By Peter C Gøtzsche.

On April fool’s day, 1 April 2006, Ray Moynihan from Sydney published the article, “Scientists find new disease: motivational deficiency disorder,” in the BMJ. The article starts this way:

“Extreme laziness may have a medical basis, say a group of high profile Australian scientists, describing a new condition called motivational deficiency disorder (MoDeD). The condition is claimed to affect up to one in five Australians and is characterised by overwhelming and debilitating apathy. Neuroscientists at the University of Newcastle in Australia say that in severe cases motivational deficiency disorder can be fatal, because the condition reduces the motivation to breathe.” …

Fake psychiatric diagnosesRead More »

SHARE THIS ON:

Læs sygeplejerske Helle Lengsholms artikel om, hvad hun oplevede, da hun deltog i et udtrapningskursus, og om, at hun efterfølgende blev fyret for at påpege helt korrekt, at en plejehjemslæge trappede beboerne alt for hurtigt ud.

Researcher and journalist Maryanne Demasi published today an account of the Cochrane show trial against Peter Gøtzsche (me) and of subsequent events. I have uploaded the Cochrane Tapes, with an introduction and explanations. The show trial was intended to be kept secret, but the tapes from the Governing Board meeting were leaked. They show that the board violated virtually all rules for charities and for Cochrane itself and that its co-chairs lied profusely, also to the public. The board expelled one of the founders of the Cochrane Collaboration in order to protect drug industry interests, guild interests, and the dictatorial role of CEO Mark Wilson who is now history after he destroyed the Collaboration.

Journalist Jeanne Lenzer asked if panellists in the American Heart Association have any financial conflicts. “Oh, no, no, no. When we put people on a panel, we insist on financial disclosure.” “Fine, would you send me those disclosures?” “We don’t disclose disclosures.” Imagine if “me too” worked that way. Oh yes, all the bastards have declared what they did but we do not disclose their names or what they did … Read the whole article by Paul Thacker here.

On 12 August 2021, Danish TV2 broadcast a brilliant documentary about WHO’s mission to China. The film is unique for understanding the scale and nature of the systematic Chinese cover up about the origin of SARS-CoV-19. I wanted to share its messages with the rest of the world and have provided a comprehensive summary, with Danish bits translated into English.

A complex debate, with no simple answers. Read Maryanne Demasi’s article and see how the universally accepted ethical principle of voluntary informed consent is being violated all over the world.

In a double-blind trial from Japan in 158 patients with rheumatoid arthritis comparing two nonsteroidal, anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), tolfenamic acid and indomethacin, 857 significance tests were reported.¹ There were analyses of baseline data, multiple benefits and harms outcomes, subgroup analyses based on patient characteristics, control visits, etc. World record in number of P-values

These drugs are analgesics, but doctors falsely believe that they also have an anti-inflammatory effect. They very often use them in combination with paracetamol because of this belief, even when randomised trials have failed to find an additional effect of the combination compared to using paracetamol alone. I have explained in two of my books why the belief is false. Read more

In our one-year study we found that advertised drugs were 6 times more expensive than comparators but not better. Our study may have been the reason why the Journal of the Danish Medical Association decided to no longer publish drug ads. Other journals should follow suit.

On 1 February 2011, we got access to the clinical study reports and their corresponding protocols of placebo controlled trials of two slimming pills, rimonabant and orlistat, submitted by the manufacturers to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for obtaining marketing approval in the European Union.

We applied for access in June 2007, but EMA did not grant us access arguing that it would undermine the protection of commercial interests. We appealed to the European Ombudsman and after 3.5 years and 133 pages of correspondence between EMA, the European Ombudsman and us we got access.

We have described the case briefly here: Gøtzsche PC, Jørgensen AW. Opening up data at the European Medicines Agency. BMJ 2011;342:d2686.

We have also written a more comprehensive 26-page report: Getting access to unpublished clinical trials at the European Medicines Agency.

All the documents in the case are available below. …

How we got access to clinical study reports in 2011 despite EMA’s steadfast refusalRead More »