lewrockwell--2020-08-08--Bad Medicine: Fauci’s HCQ Waterloo

Bad Medicine: Fauci’s HCQ Waterloo

Dr. Anthony Fauci has been hailed in the press as the nation ’ s top infectious disease expert .
He ’ s been feted with presidential honors and high praise for his medical acumen .
His policy disagreements with President Trump , supposedly as the voice of “ science , ” have made him a hero on the left .
Such laurels and the implied power conveyed have led to some weird side-effects — such as his image featured on ladies ’ underwear and declarations that he ’ s the sexiest man alive .
He ’ s still being posterized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thank Dr. Fauci.
” Here ’ s one : Fauci : The Bernie Mado ... Ortleb , Charles Buy New $ 5.99 But it ’ s about time this idol topples , based on this summary about Fauci ’ s startlingly bad medicine and bad medical policy on COVID , which has in fact cost thousands of lives .
And yes , he is very specifically to blame .
Virologist Steven Hatfill , writing in RealClearPolitics , summed up just how disastrous Fauci has been for America ’ s COVID response , based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about hydroxychloroquine , the safest and most effective treatment for COVID based on all reputable studies , and the political power he ’ s used to halt its treatment even as the rest of the world got well from the inexpensive medication ’ s use .
The “ Fauci Strategy ” was to keep early infected patients quarantined at home without treatment until they developed a shortness of breath and had to be admitted to a hospital .
Then they would they [ sic ] be given hydroxychloroquine .
The Food and Drug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it stated in its hydroxychloroquine Emergency Use Authorization ( EUA ) that “ hospitalized patients were likely to have a greater prospect of benefit ( compared to ambulatory patients with mild illness ) .
” Plague : One Scientist & ... Mikovits , Judy Best Price : $ 29.55 Buy New $ 17.99 In reality just the opposite was true .
This was a tragic mistake by Fauci and FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn and it was a mistake that would cost the lives of thousands of Americans in the days to come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But America didn ’ t .
America today is still floundering around on lockdowns , re-lockdowns , its schools shut , its election growing dubious .
And the persistence of the pandemic can directly be traced to the incompetent , bad medical decisions of Dr. Anthony Fauci , which have left America a COVID wasteland while the rest of the world got well .

Dr. Anthony Fauci has been hailed in the press as the nation’s top infectious disease expert. He’s been feted with presidential honors and high praise for his medical acumen. His policy disagreements with President Trump, supposedly as the voice of “science,” have made him a hero on the left. Such laurels and the implied power conveyed have led to some weird side-effects — such as his image featured on ladies’ underwear and declarations that he’s the sexiest man alive.
He’s still being posterized on the left with calls to “Thank Dr. Fauci.” Here’s one:
Screenshot, banner ad.
Fauci: The Bernie Mado... Ortleb, Charles Buy New $5.99 (as of 02:55 UTC - Details) But it’s about time this idol topples, based on this summary about Fauci’s startlingly bad medicine and bad medical policy on COVID, which has in fact cost thousands of lives. And yes, he is very specifically to blame.
Virologist Steven Hatfill, writing in RealClearPolitics, summed up just how disastrous Fauci has been for America’s COVID response, based on Fauci’s suppression of evidence about hydroxychloroquine, the safest and most effective treatment for COVID based on all reputable studies, and the political power he’s used to halt its treatment even as the rest of the world got well from the inexpensive medication’s use.
The “Fauci Strategy” was to keep early infected patients quarantined at home without treatment until they developed a shortness of breath and had to be admitted to a hospital. Then they would they [sic] be given hydroxychloroquine. The Food and Drug Administration cluelessly agreed to this doctrine and it stated in its hydroxychloroquine Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) that “hospitalized patients were likely to have a greater prospect of benefit (compared to ambulatory patients with mild illness).” Plague: One Scientist&... Mikovits, Judy Best Price: $29.55 Buy New $17.99 (as of 04:10 UTC - Details) In reality just the opposite was true. This was a tragic mistake by Fauci and FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn and it was a mistake that would cost the lives of thousands of Americans in the days to come.
Other countries got well from COVID. But America didn’t. America today is still floundering around on lockdowns, re-lockdowns, its schools shut, its election growing dubious. And the persistence of the pandemic can directly be traced to the incompetent, bad medical decisions of Dr. Anthony Fauci, which have left America a COVID wasteland while the rest of the world got well.
Read the Whole Article


lewrockwell--2020-08-08--Give Peace a Chance, or Give the Surreal a Chance?

