors. If you had gotten a stroke after getting the Covid “vaccine,” would your surgeon/pharmacist have blamed you for getting the jab? Very doubtful. High cholesterol levels don’t cause strokes, so statins don’t prevent them. Read “Good Calories, Bad Calories” or “Cholesterol Myth” for more info.

      Reply
    2. Jerome savage

      The Clot Thickens, argues compellingly that clots causing strokes or heart attacks do not consist of cholesterol to any significant extent. The 2nd anomaly is that statins are meant to target LDL which is essentially a fat with protein with minimal cholesterol.

      Reply
    3. Ben the Layabout

      Kendrick has a lot to say about statins in several of his books. “Doctoring Data” specfically looks at a dodgy study (JUPITER) about rosuvastatin, a drug I was taking. Note the past tense of the verb.

      He even (rarely) has something positive to say:

      “At this point, grudgingly, I will admit that statins do reduce the risk of dying of heart disease in certain populations…If we assume that most people would take a statin for thirty years, maximum, this would lead to an average increase in lifespan of approximately two months. Which doesn’t sound quite as dramatic as saving fifty thousand lives a year, or a thousand a week – or however else you choose to hype up your figures. But there you go, it happens to be considerably more accurate.

      Also remember that this benefit would only be seen in men with pre-existing heart disease. Women and men without pre-existing heart disease would live not a day longer. They would just have the dubious pleasure of thirty years of paying for drugs, worry and side effects.”

       –The Great Cholesterol Con (2007), chapter 8.

      Reply
    4. David Bailey

      Dorothy,

      I am not a medical doctor, but I encountered some of those awful statin side effects about 10 years ago.

      https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2014/10/11/silence-was-the-stern-reply-2/

      I eventually came to the conclusion that we are all going to die sooner or later, and if a medicine was very unpleasant to take, it makes good sense not to take it – particularly for long term preventative reasons. On top of that, I think from what I have read here over the years, statins are of very little benefit – maybe none.

      The biggest side-effect Is muscle/joint pain and weakness, which in my case meant that I had all but given up walking in the hills, and lack of exercise is not good for you either!

      Reply
      1. Mr Chris

        David
        I was on a statin, and had muscle pain which made biking a bore. I gave them up, was kicked out by a KOL, muscle pain disappeared et.
        This blog had quite a lot to do with my conversion!

        Reply
        1. Sasha

          If statin adverse effects are due to patients experiencing nocebo, as some “authorities” suggest, I must have met all these nocebo patients. Every second person I talk to tells me how awful statins made them feel.

          Reply
  9. lingulella

    If only a major news outlet would start publishing this, but I suspect there are even more nefarious actors out there suppressing publication of scientific research that would benefit mankind while massively funding research that gives them a perceived military advantage. Certainly the US military have been heavily involved in e.g. SARS-CoV2 and the novel pharmaceuticals to combat it, and it is inconceivable that other paranoid governments aren’t also researching, in secret unpublished, their own weapons in this arms race.

    Reply
    1. Gary Ogden

      lingulella That is correct: Both Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna were essentially acting as sub-contractors of the U.S. Department of Defense in manufacturing the jabs. The virus was the weapon, and the jab the “countermeasure.”
      Corruption in the defense industry precedes by decades the corruption in the medical field. And the Pentagon is filled with mostly mediocrities. Never held accountable for their screw-ups. This time, though, they’ve gone way too far.

      Reply
  10. sirpoopsalot1

    There’s something to be said for living in a country with a Socialist Democracy form of government, such as that in most Nordic countries. Here in Capitalistic America… the word “socialism” is frowned upon and even uttering the word might get you in a lot of trouble with someone!

    Reply
  11. Steve

    The item in this article that really intrigues me is what could be the factor that caused the abrupt decline around 1996/7?

    Reply
    1. Steve

      I don’t think there was a single factor, more of a coming together of many things. Thatcher was replaced by Blair (Thatcher-lite), the USSR had collapsed and was being ransacked by the West, markets were opening up allowing exploitation and a singular focus on profits (loads of money).
      I distinctly remember the work environment declining at this time as my employer floated on the stock exchange and profit became king and people became resources.

      Reply
    2. cavenewt

      As shown in the chart, it was trending that way for many decades, but was greatly accelerated in the 1980s with Reagan’s deregulation policies. He’s responsible for the liability exemption for vaccines, for example. Later administrations continued the trend.

      Reply
      1. Ben the Layabout

        Also relaxed restrictions on many types of advertising, including by Pharma (direct to consumer used to be banned). In a similar way, many professions (doctors, lawyers) weren’t allowed to advertise. Today we have sports arenas named after law firms.

        Ownership limitations on media (radio, TV, not sure about print media) were dismantled. E.g. a huge corporation could not own stations in multiple markets. Today you can drive coast-to-coast and the “smooth jazz” or “country” FM station is indistinguishable unless you hear the station call letters. Been so at least since 1980s.

        Reply
    3. Paul Fruitbat

      These things are often the outcome of slow trends that have been developing for decades. We notice them only when the consequences become unbearable; which, because of the “boiling frog” syndrome, can take an unreasonably long time. In Britain, too, the culture of “not complaining” hides all manner of inadequacy. “They’re doing their best,” we think; and often the front-line people are.

      That said, the name “Blair” comes to mind. And “Thatcher” too. The belief that political parties are motivated by any kind of ideals or principles is hopelessly outdated. Blair achieved his success largely by just copying Mrs Thatcher’s policies while being “New Labour” rather than “Conservative”.

      Like soap powders and the like, the leading brands are often owned by the same corporation.

      Reply
      1. Roland Ayers

        At the same time, very very very large amounts of money were thrown at the NHS with the change of government. If we could trace where it all went, we would have a clearer idea of how corruption in medicine works.

        Reply
  12. DAVID KIRKWOOD

    Remember, Figures can’t lie but liars can figure. In the past Robin Hood robbed the rich to help the poor, now there are just Robbing Bastards.

    Reply
    1. Ben the Layabout

      We are approaching the lunacy of the Monty Python’s Flying Circus skits where Dennis More robbed lupines from the rich and gave them to the poor.

      Reply
  13. steve

    There were some big changes under Thatcher.

    She made MHRA fundable by private pharmaceutical companies. Up to that point it was funder by government.

    She also culled almost all blue sky thinking coming out of universities. They had to pave their way by being more commercial, IE selling stuff.

    Is it any wonder we can no longer trust experts, some or many of whom are paid by organisations with vested interests.

    The end result from some of this is a broken peer review system, a government who is in thrall to commercial interests and a kind of sneaky corruption. Sneaky as in not always easy to see unless one digs around.

    I’m not having a dig at the Tories as such, because Neo-liberalism is supported by all parties.

    Of bigger concern is a fully broken money system and an economics profession who are detached from reality.

    Reply
      1. Mr Chris

        Unfortunately there is and has been corruption everywhere for a long time. The civil war that ended the Roman republic was about corruption and money. Wherever you look down history it has been more or less rampant. Don’t want to seem cynical but there seem to be three reactions to it.
        Think that by protesting it will change.
        Believe by voting differently you can bring in a government vowing to fight it.
        Keep your head down, don’t watch too much television try to be honest and
        Get on with things that interest you, like woodturning.
        M’y choice leads to less heartache

        Reply
      2. Robbo

        Malcolm,
        If you are not already aware of this paper from October 2022, you may wish to have a read of it.
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9610448/#ref128

        It’s by a Frenchman (Fabien Deruelle) and within the paper is a note from the Journal’s Editor, which says:

        SNI is devoted to publishing the truth. SNI has no characteristics by which it judges papers except by fact-supported information. The COVID-19 pandemic is one that is marked by conflicting and confusing information for the public. The only solution to this problem scientifically is to hear all sides of the issue, so that a reasonable decision can be made. Instead, we find and learn that practice was not and is not being done. Is the virus a lethal as is described with high death rates? Should everyone be vaccinated and receive booster including small children and babies? Should people wear masks and socially isolate? Are the vaccines safe to use or do they have complications, notable of which are their respiratory, blood clotting, and neurological effects? Why is the public not being told about them? Are their deeper self-serving interests among the pharmaceutical companies, the Media, and governments to limit what the public knows? What is the truth? Fabien Deruelle, a French scientist, who is an independent thinker, saw some disturbing factors involved in the COVID -19 reporting. After spending 8 months researching and writing on his own to learn that the controversies surrounding COVID-19, he concluded that there was a huge amount of misinformation being told and spread, intentionally. The science was being corrupted by bureaucratic, governmental, pharmaceutical company, Media, and political forces so that the truth was not being told. The following is his review of the literature on the COVID-19 controversies. Hence, this independent scientist has discovered known facts which have been suppressed and are emerging in SNI pages and now, elsewhere around the world. His independent observations are what makes his report special. If you want to see my interview with him about his experience with the COVID-19 controversy, click here: https://vimeo.com/755630905. You decide.

        James I. Ausman, MD, PhD

        Emeritus Editor-in-Chief; CEO, SNI™ and SNI Digital™ Publications

        Reply
  14. David McAlonan

    Zombie science. I hadn’t realised until recently that this ‘practice’ was ‘alive’ and well centuries ago at least. I still despair over L Pasteur’s hubris and deceit, like wise other vaccine ‘heroes’. But, as you say Malcolm, when people and statuses reach a certain level, the fallacies and fakery transcend into reality.

    I still don’t get the whole computer modelling fraud. In vivo, in vitro, in silico…..aha, ancient Latin, ergo it must be correct. We’ve come a long way from reading entrails albeit quackery still.

    Reply
      1. Paul Fruitbat

        Like most of us, Pasteur was “good in parts” but could get up to considerable mischief in order, basically, to win arguments by fair means or foul.

        I find it interesting to compare such scientific frauds with someone like Sir Winston Churchill, whom I was brough up to revere.

        While he arguably did much to save Britain in WW2, it has since become known that he was a heavyweight racist with some views that would get him cancelled immediately today.

        “I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place”.

        “I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes…. [W]e cannot in any circumstances acquiesce in the non-utilization of any weapons which are available to procure a speedy termination of the disorder which prevails on the frontier”.

        Of course Churchill was a man of his time, born at Blenheim Palace in 1874. His racial opinions were, in many ways, indistinguishable from those of Theodore Roosevelt, Adolf Hitler, and a very large percentage of Westerners in the period 1850-1945. That those opinions are now far ebyond the pale in no way detracts from his great work and his wonderful writings and speeches.

        It is foolish and juvenile to expect any person to be all good or all bad.

        Reply
        1. Paul Fruitbat

          Sorry – in my last “brou” should read “brought”.

          More important: Churchill’s opinions did not usually interfere with the quality of his work. (His disdain for the Japanese is an obvious exception, which was responsible for the loss of “Prince of Wales” and “Repulse”, and arguably of Singapore).

          Whereas fraud on the part of doctors and medical scientists can cause – and has caused – untold death and harm.

          Reply
        2. Mr B J Man

          We’ve had the ‘despair over L Pasteur’s hubris and deceit’ who was ‘“good in parts” but could get up to considerable mischief in order, basically, to win arguments by fair means or foul’:

          And now the “Sir Winston Churchill… has since become known that he was a heavyweight racist with some views that would get him cancelled immediately today”.

          But you still haven’t enlightened us as to Pasteur’s deceit, never mind hubris.

          As for Churchill: you seem to have been deceived by nationalist activist writers who distort history to project their own racism onto others.

          Where did Churchill exhibit any racism even in your quotes?

          Stating that some “races” were more advanced than others is simply accepting a historical fact, not making a value judgement. At worst he can be blamed for paternalism in wanting to bring other “races” up to the level of the British.

          And contrary to popular belief (and race-baiters’ smears), he had a very high opinion of Indians, and actually tried to do a lot to help in the natural famine exacerbated by losses of rice growing areas to the Japanese, and German U-Boat blockades, compounded by Indian merchants hoarding rice to increase the price even more (which is what provoked him into a single exasperated outburst used as “proof” of his hatred of Indians).

          He also attacked Hitler’s ambassador for anti-semitism, and was praised by Michael Collins for the work he’d done to bring about a peace treaty between the British Government and the Irish Revolutionaries.

          As for the “poison” gas, where in your quote do you see “lethal”, or “killing”?

          The whole quote is about not using aircraft to strafe and bomb “less advanced races” to protect conscripts who should have been demobilised and brought home, but:

          “….If it is fair war for an Afghan to shoot down a British soldier behind a rock and cut him in pieces as he lies wounded on the ground, why is it not fair for a British artilleryman to fire a shell which makes the said native SNEEZE? It is really too silly.”

          Or as he referred to the specific “poison gas” he was was thinking of using for HUMANITARIAN reasons in other memos:

          “It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of *LACHRYMATORY* gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the LOSS of LIFE should be reduced to a MINIMUM. It is NOT necessary to use only the most DEADLY gasses: gasses can be used which cause great INCONVENIENCE and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave NO serious permanent effects on most of those affected.

          The “poison” gas he was referring to we now call TEAR gas.

          And use it against protesters at home!

          Reply
          1. Mr B J Man

            Doh!

            * “Incidentally, to put the “time” Churchill “was a man of” IN PERSPECTIVE: he was a cavalryman.”

            I mean an actual cavalryman, fighting his first wars on horseback, with lance and sabre!

          2. An Italian Australian at the Tropics

            Wait, affirming that some races are more advanced than others isn’t racism?

            I wholeheartedly agree, but try to sell it to the woke.

          3. Mr B J Man

            Well, we could try explaining that the fact that the Northern sub-Saharan Africans who were invading and colonising Southern Africa, conquering and genociding the indigenous San (“Pygmy”) tribes in their Imperialist Empire building had “advanced” further than evil Whitey who’d worked their way up from the Southern shores of Africa doesn’t necessarily mean the Black Africans (and aren’t we all Africans?!) were better people than the Whites!

          4. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

            I would rather we did not move into areas which are likely to become somewhat angry, rather quickly. There are no winnable arguements here I don’ think. People take thier positions and that’s that.

          5. Jerome savage

            Just a ample of unciviliised brutal behaviour by civilised West –
            genocide of north american indians (no comemorating holocaust museums worth talking about – mmmm is that anti j? ), Jallianwala Bagh massacre in india, churchills treatment of and threats to welsh minors 1911 , Bombing of dresden, showpiece atomic bombing in nagasaki, treatment of mau mau in 1950’s Kenya, invasion and slaughter in Iraq, ditto Libya by civilised Anglo & Anglo American interests suggests these countries should hav been left well alone.

      2. Mr B J Man

        Could 1996/7 be when “scientists” had to start linking all research to Global Warming to get funding?

        Which would explain why everything causes, or is caused by, Climate change?!

