Experts weigh in after suing FDA for access to Pfizer trial data

Published on December 21, 2021

Read Maryanne Demasi’s article about Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine: The Department of Justice lawyers representing the FDA asked the federal judge to allow them 75 years to process the Freedom of Information Act request, which takes the end date for the final release of documents to 2096. “It is dystopian for the government to give Pfizer billions, mandate Americans to take its product, prohibit Americans from suing for harm, but yet refuse to let Americans see the data underlying its licensure.”

Open letter from BMJ to Facebook about inappropriate censoring of serious data integrity issues in Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine trial

Published on December 18, 2021

Dear Mark Zuckerberg,

We are Fiona Godlee and Kamran Abbasi, editors of The BMJ, one of the world’s oldest and most influential general medical journals. We are writing to raise serious concerns about the “fact checking” being undertaken by third party providers on behalf of Facebook/Meta.

Wuhan lab leak ‘now the most likely origin of Covid’, MPs told

Published on December 17, 2021

Dr Alina Chan says there is also a risk that Covid-19 is an engineered virus

By Sarah Knapton, Science Editor, The Telegraph, 15 December 2021

A laboratory leak is now the more likely origin of Covid, MPs have heard, because after two years of searching an animal host has never been found. …

Lack of scientific freedom: causes, consequences and cures

Published on December 15, 2021

The decline in scientific freedom has been particularly visible during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Institute for Scientific Freedom in Copenhagen and Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine in Oxford will therefore hold a joint conference with the title above in Copenhagen 24-25 October 2022.

We hope to see a lot of people who share our concerns and will join the discussions or submit an abstract for oral or poster presentation.

You can register and submit an abstract here.

The programme consists of 24 oral presentations of 10 minutes each based on submitted abstracts and of 10 lectures of 40 minutes each, with room for discussion after presentations.

Review production in The Cochrane Collaboration – where is it happening and why?

Published on December 9, 2021

Today, I (Peter Gøtzsche) discovered that an article I published in 2011 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews about review production in Cochrane no longer existed. I have therefore uploaded it. It showed that Cochrane centres were essential for review production. However, Cochrane’s CEO from 2012 to 2021, journalist Mark Wilson, systematically undermined the functions, reputation and the credibility of Cochrane centres to consolidate his grip on power – to such an extent that they from December 2018 no longer existed but were called “geographic groups” – which was management by stealth. I suspect the disappearance of my article is related to this.

Origin of the COVID-19 pandemic and banning gain-of-function research

Published on November 20, 2021

By Peter C. Gøtzsche, Institute for Scientific Freedom, Copenhagen

On September 17, van Helden et al. argued in a letter in The Lancet that a ”research-related origin is plausible” for the COVID-19 pandemic and called for independent research. They furthermore mentioned that “it is important to continue debating about the risk–benefit balance of current practices of field and laboratory research, including gain-of-function experiments.”

A week later, I submitted a letter to The Lancet in response to this letter, which the journal rejected today. As I raised an important issue for public health worldwide, I publish it here, with an additional paragraph about conflicts of interest. …

YouTube’s removal of a lecture on the effects of vaccines on mortality: horrible censorship

Published on November 17, 2021

A week ago, YouTube removed a video of a lecture held at the opening symposium for the Institute for Scientific Freedom on 9 March 2019. This lecture was held by Professor Peter Aaby, one of the world’s top vaccine researchers. It is highly interesting and very important for everyone who wants to understand what vaccines do. I have therefore uploaded the video on the Institute’s homepage. Aaby has shown, in many studies, that live vaccines, e.g. the measles vaccine, decrease mortality much more than can be explained by their specific effects against a particular microorganism whereas non-live vaccines increase total mortality. Read more

”Gør psykiatrien rask”: analyse af pamflet fra Dansk Psykiatrisk Selskab

Published on November 15, 2021

Denne artikel blev først publiceret på Mad in America: “Make Psychiatry Healthy”: Analysis of a Leaflet From the Danish Psychiatric Association. På Dansk Psykiatrisk Selskabs hjemmeside ligger der en pamflet fra 2020 på 21 sider med titlen ”Gør psykiatrien rask.”1 Da jeg også synes, at psykiatrien er syg, nærstuderede jeg pamfletten. Jeg kom frem til, at psykiaternes forslag ville gøre psykiatrien endnu sygere end den allerede er. Læs mere

“Make Psychiatry Healthy”: Analysis of a leaflet from the Danish Psychiatric Association

Published on November 10, 2021

The Danish Psychiatric Association has a 21-page leaflet from 2020 on its website entitled “Make Psychiatry Healthy.” Since I also think psychiatry is sick, I studied the leaflet closely. I found that the Association’s suggestions would make psychiatry sicker than it already is. Read my analysis.

The Cochrane Tapes reveal a horrendous show trial against a critic of psychiatry

Published on November 1, 2021

I (Peter Gøtzsche) recently published an article with this title and explained why the Cochrane Collaboration’s motto “Trusted evidence” is misleading. Virtually every Cochrane review of psychiatric drugs should be distrusted because there is too little attention to all the flaws in the trials. As an example, the Cochrane 2021 network meta-analysis of depression pills in children, with the editor of the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group, Sarah Hetrick, as first author, is garbage in, garbage out, and so misleading that it is outright dangerous. It is similarly misleading as the 2018 notorious network meta-analysis by Cipriani et al. in Lancet, which I described as: “Rewarding the companies that cheated the most in antidepressant trials.” A commentator wrote that nothing will change unless the recommendations of previous critiques are actually implemented: To continue “flogging the Cochrane Review dead horse” won’t make it run.