I ’ m all for peace , but against forced pacification .
I also favor reporting on the surreal when it ’ s all around us .
Rioters burning buildings while wearing masks .
Which masks ?
Anti-COVID or anti-identification ?
And if an obedient pod person wearing a bandana over his face wandering the empty streets of New York suddenly overflows with some unnamed impulse and throws a garbage can through a plate glass window , can he be doubly prosecuted for concealing his identity ?
Or is his sentence mitigated because he was following the governor ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are wearing masks , but WHY ARE THEY WEARING THEM , if you catch my drift .
Especially , when you ’ re in a store and they ’ re all around you in the flesh .
WHAT IS THIS ?
A fashion show ?
A new kind of Pride parade ?
Are they all having the same hallucination ?
“ Excuse me , sir ( speaking to the store manager ) , but what ’ s with all the…you know… ” The Case Against Masks ... Heckenlively , Kent Buy New $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We ’ re afraid of the germ.
” “ You mean one of those tiny things , of which there are maybe a hundred trillion , already in your body ?
” I know about fear of dragons , snakes , quicksand , even the odd ghost in a closet , a bear in the woods , Hillary Clinton grinning like she just shot a full load of meth striding out on to the stage of the Democratic National Convention and telling the roaring crowd Joe Biden had to withdraw for health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the owner is determined to make money , everybody knows this , but when you ’ re ACTUALLY AT the circus—AND WE ARE—and fat clowns are piling out of small cars and high flying acrobats in underwear are risking their lives without a net and elephants from the African plains are walking in a sawdust circle with half-naked women on board and a 50-year-old guy is turned upside down balancing his body on one finger stuck into a bowling ball , it ’ s surreal .
How will the surreal COVID three-ring tent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what will the end game look like for all the pod people ?
Will the day come when Fauci blares a sentence through his megaphone and they all tear the cloths off their faces and run out into the sun weeping with relief and joy and dance in the grass and leap from rock to rock in bubbling brooks under holographic rainbows ?
Will a man and his wife who almost killed each other in a brawl in their kitchen after he closed his café and went bankrupt suddenly regain their senses and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Good-Bye Germ Theory : ... Trebing , Dr. William P Best Price : $ 36.69 Buy New $ 14.00 Will the oh-so-sensitive lockdown governors flounce down the steps of their capitol buildings and skip into the arms of adoring crowds of face-naked voters and march off to the nearest bar to pop corks on bottles of champagne ?
Will reporters heap praise on President Biden for seeing it through and defeating the germ as only he could ?
Will Secretary of Commerce Bernie Sanders announce that all major industries in the US are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Microsoft CEO Satya Narayana Nadella inform the populace that a currency reset has been negotiated , all money is now digitized , and every citizen ’ s assets are worth sixty percent of their former value , in order to pay off the interest on the fifteen-trillion-dollar bailout ?
I would see some serious surreal there .
As people keel over from the Gates RNA injection and collapse on the streets , will the Health and Human Services chief , an unnamed former leader non-leader of Seattle CHAZ , declare these deaths are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the germ ?
High strange , let ’ s face it , is unavoidable now .
Just look around you .
For a moment or two , just SEE .
The coming and going of masked robots… Think of The Plagues of the Middle Ages .
Whatever was happening , however bad it was , the people endured .
They worked .
They strove .
They suffered .
They didn ’ t lock down .
They didn ’ t look to governors to issue shelter orders .
They didn ’ t wait for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announcing fake statistics .
It was a horror , they were in the center of it and they stayed in the center of it .
THIS , now , is a paradise , by comparison .
If little Faucis had existed then , they would have been as oysters swallowed up by skimming schools of fish without a moment ’ s hesitation or thought or memory .
THIS , now , this fear of the germ , is preposterous .
You want surreal ?
Think of the long-term psychological and mental and physical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ led to the present population and their mincing phobic surrender .
The Forgotten Plague : ... Ryan , Frank Best Price : $ 6.99 Germophobia defined : “ extreme fear of germs and obsession with cleanliness.
” How surreal are the hand sanitizer machines and their white goo ?
“ Yes , I ’ m going to defeat the hundred trillion trillion trillion germs , watch this , I push the lever and the cream oozes out… ” Watch the good little environmentalists at health food stores rub on the thick stuff .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Of course they do .
They accept Nature .
You bet .
But they want to defeat the trillion to the trillionth power germs that are everywhere in Nature .
Who educated these idiots ?
When they trek through the rainforests of Costa Rica and Brazil , do they have 18-wheelers behind them filled with drums of Purell ?
Or is it only when they get back to San Francisco and LA and Cambridge that they become terrified of the attack of the microbes ?
What about the vaunted PCR diagnostic test ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has never been validated , in major studies , for the ability to turn out uniform results from lab to lab ?
Clue : it ’ s an open secret among professionals that the PCR does , in fact , show different outcomes in different labs .
And , to add to the insanity , the test , once approved , was suddenly claimed to be a tool for determining the quantity of replicating virus in the human body—but again , no large-scale studies proved this assertion in the real world .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supposed basis for counting COVID case numbers .
When it comes to surreal , it ’ s hard to top the fact that the original “ discovery ” of the new pandemic coronavirus , in China , or anywhere else in the world , was never accomplished by performing large-scale electron microscopy studies .
If any tool can approximate what viruses are doing in the body , EM photos would be the choice .
But no .
Taking tissue samples from a thousand so-called pandemic patients and examining them under the microscope was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The evidence could show there is no viral pandemic at all .
And since that evidence was never sought , the verdict is : the COVID-19 burden of proof is unmet .
The whole stage play is based on a foundation of sand .
We ’ re in another season of flu-like illness , against which the global engine of production , commerce , and trade has been stalled .
A collection of venal scum and petty bureaucrats you wouldn ’ t trust to play it straight at a nickel-dime poker table stand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Best of Jon Rappoport

I’m all for peace, but against forced pacification. I also favor reporting on the surreal when it’s all around us.
Rioters burning buildings while wearing masks. Which masks? Anti-COVID or anti-identification? And if an obedient pod person wearing a bandana over his face wandering the empty streets of New York suddenly overflows with some unnamed impulse and throws a garbage can through a plate glass window, can he be doubly prosecuted for concealing his identity? Or is his sentence mitigated because he was following the governor’s mask directive?
I understand why people are wearing masks, but WHY ARE THEY WEARING THEM, if you catch my drift. Especially, when you’re in a store and they’re all around you in the flesh. WHAT IS THIS? A fashion show? A new kind of Pride parade? Are they all having the same hallucination?
“Excuse me, sir (speaking to the store manager), but what’s with all the…you know…” The Case Against Masks... Heckenlively, Kent Buy New $12.99 (as of 04:52 UTC - Details)
“It’s the germ. We’re afraid of the germ.”
“You mean one of those tiny things, of which there are maybe a hundred trillion, already in your body?”
“Right.”
I know about fear of dragons, snakes, quicksand, even the odd ghost in a closet, a bear in the woods, Hillary Clinton grinning like she just shot a full load of meth striding out on to the stage of the Democratic National Convention and telling the roaring crowd Joe Biden had to withdraw for health reasons…
These fears I understand. But a germ?
A three ring circus happens because the owner is determined to make money, everybody knows this, but when you’re ACTUALLY AT the circus—AND WE ARE—and fat clowns are piling out of small cars and high flying acrobats in underwear are risking their lives without a net and elephants from the African plains are walking in a sawdust circle with half-naked women on board and a 50-year-old guy is turned upside down balancing his body on one finger stuck into a bowling ball, it’s surreal.
How will the surreal COVID three-ring tent show play out? For instance, what will the end game look like for all the pod people? Will the day come when Fauci blares a sentence through his megaphone and they all tear the cloths off their faces and run out into the sun weeping with relief and joy and dance in the grass and leap from rock to rock in bubbling brooks under holographic rainbows?
Will a man and his wife who almost killed each other in a brawl in their kitchen after he closed his café and went bankrupt suddenly regain their senses and make up and resume domestic bliss? Good-Bye Germ Theory: ... Trebing, Dr. William P Best Price: $36.69 Buy New $14.00 (as of 04:04 UTC - Details)
Will the oh-so-sensitive lockdown governors flounce down the steps of their capitol buildings and skip into the arms of adoring crowds of face-naked voters and march off to the nearest bar to pop corks on bottles of champagne?
Will reporters heap praise on President Biden for seeing it through and defeating the germ as only he could? Will Secretary of Commerce Bernie Sanders announce that all major industries in the US are now nationalized? Will Treasury Secretary and Microsoft CEO Satya Narayana Nadella inform the populace that a currency reset has been negotiated, all money is now digitized, and every citizen’s assets are worth sixty percent of their former value, in order to pay off the interest on the fifteen-trillion-dollar bailout? I would see some serious surreal there.
As people keel over from the Gates RNA injection and collapse on the streets, will the Health and Human Services chief, an unnamed former leader non-leader of Seattle CHAZ, declare these deaths are stemming from the residual last-gasp efforts of the germ?
High strange, let’s face it, is unavoidable now. Just look around you. For a moment or two, just SEE. The coming and going of masked robots…
Think of The Plagues of the Middle Ages. Whatever was happening, however bad it was, the people endured. They worked. They strove. They suffered. They didn’t lock down. They didn’t look to governors to issue shelter orders. They didn’t wait for an answer. There were no agencies announcing fake statistics. It was a horror, they were in the center of it and they stayed in the center of it. THIS, now, is a paradise, by comparison. If little Faucis had existed then, they would have been as oysters swallowed up by skimming schools of fish without a moment’s hesitation or thought or memory.
THIS, now, this fear of the germ, is preposterous. You want surreal? Think of the long-term psychological and mental and physical and cultural and spiritual preparation which has led to the present population and their mincing phobic surrender. The Forgotten Plague: ... Ryan, Frank Best Price: $6.99 (as of 04:57 UTC - Details)
Germophobia defined: “extreme fear of germs and obsession with cleanliness.” How surreal are the hand sanitizer machines and their white goo? “Yes, I’m going to defeat the hundred trillion trillion trillion germs, watch this, I push the lever and the cream oozes out…” Watch the good little environmentalists at health food stores rub on the thick stuff. They live in harmony with Nature. Of course they do. They accept Nature. You bet. But they want to defeat the trillion to the trillionth power germs that are everywhere in Nature. Who educated these idiots? When they trek through the rainforests of Costa Rica and Brazil, do they have 18-wheelers behind them filled with drums of Purell? Or is it only when they get back to San Francisco and LA and Cambridge that they become terrified of the attack of the microbes?
What about the vaunted PCR diagnostic test? Is it not surreal that the test has never been validated, in major studies, for the ability to turn out uniform results from lab to lab? Clue: it’s an open secret among professionals that the PCR does, in fact, show different outcomes in different labs. And, to add to the insanity, the test, once approved, was suddenly claimed to be a tool for determining the quantity of replicating virus in the human body—but again, no large-scale studies proved this assertion in the real world. And it is the PCR which forms the supposed basis for counting COVID case numbers.
When it comes to surreal, it’s hard to top the fact that the original “discovery” of the new pandemic coronavirus, in China, or anywhere else in the world, was never accomplished by performing large-scale electron microscopy studies. If any tool can approximate what viruses are doing in the body, EM photos would be the choice. But no. Taking tissue samples from a thousand so-called pandemic patients and examining them under the microscope was never a possibility. Too risky. The evidence could show there is no viral pandemic at all. And since that evidence was never sought, the verdict is: the COVID-19 burden of proof is unmet. The whole stage play is based on a foundation of sand.
We’re in another season of flu-like illness, against which the global engine of production, commerce, and trade has been stalled. A collection of venal scum and petty bureaucrats you wouldn’t trust to play it straight at a nickel-dime poker table stand guard at the on-off switch.
Case closed.
Reprinted with permission from Jon Rappoport’s blog.
The Best of Jon Rappoport