        “Climate Change and the Allure of Faux-Causality (THE SAAD TRUTH_1498)”

        Reply
    1. Paul Fruitbat

      You are quite right about “the whole computer modelling fraud”. It boils down, really, to “computer says…” – just modern witch-doctory. The following article by William Briggs explains the trouble clearly and simply:

      “Models Only Say What They’re Told to Say — The Paper!”
      https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/36558/

      Dr Briggs also publishes this guest post:

      “Computer Models Aren’t Science”
      https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/32916/

      From this rather modest chap’s “About” page, so you don’t imagine he is just another blustering amateur:

      “I am a wholly independent vagabond writer, statistician, scientist and consultant. Previously a Professor at the Cornell Medical School, a Statistician at DoubleClick in its infancy, a Meteorologist with the National Weather Service, and a sort of Cryptologist with the US Air Force (the only title I ever cared for was Staff Sergeant Briggs).

      “My PhD is in Mathematical Statistics, though I am now a Data Philosopher (I made that up), Epistemologist, Probability Puzzler, Unmasker of Over-Certainty, and (self-awarded) Bioethicist. My MS is in Atmospheric Physics, and Bachelors is in Meteorology & Math.

      “Author of Uncertainty: The Soul of Modeling, Probability & Statistics, a book which calls for a complete and fundamental change in the philosophy and practice of probability & statistics; author of two other books and dozens of works in fields of statistics, medicine, philosophy, meteorology and climatology, solar physics, and energy use appearing in both professional and popular outlets. Full CV (pdf updated rarely)”.

      Reply
  15. Gary Ogden

    Thank you, Dr. Kendrick. The astonishing level of corruption we see today is reinforced and amplified by 5th-generation warfare (information). Pharma/government corruption + social media has become ever more deadly, and ever more efficient at it. We’re screwed. Pitchforks won’t help.

    Reply
  16. Tim Simmons

    Interesting post and makes for sad reading at the state of our Science and political position and mainstream media’s lack of detailed analysis and understanding. It’s the same situation with nonsense continually spouted about C02 harming the planet and the drive for an unachievable and unnecessary Net zero, that will bankrupt the western economy. When will the world really wake up and start challenging the stupidity?

    Reply
  17. Shaun Clark

    In modern parlance, money is pound/dollar notes. So money is ‘paper’, and the best way of hiding money is… paperwork. The UK & USA excel at paperwork, but they are not corrupt. Are they?

    Reply
    1. Gary Ogden

      Shaun: I’ll speak for the U.S. government. It is utterly corrupt, but the corruption is perfectly legal. It is called campaign contributions. As for Medicine and Science, they are utterly corrupt in all the ways they are in the UK which Dr. Kendrick listed. And the regulators of food, drugs, and environmental chemicals are entirely captured. I’d say the U.S. and the UK belong near the top of the list. Yemen? I thought the Saudi’s, with the assistance of O’Bummer, Trump, and Biden, had bombed them back to the Stone Age.

      Reply
  18. Jeanne Drisko, MD

    Please publish this on Substack. It is extraordinarily important and needs to be widely seen.
    As a professor emeritus, I understand your premise and entirely agree. I have conducted disruptive research with very little underwriting and support even though I begged at the altar of federal funding. But I refused to bend in my goals and never took the advice to change my approach and conduct research that meant no change or challenge to the status quo. It wasn’t about the money or the accolades. It was always about the truth. As a result, my university standing was never very high and I was not celebrated like my highly funded colleagues. But I continued and still continue and know my reputation is intact. Time may yet be on my side.
    Thank you for this important discussion and as always shining the light of truth on our corrupted system.

    Reply
    1. cavenewt

      Oh jeez. Why am I not surprised?

      The best defense against this kind of thing is to help as many people as possible learn the facts, rather than the propaganda. They can’t *make* you take a statin — at least not yet!

      Reply
      1. Steve

        There was talk last year about placing drugs like statins and geneJabs in our drinking water. Fluoride is already an issue so we need to be vigilant.

        Reply
        1. cavenewt

          They been talking about putting statins in the water supply for many years. It’s crazy, when you think about it, because of the weakness of the evidence and the fact that cholesterol is something the body will make itself if it needs to.

          Reply
    2. Martin Back

      A subtle form of corruption is glossing over facts which might invalidate your assumptions. For instance, the recommendation that statin use be extended to less-risky people (who are presumably younger than the current statin users) probably assumes that they will follow the NHS guidelines and take statins for the rest of their lives.

      “You usually have to continue taking statins for life because if you stop taking them, your cholesterol will return to a high level”
      https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/statins/

      However, many people stop taking statins. It’s hard to put an exact number on it, but according to one paper, very roughly, out of 100,000 patients monitored over eight years, 50% stopped taking statins (some because of side-effects, most just stopped). 30% restarted after being “rechallenged” (whatever that means), usually with a different statin.
      Discontinuation of statins in routine care settings

      The U.S. Pharmacist is more pessimistic. “Approximately 50% of patients discontinue statin therapy within 1 year, and adherence decreases over time.”
      https://www.uspharmacist.com/article/overcoming-barriers-to-statin-adherence

      A paper funded by the Medical Research Council points out that “if statin discontinuation rates are high it may be better to delay statin initiation until patients are at a higher risk, to maximize the benefit of the drug.”
      The impact of statin discontinuation and restarting rates on the optimal time to initiate statins and on the number of cardiovascular events prevented

      The argument is simple. People are more likely to get heart attacks the older they are. If you prescribe statins at a young age, patients are likely to discontinue their use before they are most needed, i.e. when they are older. You should, therefore, delay prescribing statins until they are really needed.

      This is the complete opposite of the new NICE guidelines.

      All this of course is assuming that stains work as advertised, and patients continue behaving as before.

      Reply
      1. AhNotepad

        Since statins are nigh on useless, why is there a problemin not taking them?I refer you to abookby a certain. Dr.Malcolm Kendrick”Statin Nation” andanother “The Great Cholesterol Con”.

        Reply
      2. Ben the Layabout

        Using my spreadsheet which I can’t even link to here, I “ran the numbers” as follows. Assume a statin will provide an 8% risk reduction* (relative, annual) in the all-cause death rate. If a man began at age 21, the increase in life expectancy is trivial. He will have gained a week by age 75. If he makes it to 99, he’ll have gained almost 60 days. This, of course rests on the assumption that the reduction is linear. Even absent the math, it should be intuitively apparent why so little benefit. At younger ages the risk of death is normally very low, so reducing it another 8% really doesn’t do much. Alas, the benefit is not like compound interest at the bank. The old have a greater expected benefit, but so far as I understand it, you can’t “bank” the added life expectancy from earlier years.

        *This figure is reasonable, based upon several studies or meta-analyses I’ve checked.

        Reply
  19. Navegante

    Corruption? No! just the normal course of things! In the first Fourier Trial Report it was already clear that in the Evolocumab group more people died than in the control group. Even so, Repatha (evolocumab) was approved. Now reanalysis of the Fourier data shows that there were MUCH more deaths in the evolocumab group than in the control group. Repatha continues to be promoted and sold. How to understand this? Of course, the ultimate goal is to lower cholesterol! but… even if it leads to more heart attacks?

    Reply
  20. Steve

    The quoted corruption index is interesting. The top contains all the west’s enemies. Curious not to see Ukraine in the top five, or even the UK !

    Reply
    1. An Italian Australian at the Tropics

      You are absolutely right. I’m always skeptical of those lists and in my experience they are never correct.

      Reply
  21. medical plaintalk

    I am a neurologist, also boarded in internal medicine. I finished training in the late 1970s. By the mid-eighties I was increasingly troubled by the enthusiastic use of drugs to modify neurotransmitters because, after all, we now knew that deficiencies caused all manner of undesirable problems in living. Then came the statins which I could not convince
    patients to stop even as their muscle pain made them couch potatoes and they developed Parkinsonian symptoms. I was done in by the adoption of pain as the fifth vital sign and the expectation that opiates would not cause problems in patients with chronic pain. Just “pseudoaddiction.” I ended my modest little clinical practice and switched to writing – an attempt to give people some tools for defense against the behemoth that had risen out of medical “science.” I suppose we can only hope that the brittleness of current medical “science” does not shatter the good things that have come out of past progress as it fails.

    Reply
    1. Sasha

      Isn’t it amazing that many people will experience side effects of drugs but won’t stop them unless and until a figure of authority allows them to make such a decision? Some of them will literally go to their graves following somebody else’s directions.

      Reply
      1. Ben the Layabout

        Good comment. If I may offer a counter-point? There are patients like myself, who took statins (and other primary prevention) for years with no KNOWN adverse effects. But being curious and self-educated (including via the good Dr.) I decided to stop them, primarily because they are useless, or at least adjacent to same. I think I’ll find better uses for (approx.) $1000/year no longer spent on office visits and drugs.

        Reply
    1. Mike Watson

      David,

      I was just about to post the same link. As a heart attack victim (2002) I have been persuaded over the years to try all the statins and they all resulted in aches,pains and tiredness that miraculously disappeared after I stopped them. Let’s hope this proposition sinks without trace……!

      After 5 heart attacks, a quad by-pass and a coronary sinus reducer I came across Dr Kendricks books (and Aseem Malhorta videos) and now just take aspirin(blood thinner) and bisoprolol (Blood Pressure) and Ranalozine (Angina) on prescription Along with VItamin d and k2.

      Reply
      1. Sasha

        If you’re interested, check out “Malignant Medical Myths”, it has a whole chapter of stats on aspirin, including aspirin use in secondary prevention.

        Reply
        1. Gary Ogden

          Sasha: Agreed, and thanks for mentioning “Malignant Medical Myths.” The author is Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, and there is a section by SpaceDoc, (Duane Graveline, MD).

          Reply
        2. Ben the Layabout

          I looked at this meta-analysis
          “Aspirin in the primary and secondary prevention of vascular disease: collaborative meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised trials”
          Antithrombotic Trialists’ (ATT) Collaboration
          Lancet. 2009 May 30; 373(9678): 1849–1860.

          I was interested in the absolute reduction in all-cause mortality (annual).
          For primary prevention, it was fairly easy to find: 0.03%

          For secondary, curiously, it was unstated (or I missed it). I was able to derive it, and got 0.48%. (about 10.5% relative reduction). This translates into a 10% reduction of a (usually) relatively small annual risk of death = a few extra weeks, perhaps months to life expectancy.

          Perhaps the numbers work better for reducing non-fatal events?

          Reply
          1. Sasha

            I don’t remember the exact numbers but the book says:
            No benefit in primary prevention.
            In secondary prevention, discontinue after 8 weeks if there’s no another event

          2. Gary Ogden

            Sasha: Thanks. Years ago the nurse at my family doctor recommended taking the 62mg version of aspirin, so I did for a while. This was before Dr. Kendrick started his blog, but, fortunately, I had discovered SpaceDoc by then, and discontinued them. I’ve never been in the habit of taking OTC drugs, or pharmaceuticals, for that matter. Wholesome food, clean water, fresh air, sunshine, and staying active have given me good health. 74 tomorrow. Yikes!

        3. Mike Watson

          Thanks for the info..

          A quick look on Amazon (uk) and this book is £152.00 in perfect condition although used – Very Good was £3.80….. from World of Books Ltd

          Not sure which one to buy!! 🙂

          Reply
          1. Sasha

            152 British pounds? Damn, things are expensive in the UK. Must be because of your NHS.

            Just kidding, I wish we had something like NHS in the USA. Fat chance of that happening…

        1. Gary Ogden

          June: Definitely. And potassium. I take 1g potassium bicarbonate with the morning meal, and the same with the evening meal.

          Reply
  22. Sasha

    Thank you.

    In other news, a new book is out “Died Suddenly”, compiled by a finance person who knows how to analyze data. Has photos, too. Highly recommended…

    Reply
    1. Gary Ogden

      Sasha: The book is “Cause Unknown,” and the author is Edwin Dowd, who was a bigwig in finance until he got burned out. One of the good guys. Foreword by RFK, Jr. He does not state these deaths were caused by the jab (thus, the title), but leaves it to the reader’s judgement to decide. A powerful indictment of the corruption oppressing the modern world.

      Reply
  23. Louise

    Great and depressing article. My daughter can’t even sit in the library at Uni without staring at Bill Gates’ name engraved in the glasswork. What a world.

    Reply
  24. cavenewt

    A timely article, Dr. K.

    Just last night I finished reading Ben Goldacre’s book Bad Pharma. And I thought I was cynical before…

    Highly recommended although he covers a dizzying array of malfeasance by the pharmaceutical and medical industries, with lots of real world examples. The book is now 10 years old, being published in 2012, and he evinced a trust in meta-analysis that from today’s perspective seems touching. Is the Cochran collaborative is as trustworthy as it was then?

    Bad as things were in 2012, Covid has been gasoline on a fire. I tried looking through Goldacre’s Twitter feed to see if he has written anything updating this subject, without much success.

    Reply
  25. Paul Fruitbat

    A brilliant article, Dr Kendrick! Many thanks.

    “Whilst it is difficult to define corruption perfectly, I would try to define it as … people doing things that are ‘paid’ for by others”.

    May I suggest that the essence of corruption is accepting the due remuneration and respect for a post with an agreed set of duties, and then accepting personal rewards to pursue entirely different goals?

    The doctor’s patients are entitled to believe that he has their interests at heart, and obeys – even if he has never actually sworn it – the Hippocratic Oath, in spirit if not the letter. It’s crystal clear: the physician aims, above all, to help his patients by curing their diseases and helping them to become, and stay, healthy. That should be his overriding priority, and nothing should be allowed to interfere with or override it.

    If, instead, the physician acts in such ways as to maximise his income or prestige – even at the risk of actual harm to his patients – he is a rogue, a blackguard, and a scoundrel. It is such people who should be forbidden to practice medicine, not those who speak truth to power.

    Another way of putting it is that there are certain duties that must be acknowledged and fulfilled honestly, to the best of one’s ability. Corrupt people, seemingly, acknowledge no duties at all towards others.

    Unfortunately, we live in a world where traditional values are increasingly mocked and abandoned. The only two things that seem to motivate many people (in the West, at least) are money and power. Perhaps one might add celebrity, which is strongly associated with both, but which is perhaps more visible.

    I treasure this remark, which I noted down years ago:

    “As the sociologist Georg Simmel wrote over a century ago, if you make money the center of your value system, then finally you have no value system, because money is not a value”.

    – Morris Berman, “The Moral Order”, Counterpunch 8-10 February 2013. http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/08/the-moral-order/

    Reply
  26. Paul Fruitbat

    “…I hope to make it clear that those with a reputation for doing ‘great work’ are just as likely to be corrupt as anyone else.

    “In truth, they are the most likely to be corrupt. How so? Because they have achieved such high status that they have risen beyond suspicion. In addition, the ‘great ones’ have made themselves immensely valuable. Which means that they are actively sought out. They have both status, and influence”.

    Dr Kendrick has the powerful support of Lord Acton. The complete passage, part of which has become almost a cliche, was as follows:

    “I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it”.

    – Lord Acton (Letter to Bishop Creighton, 1887)

    Reply
  27. Paul Fruitbat

    “Science only lives, and progresses, when the status quo is regularly attacked, and disrupted. But within a corrupt system, where the majority of funding comes from commercial sources, innovation grinds to a halt”.

