- One strategy used by Big Pharma to gaslight those injured by pharmaceuticals is to insist that there is no data linking the injury to the drug. Frequently however, these injuries were, in fact, observed in the trial but simply covered up to create the illusion the pharmaceutical was safe
- For Big Pharma to hide injuries that occur within a clinical trial requires them to aggressively gaslight the injured participants. Despite the fact that this ongoing practice had produced decades of bad data and severely harmed countless trial participants, nothing has been done to address this issue
- Numerous individuals have bravely come forward to provide testimony that severe research misconduct occurred throughout the COVID-19 trials. This misconduct resulted in a high human cost. The misconduct observed is similar to what has happened in previous trials, and proves that the COVID-19 vaccine approval was fraudulent.
Note: This is a revised and updated version of an article I previously wrote on the topic. Due to the importance of bringing to light what happened in the COVID-19 trials, I felt it was important to provide an update.
Recently, I reviewed the horrendous subject of medical gaslighting, something that many have had to face throughout the pandemic, when one doctor after another made the claim that COVID-19 vaccine reactions can’t exist and your physical problems must all be in your head. Today I will discuss a central foundation of medical gaslighting.
One of the major things that underlies almost all cults (along with many other organizations that seek to control large numbers of people) is that its adherents are trained to interpret everything they see through the lens of their ideology, and deny anything they observe which challenges it. Within the modern institution of science, this is accomplished by creating the mythology that humans are irrational beings whose observations cannot be trusted.
“Science,” then solves this problem it created by providing “evidence” that is more trustworthy than anyone’s individual “flawed” observations, and thus effectively silences any challenges to the institution (e.g., those inconvenient observations frequently made by members of the public).
Often in medicine, we observe this issue because doctors will insist that there is “no evidence” that an adverse reaction to a medical product could have occurred. Rather, the injury must have been a coincidence or the product of a pre-existing psychological problem. As you might expect, this mindset incentivizes pharmaceutical companies to do everything they can to produce doctored clinical trials that conceal any and all adverse events from their product.
This problem is epitomized by the “gold standard” of randomized controlled trials (RCT). In theory, these trials provide the most accurate data (to the point doctors will rarely consider anything else), but in reality, their benefit is much less than most realize (eloquently explained within this essay by Harvey Risch).
Conversely, it costs an enormous amount of money to conduct large RCTs, and that “sponsor bias” inevitably results in the trial being twisted to support the interests of its sponsors.
Sadly, although this is a longstanding issue, very little has been done to address it and the majority of doctors in practice are completely unaware of this problem, as they view RCTs as being a necessary box to check off in deciding what medical decisions to make.
Note: When the effect of a drug is very small, a large placebo controlled trial is necessary to detect the benefit (or just fabricate it), but when the benefit is large, it can be demonstrated with a much smaller trial. I and colleagues are thus comfortable using data from smaller trials as we believe that therapies used clinically need to demonstrate a substantial benefit rather than a minute one which you must take on faith from a large trial’s data.