lewrockwell--2020-08-08--People Don’t Understand the Significance of $2,000 Gold

Gold reached a new milestone Tuesday , breaking above $ 2,000 for the first time ever .
The yellow metal closed just above $ 2,017 an ounce .
Peter talked about gold ’ s new record high and what it ’ s telling us in his latest podcast .
He says most people still don ’ t really understand the significance of $ 2,000 gold .
Peter noted that when gold first peaked its head above $ 2,000 , it immediately sold off .
He said that kind of nervousness is exactly what he wants to see in a gold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buy the breakout , they want to sell the high print .
And that ’ s exactly what they did .
And of course , once gold pulled back , all the buying that drove it up to $ 2,000 in the first place was still there .
The problem for the sellers , or the shorts , is once it got back above 2,000 again , all the people who wanted to sell 2,000 gold had already sold and the smart money had bought it from them.
” Peter said gold could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ although it ’ s too early to tell .
2018 - Present ( n1oz G ...
Check Amazon for Pricing .
Peter said more evidence of the wall of worry is that we haven ’ t seen a big rush into gold stocks yet .
They are doing well , but they are nowhere near their 2011 highs even though the price of gold is higher than it was at that peak .
Peter said he was listening to CNBC and one analyst was explaining why gold ’ s move above $ 2,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predicting the yellow metal will sell off as soon as real interest rates go positive .
I ’ m just laughing .
I mean , just as soon as real interest rates go positive ?
When is that going to happen ?
I mean , that ’ s not even close to happening .
Positive real interest rates aren ’ t even anywhere on the horizon .
So , if you think gold is going to keep rising until real interest rates go positive , you should be buying it with both hands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s no way the Fed is ever going to get in front of the inflation curve and have nominal interest rates higher than the CPI , let alone the actual rate of inflation , which the CPI doesn ’ t even come close to capturing.
” Peter said if you ’ re actually worried about gold crashing , you should be more concerned about the stock market , or the real estate market , or the bond market , or the entire economy crashing .
The Last Gold Rushu202 ... Haynes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , gold is the only asset that ’ s not in a bubble because of negative real interest rates .
Silver has gone along for the ride with gold .
The white metal was trading just below $ 26 when Peter recorded his podcast .
By Wednesday morning , silver had surged to over $ 26.80 .
Peter said $ 26 silver is still a steal .
Peter said the only thing that really surprised him about $ 2,000 gold is that it took so long to get here .
The rising price @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dollar is in trouble .
1986 - Present ( Random ...
Check Amazon for Pricing .
Peter said that even though the rise in gold is vindicating and financially rewarding , he doesn ’ t feel like he can really celebrate gold going to $ 2,000 .
Peter said he thinks that the dollar is close to a Wile E. Coyote moment where it drops off the cliff and plummets .
In this podcast , Peter also talks about bitcoin and the Fed ’ s willingness to commit to more inflation .