    This is very true indeed, and a very dangerous trend. What is more, when people come to realise that “experts” and those in authority lie on an industrial scale, they cease to believe anything they say. But the fabric of society depends utterly on trust! What happens when you cannot trust the doctor to diagnose and prescribe without bias or hidden agenda, when you cannot trust the journalist to write what is true to the best of his knowledge, when you cannot trust the lawyer to give you an honest opinion, when you know for certain that your political “representatives” represent industry rather than you, when you cannot trust the postman to deliver, when even the clergy… but let’s not go there.

    In the inimitable words of Thomas Hobbes:

    “In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”.

    Reply
    1. andy

      Our kitchen table looks like a dispensing pharmacy. Three a day each, plus four extra for gout. They rang me to add another one..and I finally have said that ‘I will take my chance’. No more pills.
      Certainly no injections and I realise that I’m on my own now. Dispensing with them all.

      Reply
  28. Deane Compton

    You are getting closer. Also nicer now you are off the inconvenient detail they could impound you for.
    Perhaps is there a co-incidence between failing societies and increased corruption? Or maybe even a correlation?
    I always enjoy reading your perspective. Viva la freedom of [well thought out and considered] speech.

    Reply
  29. Philip

    It would be interesting to see the absolute numbers of disruptive papers, rather than just the averages shown in the chart. It may be that the absolute numbers are constant and too many people are pursuing academic careers to which they’re not really suited.

    Reply
  30. JohnAppleton

    Dear Doctor Kendrick,

    I first heard of you on thincs.org so your newsletters, most of which I have retained are of great interest to revise from time to time, so in this one I was pleased to see your use of the word “stop” instead of “step” following the word “lock” in the first paragraph following “Estonia”! Thus you have moved away from that hateful word used by so many today.

    Corruption can also be the antidote for true truth, the inoculation against something that is not, it is a connivance of evil setting itself up against the populace for ill-gotten gain.

    The Holy Bible says Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. Gen 6:11-12 (ESV)

    The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good. Psalms 14:1 (ESV)

    The only antidote for corruption is true belief in God the Creator His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. 2 Peter 1:3-9 (ESV)

    John Appleton

    Reply
  31. Tom

    People are more corrupt in proportion to their fears. Fear of losing out, fear of losing control, fear of looking bad, fear of not having enough, fear of losing what they do have, and a thousand other baseless fears.

    Reply
  32. Ben the Layabout

    Another copacetic essay, Dr. Thank you.

    I’d argue that as with many things, corruption is not black and white but shades of grey. What’s acceptable or even standard business practice in one time and place may be cause for ostracism or even a serious crime in another.

    My opinions usually wander to cynical. With that disclaimer, I posit the corruption in the academy, in corporations, government and such, are merely part of a broader disease of the entire West. It’s been going on for a long time (generations). There are many indications of it. For example here in the Colonies, it is reported that for universities, over a period of many years the “overhead” (e.g. administrative staff) has grown mightily in comparison to those who actually teach. Problem: no matter what one’s political ideals, there are only so many positions like Director for Diversity Inclusion and Equity, or Dean for Transsexual Student Affairs, and the like can be created before the budget runs out and no more office space is available.

    Virtually any system you can name is suffering some version of this. I’d call it late empire decadence. I’m not sure what the solution is. Sometimes the whole structure must rot and collapse which is usually very messy. Short of that, it will require a major crisis and house-cleaning.

    Relative to the medical system, I thank men like you who dare to point out the flaws in the system. As a private citizen there’s not much I can do, but I’ve educated myself to the point where I know it’s in my best interests, both in terms of health and financially, to minimize contact with the health care system to the extent I can.

    Reply
    1. andy

      Corruption as you describe is often down to unemployment. These people employed in such non jobs are often there because there is nothing else in society for them to do. Hence the numbers of departments in India or Italy doing so little.

      Reply
    2. Sasha

      In order for something to collapse, there’s got to be an outside force strong enough to apply the pressure. What would be that force in regards to the US, for example? Or in regards to the rest of the West?

      As far as I can tell, the US can afford to do a lot of dumb things because it can run trillion dollar deficits without anyone loosing faith in the dollar. And the US continuously maintains a technological and military edge over any potential adversary.

      Reply
      1. Gary Ogden

        Sasha: Correct. The dollar will be the last currency standing, but ultimately it will fail, too, as no economy can continually run up such vast debts (which will never be repaid) without collapsing. Our military is still very powerful, but readiness is worrisome, because of the jab, and new weapons systems, such as the F35 aren’t all that great. The goading of China and Russia will come back to bite us. We would all benefit from good relations among these three powers, while keeping a close eye on them. What worries me most, other than the threat of wider war in Ukraine (inevitable; Putin cannot and will not back down), is the WHO (owned by Bill Gates), with their new pandemic treaty, which will essentially cede sovereignty to them/him from every nation on Earth).

        Reply
        1. Sasha

          Gary: this is an interesting question but I think most of us misunderstand debt because we look at it through our eyes. If you or I run up high levels of debt, our “personal” economy will collapse. There are forces out there stronger than you or I. They will come and take our houses away, cancel our credit cards, repossess our cars, etc. And there will be nothing you or I can do about it.

          However, the same logic doesn’t apply to the US government. What force is stronger than the US government that can come and claim the debt owed? Who will cancel US government’s credit cards, foreclose on its real estate, repossess its holdings? US is in control of its own currency which also happens to be the reserve currency of the whole world. Despite defaulting on its obligations when US went off the gold standard, as Ray Dalio points out. US can print its currency indefinitely. Zimbabwe is also in control of its currency and can print it indefinitely. But US is not Zimbabwe. Or, as one American official put it in a moment of candor: “US dollar is a stable currency because the government of the United States, the most powerful country in the world, tells you it is”. Or something to that effect.

          Thus, we misunderstand government debt because we unconsciously look at it through our own lens, not through the lens of an entity vastly different from ourselves. This, in my opinion, applies to most situations out there, not just finances.

          Reply
          1. Gary Ogden

            Sasha: Interesting analysis. My understanding of what lies in the future economically relies on what Martin Armstrong has to say. Are you familiar with him?

          2. Sasha

            Gary: I am not. I will look him up, do you have a link?

            Basically, it’s an argument between Austrian school of economics and “neo-liberal” economists (not sure if that’s the right term for them) like Paul Krugman. One side says that you can’t print money every time you get into trouble, you will debase the currency. The other says – just keep printing and figure it out later with the interest rates. I am simplifying but that’s the gist of it, imo.

            The question of currency is as much a geopolitical one as it is economic. As Ray Dalio says, US defaulted not once but twice. First, when Roosevelt broke US promise to the American people and outlawed ownership of gold. And second time when Nixon broke US promise to the rest of the world and took US dollar off the gold standard. The next day Ray Dalio went to NYSE expecting a blood bath. Instead, the market rallied. So, that was a scientific moment for him and he started studying history to understand why.

            But the point is, when the s**t really hits the fan you need to put your trust in something. And most people all over the world will trust the US dollar above anything else. If I am not mistaken, when Covid hit, everything plunged: stocks, commodities, gold, major currencies. Even though, usually, commodities and gold are inversely related. The only thing that rallied for a while was the US dollar.

            Maybe, when the Fed put “In God We Trust” on every US note, it wasn’t kidding…

          3. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

            I think Mark Twain said. Buy land, they aren’t making any more of it. The entire financial system only works so long as we all believe in it. Gold is only worth something if we belive that it is worth something. It is all a bit scary if you ponder it for too long.

            I remember thinking that if you were an alien looking down on Earth in 2008, you would not have noticed that anything had changed. Houses, roads, hospitals…. all still there. Yet trillions of dollars had gone… somewhere, and the world was in crisis. I sometimes wondered where those trillions of dollars went. Because, clearly, they were never actaully there in the first place.

            I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of ….x pounds. Written on all UK banknotes. But I have a banknote worth x pounds. Waht are you going to give me for it? X pounds. But I already have x pounds…. repeat.

          4. Sasha

            What you may also get for your x pounds worth banknote is x pounds worth of tomatoes. As long as the tomato seller believes that he can turn that x pounds worth banknote into x pounds worth of potatoes.

            Of course, if Bank of England goes crazy with money printing, you may only get 5 tomatoes for your x pounds worth banknote instead of 10 tomatoes you were expecting. Also, tomato seller will be disappointed when he goes to turn your x pounds worth banknote into potatoes.

            As I understand it, gold was a common benchmark for every currency. Every currency had to play by the same rules and be measured against gold. That’s what made it special. And then the US said at Bretton Woods – trust us, you don’t need to haul all that gold around. Just use our dollars, it’s the same thing, we promise. Whenever you want it, we’ll turn it back into gold at a fixed rate of $35 per ounce. And then, some time later, the French and the Germans called the US bluff and Nixon said – oops, sorry. The dollar clearly has a problem but it’s your problem, not our problem. It may look like a default to you but it’s really not a default because we’re just gonna change the rules. And the US defaulted on its debt even though everyone in mass media says that the US never defaulted on its debt.

            Apparently, in 2022 the world’s central banks bought more gold per annum than in the last 55 years, so that’s going back to BEFORE Nixon went off the gold standard. Why are they buying all that gold? What do they know that we don’t?

          5. Gary Ogden

            Sasha: Right on the money that a currency only has value if the people have faith in the government backing it. Go to armstrongeconomics. He knows a lot.

          6. Geoff

            You asked,”What force is stronger than the US government that can come and claim the debt owed? ”

            The answer to that is the international banking cartel. Those mafiosi evidently control everything important. The US is no more sovereign than any other country but for now it’s the strong arm (goon squad) of choice. If our politicians decide to buck the system, the rest of us are toast because the international mafia is not stupid and certainly has a back up plan.

            Maj Gen Smedley Butler is one who described it well in his “War is a Racket.”

            “… I spent most of my [33 years in the Marine Corps] being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.

            In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for [crony] capitalism.”

            Major General Butler USMC, War is a Racket, 1935
            http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

            “…we have invited clean young men to shoulder a discredited musket and do bandit’s work under a flag which bandits have been accustomed to fear, not to follow; we have debauched America’s honor and blackened her face before the world. . .”

            -Mark Twain, “To the Person Sitting in Darkness,” (1901)
            http://xroads.virginia.edu/~DRBR/sitting.html

        2. Sasha

          And you’re right, Putin will not back down. Apparently, there is an article that just came out in Foreign Affairs about what to do next. Russian youtube channels are discussing it. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are discussions going on now behind closed doors between Americans and Russians on where do we go from here.

          Reply
          1. andy

            I wrote to the Oslo ‘Nobel Peace Centre’ asking if they had publically proposed a peace table for discussions between Ukraine and Russia? But the CEO of the new centre ( entry £15 kids £5) didn’t reply.

          2. Sasha

            I think if and when a deal is reached, Oslo Peace Center will be one of the last to find out. Together with the rest of us

          3. Ben the Layabout

            (Disclaimer: Not a Russian fan, but trying to be objective.) Try and look at the issue from Russia’s perspective. She is fighting for her national identity, her culture, her independence from being captured by the West, cut to pieces and sold off to the highest bidder. Ukraine is not the enemy, she is just a puppet. Nor is NATO. Nor even the USA. The real enemy are those in what we can call the Deep State, the international elites that really run the USA (and most other nations.) Specifically to the war against Russia, the US war policy is dictated less by common sense than, what we might term ancestral hatreds against Russia.

          4. Gary Ogden

            Sasha: I would hope and pray so. There are a few intelligent people in Washington. Meanwhile, the bulk of those suffering are the people of Ukraine, and the elites don’t give a damn. Blackrock is waiting in the wings to “rebuild” Ukraine at the expense of the taxpayer. What a cesspool of corruption.

          5. Sasha

            Gary: I don’t think it’s about corruption. The millstone of history grinds everybody. When Stalin was confiscating all that grain from Russian and Ukrainian peasants he wasn’t doing it because he was corrupt. He needed to sell the grain to get hard currency to buy Western technology to industrialize the country to prepare for war to bring about the world victory of the proletariat. Millions of people died of starvation but “one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic”, at least according to him.

            Ideas are above money and what we are seeing in Ukraine is a battle of two ideologies. That’s what I think, anyway…

          6. Gary Ogden

            Sasha: Interesting. What would those ideologies be? I do know that Putin is steeped in traditional historical Russian values, but I know little about Ukraine because all we hear is propaganda. I did know that Stalin’s theft of grain was not only from Ukraine, but all the Soviet grain-producing regions.

          7. Sasha

            Gary: it seems a large number of people living in Ukraine have decided that maybe joining EU and NATO isn’t such a bad idea. From the point of view of people formulating Russia’s current foreign policy – it is one thing when Sweden and Finland join NATO. Those people aren’t “ours”. But Ukraine? “Our” people? Of course, the further west in Ukraine you go, the less “ours” they become but who’s counting. Besides, “chicken is not a bird and Poland is not abroad” as a Russian saying goes. And on TV it says that Russia never led offensive wars, only defensive ones. That’s how you get a country with eleven time zones, apparently. People just give stuff to you.

            It’s a bit hard for me to answer your question what this ideological battle is. I do think that for many people one of the greatest tragedies of the fall of Soviet Union was a loss of ideology. Something to believe in. Even though when Soviet Union was falling apart, hardly anyone believed in the Soviet idea anymore. But they believed in the greatness of the Russian empire. Now they are reconstructing it – “the Russian world” and all the people and territories that belong to it, according to some peoples’ thinking. That, by the way, includes Belorussia, northern Kazakhstan, chunks of Baltic states, Moldova, pieces or maybe whole of Georgia, Armenia…

            You can get quite lost in these arguments. The real issue now though: what’s the way forward? Russia annexed these four regions, they can’t go back to their people and say – sorry, just joking. And many Ukrainians will fight to death as long as they get weapons. So where do you go from here? What’s the off-ramp for everyone involved?

          8. Gary Ogden

            Sasha: Thanks. I have a much better understanding now. You have a refreshingly realistic view of reality. I think, unfortunately there is no offramp. On the other hand, the puppet-masters seem to be in the throwing Biden under the bus. This is probably not good news, though.

          9. Sasha

            Gary: I can’t claim credit for many of these thoughts. Since the war started, I have been listening to a lot of independent Russian channels on Youtube. There are some very good journalists and analysts there. Plus, I know people on either side of the war so I am familiar with their thinking.

            So far, no one I’ve spoken to can figure out what the offramp is in the current situation. For anyone: the West, Ukrane or Russia. And we’re talking about two nuclear superpowers who are getting into a deeper and deeper fight.

          10. Jerome savage

            Sasha
            Russias greatest crime was to occupy east European countries after the 2nd WW. Its rightful fear of further western incursions, bonaparte & Hitler besides ther appears to hav been non Russian players involved in the revolution in 1917. (Not the place here to go in to that) But after 20 plus million dead from germanys incursions it used east European countries as a buffer to future western wanderings. The populations of South & east ukrain (90% russian) appear hav been deliberately targeted by the US approved comedian turned statesman zekensky with 14,000 Russian fatalities as a result and a noteworthy burning alive of protesters in an odessa hotel by zekensky supporters in 2014 as the authorities looked on. Russia unlike England, France and Belgium etc stayed out of Africa, South America and SE Asia.
            Dr K. might tolerate this, my last comment on this matter.

