According to a newly released study by the University of Oxford, a jaw-dropping 94% of recently approved medications are not supported by high-quality evidence that demonstrates their benefits. What’s more, just like with the experimental Covid-19 ‘vaccines,’ side effects and adverse reactions to these drugs are being severely underreported across the board.
When looking at medical drugs that have been approved since 2008 under the Cochrane reviews – a “leading” international journal and database that is endorsed by over 100 organizations worldwide, including the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) -researchers determined that just 87 of the 1,567 medications (6%) had clinical data that met the “high-quality” standard.
From the Oxford study:
“Of 1567 eligible interventions, 87 (5.6%) had high quality evidence on first-listed primary outcomes, positive, statistically significant results and were rated by review authors as beneficial.”
Unbelievably, the majority of these drugs could not even pass the ‘moderate-quality’ review, with over 50% failing to meet the reduced threshold. And yet, consumers have access to these drugs, which are causing unknown and underreported side effects – something that should amount to medical malpractice at the very least. That is – if we lived in a sane, well-functioning society.
One of the study’s authors, Dr. Jeremy Howick, certainly thinks so. Writing about the findings, Dr. Howick deemed the issue worrisome and stressed that, with this happening, ‘informed choice’ about medical treatments is essentially impossible.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) attempted to delay the release of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine safety data for 75 years despite approving the injection after only 108 days of safety review on December 11th, 2020.
But in early January 2022, Federal Judge Mark Pittman ordered them to release 55,000 pages per month. They released 12,000 pages by the end of January.
Since then, PHMPT has posted all of the documents on its website. The latest drop happened on 1st June 2022.
One of the documents contained in the latest data dump is ‘125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001 fa interim discontinued patients.pdf’.
The document provides a 112-page list of subjects who withdrew from the phase 1 clinical trial of the Pfizer Covid-19 injection, and provides a vague description as to why.
The first 14 pages list 102 subjects who withdrew from the study. This equates to an average of 7.2 subjects per page. So based on a further 93 pages detailing withdrawn subjects this equates to approximately 780 people who withdrew from the first phase of the clinical trial alone. The actual number could be slightly more or slightly less.
Many of the subjects mysteriously revoked consent to continue in the trial due to reasons such as re-reading the consent form and deciding it is not what they had originally agreed to.
Financial disclosures from EcoHealth Alliance reveal that the controversial nonprofit collaborating with the Wuhan Institute of Virology experienced a nearly 350 percent surge in investment income following the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Run by notorious COVID-19 origins propagandist and Chinese Communist Party-funded researcher Peter Daszak, EcoHealth Alliance received funding worth millions of dollars from Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Health (NIH) agency to work on “killer” viruses with the Wuhan lab. Summaries of the joint research – now wiped from the Chinese lab’s website – reveal scientists creating “chimeric” viruses that spread in humans at rates “equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV.”
Following EcoHealth’s “longtime” collaborations with Wuhan, the American nonprofit experienced a sizable surge in its investment income, according to the group’s 990 filings and analysis by ProPublica.
In the Fiscal Year 2019, which runs until June 30th, EcoHealth reported $81,277 in investment income. The following Fiscal Year, which encompasses the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, EcoHealth Alliance reported $359,381 in investment income.
The sizable shift in income amounts to a 342.2 percent increase.
In 1990, a paradigm shift occurred in the development of new medicines and treatments. An idea so big, that it was supposed to encompass the whole of medicine. It was to start initially at the level of pre-clinical and clinical trials and work all the way through the system to the care and management of individual patients. This new concept for how medicine would be developed and conducted is called evidence-based medicine (EBM). Evidence-based medicine was to provide a more rigorous foundation for medicine, one based on science and the scientific method. Truly, this was to be a revolution in medicine – a non-biased way of conducting medical research and treating patients.
Evidence-based medicine is “the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients.” The aim of EBM is to integrate the experience of the clinician, the values of the patient, and the best available scientific information to guide decision-making about clinical management.
So, what the hell happened?
There is a big flaw in the logic of evidence-based medicine as the basis for the practice of medicine as we know it, a practice based on science; one that determines care down to the level of the individual patient. This flaw is nestled in the heart and soul of evidence-based medicine, which (as we have seen over the last two years) is not free of politics. It is naive to think that data and the process of licensure of new drugs is free from bias and conflicts of interest. In fact, this couldn’t be any farther from the truth. The COVID-19 crisis of 2020 to 2022 has exposed for all to see how evidence based medicine has been corrupted by the governments, hospitalists, academia, big pharma, tech and social media. They have leveraged the processes and rationale of evidence-based medicine to corrupt the entire medical enterprise.
Evidence based medicine depends on data. For the most part, the data gathering and analysis process is conducted by and for the pharmaceutical industry, then reported by senior academics. The problem, as laid out in an editorial in the British Medical Journal is as follows:
The release into the public domain of previously confidential pharmaceutical industry documents has given the medical community valuable insight into the degree to which industry sponsored clinical trials are misrepresented. Until this problem is corrected, evidence based medicine will remain an illusion.
This ideal of the integrity of data and the scientific process is corrupted as long as financial (and governments) interests trump the common good.