Gold reached a new milestone Tuesday, breaking above $2,000 for the first time ever. The yellow metal closed just above $2,017 an ounce. Peter talked about gold’s new record high and what it’s telling us in his latest podcast. He says most people still don’t really understand the significance of $2,000 gold.
Peter noted that when gold first peaked its head above $2,000, it immediately sold off. He said that kind of nervousness is exactly what he wants to see in a gold bull market.
Instead of wanting to buy the breakout, they want to sell the high print. And that’s exactly what they did. And of course, once gold pulled back, all the buying that drove it up to $2,000 in the first place was still there. The problem for the sellers, or the shorts, is once it got back above 2,000 again, all the people who wanted to sell 2,000 gold had already sold and the smart money had bought it from them.”
Peter said gold could be building support above $2,000, although it’s too early to tell. 2018 - Present (n1oz G... Check Amazon for Pricing.
I’ve been saying that the support has been inching higher and higher and higher as more and more buyers enter the market and the supply of sellers is diminished.”
Peter said more evidence of the wall of worry is that we haven’t seen a big rush into gold stocks yet. They are doing well, but they are nowhere near their 2011 highs even though the price of gold is higher than it was at that peak.
I don’t think we’re going to see a meaningful correction in this market until we see that rush, until we see some money actually coming off the sideline, until we see some mainstream investors coming into gold.”
Peter said he was listening to CNBC and one analyst was explaining why gold’s move above $2,000 wasn’t a big deal and predicting the yellow metal will sell off as soon as real interest rates go positive.
I’m just laughing. I mean, just as soon as real interest rates go positive? When is that going to happen? I mean, that’s not even close to happening. Positive real interest rates aren’t even anywhere on the horizon. So, if you think gold is going to keep rising until real interest rates go positive, you should be buying it with both hands. I mean, obviously, there’s no way the Fed is ever going to get in front of the inflation curve and have nominal interest rates higher than the CPI, let alone the actual rate of inflation, which the CPI doesn’t even come close to capturing.”
Peter said if you’re actually worried about gold crashing, you should be more concerned about the stock market, or the real estate market, or the bond market, or the entire economy crashing. The Last Gold Rushu202... Haynes, Bill Buy New $28.00 (as of 04:04 UTC - Details)
The only reason anything is going up is because real interest rates are negative. So, if that’s your view on gold, you should have the same view on every single asset that there is. But no, I’m sure if you talk to that guy, he’s bullish on the stock market.”
In reality, gold is the only asset that’s not in a bubble because of negative real interest rates.
Silver has gone along for the ride with gold. The white metal was trading just below $26 when Peter recorded his podcast. By Wednesday morning, silver had surged to over $26.80. Peter said $26 silver is still a steal.
Don’t worry is you missed the bottom. … You can keep buying now because we are still much closer to the bottom than to the top. You can buy gold and silver at SchiffGold.”
Peter said the only thing that really surprised him about $2,000 gold is that it took so long to get here.
But I think that the thousand dollar milestones are going to start dropping like dominoes here. And I think people are going to take notice, because today, very few people are noticing or commenting on the significance of gold going over 2,000 because they don’t understand it.”
The rising price of gold is telling us that the dollar is in trouble.
The dollar is on fire, and the fire may have begun with the dollar, but it’s going to spread to the financial markets and the entire economy and people just don’t get this.”
1986 - Present (Random... Check Amazon for Pricing. Peter said that even though the rise in gold is vindicating and financially rewarding, he doesn’t feel like he can really celebrate gold going to $2,000.
This is not a happy occasion because it really portends some real big problems on the horizon. I mean, most Americans don’t have any gold. There is severe economic hardship that the vast majority of Americans are going to be enduring, and gold is basically letting you know that that hardship is on the way.”
Peter said he thinks that the dollar is close to a Wile E. Coyote moment where it drops off the cliff and plummets.
I think that’s what’s going to happen soon to people who are in the dollar. As soon as they look down and realize where they’re standing, the dollar is going to drop like a stone and that’s when the price of gold is going to skyrocket. And so, you’d better be on that rocketship before that ride begins.”
In this podcast, Peter also talks about bitcoin and the Fed’s willingness to commit to more inflation.
Reprinted from SchiffGold.com.


lewrockwell--2020-08-10--Is Your Hair Falling Out Months After You Were Infected With COVID-19?

Dr. Esther Freeman , director of the Dermatology COVID-19 Registry , says hair loss some time after COVID-19 infection , is increasingly being reported .
Months following any stressful event , physical or emotional ( not just COVID-19 infection ) , hair can start to fall out .
Hair loss is often experienced at the 3-month point after a stressful event .
A condition called telogen effluvium occurs among people who experience a stressful illness or other life event and shed hair .
Hair goes through a 3-step process of regeneration : anagen ( growth ) , catagen ( transition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or shedding stage .
For unknown reasons , more hair follicles stall in the telogen stage and therefore more hair is shed Now Foods Pumpkin Seed ... Buy New $ 19.59 ( $ 0.10 / Count ) Researchers theorize the same male hormones that provoke hair loss may be linked to the propensity of COVID-19 patients experiencing hair loss .
In fact , men with baldness may be more prone to COVID-19 infection itself .
There are androgen ( male hormone ) receptors on the surface of cells .
When these receptors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , hair loss ( alopecia ) occurs .
When the androgen receptor is hyperactive a proteolytic ( protein-like ) enzyme is also active ( TMPRSS2 ) , an enzyme that is a key to COVID-19 infection .
Men are vulnerable to severe forms of COVID-19 infection , whereas children under age 10 who have not entered puberty are invulnerable to COVID-19 .
( Note : COVID-19 infected children rarely spread COVID-19 to other children or adults. )
.
However , while COVID-19-infected children are usually asymptomatic , weeks later they may develop an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ natural anti-inflammatories like zinc , vitamins C & D should be continued for a few weeks following any viral infection .
With active androgen hormones , spikes on the surface of viruses can not bind to angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 ( ACE2 ) , a receptor implicated in severe COVID-19 acute respiratory syndrome .
The protease enzyme is said to “ eat ” the spikes so they can connect to the ACE2 .
So , more androgen activity means more proteases , which leads to more severe infection .
Doctoru2019s Best High ... Buy New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the scalp hairs are then shed in large numbers about 2-3 months after a “ shock “ .
This sudden increase in hair loss ( hair falling out in handfuls ) is called acute telogen effluvium .
High fevers , childbirth , severe infections , severe psychological stress , major surgery or illnesses , over or under-active thyroid hormone , crash diets with inadequate protein , and a variety of medications– retinoids , beta blockers , calcium channel blockers , antidepressants and anti-inflammatory drugs like ibuprofen ( Advil , Motrin ) — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what is available to locked-down people who are experiencing hair loss ?
Pumpkin seed oil is a natural 5-alpha reductase enzyme inhibitor .
A 400-milligram daily dose of pumpkin seed oil has been found to restore hair ( 40 % increase in hair count , for men –and women in this author ’ s experience ) .
( Pumpkin seed oil completely eradicated this author ’ s bald spot and at age 75 I have a full head of hair ! )
.
This is photo-documentation of the positive effect of pumpkin seed @ @ @ @ @