          11. Gary Ogden

            Jerome: If Eisenhower had let Patton continue charging forward, he would have reached Berlin before the Soviet troops, and history would have been very different, yet we have to play the hand we’re dealt. Self-defense is right, but war is never simple, always destructive, and gives a lie to the assertion that we humans have large brains.

          12. Sasha

            There’s an interesting book: “War. What Is It Good For?”. Takes a “macro” look at the whole phenomenon of war

          13. Sasha

            Jerome: I don’t know where you’re getting your information from but this comment reads like a Reader’s Digest version of Crime and Punishment. Things are much more nuanced than what you wrote.

        3. Jerome savage

          Gary – my Pakistani consultant put it to me, when I referred to the removal of their prime minister imran Khan in a style reminiscent of CIA shenanigans across South America in 1970’s referred to the Americans as “the new English”
          There is some criticism of putin within Russia that he didn’t come to the rescue of his fellow Russian speakers in ukraine East & south east border area sooner.

          Reply
        4. Jerome savage

          Re eisenhower
          Gary – isn’t it fair to say that Russian suffered disproportionately than any of the big countries ?
          And – was it Bismarck who said he knew of a hundred ways to entice the bear out of the cave but not one way to get it back in?

          Reply
          1. Gary Ogden

            Jerome: True. Our Soviet allies suffered the largest share of casualties in WWII. I believe, between soldiers and civilians, 25-27 million. As for getting the bear back in the cave, as Sasha said, it is a nation of eleven time zones, so perhaps it ain’t very easy to do so. As for the current case, I highly doubt that Putin will go any farther west than needed to protect the predominantly Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine, and on to Odessa to control all the Black Sea access. But then, who knows what the future will bring. My father survived the war (he was stationed in France), but only for seven years. I suspect the emotional toll of seeing casualties every day (he was an ambulance driver) contributed to his early death. Humans are capable of enormous stupidity.

      2. Gary Ogden

        Sasha: Another factor to consider is rot from within. We’ve seen a rapid acceleration in the U.S.of cultural rot: the normalizing of the sexual mutilation of children; drag shows in elementary schools, etc. You can’t make this stuff up. The media in the U.S. has long been a propaganda operation, but that has accelerated since 2015, and the enormous reach of social media has certainly altered the outcomes of our elections since then (not the Russians, as so many were led to believe). Most Americans still retain the values which made Western Civilization a wonderful thing, but the permanent state (bureaucracy) along with the immense power of the intelligence community, aided and abetted by a dysfunctional Congress, is leading us toward hard times. The jab, too. It turned out to be a colossal and dangerous failure.

        Reply
          1. Gary Ogden

            Sasha: It began in the 1980’s with a tiny minority group–gay political activists in New York (New York is the most corrupt state in the union–read Whitney Webb’s “The United States of Blackmail” to understand this). Anthony Fauci seized the opportunity to turn his agency from a backwater (since infectious diseases had been largely conquered by then) into the behemoth it now is by inventing, along with Robert Gallo, HIV/AIDS. AIDS is real, but it is a lifestyle disease, not a viral one. The gay lifestyle gradually transformed from being shameful, and in the closet, to being normalized (which I don’t have any problem with). But they went way too far, and now all sorts of bizarre behaviors and ideas have become normalized. The basis of civilization is the family, and these political activists have attacked the traditional family, so that only a minority of American children today live in a traditional family. Alarming, it is. Celia Farber has a new book coming out about the AIDS wars, and RFK, Jr.’s “The Real Anthony Fauci” has a lot of information about it.

          2. Sasha

            Gary: I think the whole woke thing will be a very transient phenomenon because it’s so ridiculous. It will probably blow out in a few years. There will be a huge pushback, it already started.

            The destruction of American family structure is “multi-factorial” just like the rise in autism rates and the general decline in childrens’ heath is multi-factorial.

        1. Sasha

          Gary: a failure unless it wasn’t set up to do what we think it was set up to do. Sasha Latypova seems to to think so, right? And it looks like she has data to back it up. Or at least reasonable hypotheses.

          Reply
          1. Gary Ogden

            Sasha: Agreed. This is a DoD operation in the works for about two decades (mRNA vaccine technology). That it has gone horribly wrong was not in the plan, but this is what happens when you give unaccountable governments too much power and money, and billionaires laundering their ill-gotten gains through “philanthropy.” The narrative is beginning to change, but they will never admit they did anything wrong.

  33. An Italian Australian at the Tropics

    Not sure about those lists.

    In my opinion, in Australia there is as much corruption as in Italy, but since things works smoothly and efficiently, you don’t notice it.

    Reply
  34. Baillsruth

    😠😳😕🥺💔. That bad, wow, sounds like they are a mob of nincompoo’s in cahoots with big pharma. Yep, I am a Aussie.

    Reply
  35. Baillsruth

    Sounds like they are a mob of nincompoos in caroots with big pharma. 🥺😕😳😠💔. Thank you once again Dr Malcolm Kendrick for giving us the truth.

    Reply
  36. Jeremy May

    When I listen to and read propaganda and blatant untruths spouted in every corner of main stream media, I feel an almost physical shock. There’s a helplessness because I know it’s wrong but can’t do anything to refute it. I know that the vast majority of people only watch MSM and will swallow the lies. I’m desperate to shout, ‘don’t listen you dumb clucks, it’s all lies.’ I tell people to read Dr Ks blog or The Daily Sceptic or The Conservative Woman to get an alternative view so they can make their own minds up, but invariably I’m met with, ‘they are just deniers.’ Or some such.

    We know it’s almost inevitable the jabs cause damage. Aseem Malhotra mentioned that one group of researchers found evidence of inflammation around the coronary arteries linked to the vaccines. They had a meeting and decided NOT TO PUBLISH their findings because they might lose funding from the drug industry! Corruption at work.

    In this video, the relevant part starts around 1.00 minute in.

    Reply
  37. Mr B J Man

    Was there anything else happening in the world of research in the mid-nineties that seems to have caused the output of Disruptive Research to fall off a cliff across the board?

    When, for example, did everyone start tying their research, however tenuously, to Man Made Global Warming?

    By an amazing coincidence, I watched a video from Prof Gad Saad last night about Googling it and random things, and finding everything caused, or was caused by, Global Warming!

    “Climate Change and the Allure of Faux-Causality (THE SAAD TRUTH_1498) – YouTube”

    Reply
  38. Philip

    Something that hasn’t helped is the patent system, which in most of Europe was only extended to pharma relatively recently, in the 1950s to 1970s.

    The general public thinks of patents as necessary to encourage innovation, but on the whole they have the opposite effect, because in reality most innovation is cumulative, with inventions acting as inputs as well as outputs; somebody invents X, then somebody else invents Y which is based on X, and then somebody else invents Z which is based on Y. With patents the commercialisation of each stage of that process usually has to wait until the previous stage goes out of patent, say 10 years, whereas without patents those stages could be 6 months apart, and the incentives to innovate to beat the competition would still be there.

    Patents are particularly damaging in the pharma industry because they skew the financial incentives away from doing things to benefit the patient and towards inventing things that are novel enough to be patentable. Novel drugs have unknown safety profiles so they need particularly lengthy and expensive trials with low success rates. Human and financial resources that could be performing definitive trials of existing repurposed drugs and even dietary or lifestyle changes are instead diverted to the pharma industry’s latest innovation. Patents also provide the monopoly profits that allow for generous “grants” to universities, news media and politicians. There’s an interesting discussion in Boldrin and Levine’s “Against Intellectual Monopoly”, available online here: http://dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstnew.htm

    Reply
    1. Geoff

      Excellent points! Marcia Angell MD’s book, “The Truth About the Drug Companies, How They Deceive Us…” details many of the ways that big pharma games the patent system. In fact, it would appear that not only does the big money crowd find ways to game any set of laws, but that most laws are made in their interests.

      Just for fun, I’ve recently been reviewing Juvenal’s charming “Satires” written 2 millennia ago in response to the obvious and rampant corruption going on back then and must say that it’s hard to keep from laughing and screaming at the same time.

      Just like now.

      PS: Another good read is the Wikipedia entry on “Sir” Doll. Just the part titled “Research Funding” is sufficient and, keeping in mind that “Wiki” seems to put a positive spin on things of this nature, I highly recommend it to everyone here.

      Reply
  39. David Bailey

    The only way to improve the problem with science in general would be to pass a law that getting caught receiving a bribe would land you in jail for a considerable time, and result in the removal of all your scientific qualifications.

    Reply
  40. Eggs ‘n beer

    “As the flow of industry money into research has multiplied, innovation and new ideas have shrivelled and died. This, anyway, is my working hypothesis. You may feel there are other reasons. In which case, I would be interested to hear them.”

    As you comment elsewhere, any articles on bosons nowadays would be swamped by ones on statins. So the sheer volume of industry money funded articles make disruptive ones merely background noise.

    But I think another potent preventative is fear. After what happened to Wakefield, and many others, who would risk putting their heads above the parapet? Plenty of people have been cancelled as a result of their disruptive, sorry, ‘misleading’ comments about Covid, both the disease and the jab. How many Marshall and Warrens out there have just kept quite because of the efforts and risks involved in taking on the establishment, to the detriment of the world’s population?

    Reply
  41. Secretface2097

    I once worked in a Pharma sales force. I will never forget one situation with a physician. I wanted to convince him to visit an event organized by our company where some KOLs would give a talk. When I mentioned the most famous KOL from the list of speakers, he said that this guy is known as the “Wanderprediger”, itinerant preacher, who spreads the message of whichever Pharma company currently pays him the most. Funnily, I most of the time got the completely opposite reaction from other physicians who said that they are big fans of this KOL. So, it was definetely worth the money for the company to have him on our side.

    Reply
  42. Charlie Marks

    One of your very best yet. Very interesting & thought-provoking. Deserves publication in something like the London Review of Books.

    Thanks for keeping me entertained and informed over the past decade or more. I spent 40 years as a surgeon crossing off medications on drug charts and teaching students and juniors that all drugs are poisons.

    Sent from my iPad

    Reply
    1. Ben the Layabout

      (Layman here) True enough, the difference between medicine and poison is the dose as the old saying goes. Nietzsche quips via his Zarathustra: ” ‘A little poison now and then: that maketh pleasant dreams. And much poison at last for a pleasant death.'” I don’t recall the context, but by inference that would be a risky recreational drug, I surmise.

      Reply
  43. Eric

    I read that article on disruptive papers. What they also said was that the absolut number of disruptive papers stayed the same. So part of what they were seeing was that the drive to publish resulted in many more conformist papers. On the other hand, there are now also many more scientists, so the number of disruptive papers per scientist did go down.

    Let me point out that there are also many branches of science that are very much unlike pharma in that there are no commercially interested parties, and by total number of papers, they probably crowd out medicine and pharma.

    Maybe we have made all the errors one can make in some fields and have become experts chugging along to further refine without needing to change course because we got it basically right.

    Reply
  44. Charles Pullar

    Dear Dr Kendrick, Thank you for this informative (disruptive) blog about corruption which on first reading unfortunately completely destroyed my respect and admiration of Professors Peto and Doll.
    In 1967 I graduated from Strathclyde University with a First Class Honours degree in Chemistry I returned to the Imperial Chemicals Industry explosives factory at Ardeer and was allocated to work on the NSM (New Smoking Materials Project). Remember the protests about the ‘smoking Beagles’ at Alderley Edge?
    I was very familiar with and admired the work of Professors Peto and Doll for showing the clear correlation of smoking with lung cancer, and all that followed from that.
    They also did seminal work on a range of Occupational Cancers including from asbestos.
    The allegations that that Sir Richard Doll had deliberately failed to disclose financial dealings with the chemicals industry and was ‘corrupt’ emerged in 2006.
    Having read some of the media articles of the time and especially
    ‘Leading scientists leap to the defence of ‘corrupt’ Doll’
    [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/leading-scientists-leap-to-the-defence-of-corrupt-doll-427708.html] I opine that he did a great deal of good and little harm. For example he is credited with a key role in developing randomised controlled clinical trials, todays ‘Gold Standard’.

    Charles Pullar

    Reply
    1. Jeremy May

      With respect Charles, is the Independent not one of the Main stream newspapers that have failed us? Just a skip through their Facebook page tells you all you need to know about which side of the narrative they are on. Independent it isn’t.

      Reply
  45. Barbara

    Great article. Slight typo

    ‘ … those who wanted to damage Sir Richard’s eruption’

    Should read ‘reputation’, I assume.

    Reply
  46. Marcia T

    It seems you’ve done to the problem od “what’s wrong with the drug industry” what “evidence-based medicine” promises to do (but doesn’t deliver) to illness: you’ve discovered and labeled – and we now can treat – the root cause. Good work!! And thanks for all you’ve done and are continuing to do.

    Reply
    1. Sasha

      I would say a bit more than a few smoking guns. Look up the work of Jessica Rose, PhD or Peter McCullough, MD. They are both on Substack. I think Steve Kirsch’s interview of Ed Dowd and Josh Sterling (sp?) is very interesting. Ed Dowd is formerly of Black Rock and Mr. Sterling analyzes data for life insurance companies

      Reply
  47. Geoff

    Speaking of corruption…

    If true, do these claims suggest that corruption may apply?

    Heiko von der Leyen is the Medical Director of Orgenesis, a US biotech company that specializes in “cell-based vaccines” and gene therapies and deems itself “the Uber of the cell and gene therapy space”.

    He is married to the Atlantic Council-decorated Ursula von der Leyen, a third-rate politician and failed German minister of defense raised up in backroom deals to serve as EU’s most influential official. Ursula says it’s time to talk about making Covid shots government-compulsory across the 445-million European Union:

    https://www.algora.com/Algora_blog/2021/12/03/ursula-von-der-leyen-is-the-wife-of-covid-vaccine-director

    Reply
      1. Eggs ‘n beer

        Utterly. Likewise in Queensland, our revered demi-goddess (now ex) chief health officer Jeanette Young, she of the lockdown, mask and sanitary hand washing mandates, to say nothing of the jab-or-job orders, is married to an “expert” on anti-microbials and an ex-adviser to Pfizer.

        Corruption. Bribery. Forty years ago I came across a strange £1,000,000 sum in a company’s accounts. It was a small subsidiary of a major international engineering firm. I asked the Financial Director what it was. He announced rather loftily that it was a matter for discussion between the audit partner (a long way away) and senior directors. Naturally I asked if the partner was aware of this. Naturally he wasn’t sure. The end result? A contract facilitation fee payable to a middle eastern sheik to be spent at his entire discretion. With the full knowledge of the Home and Foreign Offices of HMG.

