re: Dr. Catherine O'Neal :"If you don't choose the vaccine, you're choosing death"

quote:

---

I don't pretend to know the reason just yet.

---

$$$$
Control

MDs outsource critical thinking to centralized guidelines from authorities
Most MDs are overwhelmed, burnout, and in personal survival mode (in large part to centralized medical records...)
Control the authorities, control information and practice patterns

Current control is to push biotech

Indulge me:

Bill Gates

quote:

---

The organization — which carries out systematic reviews of health-care interventions — told Nature it had received “numerous complaints” about Gøtzsche after the publication earlier this year of a critique he co-authored, entitled ‘The Cochrane HPV vaccine review was incomplete and ignored important evidence of bias’ and published in the BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine.

---

https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3472/rr-4

quote:

---

HPV vaccine safety: Cochrane launches urgent investigation into review after criticisms BMJ 2018; 362 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k3472 (Published 09 August 2018) Cite this as: BMJ 2018;362:k3472

---

quote:

---

Rapid Response: Cochrane HPV vaccine review severely compromised by conflicts of interest The recently published Cochrane HPV vaccine review[1] is severely compromised and cannot be trusted due to the conflicts of interest of authors on the original protocol and the final review document. Due to serious conflicts of interests, Cochrane should withdraw this review.

In February 2016, I challenged David Tovey, Editor in Chief of Cochrane, directly about protocol author Lauri Markowitz's conflicts of interest. Catherine Riva et al raised the problem of conflicts of interest in December 2014 in a comment on the original protocol[2], specifically pointing out the failure to properly disclose conflicts of interest by Lauri Markowitz and Marc Arbyn. Arbyn remained an author throughout all stages. Lauri Markowitz is an employee of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and is involved in HPV vaccination promotion. The US Government benefits from the sale of HPV vaccine products, i.e. a letter to Dr Eric Suba from the US National Archives and Records Administration (November 2010) discusses royalties the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) receives from the sales of HPV vaccines. (See a copy of the letter via this link: https://www.vietnamcervicalcancer.org/dmdocuments/ogis%20suba%2024%20nove...) Indicating a stunning lack of transparency, it appears the value of these royalties is kept secret, i.e. it is protected from disclosure under the US Freedom of Information Act. The NIH Office of Technology Transfer (OTT) oversaw the patenting of the HPV vaccine technology and licensed the technology to Merck, the maker of Gardasil, which sought approval for Gardasil around the world, working with the PATH group, with support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, in distributing the HPV vaccine in developing countries.[3] The HPV vaccine technology was also licensed to GlaxoSmithKline[4]. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been very influential in promoting HPV vaccination[5]. In regards to the Cochrane HPV vaccine review, Cochrane has a conflict of interest in that it is a beneficiary of Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funding, i.e. to "support the development of Cochrane's next generation evidence system, with a specific focus on maternal and child health".[6] The World Mercury Project has provided critical analysis of Cochrane's conflicts of interest via the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and other organisations[7]. As a matter of urgency, Cochrane needs to consider conflicts of interest in its undertakings, as these are compromising Cochrane's mission to provide credible and unbiased information to support informed health decision-making.

---

Guess who is one of the biggest funders of Cochrane...

Truth as we see it fit
Nothing to see here. Move along and take your meds (or shots...)

TOP DOWN CONTROL


https://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/politics/nature-cochrane-collaboration-evidence-based-rife-with-top-down-authoritarian-culture/78992762/

quote:

---

Nature: Cochrane Collaboration (evidence-based) rife with "top-down authoritarian culture"
Posted on 9/25/18 at 8:35 am

---

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06727-0

quote:

---

NEWS 17 SEPTEMBER 2018
UPDATE 17 SEPTEMBER 2018 CORRECTION 19 SEPTEMBER 2018

Mass resignation guts board of prestigious Cochrane Collaboration

Governing board of the evidence-based medicine group may now be dissolved entirely.

---

quote:

---

The board of the Cochrane Collaboration, a prestigious group that reviews health evidence, has been reduced from 13 to 6 members, following a controversial vote to expel a member for the first time in its 25-year existence.

On 14 September, Peter Gøtzsche, director of the Cochrane’s Nordic centre and a member of its governing board, posted a statement on the centre’s website announcing that he had been expelled as a member of the Cochrane Collaboration, after a vote by 6 of 13 of the board’s members.

---

quote:

---

Gøtzsche says that no justification was given for the expulsion but that he was accused by the board of bringing the organization into “disrepute”. The organization — which carries out systematic reviews of health-care interventions — told Nature it had received “numerous complaints” about Gøtzsche after the publication earlier this year of a critique he co-authored, entitled ‘The Cochrane HPV vaccine review was incomplete and ignored important evidence of bias’ and published in the BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine.

---

quote:

---

Gøtzsche’s statement says that there is a “growing top-down authoritarian culture and an increasingly commercial business model” taking root at Cochrane that “threaten the scientific, moral and social objectives of the organization”?. He has also been an outspoken critic of Cochrane’s relationship with the pharmaceutical industry. (Cochrane’s policies state that its reviews cannot be “funded or conducted by commercial sponsors or commercial sources with a real or potential vested interest in the findings of a specific review”.)

David Hammerstein Mintz, a board member who stepped down in protest, said some members thought that Gøtzsche’s critical views of Cochrane were “disloyal”. (Nature has approached the collaboration for comment on these points and is awaiting its response.) “It might have been a headache, but the harm done by expelling Peter is much greater than any inconvenience caused by scientific debate,” he says.

---