Dr. Esther Freeman, director of the Dermatology COVID-19 Registry, says hair loss some time after COVID-19 infection, is increasingly being reported. Months following any stressful event, physical or emotional (not just COVID-19 infection), hair can start to fall out. Hair loss is often experienced at the 3-month point after a stressful event.
A condition called telogen effluvium occurs among people who experience a stressful illness or other life event and shed hair.
Hair goes through a 3-step process of regeneration: anagen (growth), catagen (transition) and resting stage (telogen), or shedding stage. For unknown reasons, more hair follicles stall in the telogen stage and therefore more hair is shed Now Foods Pumpkin Seed... Buy New $19.59 ($0.10 / Count) (as of 03:58 UTC - Details)
Researchers theorize the same male hormones that provoke hair loss may be linked to the propensity of COVID-19 patients experiencing hair loss. In fact, men with baldness may be more prone to COVID-19 infection itself.
There are androgen (male hormone) receptors on the surface of cells. When these receptors (molecular doorways) are overly sensitive, hair loss (alopecia) occurs.
When the androgen receptor is hyperactive a proteolytic (protein-like) enzyme is also active (TMPRSS2), an enzyme that is a key to COVID-19 infection. Men are vulnerable to severe forms of COVID-19 infection, whereas children under age 10 who have not entered puberty are invulnerable to COVID-19. (Note: COVID-19 infected children rarely spread COVID-19 to other children or adults.). However, while COVID-19-infected children are usually asymptomatic, weeks later they may develop an acute inflammatory condition, so use of natural anti-inflammatories like zinc, vitamins C & D should be continued for a few weeks following any viral infection.
With active androgen hormones, spikes on the surface of viruses cannot bind to angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE2), a receptor implicated in severe COVID-19 acute respiratory syndrome. The protease enzyme is said to “eat” the spikes so they can connect to the ACE2. So, more androgen activity means more proteases, which leads to more severe infection. Doctoru2019s Best High... Buy New $13.01 (as of 10:40 UTC - Details)
As many as 70% of the scalp hairs are then shed in large numbers about 2-3 months after a “shock“. This sudden increase in hair loss (hair falling out in handfuls) is called acute telogen effluvium. High fevers, childbirth, severe infections, severe psychological stress, major surgery or illnesses, over or under-active thyroid hormone, crash diets with inadequate protein, and a variety of medications– retinoids, beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, antidepressants and anti-inflammatory drugs like ibuprofen (Advil, Motrin) — are causal.
In the meantime, what is available to locked-down people who are experiencing hair loss?
Pumpkin seed oil is a natural 5-alpha reductase enzyme inhibitor. A 400-milligram daily dose of pumpkin seed oil has been found to restore hair (40% increase in hair count, for men –and women in this author’s experience). (Pumpkin seed oil completely eradicated this author’s bald spot and at age 75 I have a full head of hair!). This is photo-documentation of the positive effect of pumpkin seed oil on hair loss:


lewrockwell--2020-08-10--Censorship Covers Up Corruption by Big Pharma And Its Doctors