        Reply
          1. andy

            Actually as someone who was there for a decade when very young, being a Sheikh isnt all its meant to be. As is being rich.
            Really, its overrated. There’s a lot of hangers on. People spending your money. All the playthings that need to be kept going.
            I’ve been on many a swanky yacht and missed being in my little flat with my girlfriend eating beans on toast. There are much more interesting goals in life than money. And at the end of the day, however rich you are, you can only eat one meal at a time, drive one lovely car, stay in one house… have one beautiful girlfriend at a time. Well maybe not but you get my point, Sasha.

          2. Sasha

            Andy, you are right. Maybe, I would be a very cheap sheikh. I would get rid of all the hanger ons and just stay on my yacht counting money. And make my girlfriend shop at Zara….

  48. James

    And there was I thinking Dr Richard Doll was a hero, what a crash that was.
    Another eye-opening, brilliant essay, thanks Doc, there are still a heroes to follow fortunately.

    Reply
    1. Geoff

      Many heavily promoted “heroes” fail the smell test upon close examination including the likes of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine.

      Same goes for Einstein, who was mentioned in the article.

      Reply
        1. Geoff

          Einstein was fine in many ways, for instance his strong stance against what was done to the Palestinians, but some think his mettle vis a vis physics was highly hyped. He probably was not as much a fraud as Freud, but…

          For details search, “Einstein plagiarist” or something similar.

          Here’s an example.:

          “The name “Einstein” evokes images of genius, but was Albert Einstein, in fact, a plagiarist, who copied the theories of Lorentz, Poincare, Gerber, and Hilbert?

          A scholarly documentation of Albert Einstein’s plagiarism of the theory of relativity, “Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist” discloses Einstein’s method for manipulating credit for the work of his contemporaries, reprints the prior works he parroted, and demonstrates through formal logical argument that Albert Einstein could not have drawn the conclusions he drew without prior knowledge of the works he copied, but failed to reference.

          Numerous republished quotations from Einstein’s contemporaries prove that they were aware of his plagiarism.”

          Source: https://www.amazon.com/Albert-Einstein-Incorrigible-Christopher-Bjerknes/dp/0971962987#customerReviews

          Lesson: Question orthodoxy. Every time. And thanks for asking!

          Reply
          1. Sasha

            Thanks, I will read the link. Please disregard my other question as I didn’t see this response by you

        1. Geoff

          “Depends what smell you’re looking for.”

          Possibly.

          But it also depends on many other things such as having enough curiosity and perscipacity to question what one’s been told and always assumed true as well as the capacity to discern patterns, especially long standing and oft repeated ones.

          A good manure detection apparatus will hardly ever fail ya.

          Reply
        1. cavenewt

          There’s a current tendency to judge people in the past by today’s values (there’s actually a word for it which always escapes me). This has always struck me as singularly unfair.

          This also plays into dragging historical figures off their pedestals, which were probably unrealistically constructed to begin with.

          Reply
  49. Frank Grace

    On another matter, your views on statins has been well documented in the past. In view of the recent surveys and recommendations from Nice, what are your current views on the subject ,have they changed or are they still the same as before

    Reply
    1. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

      There are no new data. Only that constructed by the Oxford CTT group. They have all the data, they will not let anyone else review it. When they speak, NICE immediately responds, without question. The CTT tells us that statins have no adverse effects, only those imagined by feverish patients. This is, not correct. But no-one in any position of authority challenges them anymore. The CTT are the beneficialries of many hundreds of millions of pounds in funding from the pharmacetucial industry. Via their parent organisation the CTSU. Make of that what you will

      Reply
  50. Mrs rosemary wellman

    Fascinating as always Dr Kendrick, if I could just throw the European Parliament’s contribution into the pot, admittedly I did accept their euros for a while but some things that went on were shocking for the MEPs, a nice gravy train.

    Reply
        1. Gary Ogden

          Geoff: It has been clear from early on that the three jabs used in the U.S. provoke clotting in some people, but that documentary is really not helpful to exposing the dangers of the jabs. We must be scrupulous about evidence.

          Reply
          1. Geoff

            “We must be scrupulous about evidence.”

            You’ll get nothing but agreement from me on that!

            I just put that out there as food for consideration since I’m in no position to really know what’s going on with that (I suspect few are; the question is who is). However, I’ve seen a lot of claims regarding inflammation and clotting associated with the spike protein so that set me wondering.

            Would appreciate anyone here setting me straight on the subject and only scrupulous evidence respectfully submittted need be presented.

          2. Gary Ogden

            Geoff: Agreed. I admit to being sucked in by that documentary. I knew nothing of Stew Peters, but I do now. Not easy to trust anything we hear, but over time, it becomes apparent who is telling the truth and who is part of the psy-op, sometimes unwittingly. Liars tend to be clumsy about covering their tracks. Astonishing how many of them achieve high office, or is this one of the primary qualifications? On another note, I’ll be buying land. Both Mark Twain and Dr. Kendrick are reliable.

          3. Geoff

            Stew Peters? He says a lot of good stuff, but I do wonder about him. Have not “tuned in” on him for quite a while.

            Wondering what you know about him. Also, were you one of the folks asking me what was wrong with my former “hero” Tom Paine? Here’s my quick answer (2 things). First, despite all the good stuff he wrote, and I’ve read ALL of his major stuff more than once, in the end he was a constitutionalist. Second, his fortuitous escape from a French prison and imminent hanging always seemed a bit far fetched.

            Here’s my problem with the US Constitution the veracity of which is immediately obvious for anyone who’s read the arguments of the anti-federalists.:

            “The Constitution looked fairly good on paper, but it was not a popular document; people were suspicious of it, and suspicious of the enabling legislation that was being erected upon it. There was some ground for this. The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable auspices; its history had been that of a coup d’état.

            It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production — Vilescit origine tali. (the dice were loaded from the start)”

            Albert Jay Nock, Liberty vs. the Constitution: The Early Struggle

            Mises.org/daily/4254

          4. Gary Ogden

            Geoff: On the other hand, it’s pretty good, especially the Bill of Rights. As for Stew Peters, I haven’t time for an ex-bounty hunter with no expertise in any other field. Life is too short.

          5. Geoff

            Gary, it’s too bad that the US constitution is far off the topic here except for the fact that it was the result of de facto corruption right out of the box. Reading the antifederalists convinced me of that. The scoundrels who dreamed it up overstepped their mandate to fine tune the Articles of Confederation, met behind closed doors, and the proceedings were not transparent.

            The Bill of Rights was only tagged on to appease some of the states who insisted on one to ratify the thing.

            Not only were the dice loaded from the start, but it was born of corruption and thus it should come as no surprise that the whole system is corrupt through and through.

        2. Irene Wood

          Geoff comment Jan 14 re link about blood clots.

          I did not watch your link but here is some additional info (evidence) on blood clots from reputable sources (IMO)
          1) A substack article by Dr Jessica Rose on IgG4 RD (Antibody G4 Related Disease), with links to printed papers in journals showing evidence of changes to the immune system from the shots. Scroll to Fig 6 : photos of clots by Dr Ryan Cole.
          https://jessicar.substack.com/p/igg4-related-disease-igg4rd-means

          2) Also look at comment by Carrie Jan 15 who posted this link:
          https://odysee.com/@DarkHorsePodcastClips:b/surprising-result-around-igg4-antibodies:8
          This is a DarkHorse podcast which references a publication in Science and Immunology describing same changes seen to the immune system, (as well as referencing Dr Rose’s article above). The increase in the IgG4 subclass antibodies from less than 3% to 20% after 3rd/4th shot is discussed and what that could mean in terms of long-term mRNA shot adverse effects on the immune system.

          Reply
        3. Eggs ‘n beer

          I’m on holiday in Japan, so I haven’t (necessarily) read these particular articles but I know of similar ones before I left from all the reading I do. https://www.tctmd.com/news/free-spike-protein-mrna-covid-19-vaccines-implicated-myocarditis
          https://wmcresearch.substack.com/p/how-the-spike-protein-induces-myocarditis
          https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34671772/
          The one that gobsmacked me was about cancer. Right wing extremist terrorist misinformationists ( have I got every term?) were claiming the increase in cancers within weeks of being jabbed was due to the toxin. Utter bollocks, I thought. Cancer takes years to develop. Whilst I’m totally against the jab, such irresponsible claims don’t help the anti Covid jab campaigns. Except: a paper promptly pops up on the radar explaining how the spike protein turns off the interferon pathways instantaneously eliminating any immunity to cancer. This is just nuts. Torches and pitchforks anyone …..?

          Reply
          1. An Italian Australian at the Tropics

            AhNotepad, I don’t think you caught what Eggs’n’beers wrote. Read his last sentence.

            The “hurling names” was sarcastic.

          2. Eggs ‘n beer

            AhNotepad, not sure if your comment was meant for me as I didn’t mention any names. But on rereading my post, I can see that my comment about the cancer pathway being nuts could mean it was not correct.

            What I meant was that it is nuts to think that we could inject people with a substance that compromises cancer immunity. That the drug testing was so inadequate due to ….. urgency to make a lot of bucks.

          3. AhNotepad

            E&B, it was meant for you. You wrote “The one that gobsmacked me was about cancer. Right wing extremist terrorist misinformationists ( have I got every term?) were claiming the increase in cancers within weeks of being jabbed was due to the toxin. Utter bollocks, I thought.

            That contains several derogatory terms, but looking through the three links you gave I can’t find any mention of cancer, so I don’t understand your point.

            Since the development of cancers is affected by the cell metabolic state, why is it not possible for a spiked protein, which is known to be toxic, to affect cell metabolic function, and hence cancer progress?

          4. Eggs ‘n beer

            Unfortunately I can’t find the papers relating to the suppression of the interferon pathways by the jabs. Usually I print them out as I know finding them later will be difficult, but I couldn’t do that while on holiday. This is more serious than affecting cell metabolic function, as it allows new cancers to develop.

          5. cavenewt

            Ah Notepad, regarding the derogatory terms, I think you missed the implied sarcasm or irony or whatever.

  51. Tish

    Someone on this blog asked “but what are we going to do about it?”

    I had a thought this morning — that those of us inclined should set ourselves to writing some verse, rhymes, poetry and get it out there.

    Reply
  52. anglosvizzera

    Trying again to post a link, but even messing around with it, it won’t pass the initial “checking” program that seems to be here. So, instead, for a good and topical read, go to Google and find the website of the “Law Health and Technology Newsletter” which has a substack account, and find the recent article on fact checkers. Note that some other organisation comes up at the top of the search, but you’ll see the proper website lower down.

    Reply
    1. Steve

      ‘Fact Checkers’ are a recent development and as I recall came into prominence, in the UK, about the time of Brexit.
      I would posit that all fact checkers are corrupt by definition.

      Reply
      1. Mr Fisher

        My thesaurus offers the following alternatives for the word “check”:

        “halt, stop, arrest, bring to a standstill, cut short; bar, obstruct, hamper, impede, inhibit, frustrate, foil, thwart, stand in the way of, prevent, curb, block, stall, hold up, interfere with, retard, delay, slow down, brake, put a brake on; stem, staunch; suppress, repress, restrain, contain, control, curb, rein in, bridle, smother, muffle, stifle, hold back, swallow, choke back, fight back, bite back, bottle up; nip in the bud, keep a lid on.”

        Reply
    1. Gary Ogden

      Steve: And 5,000 Swiss troops protecting them. Didn’t know there was such a thing as Swiss troops. Learn something new every day!

      Reply
        1. Gary Ogden

          anglosvizzera: Just trying, and failing, to make a joke. Indeed, after service the Swiss keep their rifles, so, like the U.S., they have an armed citizenry.

          Reply
  53. Tish

    Having made the suggestion of verse, I thought I’d better make a rough stab at it.
    I’ve chosen Cholesterol because if people understood what is going on around it they would be far less trusting of the pharmaceuticals and more aware of the current shenanigans.
    Please feel free to make improvements. I will not be offended.

    CHOLESTEROL

    Despised, feared, forsaken
    When will the world awaken?
    Repairer and hormone maker
    Vital friend to every cell

    But who’s allowed to tell?
    Yes, who’s allowed to tell?

    Poor struggling wretches
    Declining the roast beef.
    Low fat reigns
    And there is no relief
    Forgoing every culinary treat as to the grave they go

    But how are they to know?
    Yes, how are they to know?

    Reply
      1. Steve

        To be fair …
        For decades the medical profession was trusted by all and this trust was based on the extraordinary services provided by GPs and Hospital staff. Many people cannot come to terms with the absolute corruption, incompetence and uncaring attitudes that now pervade the medical profession and that have become so obvious over the last three years.
        It’s not that people have accepted this situation it’s just that they cannot believe it is so. Blue Pill vs Red Pill.

        Reply
    1. Jeremy May

      If I may respectfully add….

      Rowing to Stain Island with oar and rowlocks
      Best turn round it’s a load of *******

      Reply
      1. Geoff

        The stuff we learn!

        I was wondering why the stars since the word that fits means nothing more than “nonesense” where I come from. Despite having had a wonderful brother- in-law (Peace be upon him) who hailed from the UK, and having learned of the word (and many others) from him, I never thought much of it. The asterisks stired my curiosity which ultimately led to this bit of hilarity.

        Interpretation

        Sodom merits attention not just as an early piece of scabrous literature, but also as a disguised satire on the court of Charles II and especially of his apparent willingness to tolerate Catholicism in England at a time when that religion was officially proscribed. Written presumably at the time of Charles’s 1672 Declaration of Indulgence (which promulgated official toleration of Catholics and others), Sodom delineates in its racy plot a king much like Charles whose insistence on promoting his sexual preference for sodomy can be read as an analogue to the debate in England at the time about the king’s real motive in pushing religious toleration. [citation needed]

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom,_or_the_Quintessence_of_Debauchery

        That ought to help put our current plight in perspective. [no citation needed]!!

        Reply
  54. Steve

    One facet of corruption is having the means to control the media. This article [1] highlights the dangers and what is happening. All roads lead back to the WEF ?
    “In May 2022 at Davos, Schwab declared: ‘The future is not just happening. The future is built by us, by a powerful community, as you here in this room. We have the means to improve the state of the world.’ ”
    [1] https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-ministry-of-truth-the-global-strategy-of-information-control-part-2/

    Reply
  55. dearieme

    I’m terribly disappointed to learn about Doll.

    I went to one of his seminars years ago. His audience seemed to be entirely medics, bar me. They positively fawned over him. That was striking because it was, in fact, a lousy seminar.

    Nonetheless I remain disappointed. We are used to the idea that an expert witness in a court case will have been hired by one side or the other but we also expect their side’s lawyers to brief them that they act as officers of the court and must answer questions truthfully. (And that’s certainly what happened to me. The lawyer emphasised “you must not behave like an American expert witness, at least as they are represented as behaving by Hollywood.)

    The equivalent would be for Doll to write something like “Monsanto have paid for my time while I have scrutinised the following data: in my judgement the data show no evidence of harm. Let me explain my reasoning.” It would then be up to the reader to judge whether Doll adopted Presbyterian standards of rectitude or something lesser.

