Be Careful With Medical Journals

The corruption and politicization of many facets of our lives is a sad reality of the state of things.

From entertainment to education, we can't escape it.

Science is no different.

And it's been this way for years. One need only look at climate change (rebranded from global warming once that racket was exposed) to see how science can fall sway to politics and funding turning it into a money making cottage industry.

Now we're seeing it play out with Covid-19. 

Pharmaceuticals control much of what gets published in journals and with it they dictate the narrative. 

Back in February companies and government began working on a vaccine. They gambled billions. They believed this was 'the' virus and so went full force into it. As time went on, the virus, though still dangerous, became less lethal. Or at least, wasn't as lethal as first thought. Now more and more studies are showing we're resistant to it through the activation of T-Cells as well as the revelation the virus has likely been around since 2019. 

We know much more about the virus and all of it doesn't cooperate with the Big Pharma's plans. 

They're going to want their ROI and don't be surprised the ramped up testing and increase in positive cases  is being used to keep people in fear in order to line up for the vaccine. Ask questions and verify.

Just like the virus is charting its own path despite our measures, politicians are plotting their own scheme to keep the population in perpetual fear. This is why the masks are a powerful tool for them.

In any event, reputable and renowned journals like The Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine have found themselves in trouble in the past and it has not stopped during 2020.

The Lancet issued one of the biggest retraction in history when it published an article on HCQ that proved to be false. The study led to the halting of HCQ trials and possibly contributed to many deaths. 

At the moment, we're not being well served by public officials or even doctors or journals each with their own agenda. 

The Lancet hasn't let up either. I came upon this essay where the author lauds Japan, Vietnam and New Zealand (and its draconian measures) but doesn't mention Sweden.

More troubling was the characterization of other approaches as 'dangerous'. How does this word find its way onto a science journal?

A journal that uses the term 'scientific consensus' reminiscent of climate change should be questioned.

There's far from a consensus. Here in Quebec there are plenty of health practitioners who share the goals of the Great Barrington Declaration The Lancet clearly takes dead aim at.

The truth is, we've tried that approach and the cure is worse than the disease. We can't keep on it.

That's the argument.