It has become increasingly difficult to publish articles in medical journals that are critical of drugs or the drug industry , or that expose fraud and other wrongdoing committed by doctors .
It is also difficult to publish articles documenting that the status quo in a medical specialty is harmful for the patients even though such articles should be warmly welcomed .
Particularly in psychiatry , it has been amply documented that guild interests are far more important than the patients ’ survival and well-being.1,2 For top general medical journals , e.g .
Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as the revenue from drugs ads and selling reprints of trial reports constitutes a substantial proportion of their income.3 Top specialty journals have similar conflicts .
In addition , they usually have part-time editors who are keen to protect the specialty ’ s guild interests and prevailing dogmas .
Another problem is the threat of litigation .
The BMJ has an insurance that mandates the editors to adhere to their lawyers ’ advice ; otherwise , the insurance won ’ t cover the costs of a libel lawsuit .
Medical Freedom Journa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New $ 8.99 The corruption of our most prestigious medical journals has been exposed by current or previous editors-in-chief of the top journals , e.g .
BMJ , Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine.4 Aggravating the situation is the fact that big publishers buy smaller enterprises all the time .
This means that there are fewer players on the market , which are therefore easier to corrupt than if there had been many .
The five big publishers are Reed-Elsevier , Springer , Wiley-Blackwell , Taylor & Francis and Sage .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ papers in the peer-reviewed literature in 2013.5 In 1973 , the five largest publishing houses controlled 20 % of scientific papers published , but by 2006 , that number had already risen to 50 % .5 Not surprisingly , there has been increasing concern that journals may be censoring scientific research and stymieing debate , and there are many examples of gross violations of publication ethics and even of journals violating their own rules.2,4,6-8 A particularly egregious recent example was when a Springer journal refused to publish two papers from my research group9,10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after peer review , and we had paid the fees for open access .
Researcher and medical reporter Maryanne Demasi described these events in an article from 13 July 2020.4 By using clinical study reports we had obtained from the European Medicines Agency , we found evidence suggesting that the HPV vaccines in rare cases may cause serious harm.9 This finding contradicts the official reassurances that there is nothing to be worried about but agrees with other independent research , e.g .
from the Uppsala Monitoring Centre,8,11 which is a WHO collaborating centre @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccines and other drugs .
Our systematic review of the HPV vaccine trials9 is much more reliable than the 2018 Cochrane review as we based it on clinical study reports and not on journal publications .
It was accepted for publication in Systematic Reviews on 6 March 2019.8 However , a year later , it had still not been published although the journal promises publication within 20 days of acceptance .
Our email correspondence took up an astonishing 74 pages,4 and we had been given a total of 20 apologies and a variety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why our paper had not been published .
One of the excuses was that the journal lacked staff to publish our papers , which was clearly not the case , as Systematic Reviews had published 309 papers during that year .
Vaccines : truth , lies ... Gu00f8tzsche , Peter C. Buy New $ 15.69 On 16 February 2020 , we wrote to Springer that it seemed they deliberately delayed the publication and highlighted that , “ If this is the case , it is scientific censorship that borders on scientific misconduct and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with renowned scientists , many connections with the international media , and a strong social media presence .
If Springer Nature , BMC and Systematic Reviews fail to publish our papers before 1 March 2020 , we are obliged to alarm our fellow scientists and the international and social media about Springer Nature ’ s , BMC ’ s and Systemic Reviews ’ editorial practices .
We will also involve the Nordic Cochrane Centre ’ s and the Danish taxpayers ’ legal teams if the 1 March 2020 deadline is not met.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with record speed , only 12 days later , on 28 February , during which time we checked the proofs and corresponded several times with a high-ranking person , William F Curtis , PhD , Executive Vice President Journals , Medicine & Life Sciences , Springer Nature .
We had clearly made Springer nervous .
During the stalling of our papers , we sought an explanation from the journal ’ s editor-in-chief , David Moher , who put the blame on Springer : “ The delay is a substantial embarrassment … We have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” 4 When Demasi asked whether it had any financial conflicts of interest , Springer Nature strenuously denied any external influence on its decision-making process , stating : “ With a company the size of Springer Nature it is difficult to know for certain whether any of our advertisers , authors and subscribers are associated with the pharmaceutical industry , or manufacturers of the HPV vaccine or other HPV therapies.
” 4 This is a non-answer .
Just like if a medical student had been asked whether he had ever cheated in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ university this size it is difficult to know for certain whether any of our administrators , researchers and teachers have cheated.
” All three editors-in-chief of BMC Systematic Reviews have since announced they are stepping down , but none has responded to numerous requests for comment about reasons for their exit.4 I congratulate them with this decision , which is the only correct reaction to Springer ’ s abuse of power and inappropriate censorship of the worst kind .
False Positive : A Year ... Dalrymple , Theodore Best Price : $ 10.82 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also experienced huge delays when we submitted a paper to the BMJ where we described what happened when we complained to the European Medicines Agency and subsequently to the European Ombudsman about the agency ’ s inappropriate handling of concerns about the safety of the HPV vaccines .
The BMJ assured us repeatedly that they were keen to publish our paper and it was rewritten several times , once even by an editor , and subjected to legal review , which also led to changes .
However , as with Springer , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I had had enough and wrote to the editor-in-chief , Fiona Godlee : “ I wrote the email just below more than a month ago , and more than three months after I was reassured that the BMJ wants to move forward with our paper , and 3 years after I submitted our first version .
Absolutely nothing has happened in the last three months .
This is not acceptable .
I have said and written many times that BMJ is the best medical journal in the world , but if BMJ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can not treat your contributors like you have treated us in this case .
Please read my email from 10 March just below and please respond now.
” Godlee responded two days later : … “ we are not near being able to make a decision on your paper , and therefore not near to being in a position to publish it .
Under these circumstances , you may decide that you would prefer to take the paper elsewhere … There are still multiple steps that would need to take place before we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letter .
The major ones are sorting the legal issues , further peer review ( since it was last reviewed in November 2016 and the piece has changed substantially since then ) , and then further revision.
” I consider several of the legal issues absurd .
We were not allowed to reiterate what had been documented elsewhere and were told that we could not quote certain documents I had uploaded on my website even though anyone can get access to them by sending a Freedom of Information request to the European Medicines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the European Medicines Agency in a book.8 I have come to the point where I much prefer to write books instead of battling with peer reviewers that are keen to protect their financial and guild interests and with editors that are afraid of litigation .