    Reply
    1. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

      I, too, was disappointed, when I first heard about this. I used Richard Doll because he, to an extent, epitomises the problems. He was seen as ‘great’ man. Because of this many/most poeople shy away from any criticism. We do not wish to believe that our idols have feet of clay. We try to excuse, we minimuse the damage he may have caused. Welaud his great achievements. We attack those who attack him. We cling to our myths. We want good people to be all good. The fact is that people can do things that are both good, and bad, But the former should never blind us to the latter. Nor can it excuse the latter.

      We have to be clear sighted, and not allow ourselves to be blinded by our own prejudices and beliefes. Which is a tough thing to achieve.

      Reply
      1. Geoff

        Well said, good Sir!

        Hagiography deserves to elicit curiosity if not outright dubiosity and our sacred bullocks are often become cringeworthy bollocks.

        Reply
    1. cavenewt

      That’s one of the best explanations of IgG4 that I’ve seen.

      “Welcome to complex systems” is a very important message. Hubris and complex systems don’t mix well.

      Reply
    1. Steve

      Rather than address the reasons that all these people are protesting over, the approach is to criminalise protests.
      ‘There’s no money’ they cry, oh but there is money for war in Ukraine, Covid, Climate and uncontrolled migration. There is one truth and that is defined by the establishment. Dissent, questioning and criticising will not be tolerated, you will believe, it is the law.

      Reply
      1. andy

        Yes. Indeed! “We had to arrest him before he had the chance to do any mischief!” Or,
        “We shot him to ensure he didnt cause trouble.”

        Reply
  56. MarciaT

    If you watch Bret and Heather’s whole show (that includes the IgG4 discussion) you will see the most amazing video of puffer fish ever seen anywhere. Check it out. . . it’s the last bit near the end.

    Reply
    1. Shaun Clark

      Carrie, I watched the B&H show, and I saw nothing on Puffer fish. Sorry, I’m an aquaculturist and so I’m very curious!

      Reply
      1. MarciaT

        Hi Shaun – not Carrie but Marcia – it was the latest Dark Horse episode #157 (not a prime number) and it was shown starting at time: 1 hour, 58 minutes and 13 seconds in – so very nearly at the end. There’s also a David Attenborough bit on YouTube (BBC, I believe):

        Fascinating. Enjoy!

        Reply
        1. Shaun Clark

          Ah, yes,thank you. I knew of that. I thought maybe there was some wild-like IgG4 immune ‘something’ I’d missed! They are indeed somewhat bizarre wee fishes. I used to swim with many of these species in Muscat, Oman, where they are very common. They are quite friendly and very curious beasties. I’m sure there is more to learn from their biology. Tks

          Reply
  57. rtj1211

    Fred Sanger was the same as Peter Higgs – he won two Nobel Prizes (for developing methods to sequence firstly proteins and then DNA) and some say he deserved a third for sequencing RNA, which didn’t have the obvious applicability of the other two.

    The thing about ‘being creative’ or ‘disruptive’ is that it’s a bit like very early stage investments – the chance of failure is really very high. So for every scientist who discovers graphene or sequences DNA, you might have 20-50 whose research comes to nothing. It doesn’t mean they didn’t go about things the right way, it just means that they hadn’t stumbled upon the correct technological solution yet. Dyson after all took hundreds of attempts to perfect his vacuum cleaner technology.

    So it takes a great stability of funding and a suitable level of contempt for interfering politicians for a research organisation to let significant numbers of people be ‘blue skies researchers’.

    There’s also a very great difference in mind-set between ‘blue skies disruptors’ and those equally valuable people who can take a novel insight and turn it into effective commercial products. The UK traditionally was very good at basic research and absolutely useless at turning those discoveries into wealth. Germany and Japan in the post war years were the exact opposite.

    The two types are manifested rather well in the characters of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates – the former totally changed an entire industry not once but twice, whereas the latter was a skilled monopolist who distorted the entire PC/software development for 30 years to benefit mostly one man. You can’t deny that Bill Gates is now worth $200bn, but it was Jobs whose vision led to the Macintosh, the iPod, the iPad, the iPhone etc etc.

    As for ‘corruption’ in research, I’m afraid it’s endemic. If you have a mortgage to pay and kids to feed, you have to follow the money. Governments control the types of research done by controlling the parameters of what gets funded.

    Just look at ‘climate research’, almost all Government funding pre-supposes that the dominant reason for ‘warming’ is carbon dioxide (when the evidence for that is scant indeed and the evidence for natural variables being far more important is really rather strong). That Governmental view is driven by the monopolistic, monotheistic IPCC’s nonsense since 1990, the exact time when Communism collapsed and a new ‘bogey man’ was needed by the mind controllers.

    As for ‘research’ (or lack of it) into mRNA ‘medicines’ (or poisons, depending on your viewpoint and ability to espouse non-establishment opinion), there simply is none. The whole mechanism of clinical trials has been abandoned to cut costs, increase corporate profits and now you have obscene scenario that the pharma industry are to be excused liability for their products but doctors who were told ‘vaccinate or lose your job’ are to be told they could now be liable for the effects of those government-mandated vaccination drives. If that isn’t full scale corruption incompatible with any of the major vaccine manufacturers remaining in business, I don’t know what is. Punish the concentration camp orderlies and let the Goerings, the Himmlers, the Goebbels’ get away with it.

    The old KOL management mantra has been central to big pharma since at least 2000 (and probably way back before then) – I did some consultancy for a big pharma back then and this topic was central to management major brand launches. It presupposes that the mass of doctors are like parishioners in a church listening avidly to the KOL preacher every Sunday – I think they could do with being a bit more skeptical if they want to be called ‘self-regulating professionals’.

    If you want to know how to ‘control’ research and development, take a good hard look at how the Wellcome Trust operates, the BMGF operates and how US NIH funding operates. Focus on the unquestioned assumptions/dogmas, rather than the details. It tells you how they want the world to evolve and usually it tells you how the mind controllers operate too.

    Reply
    1. cavenewt

      What you said about pharma dovetails exactly with a book I just finished, Bad Pharma. This book is 10 years old. It’s touchingly naïve in spots, considering how Covid has been like gasoline on a fire in terms of the more nefarious practices.

      Reply
    2. dearieme

      “I think they could do with being a bit more skeptical”

      When I was a new fresher (a million years go) for some weeks many of us who were interested in science in the broad sense – mathematicians, scientists, engineers, medics, vets – would chat together in our Common Room. I did notice that the medics seemed to be the ones who were least sceptical and least inquisitive. Specifically the medics – not, for instance, the vets.

      After a few weeks the phenomenon vanished in the sense that the medics started spending time only in the company of each other. Precocious career-building? Lack of interest in any science beyond their lecture syllabi? Dunno.

      Who took up the vacated space, apparently happy to hear sciencey chat? A couple of lawyers and an economist. Eh? But so it was.

      Reply
  58. Geoff

    Speaking of corruption this gentleman, Dr. Peter C. Gøtzsche, seems not only knowledgeable but credible and the titles alone of his books speak volumes, e.g., Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare (2013).

    https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/4546887.Peter_C_G_tzsche

    Here’s another example.:

    “This is the fascinating story about institutional corruption in one of the world’s most venerated charities, which ultimately led to the worst show trial in academia you can imagine.”

    Death of a whistleblower and Cochrane’s moral collapse by Peter C. Gøtzsche | Goodreads

    Reply
  59. carolyn ford

    Hi Dr K,

    I found this discussion by Brett & Heather about re Boschi et al 2022. SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Induces Hemagglutination: Implications for COVID-19 Morbidities and Therapeutics and for Vaccine Adverse Effects. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 23(24), p.15480.
    Discussion clip:
    https://odysee.com/@DarkHorsePodcastClips:b/ivermectin-can-reverse-the-clumping-of:1
    Interesting and informative for those of us who haven’t studied medicine or biology.
    All the best
    Carrie

    Reply
    1. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

      Right from the very start it was clear that spike proteins were highly toxic things. The idea that we would stimulate cells to manufacture them, and release them, was always of concern. With the most likely adverse effects to do with excess blood clot formation and/or damage to cells expressing a high number of A2 receptors. Such cells would likely lock-on to spike proteins, and immune cells would be attracted to this ‘target’ Great care needed to be taken,.

      Reply
        1. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

          Spike proteins were not injected. Liposomes carrying messenger RNA material were injected. The liposomes were required to allow the messanger RNA acces into cells. The liposome capsule merged with the cell membrane, and the RNA was then released inside the cell.

          When the mRNA reached a cell structure called a ribosome, it ‘instructed’ the ribosome to construct spike proteins. [Making protines is what ribosomes are designed to do]. These newly constructed spike proteins travelled back to the cell membrane, where they were ejected back out of the cell again (how this bits works never seems entirely clear to me).

          Various immune cells then came into contact with the spike proteins (in the blood, or interstitial fluid?). They were attacked, antibodies to them were created, and in so doing, the immune system passed messages to the T-cells, allowing spike protein(s) to be recognised far more rapidly in future, with antibodies constructed at super-quick speed. [This system is the accepted basis of immunisation/vaccination].

          The issue here is that spike proteins are not nice things to have floating around in the body/bloodstream. We are told that, post immunisation, no spike proteins can be found in the bloodstream. They all stay wihin the muscle where the mRA was injected into? An argument that could possibly be funny. It is not, it is simply ridiculous.

          What is the point of injecting mRNA into poeple, to force their cells to produce spike proteins, if those spike protiens are not then allowed to circulate around, coming into contact with the immune system? if there is no contact with the immune system, there can be no immune response, and no future immunity. This is not rocket science.

          Reply
          1. Steve

            I’ve got this one.
            “What is the point of injecting mRNA into people, to force their cells to produce spike proteins” ?
            Culling and profit. Less peoples, more monies, simples.

          2. David Bailey

            I thought that the spike proteins were displayed on the cell membrane and that at least one problem with the mRNA vaccine approach was that when someone is injected there is no way to ensure that the needle doesn’t go into a capillary vessel, in which case some of the ‘vaccine’ would be taken up by endothelial cells and the result would be that the immune system would attack them – hence the long clots found in some victims of vaccination

            In other words, some of the randomness might just be the result of where the needle lands in the muscle.

  60. Steve

    Recently discussed here, about how assisted suicide is the thin edge of the wedge and is much open to misuse by the establishment, as per the example of Canada.
    FYI – copied from TCW today (18th):
    “THE Commons Health and Social Care Committee have launched an inquiry into assisted dying/assisted suicide and have asked to hear the views of the public via an online form. The deadline for submissions is this Friday, 20 January 2023, and Christian Concern have issued a call to action to get as many responses as possible.
    You can find the form and suggestions for how to answer the questions on their website here:
    https://christianconcern.com/action/tell-mps-not-to-introduce-assisted-suicide/

    Reply
  61. Geoff

    Speaking of corruption…

    “Watch this Zuckerberg/Fauci discussion where Fauci, in 2020, shows full awareness of the dangers of unproven, poorly tested vaccines and informs Zuckerberg. Fauci mentions the failed HIV vaccine trials, with the outcome of making people less resistant to the infection after vaccination, the same thing that happened with Covid vaccines.

    So both Zuckerberg, and Fauci, were fully aware of the risks of unproven and rushed vaccines. And yet, both disregarded these risks and suppressed truthful discussion of them.

    https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1470613316427034628/pu/vid/750×410/YHGEiCJQ5Q4KhSJx.mp4?tag=12

    Source: Facebook Removed “True Content” for Pfizer and the White House, Igor Chudov Jan 17

    https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/how-facebook-removed-true-content?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=441185&post_id=97300189&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email

    Reply
    1. Geoff

      It’s tempting to believe that we need to drive the money changers out of our temple(s), but we should now be able to appreciate how effective that’s been…!

      Reply
  62. Charlie

    14 absurdities on full public display

    https://www.planet-today.com/2023/01/14-absurdities-on-full-public-display.html

    4. I first warned about statins over 30 years ago (in 1992) when the cholesterol lowering drugs were introduced. I warned that these drugs looked like making a fortune for the drug industry. At the same time, I expressed scepticism about their use and described the hazards associated with them. The covid-19 jab has caused so many heart problems that doctors are now being told to hand these drugs out on request. In the UK, for example, the medical establishment (for which you can safely substitute the words “drug industry”) wants at least 10 million people to take statins in the alleged hope that this will reduce the current epidemic of heart disease deaths. Having made a fortune out of flogging the jabs, the drug industry will make another fortune out of statins. The next step will be to make the damned things available over the counter. It’ll end in tears. If you want to know more about cholesterol lowering drugs read Chapter 39 in my book ‘How to stop your doctor killing you’ which is available by clicking the button at the bottom of this page. There have been many new studies since I wrote that chapter and I haven’t changed my mind.

    Reply
    1. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

      Statins are available over the counter, and have been some for time. Statins will not make a fortune for the industry, because they are now cheap as chips. The game is more subtle, and longer. Get everyone to see cholesterol as a deadly substnace that must be lowered. Market your new cholesterol lowering agent as a vaccine against cholesterol (already happened), and start the switch over from statins (low cost, no profit) to PCSK9-inhibitors a.k.a. ‘cholesterol vaccines’ (massive cost, massive profit). As we now know, cholesterol lowering is harm free. Ho, ho. Wake up everyone, this is the game.

      Reply
      1. gettingmoresceptical

        I have sometimes wondered if statin side effects are related to the large drop in blood cholesterol that even statins achieve.

        One argument against that is that different statins vary in their tendency to produce side effects – the one I took, Simvastatin, seems to be one of the worst.

        If the drop in cholesterol is responsible for the muscle cramps etc, I guess they would begin to appear for Inclisiran, and sure enough they do appear here
        as “muscle pains and stiffness”

        https://www.drugs.com/sfx/inclisiran-side-effects.html

        Reply
        1. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

          Its a good question. I think the muscle pains can be explained by the impact that statins hve on ubiquinone synthesis. This is a necessary co-factor in the production of ATP, the molecule that provides all of the energy used by cells – everywhere in the body.

          The enzyme blocked by statins, HMG-CoA reductase, is at the start of a chain of other processes that not only sythnesizes cholesterol, but a number of other molecules, including Ubiquinone/co-enzyme Q10. Without ubiquinone there will be fewer ATP molecules made and in high energy cells, e.g. muscle cells, it is likely this will have signficant effects. Loss of power, cramping, build up of lactic acid due to anaerobic pathways being used to create ATP etc.

          Studies on athletes given statins found that they reduced athletic performance e.g. sprinters could not run as fast. This is probably due to lower ATP levels in their muscle cells. i don’t think there is any need to look further than this. As to what causes muscle pain and stiffness with other cholesterol lowering agents…. Haven’t really looked into this yet.

          Reply
          1. David Bailey

            Right, but if for each type of statin, you took the statin dose and divided it by its effectiveness at reducing cholesterol you should get roughly the same value if the muscle pains come from blocking that metabolic pathway.

            I don’t think all the various statins were equal in that respect – Simvastatin was bad at producing muscle pain, but very cheap, others were touted as being effective but less likely to cause muscle problems.

  63. Doug from Canada

    Hello Dr. Kendrick,

    A thought question to mull over over afternoon tea.

