The Medical Profession is a Cesspool of Fraud, Greed, Corruption and Bad Science
The myth that vaccines are safe and effective originates solely with the vaccine manufacturers themselves. They are the ones that carry out the original testing, fund most of the outside testing and sit on the advisory boards that mislead governments as to just how safe and effective their products are. In any other area this would be considered a massive conflict of interest but not when it comes to Big Pharma. So, the question is, why should we trust what they are telling us? Are they renowned for being upstanding citizens, always telling the truth and only working for the benefit of society?
The fact is, vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies in general and researchers actually have a long history of fraud, corruption and bribery.
No faith in their own system
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.”
The above are not the words of an anti-big pharma activist nor those of someone working in the field of natural health. This is a quote from Dr Marcia Angell, former Editor-in-Chief at the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most respected medical journals in the world.
It’s not just Dr Angell who thinks medical science can no longer be trusted.
Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet has added his observations as well -
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”
Another scathing indictment of medical practices comes in an editorial by DG Altman in the British Medical Journal. In his criticism of the medical establishment, the author says researchers -
“Use the wrong techniques (either willfully or in ignorance), use the right techniques wrongly, misinterpret their results, report their results selectively, cite the literature selectively, and draw unjustified conclusions. We should be appalled. Yet numerous studies of the medical literature, in both general and specialist journals, have shown that all of the above phenomena are common…This is surely a scandal.”
He went on to say -
“The poor quality of much medical research is widely acknowledged, yet disturbingly the leaders of the medical profession seem only minimally concerned about the problem and make no apparent efforts to find a solution.”
Dr. John Ioannidis, a physician and researcher, is one of the most respected doctors in the world. He has served on the board of twenty scientific journals and has spent a large part of his career analysing scientific trials and medical research papers. He concluded that 80 percent of non-randomized studies turn out to be wrong, as do 25 percent of supposedly gold-standard randomized trials.
He says that even when the evidence disproves a theory, there may be so many scientists who have built their careers around it, they refuse to challenge it and continue to perpetuate the error, spreading the wrong idea even further.
“Even when the evidence shows that a particular research idea is wrong, if you have thousands of scientists who have invested their careers in it, they’ll continue to publish papers on it,” he says. “It’s like an epidemic, in the sense that they’re infected with these wrong ideas, and they’re spreading it to other researchers through journals.”
Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal has gone so far as to suggest that the default position should be that research papers are fraudulent until proven otherwise -
“The time may have come to stop assuming that research actually happened and is honestly reported, and assume that the research is fraudulent until there is some evidence to support it having happened and been honestly reported.”
So, what type of fraud, deception and bad science are the medical establishment guilty of perpetrating?
Trials that never happened.
Irrespective of bias, manufactured results or outright deception in scientific trials, there is the initial problem that a lot of the clinical trials that are published have never even taken place to begin with. They are completely made up. These fictitious trials are compiled by ‘paper mills’ - organizations that produce fake trials for money. Researchers can buy the paper and claim authorship of the fake research.
It is bad enough that the scientists doing the research buy fake papers but the fact that they then get published in medical journals after allegedly being peer reviewed highlights the complete lack of scrutiny in the process. Last year over 10000 papers had to be retracted when they were discovered to be fake.
According to the article in the Guardian –
“Medical research is being compromised, drug development hindered and promising academic research jeopardised thanks to a global wave of sham science that is sweeping laboratories and universities.”
The article quotes Professor Dorothy Bishop of Oxford University saying –
“The situation has become appalling. The level of publishing of fraudulent papers is creating serious problems for science. In many fields it is becoming difficult to build up a cumulative approach to a subject, because we lack a solid foundation of trustworthy findings. And it’s getting worse and worse.”
One example of trials that were never carried out involved Dr Scott Reuben, Professor of anesthesiology and pain medicine at Tufts University of Boston. He was highly regarded within the medical profession but from 1996 until 2009 he was involved in a massive fraud. He had 21 journal articles published about various clinical trials he claimed to have carried out except it was all lies. He never conducted the trials at all. He simply made up the results. He also invented patients and forged other doctor’s names on the papers as if they were involved in co-writing them.
The fraud resulted in numerous favorable reports on various drugs manufactured by a number of pharmaceutical companies. The companies, in turn, gave him research grant money to do further research. As a result, many doctors were influenced by his studies and prescribed the drugs more frequently.
Not only does this story highlight the callousness and corruption of the individual doctor but it shows how broken the system is. For thirteen years this doctor faked research and nobody knew about. The journals that published his work didn’t bother to check and the university didn’t bother to check. The whole point about scientifically valid results is that they can be replicated by other people yet clearly this didn’t happen as it was all made up. Because of who he was and because he was writing favorable reports on the drugs everybody just accepted what he said. As a result, millions of patients’ lives could have been put in jeopardy. It makes a mockery of the medical professions claim that strict safety procedures are in place.