One of my colleagues had a similar negative experience with the BMJ .
Their paper about the HPV vaccines had been under consideration for three years before it was finally rejected , in September 2019 .
It was a critical appraisal of the trials and their use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ho ... Dalrymple , Theodore Buy New $ 15.99 On this occasion , Godlee wrote to my colleague that “ The fact that this is also a highly controversial topic makes it all the more important to ensure that the messaging is clear when speaking to a wide international general medical and health policy audience … Despite everyone ’ s best efforts , the paper does not succeed in striking the right balance between detail and bottom line.
” Godlee said that when the paper had been published elsewhere , there might be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the BMJ ; “ You may however have had enough of us by now , which I would entirely understand.
” This is one of the main problems .
Editors should not waste years of researchers ’ time giving them hope that they will publish their paper and then ultimately reject it .
It should not happen .
Research should come out in the open , as quickly as possible , but medical journals are a serious impediment for this .
The paper was published elsewhere , in another prestigious general journal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s rejection.12 Mammography screening and the European Journal of Cancer The Springer affair is not the only time a medical journal has refused to publish one of our accepted papers .
I have even had an article withdrawn for no good reason which was already published in the articles-in- press section on the journal ’ s website,13 and other researchers have had similar experiences.8 The Swedish Two-County trial of mammography screening was instrumental for the introduction of screening .
The researchers had used Swedish registries but when we combined data from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ population , dates of randomisation , and length of follow-up , we found many more breast cancers and deaths than what the investigators had published .
Three weeks after we had published our concerns in the articles-in-press section on the European Journal of Cancer ’ s website , the editor-in-chief , John Smyth , informed us that his journal had received “ comments from a number of sources regarding some of the claims made in the article ” and that our article had been removed pending further discussion and clarification .
He did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked for very minor clarifications and changes .
We submitted a slightly revised paper in which the most important change was that we had deleted a sentence that might have been interpreted ( wrongly ) as suggesting that the trial authors had deliberately changed the cause of death in favour of screening .
To our great surprise , as our paper had already been published , the revised manuscript was sent out for peer review , and two months later Smyth informed us that his decision to withdraw our paper was final .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ new information concerning the randomization process and the trials opening and closing dates ” and forwarded selected “ Comments from the peer review process.
” Some of this new information contradicted not only the published data but also the randomisation dates we had received in earlier peer reviews .
This was totally bizarre but using any of the three different sets of randomisation dates in our analysis , we confirmed our original results .
However , despite two appeals , Smyth refused to publish our results .
The abuse of power was extreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had not responded to “ the letter from the paper ’ s critics ” , and noted that the letter contained “ details of the way the randomization was performed and the screening periods ” that “ have never been emphasised before.
” We have not seen this letter , and , like us , one of the peer reviewers also saw only selected comments from the other reviewers .
We found out that our paper was listed as withdrawn in PubMed .
Smyth violated the rules .
The European Journal of Cancer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Medical Journal Editors which states : “ In no instance should a journal remove an article from its website or archive .
If an article needs to be corrected or retracted , the explanation must be labelled appropriately and communicated as soon as possible on a citable page in a subsequent issue of the journal.
” The Committee mentions that it is a serious step to retract a published paper and that this should only be done after due process and only if scientific fraud has been established .
Smyth not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the journal ’ s website without leaving a trace of it , and without even notifying us .
It is also clear from the Committee ’ s guidelines that “ inadequacies exposed by the emergence of new scientific information in the normal course of research … require no corrections or withdrawals.
” Elsevier , the publisher of the journal , is a member of the International Association of Scientific , Technical & Medical Publishers which states that if an article is removed , “ bibliographic information about the ‘ removed ’ article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and an explanation given , however brief , about the circumstances of its removal.
” Smyth also violated this rule .
We published our results elsewhere.14 We wondered if the European Journal of Cancer had been threatened with litigation .
The primary author of the Two-County trial , László Tabár , is very wealthy and has threatened litigation before to prevent publication of results that seriously question the reliability of his trial .
I wrote about this in a book , with reference to an investigative journalist from Chicago Tribune:6 “ Crewdson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do with taxpayers ’ money must be open to public scrutiny .
He beleaguered Tabár for several days until he got away with data sheets that described causes of death , which he showed to me .
These documents were very interesting and Crewdson worked on them for quite a while but never published anything .
Several people have informed me that this was because the Tribune had been threatened with litigation , but Crewdson has not confirmed this .
Crewdson published other articles .
He noted various irregularities in the Two-County trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from published reports of the Kopparberg part of the trial after 1989.
” To say that Tabár ’ s cause of death assessments were very interesting is an understatement .
Scientific freedom is under pressure .
What we see now is that , more and more , medical scientists are moving away from major for-profit publishing houses and publish their research elsewhere , e.g .
for free on open access websites or in journals they establish themselves .
This is a good and necessary development .
• Whitaker R , Cosgrove L. Psychiatry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social injury , and prescriptions for reform .
New York : Palgrave Macmillan ; • Gøtzsche PC .
Mental health survival kit and withdrawal from psychiatric drugs .
Copenhagen : Institute for Scientific Freedom ; • Lundh A , Barbateskovic M , Hrobjartsson A , Gøtzsche PC .
Conflicts of interest at medical journals : the influence of industry-supported randomised trials on journal impact factors and revenue – cohort study .
PLoS Med 2010 ; 7 ( 10 ) : e1000354 .
• Demasi M. While their ads are prevalent , drug companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
2020 July • Gøtzsche PC .
Deadly medicines and organised crime : How big pharma has corrupted health care .
London : Radcliffe Publishing ; • Jørgensen L , Gøtzsche PC , Jefferson T. Benefits and harms of the human papillomavirus ( HPV ) vaccines : systematic review with meta-analyses of trial data from clinical study reports .
Syst Rev 2020 ; 9:43 .
• Jørgensen L , Gøtzsche PC , Jefferson T. Benefits and harms of the human papillomavirus ( HPV ) vaccines : comparison of trial data from clinical study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journal publications .
Syst Rev 2020 ; 9:42 .
• Chandler RE , Juhlin K , Fransson J , et al .
Current safety concerns with human papillomavirus vaccine : a cluster analysis of reports in Vigibase ( R ) .
Drug Saf 2017 ; 40:81-90 .
• Zahl P-H , Gøtzsche PC , Andersen JM , Mæhlen J .
Results of the Two-County trial of mammography screening are not compatible with contemporaneous official Swedish breast cancer statistics .
Dan Med Bull 2006 ; 53:438-40 .