    Going forward, now that 70, 80, 90% of possible future participants in health trials have been vaxxxxxxed, have we permanently lost our ability to perform valid trials?

    Has this made your investigation of heart disease now impossible?

    Reply
    1. David

      There’s http://www.vaxcontrolgroup.com. They’ll presumably develop heart disease or cancer according to the same pattern as pre-2020 or -21.

      Also I read that in Bulgaria the jabbers only got to ~30% of the population. So there are pockets of relative sanity. Quite a lot of other places in Europe barely got to 50%. I sympathise with Canada, Australia, NZ & Portugal which clearly suffered badly.

      Reply
    2. Eggs ‘n beer

      Doug, a valid trial is one that the drug companies say is valid.

      Picking a trial totally at random, the Pfizer Comirnaty phase III trial for example, showed a 95% efficacy. You should look up the meaning of efficacy as it applies to vaccine trials where it has a very specific definition, which is not the same as effectiveness. BINGO! VALID TRIAL! VALID TRIAL! Green lights flashing, dancing girls, fanfare from a hundred trombones, all distractions while the placebo group are vaccinated thus effectively ending the two year trial after six months, and relegating the data that deaths were 23% higher in the vaccine group and severe side effects 70% higher (curiously the excess deaths seemed to be cardiac arrests ….).

      I do understand what you mean though. And agree that getting healthy people in sufficient quantities will now be impossible, not least because those who didn’t get the jab are most unlikely to participate in drug trials anyway.

      Reply
      1. Doug from Canada

        Eggs,

        Any good scientist, like Dr Kendrick, will look at the data collected by the study and conduct their own analysis.

        Going forward we can’t even do this anymore. You can’t account for a cofounding variable if you can’t define its effect.

        These mRNA shots are the death shot (pun intended) to human research.

        We can’t know anything anymore and I don’t think people have given this consequence the weight it deserves.

        Reply
          1. Doug from Canada

            We should hold a funeral. To begin the grieving process.

            Maybe Pfizer will sponsor it.

            “Science. Killed by Pfizer”

        1. Eggs ‘n beer

          “Truth will out”, and it’s curious how often that is correct. Although getting anyone to take any notice of it when it does finally come out is another matter. And one of the truths that Dr Kendrick tells us to look for is overall mortality. (Doctoring Data).

          With the phase III Pfizer trials the truth about overall mortality is there, albeit buried deep, and according to the FDA’s version is understated. Even the raw data is confusing, with the number of deaths in each category adding up to more than the total stated. This, apparently, is due to some people dying of more than one thing. The FDA must’ve found some more bodies somewhere for their total. Anyway, glancing past all the obfuscation the key takeaway is that, using the FDA’s totals, there were 23% more deaths in the jabbed group. In light of subsequent events, it’s interesting that the excess mortality could be ascribed entirely to cardiac arrests.

          Of course, to see this stuff you have to go past the headline. I doubt many people even read the extract. So when one paper dedicated to looking at death rates amongst jabbed people buries on page 12 in a throwaway comment that a third of the cohort were removed from the results because they had a disproportionately high numbers of ‘vaccinees’ you know the results are rubbish, but equally you know that there is no basis for the headline claiming low death rates in jabbed people.

          Reply
          1. Doug from Canada

            Eggs,

            Did you ever look at the supplemental attachments to Pfizer’s original submission for the first EUA approval. They excluded a couple of coronary related deaths in the jabbed arm of the study as not related to the jab.

            One sentence in that entire submission buried in the supplementals.

            Including those deaths in the final outcome would have shown more deaths in the jabbed than the control (Don’t use the term placebo since we don’t know what it was).

            Pfizer knew from the beginning.

          2. Eggs ‘n beer

            Oh, they knew alright! But my point is that the information IS there if you look for it, so they can claim (wriggle wriggle) that they did make full disclosure. In the latest article from Malhotra in The Spectator Australia he says that all the data was in the original trial – but he only started looking for it after the jab had killed his father.

            Pfizer state that the placebo was saline solution. The placebo can be anything, so it’s ok to refer to the control group as the placebo group. The crucial question to ask is what is the placebo? For three out of four phase III trials for AZ the placebo was the MenACWY quadrivalent vaccine, which naturally suppresses the immune system allowing more Covid infections in the placebo control than the toxin jabbed group. In the AZ South African trial, 1,000 in each group where saline was the stated placebo, infections were equal across the groups and there were no deaths.

            In the Gardasil HPV trial, the placebo was the same aluminium salt as used as the adjuvant in the vaccine. So the component that some anti-vaxxers believe is the thing that causes adverse reactions to vaccines (rather than necessarily the vaccine itself) was in both jabs, and amazingly you get the same level of adverse events in both the vaccine and the placebo control group. Therefore the vaccine is safe, and full steam ahead! Interestingly HPV cancer rates haven’t changed as a result of the vaccine; not because it doesn’t work but because the virus has mutated to cause cancer with different strains that don’t respond to the vaccine.

          3. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

            I think this is a really important issue. When I tell other doctors that placebos are (very often)} not inert substances, they simply do not believe me. Indeed, some placebos have been extremely toxic, the Gardasil HPV vaccine being one example. However, in many cases it is impossible to find out what is in the placebo, because it is – commerically sensitive information. Yet another scandal, in my opinion, but yet another scandal that it is impossible to get anyone to do anything about. ‘Yeh, yet, blah de blah’, seems to be the general view. The medicines regulators remain completely unconcerned. As they are about almost everything.

          4. Gary Ogden

            Doug from Canada: A meningitis vaccine is often used as the comparator in vaccine “trials,” and I think it was used in at least some of the Pfizer Pfraud “trials.”

  64. Jeremy May

    Getting back, for a moment, to why corruption matters so much…

    I have been looked in the eye and lied to by a local councillor. She is undoubtedly an intelligent and determined person, after all she reads books and badgers the local highway authority to repair potholes.

    She looked us in the eye (us being the local, yokel residents who elected her to (low) office) and lied. She became part of the machine that took over our lives. She badgered us to get vaccinated, and again and again. If you don’t get jabbed you won’t be allowed on a bus, she told us. Or go into the shops. Plus (ramping up the scary stuff) there’s a good chance you’ll lose your job. Then she told us to stay in our houses and leave it to the poorly paid saps to keep the wheels of life turning while we watch on safe in the company of Bargain Hunt.

    Thing is, she is bright. She had the same opportunity as me to investigate whether the advice she was dishing out was correct. I refuse to believe that she didn’t have access to an alternative narrative. I find it incredulous that she didn’t know, particularly down the line, that many people didn’t need vaccines at all, especially children. Or that some were being damaged by them, or that lockdowns were utterly destructive.

    The point is approaching where I will ask her face to face if she realizes that her advice has harmed people, killed them possibly. Local people, people she smiles at and pats of the head at village fetes.

    Corruption matter so much because it has permeated right down to people who look you in the eye. That, to me, is sickening.

    Reply
    1. Steve

      IMO, The real question is “why do people listen to these jobsworths ?”
      If the majority of local citizens had told your councilor to ‘take a hike’, she would have run away with her tail between her legs. But they didn’t, so she was emboldened to ramp up the fear and lies. Same with the Government, the NHS, the Police.
      The corruption endemic in society has been signed off by the people. Is that due to laziness, stupidity or gullibility ?

      Reply
        1. ShirleyKate

          Hi cavenewt, you’re not from round here are you? ‘Jobsworth’ is a very old English word, at least 30 years old I’d say. Do keep up! Have a nice day.

          Reply
          1. Eggs ‘n beer

            Richard Stilgoe (who owns the “other” piano) and Andrea? Whatserface, with a dry look on society, a sort of “A Current Affair” lite. As in the traffic warden booking you for a parking offence as your pushing your broken down vehicle into a side road. “Not give you a ticket? More than me jobsworth, that!” Mid to late seventies?

          2. cavenewt

            No, not from around there, my cave is in Utah. Even though not a Brit, I always enjoy learning new Briticisms.

    2. Tom Morgan

      Jeremy,
      I’m not sure she is corrupt – she is a bureaucrat whose job it is to push ‘the narrative’ without question. The corruption is at the top of the long list of higher-ups. There is no way for her to even question what she is being told to say.
      Big Pharma (and the other ‘Bigs’ ) have all captured whatever regulators there might have been and have had the regulators put out ‘the narrative’ the the Bigs want. Part of that is not allowing any debate or dissent by any one, or the debaters/dissenters will be marginalized or, better yet, destroyed. Our intrepid host is a perfect example. Also Andrew Wakefield, Meryl Nass, Dr. Peter McCullough, all the ‘anti-vaxxers’, etc. The list is endless.
      One more thought – I’d like to see the main stream media regularly air folks who are NOT supporting ‘the narrative’. Perhaps allow those with dissenting opinions to be questioned as to why they might believe such ‘nonsense’. Perhaps journalists would finally do their job and question what they are being directed to say. I can still dream, I hope.
      Tom

      Reply
      1. Eggs ‘n beer

        Tom, I struggled with this for a bit in 2020. But after someone I knew committed suicide entirely because of the lockdown, I realised that they don’t care. Look, the ONLY issue concerning running the country, county, state, parish whatever at the time was covid. There were no new wars, climate change had ceased, trade was grinding to a halt, no tourism …. the only thing that mattered was covid. So without all the other issues they had plenty of time to check out the truths of what they were being told. It wasn’t difficult. Especially as I gave my local member the links – to scientific papers, rather than the government propaganda web sites she sent out. But they didn’t. So I agree with Jeremy. They are corrupted by the establishment, are totally culpable for the deaths, injuries, psychological and financial damage they’ve caused and should all be subjected to independent tests to confirm they actually had a vaccine. Why aren’t any of them doing us a favour and dropping down dead?

        Reply
      2. Steve

        Tom, I’m not so willing to give the benefit of the doubt to these people as maybe you are.
        ‘Pushing the narrative, without question ‘ smacks too much of ‘just following orders’. These people knew and know what they are doing, we might not know why, but intentionally harming people is IMO corrupt, at the least.

        Reply
      3. AhNotepad

        If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking” Possibly Benjamin Franklin, or something close. “The narrative” is groupthink, and is professing without thinking, this is equivalent to “I was following orders”. If those orders are unlawful following them is corrupt, and IMO doing anything else without thinking is also corrupt. Therefore the councillor in question is corrupt. They are affecting peoples lives without consideration. This has been going on wholesale for the past 2+ years and many people have been injured, physically or psychologically,some driven to suicide, and some killed by malfeasance. That councillor was elected to represent the electorate, not trot out a narrative. She is not fit for purpose.

        Reply
      4. Geoff

        While some may not be corrupt, an important point is that she contributes to corruption especially since it was pointed out that she lies. Another is that she’s in a position to enforce corruption.

        I’ve experienced similar things happening with local “skool” board members and have learned that one cannot take anything they say at face value.

        Here’s a 30 second read on another huge source of corruption and perverse incentives. Shocking stuff.:

        https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/covid-19-mrna-vaccines-are-the-opti?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

        Reply
        1. Tom Morgan

          Eggs, Steve, AH, Geoff,
          I think the woman is part of a corrupt system, but that doesn’t make her corrupt per se. She is a powerless bureaucrat who is advancing the narrative she has been given by her superiors. Complaining to her is useless as she has no power to challenge her marching orders. Here in the USA, once the CDC or Fauci told everyone that they needed to quarantine, for example, no one at lower levels has any power to disagree, since the top echelons know so much more about ‘the situation’. It’s folly to expect a bureaucrat to go against the higher-ups. After all, especially at the beginning of Covid, no one knew anything contrary to the narrative. And part of the narrative was getting people to do ‘the right thing’. The narrative was specifically crafted to get us to do what they wanted us to do – no questions tolerated.
          The system is the real villain here – it doesn’t consult with people, it expects obedience, and it doesn’t re-consider (since that implies it might have been wrong initially). Think about the travails Dr. Kendrick has been through for years, first cholesterol, and then Covid. The same may be said about climate change and CO2. No one is allowed to question that fossil fuels/CO2/carbon is an existential threat.
          I wish the system could be changed to allow some dissenting views to be heard, but the whole point of the system is to block all questions of the narrative. I try not to despair, but it’s difficult.
          Tom

          Reply
          1. Jeremy May

            The lady had the option of lying or not. To Join the narrative born of corruption or not. As I said previously, she looked people in the eye and told them to do something which was neither scientifically sound nor ethically correct. Her choice. She took the coward’s way.
            I find it hard to believe that she didn’t at least have a suspicion that all was not well with the UKs approach, namely vaccines and lockdowns.
            The ‘advice’ went on week upon week for a year.
            No mention of the fact that the vaccines barely worked, didn’t stop transmission and caused potential harm.
            ‘My bosses told me to say this’ is no excuse whatsoever.
            She was part of a system that denied us the opportunity to make our own decisions by withholding information and lying. Period, as you say in the US.

          2. Steve

            Tom. IMO, ‘The System’ is just some ethereal, unreal virtual thing that cannot exist without its loyal acolytes (think Gest@po, for example). By blaming ‘the system’ you are just providing the guilty with an excuse and escape route for their conscious actions.
            This petty bureaucrat absolutely knew what she was doing and continued doing it. There is no excuse. They seek positions of responsibility (power) as part of their career plan and will not countenance anything that prevents them progressing up their career ladder. This bureaucrat, like most others, is supposedly a ‘public servant’, their job is to serve the public to the best of their abilities – that does not include harming and killing the people they serve. It may be different in the USA where everything appears to be driven by money and the bottom line. The UK has not fully ‘evolved’, to that mindset, yet, but our leaders are progressing along that line.
            Let’s not provide the guilty with excuses, they must be exposed and punished.

          3. AhNotepad

            Tom, we don’t agree on this point. If anyone is complicit in a corrupt system, they are corrupt. If they want to keep their job, and do things to support the corrupt system, the things they do are corrupt. If they were not corrupt, they would walk. Difficult to do, but it is a choice of one or the other.

          4. Eggs ‘n beer

            So would you extend the definition of “powerless bureaucrats” to doctors in general and GPs specifically? Who also unquestionably followed the narrative?

            In most western economies it’s illegal to give financial advice unless you get a bit of govt. paper first. And then you’ve got to follow all sorts of rules and protocols before suggesting what your client does with their hard-earned. And if you make a mistake, you can be sued. I think that the same accountability should apply to everyone who gives advice. Which would make them think twice about giving it, knowing that they can be sued personally.

            You don’t expect the doctor’s receptionist to tell you to get your kidney removed, or prescribe you drugs.

          5. Tom Morgan

            Eggs, Steve, AH, Geoff,
            In order for the bureaucrat to ‘lie’, it means that she knew what she was supposed to do was contrary to what she knew was the correct thing to do. I’m skeptical that she had second thoughts about what she was told to do. I’ll bet she agreed with the Public Health directives, and never looked for information that might have been contrary to what she had been told to do.
            Most folks are not as well informed as you guys, and are happy to follow the directives of their government, especially when the narrative says that they are preventing others from ‘killing grandma’, by not getting the vax. Not questioning the narrative does not make her corrupt – it makes her a pawn.
            Tom

          6. Eggs ‘n beer

            Tom, replying to your latest (28th Jan) post. She is an elected official. She has a fiduciary duty of care to her constituents. She is corrupt by omission (legally there is such a thing) by not ensuring that she isn’t telling lies. If my wife’s hairdresser, who left school at 15, knows all this stuff, someone whose JOB it is to know this stuff has no excuse whatsoever.

          7. AhNotepad

            Totally agree Eggs. I’ve sort of given up replying to this topic now as it seems like a wall, and my head hurts when repeatedly banged against it. Anyone in a puplic office should think critically, or they are complicit if they are merely supporting a narrative. They have no human empathy and are obviously not fit to have powers invested in them.

          8. Steve

            Tom. I’d suggest that actually bureaucrats have access to more information than Joe Public due to their roles. They may be told what to say, but they are also told what not to say. So, the ordinary questioning mind might question, if only to themselves, why they are being told something.
            At that point, you have to make a decision. The choice is not based upon ignorance.

    1. Jerome savage

      Hi Tom
      Unfortunately i find it difficult to connect with anyone who aligns themselves with the regime in Israel. A totalitarian regime IMHO.

      Reply
      1. Tom Morgan

        Jeremy,
        I suggested the article ‘cuz Peterson is yet another example of someone who is being attacked for his views by folks acting like totalitarians. I know nothing of his stance on Israel (or many other topics, too). Instead of debating him, he is being ‘cancelled’. It’s an all-too-familiar story.
        Tom

        Reply
      2. Paul Fruitbat

        It’s hard to accept, but nobody is right about everything. (With the possible exception of Dr Kendrick!)

        Over and over I find that people whose views on some subjects I find perfectly correct (i.e. in line with my own) are wildly wrong, or at least out of line with my own, on other things.

        They are right about US imperialism and the war in Ukraine; but they believe in “man-made global warming”. Or they are well informed about the lack of MMGW, but believe the “Covid vaccines” are safe and effective. Or masks, or “social distancing”. Even the revered Dr Chomsky seems to be quite mistaken about some current events.

        Having realised this, I now do my best to accept it and get on with life. After all, if anyone were infallibly right about everything (apart from being the Pope), the rest of us wouldn’t have to do any research. We’d just ask the Oracle.

        Reply
        1. tonyp

          Paul, people are all different and consensus is rare. Democracy annoys many people but I would rather live under one of its versions than under anarchy or military rule. Both my wife and I refused the covid vaccine but we had different reasons.

          You are indeed better getting on with life.

          Good luck.

          TonyP

          Reply
  65. Jeremy May

    The first Covid vaccine in the UK was given on Dec 8 2020. Pfizer.

    About 6 weeks later on 17th Jan 2021 an article (paper) by Professor Robert Clancy was published in Quadrant online. Prof Clancys seems to have had some idea what he was talking about because he signs off with…. Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy AM MB BS PhD DSc FRACP FRCP(A) RS(N) is Foundation Professor Pathology, Medical School University Newcastle, Clinical Immunologist and (Previous) Head of the Newcastle Mucosal Immunology Group, with special interest in airways infection and vaccine development.
    Here is the link to that one: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2021/01/covid-19-a-realistic-approach-to-community-management/

    I think it’s fair to say that had there been full and Frank discussion about Professor Clancy’s ideas, I (and half the world?) would have had second thoughts about being vaccinated. At the very least we would have had some idea about how we may benefit if we agreed to the vaccines and what may happen down the line.

    I’d never heard of Professor Clancy till I heard him in discussion with Malcolm Campbell quite recently. He comes across as someone in whom I would put my faith. At the very least, an authoritative voice on the vaccine debate.

    There’s another article by him today in The Conservative Woman. Included here is him being ignored by two scientific bodies with whom he was closely associated. The first, The Society for Mucosal Immunology (SMI), of which he was a founder member, basically ignored him. No great surprise perhaps when we hear that The SMIs ‘Gold Sponsor’ was………….. uh, Pfizer.
    Here’s that one..

    https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/covid-and-the-disturbing-facts-my-fellow-scientists-dont-want-to-hear/

    These are just links to writings by one person among many. They are / were available to everyone, at least those of us who delve into publications of which most people have never heard. Had such thoughts been aired on MSM back in late 2020 / early 2021 the world may well be a very different place.

    Reply
  66. Jerome savage

    HIGHLIGHTS of BELOW STUDY – initially involved the late Luc Montagnier
    “we present 26 cases of Creuzfeldt-Jacob Disease, all diagnosed in 2021 with the first symptoms appearing within an average of 11.38 days after a Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca COVID-19 injection. 
    we believe it is correct to infer that the injections caused the disease in these 26 cases. If so, they have probably also caused a many other cases that have gone undiagnosed because of their rapid progression to death. By late 2021, 20 had died within 4.76 months of the offending injection. Of those, 8 died suddenly within 2.5 months confirming the rapid progression of this accelerated form of Creuzfeldt-Jacob Disease. By June 2022, 5 more patients had died, and at the time of this current writing, only 1 remains still alive.
    https://www.ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/66

    Reply
  67. Jerome savage

    Point taken Tom. It may be the case that, because of his popularity & sense of integrity, he too is subjected to overtures by such regimes to enhance their image. No unlike Sir Richard Doll in fact.

    Reply
  68. Geoff

    I have no way of verifying this and have hesitated to post the link, but it appears that Dr. Malone still stands behind the message, so I thought I’d toss it out here to see what others have to say.

    Revelations By The Top Pfizer Executive Jordan Tristan Walker [regarding the covid jabs and more] | Project Veritas | English News

    Reply
    1. Sasha

      I am not sure how “top” that executive really is. I have met senior pharma executives before. They look and act nothing like that ja***ss.

      Reply
      1. Gary Ogden

        Sasha: Yup. And it doesn’t even matter. He’s basically a nobody. This guy seems to be typical of the current state of affairs here in the U.S. A “diversity hire.” He checks two of the requisite boxes: Black, and gay. He doesn’t appear particularly bright. But he really is an actual medical school grad. What does that say about our educational system? He had been in a urology residency, but went for the big bucks. He wasn’t hired to do anything scientific or medical. He simultaneously worked for Boston Consulting Group, one of the big-time outfits the oligarchs use to influence and steer public policy.

        Reply
        1. Sasha

          Gary: thanks for the link. This is my opinion based on conversations with family members many of whom were physicians in the Soviet system and later became physicians in the American system.

          It is true that the Soviet medical system was vastly technologically inferior to that of the West. There was shortage of even basic supplies. I remember my mom (who was an Ob/Gyn) telling me how they would re-sterilize disposable gloves because they didn’t have enough to operate. In the early 90’s a large American hospital reported a milestone in the number of heart transplants it performed. My father said that it was more than all of the heart transplants done in the Soviet Union.

          Does that mean that that the Soviet Union was a country where “nothing worked”, as the article says, and that it’s doubtful that there could be a nuclear exchange? I don’t think so. Even now Russia has over 6,000 nuclear-tipped ICBMs. Do we really want to find out how well they work?

          The other side of technological inferiority in the USSR was that docs were forced to innovate and look for wisdom in the older healing techniques. Dr. Ilizarov developed his apparatus in the Soviet Union. Its mechanical functions are based on the tension mechanics of the shaft bow of a horse harness. It had no analogues in the West and was introduced to the US by an American orthopedist who learned the technique from Ilizarov. In true Soviet fashion Ilizarov had to fight a lot of Soviet bureaucracy and inertia before his life-changing invention saw the light of day.

          Soviet pharma produced some indigenous drugs, many of which work and work very well. One of them, meldonium, became famous recently after Sharapova was disqualified for 2 years because WADA ruled it to be a doping agent. It’s an anti-ischemia medication and has been used for decades in the treatment of CAD. In the meantime, something like half of Norwegian biathletes are on bronchodilators. I suppose getting into Norwegian biathlon team is a huge risk factor for developing asthma.

          There were fasting clinics in the USSR that produced great results. This continues in modern day Russia. A friend recently told me about a fasting clinic that continues old Soviet research. It combines fasting with administering pine nut oil. I wouldn’t be surprised if they got their inspiration from Ayurvedic clinics that give patients ghee. In India I saw some mind-blowing results from Ayurveda treatments. Often, it’s not about how many heart transplants you can do but about not getting to a heart transplant at all.

          In the 50’s Soviet doctors were sent to China to learn acupuncture and there are Soviet books listing studies on acupuncture’s numerous physiological effects. Acupuncture was incorporated into the Soviet medical system and doctors were eager to take acupuncture internships. For many Soviet docs it was prestigious to be certified in acupuncture. When I was about 6, I developed allergic rhinitis. Maybe because of vaccines, I now think, even though we only had about 5 shots total. My mom took me to a colleague who did a course of acupuncture treatments and I never had it again. It cured me for life. If I was in the States at the time, I would probably be fed pharma crap that would mess me up. It’s not true what the article says that “people who were sick could hardly get effective treatment at all”. I realize that I was in a somewhat privileged position but people still got treated and many were treated well. There are good and bad docs everywhere. Technological complexity is a huge help but it can be a double-edged sword.

          It is true that there were a lot of statistical games played with some outright lying on infant mortality, for example. It was ideologically driven to prove the glory of the socialist system. In the States statistical games are financially driven. American hospitals are not required to disclose their stats on elective operations, for example. You can go for a gallbladder removal to two different hospitals 10 miles apart and come out with vastly different outcomes. There’s no way for you to know in advance what their track record is. They are not required to tell you. The only way for you to know is to have an “in” with some of the people in the field.

          I agree with the central point of the article that the more we move toward central planning in health care, the worse outcomes will be. The problem is: in the US “health care as essentially a doctor/patient relationship, with freedom of choice on all sides” has been going away for a long time now. Long before Covid. If you speak to docs on the ground they will probably tell you as much…

          Reply
          1. Gary Ogden

            Sasha: Thanks. Lots of interesting information. Part of what you object to in that article surely reflects the author’s political bias rather than astute analysis. Clearly some things worked well in the Soviet Union- the space program, for example. Sputnik caught our government flat-footed (between the U.S. and the USSR, virtually all the NAZI rocket scientists were gobbled up-in the U.S. it was called Operation Paperclip, and a book of that title was published in 2014). And I recall positive articles in the 60’s in the mainstream press about medicine in the Soviet Union. Part of the problem in the U.S. today is that very few doctors work independently. Regulators, professional societies, state medical boards, research, and journals are all fully captured by commercial interests. This is why the health of Americans is so poor while they must spend far more than in any other country.

          2. andy

            I was shocked to read that in USA doctors are expected to follow “guidelines” on how they treat a patient. If this is true ..and these guidelines will be created, influenced by the pharmaceutical industry… then medicine is surely finished there for ever.
            Effectively this would stop freedom of choice, as much as other edicts curtail freedom of speech.

          3. Sasha

            Andy: not only in the US but probably anywhere such guidelines exist, I think. If the guideline says TC above 200 has to be treated, a physician has to adhere to the guideline. To do anything else may be considered a potential malpractice.

          4. Sasha

            Gary: in the US, Healthcare is the largest sector of the economy. 3.3 trillion dollars per year or so. It also feeds a lot of people not directly involved in Healthcare. For example, an average annual premium for an Ob/Gyn’s malpractice insurance is about 160K per year. That creates a lot of happy customers in the insurance industry.

            I am convinced that if US were to reform and streamline its Healthcare system, it would probably cause severe economic depression. More efficient models are out there, like that of Singapore, for example. However, eliminating waste in the system is in no one’s interest. One man’s waste is another man’s paycheck.

            As long as there’s no extreme outside pressure on the US to reign in its spending, this will probably continue.

      2. Eggs ‘n beer

        He actually checks out in that position on the Pfizer website – or did until he was cancelled. But I have the screenshot.

        Cynically, he’s gay, and maybe he was there for inclusivity.

        Reply
        1. andy

          Is the desire for Equity (equal outcome) not also corruption in a way?
          As a Civil Engineer the collapse of the university pedestrian bridge in Florida seems to have several causes not unrelated to the dangerous idea of everyone needing to be represented on the design and construction team. Less important seemed their knowledge or experience. ( the ‘innovative’ bridge had several deep cracks in it, and was actually being re-tensioned even as it collapsed onto the live freeway underneath, killing many).

          Reply
      3. Geoff

        The whole thing appears oddly staged to me even though Pfizer’s rap sheet over the years would seem to argue that his claims have some merit, the fact that Project Veritas seems credible, and that Malone and McCullough also are risking credibility if it turns out that the thing is bogus. Anyway, at this point I’d lean toward believing that what he’s saying is only a glimpse of the corruption Big Pharma has undoubtedly been guilty of.

        Also thanks to Gary and E&B for their comments. Thumbs up to all who’ve resonded.

        Reply
    2. Norman

      I suggest caution on even Dr R W Malone whose background was working with/for the US government. He’s suing large numbers of people including some who – after following them since 2020 – I think have considerable personal integrity.

      Yet another doctor’s blog on medical corruption, from the USA
      https://amidwesterndoctor.substack.com/p/another-covid-19-conspiracy-theory

      The doctor concerned takes care to try to sort facts from non-facts. Good grief … that used to be common in ‘medicine’.

      I wonder if R W Malone will in due course find a reason also to sue the MWD for libel. Still, it’s a good way to disrupt the efforts of genuine sceptics.

      Bear in mind that this isn’t really a polite medical debate any longer. More is at stake, if one reads related blogs to this; one good individual is Maajid Nawaz. I’ll leave it there.

      Reply
      1. Jerome savage

        Malone invented MRNA, did he not, should therefore have been fully aware of the risks, nonetheless took the experiment, became very ill, got converted to anti MRNA vax. Why did he take it ?

        Reply
        1. Gary Ogden

          Jerome: As I understand it, he took it because of the travel mandate. Like for many others, a case of coercion.

          Reply
  69. Cato the Uncensored

    The really clever politicians in the Western paragons of virtue have figured out that it isn’t bribery if the payoff, in the form e.g. of speaking fees and directorships, is received after they are out of office.

    Let’s not kid ourselves about how honest the Western world is.

    Reply
  70. Jeremy May

    Without a corrupt system this book would not have been written…
    It’s analysing the Pfizer documents released by the FDA. Even if you only read the free ‘look inside’ bit, there are some startling revelations.

    Reply
  71. Bruce Berry

    Dr. Jason Fung explains some current ways and means of corruption. Excellent, disruptive vid supports what the good doc Kendrick said above

    Reply
    1. andy

      I am so pleased to see Malcolm Kendrick mentioned here on this Jason Fung youtube on corruption. So pleased that he has attained International regard at last.

      Reply
    1. Geoff

      “You know you are living in a corrupt regime when the government uses the military against its own citizens to quash dissent…”

      Or any of many other reasonable activities such as resistance to arbitary and unfair impositions. By that standard, the US was corrupt from the beginning as exemplified by the (new) government’s reaction to Shays’ and the Whiskey Rebellions. The situation vis a vis us peons has been steadily deteriorating since then.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s