It has become increasingly difficult to publish articles in medical journals that are critical of drugs or the drug industry, or that expose fraud and other wrongdoing committed by doctors. It is also difficult to publish articles documenting that the status quo in a medical specialty is harmful for the patients even though such articles should be warmly welcomed. Particularly in psychiatry, it has been amply documented that guild interests are far more important than the patients’ survival and well-being.1,2
For top general medical journals, e.g. Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine, the conflicts of interest are obvious, as the revenue from drugs ads and selling reprints of trial reports constitutes a substantial proportion of their income.3 Top specialty journals have similar conflicts. In addition, they usually have part-time editors who are keen to protect the specialty’s guild interests and prevailing dogmas.
Another problem is the threat of litigation. The BMJ has an insurance that mandates the editors to adhere to their lawyers’ advice; otherwise, the insurance won’t cover the costs of a libel lawsuit. Medical Freedom Journa... Medical Freedom, Citiz... Buy New $8.99 (as of 03:59 UTC - Details)
The corruption of our most prestigious medical journals has been exposed by current or previous editors-in-chief of the top journals, e.g. BMJ, Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine.4
Aggravating the situation is the fact that big publishers buy smaller enterprises all the time. This means that there are fewer players on the market, which are therefore easier to corrupt than if there had been many. The five big publishers are Reed-Elsevier, Springer, Wiley-Blackwell, Taylor & Francis and Sage. They published more than half of all academic papers in the peer-reviewed literature in 2013.5 In 1973, the five largest publishing houses controlled 20% of scientific papers published, but by 2006, that number had already risen to 50%.5
Not surprisingly, there has been increasing concern that journals may be censoring scientific research and stymieing debate, and there are many examples of gross violations of publication ethics and even of journals violating their own rules.2,4,6-8
The HPV vaccines
A particularly egregious recent example was when a Springer journal refused to publish two papers from my research group9,10 even though its editors had accepted them after peer review, and we had paid the fees for open access. Researcher and medical reporter Maryanne Demasi described these events in an article from 13 July 2020.4
By using clinical study reports we had obtained from the European Medicines Agency, we found evidence suggesting that the HPV vaccines in rare cases may cause serious harm.9 This finding contradicts the official reassurances that there is nothing to be worried about but agrees with other independent research, e.g. from the Uppsala Monitoring Centre,8,11 which is a WHO collaborating centre that accepts reports of suspected harms of vaccines and other drugs.
Our systematic review of the HPV vaccine trials9 is much more reliable than the 2018 Cochrane review as we based it on clinical study reports and not on journal publications. It was accepted for publication in Systematic Reviews on 6 March 2019.8 However, a year later, it had still not been published although the journal promises publication within 20 days of acceptance. Our email correspondence took up an astonishing 74 pages,4 and we had been given a total of 20 apologies and a variety of odd, contradictory and implausible reasons why our paper had not been published. One of the excuses was that the journal lacked staff to publish our papers, which was clearly not the case, as Systematic Reviews had published 309 papers during that year. Vaccines: truth, lies ... Gu00f8tzsche, Peter C. Buy New $15.69 (as of 03:59 UTC - Details)
On 16 February 2020, we wrote to Springer that it seemed they deliberately delayed the publication and highlighted that, “If this is the case, it is scientific censorship that borders on scientific misconduct and fraud. We have a big network with renowned scientists, many connections with the international media, and a strong social media presence. If Springer Nature, BMC and Systematic Reviews fail to publish our papers before 1 March 2020, we are obliged to alarm our fellow scientists and the international and social media about Springer Nature’s, BMC’s and Systemic Reviews’ editorial practices. We will also involve the Nordic Cochrane Centre’s and the Danish taxpayers’ legal teams if the 1 March 2020 deadline is not met.”
This caused Springer to publish our review with record speed, only 12 days later, on 28 February, during which time we checked the proofs and corresponded several times with a high-ranking person, William F Curtis, PhD, Executive Vice President Journals, Medicine & Life Sciences, Springer Nature. We had clearly made Springer nervous.
During the stalling of our papers, we sought an explanation from the journal’s editor-in-chief, David Moher, who put the blame on Springer: “The delay is a substantial embarrassment … We have experienced some internal issues at Springer Nature.”4
When Demasi asked whether it had any financial conflicts of interest, Springer Nature strenuously denied any external influence on its decision-making process, stating: “With a company the size of Springer Nature it is difficult to know for certain whether any of our advertisers, authors and subscribers are associated with the pharmaceutical industry, or manufacturers of the HPV vaccine or other HPV therapies.”4
This is a non-answer. Just like if a medical student had been asked whether he had ever cheated in a test and stated: “With a university this size it is difficult to know for certain whether any of our administrators, researchers and teachers have cheated.”
All three editors-in-chief of BMC Systematic Reviews have since announced they are stepping down, but none has responded to numerous requests for comment about reasons for their exit.4
I congratulate them with this decision, which is the only correct reaction to Springer’s abuse of power and inappropriate censorship of the worst kind. False Positive: A Year... Dalrymple, Theodore Best Price: $10.82 Buy New $15.65 (as of 04:35 UTC - Details)
My research group also experienced huge delays when we submitted a paper to the BMJ where we described what happened when we complained to the European Medicines Agency and subsequently to the European Ombudsman about the agency’s inappropriate handling of concerns about the safety of the HPV vaccines. The BMJ assured us repeatedly that they were keen to publish our paper and it was rewritten several times, once even by an editor, and subjected to legal review, which also led to changes. However, as with Springer, the process stalled.
On 14 April 2020, I had had enough and wrote to the editor-in-chief, Fiona Godlee: “I wrote the email just below more than a month ago, and more than three months after I was reassured that the BMJ wants to move forward with our paper, and 3 years after I submitted our first version. Absolutely nothing has happened in the last three months. This is not acceptable. I have said and written many times that BMJ is the best medical journal in the world, but if BMJ wants to be up there, you cannot treat your contributors like you have treated us in this case. Please read my email from 10 March just below and please respond now.”
Godlee responded two days later: … “we are not near being able to make a decision on your paper, and therefore not near to being in a position to publish it. Under these circumstances, you may decide that you would prefer to take the paper elsewhere … There are still multiple steps that would need to take place before we would be able to send an acceptance letter. The major ones are sorting the legal issues, further peer review (since it was last reviewed in November 2016 and the piece has changed substantially since then), and then further revision.”
I consider several of the legal issues absurd. We were not allowed to reiterate what had been documented elsewhere and were told that we could not quote certain documents I had uploaded on my website even though anyone can get access to them by sending a Freedom of Information request to the European Medicines Agency.
I have published our criticism of the European Medicines Agency in a book.8 I have come to the point where I much prefer to write books instead of battling with peer reviewers that are keen to protect their financial and guild interests and with editors that are afraid of litigation.
One of my colleagues had a similar negative experience with the BMJ. Their paper about the HPV vaccines had been under consideration for three years before it was finally rejected, in September 2019. It was a critical appraisal of the trials and their use of surrogate outcomes. Admirable Evasions: Ho... Dalrymple, Theodore Buy New $15.99 (as of 03:59 UTC - Details)
On this occasion, Godlee wrote to my colleague that “The fact that this is also a highly controversial topic makes it all the more important to ensure that the messaging is clear when speaking to a wide international general medical and health policy audience … Despite everyone’s best efforts, the paper does not succeed in striking the right balance between detail and bottom line.” Godlee said that when the paper had been published elsewhere, there might be scope for a clearly messaged summary paper in the BMJ; “You may however have had enough of us by now, which I would entirely understand.”
This is one of the main problems. Editors should not waste years of researchers’ time giving them hope that they will publish their paper and then ultimately reject it. It should not happen. Research should come out in the open, as quickly as possible, but medical journals are a serious impediment for this.
The paper was published elsewhere, in another prestigious general journal, just half a year after BMJ’s rejection.12
Mammography screening and the European Journal of Cancer
The Springer affair is not the only time a medical journal has refused to publish one of our accepted papers. I have even had an article withdrawn for no good reason which was already published in the articles-in- press section on the journal’s website,13 and other researchers have had similar experiences.8
The Swedish Two-County trial of mammography screening was instrumental for the introduction of screening. The researchers had used Swedish registries but when we combined data from the same registries with information on the study population, dates of randomisation, and length of follow-up, we found many more breast cancers and deaths than what the investigators had published.
Three weeks after we had published our concerns in the articles-in-press section on the European Journal of Cancer’s website, the editor-in-chief, John Smyth, informed us that his journal had received “comments from a number of sources regarding some of the claims made in the article” and that our article had been removed pending further discussion and clarification. He did not forward these comments to us but asked for very minor clarifications and changes. We submitted a slightly revised paper in which the most important change was that we had deleted a sentence that might have been interpreted (wrongly) as suggesting that the trial authors had deliberately changed the cause of death in favour of screening.
To our great surprise, as our paper had already been published, the revised manuscript was sent out for peer review, and two months later Smyth informed us that his decision to withdraw our paper was final. He referred to “the release of new information concerning the randomization process and the trials opening and closing dates” and forwarded selected “Comments from the peer review process.”
Some of this new information contradicted not only the published data but also the randomisation dates we had received in earlier peer reviews. This was totally bizarre but using any of the three different sets of randomisation dates in our analysis, we confirmed our original results.
However, despite two appeals, Smyth refused to publish our results. The abuse of power was extreme. The peer reviewers complained that we had not responded to “the letter from the paper’s critics”, and noted that the letter contained “details of the way the randomization was performed and the screening periods” that “have never been emphasised before.”
We have not seen this letter, and, like us, one of the peer reviewers also saw only selected comments from the other reviewers.
We found out that our paper was listed as withdrawn in PubMed. Smyth violated the rules. The European Journal of Cancer is a member of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors which states: “In no instance should a journal remove an article from its website or archive. If an article needs to be corrected or retracted, the explanation must be labelled appropriately and communicated as soon as possible on a citable page in a subsequent issue of the journal.”
The Committee mentions that it is a serious step to retract a published paper and that this should only be done after due process and only if scientific fraud has been established. Smyth not only retracted our paper but removed it entirely from the journal’s website without leaving a trace of it, and without even notifying us. It is also clear from the Committee’s guidelines that “inadequacies exposed by the emergence of new scientific information in the normal course of research … require no corrections or withdrawals.”
Elsevier, the publisher of the journal, is a member of the International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers which states that if an article is removed, “bibliographic information about the ‘removed’ article should be retained for the scientific record, and an explanation given, however brief, about the circumstances of its removal.” Smyth also violated this rule.
We published our results elsewhere.14 We wondered if the European Journal of Cancer had been threatened with litigation. The primary author of the Two-County trial, László Tabár, is very wealthy and has threatened litigation before to prevent publication of results that seriously question the reliability of his trial. I wrote about this in a book, with reference to an investigative journalist from Chicago Tribune:6
“Crewdson has the reasonable view that what people do with taxpayers’ money must be open to public scrutiny. He beleaguered Tabár for several days until he got away with data sheets that described causes of death, which he showed to me. These documents were very interesting and Crewdson worked on them for quite a while but never published anything. Several people have informed me that this was because the Tribune had been threatened with litigation, but Crewdson has not confirmed this. Crewdson published other articles. He noted various irregularities in the Two-County trial, e.g. that 750 women disappeared from published reports of the Kopparberg part of the trial after 1989.”
To say that Tabár’s cause of death assessments were very interesting is an understatement.
Conclusions
Scientific freedom is under pressure. What we see now is that, more and more, medical scientists are moving away from major for-profit publishing houses and publish their research elsewhere, e.g. for free on open access websites or in journals they establish themselves. This is a good and necessary development.