Another example concerns the drug mannitol, used to relieve intracranial pressure. A study allegedly proved the drug could reduce death due to head injury by 50 percent. However, the trials never actually took place. The lead author worked at an institution that didn’t even exist and some of the co-authors mentioned had no idea that their names were listed as being involved in the fictional research. Despite this, these studies were published in respected neurosurgery journals.
In 2021 a doctor in Florida was sentenced to 63 months in prison for running a false trial that was allegedly examining the efficacy of an asthma medications. She and her colleague falsified records to make it appear as if patients had attended the clinic, took the drug and received payment.
In 1995, a United Kingdom obstetrician, Malcom Pearce was found guilty of falsifying medical data and struck off. He claimed to have removed a foetus from the uterus of patient who had suffered an ectopic pregnancy and successfully replanted it in her womb. She then allegedly went on to have a successful birth. No surgeon had ever achieved this before, so it was published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and made headlines around the world.
Unfortunately for Mr. Pearce a whistleblower came forward to reveal that no such surgery had aver taken place. In fact, the alleged patient was fake - an amalgamation of a woman who had miscarried and one that had died.
According to Richard Smith - 'It's shocking, but common. Many of these fraudulent studies are simply invented. There were no patients. The trial never happened.'
The peer review process is not fit for purpose.
We are frequently told that research papers must be peer-reviewed to be considered worthy of publication and that this is the gold standard method for deciding if a research paper is valid and of the highest academic standard. Unfortunately, this is a myth.
Richard Smith has been scathing in his description of the peer review process -
“The evidence, as opposed to the opinion, on prepublication peer review shows that its effectiveness has not been demonstrated and that it is slow, expensive, largely a lottery, poor at spotting error, biased, anti-innovatory (as perhaps in this case), prone to abuse, and unable to detect fraud. The global cost of peer review is $1.9 billion, and it’s a faith based rather than evidence-based process, which is hugely ironic when it’s at the heart of science.”
Paul Sutter, cosmologist and author of the book, ‘Rescuing Science’, agrees that the peer review system is broken and that there is no real desire to fix it -
“What’s more, the first line of defense for combatting wrongness - peer review - is fundamentally broken, with absolutely no guarantees of filtering out innocent mistakes and guilty fraud. Peer reviewers don’t have the time, effort, or inclination to pick over new research with a fine-toothed comb, let alone give it more than a long glance. And even if a referee is digging a little too deeply, whether revealing some fatal flaw or sniffing at your attempt at fraud, you can simply go journal shopping and take your work somewhere more friendly.”
In an article in the journal Pain Physician titled, ‘Medical Journal Peer Review: Process and Bias’ the authors list the host of problems associated with the peer review process.
“Despite the acceptance of peer review in the scientific community as the gold standard, concerns exist; specifically, potential bias towards certain authors, specialties, and institutions, both in favor and against; poor peer review with editors and reviewers unable to understand the contents of the manuscript and providing negative opinions or even positive opinions at times; an inability to detect major flaws, or revelations of major flaws after acceptance of publication by the editors; unnecessary and extreme delays in publications, which at its extreme can take 2 to 3 years to publish a manuscript after submission; inability to uncover plagiarism, corruption, scientific misconduct, and fraud, without using appropriate knowledge to claim plagiarism or even scientific misconduct.”
To highlight the extent of the problem, scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology created a software program to create fake research papers and then presented them to journals. To the embarrassment of the scientific world, a number of them managed to get published after being supposedly peer-reviewed even though they were complete gobbledygook. This brought into question the whole peer review process. It was then discovered that researchers would occasionally get together and agree to review each other’s work and give each other’s papers glowing reviews that were not warranted. These became known as peer review rings. Such is the scope of peer review rings that the research publishers Hindawi had to retract over 500 papers that had been appraised by them.
Data fraud
Manipulation and falsification in medical research papers and clinical trial is rife and numerous surveys have highlighted the issue. For instance, a survey of medical investigators in Norway showed that 27% of those surveyed said they had encountered fraud in medical research. Amongst members of the International Society for Clinical Biostatistics, 51% said they knew of fraudulent trials. A survey of British medical institutions produced similar results, with over half the respondents admitting they knew of cases of research fraud, many of which involved senior academics, and that only a minority of them had been investigated.
According to Michael G.J. Farthing writing in the Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, and incredible 50% of research students have admitted they would be willing to fake research data.
In 2010, two former employees of Merck sued the company for faking efficacy tests for their MMR vaccine. In order to get money from the federal government they claimed their vaccine was 95% effective when, in fact, it was known to be much lower. To achieve this, they tested the neutralising ability of recently vaccinated children’s blood against the vaccine strain virus instead of the wild strain, which would be the one the children would get infected with in reality, not the lab created one. Still not achieving the desired result, they then added rabbit antibodies to the mix, to make it look as if more antibodies had been created than had actually formed.
(*For an insight into how the entire process for checking vaccine efficacy is a sham, see my previous articles -Pseudo viruses for a Pseudo pandemic https://stephenmcmurray.substack.com/p/pseudoviruses-for-a-pseudo-pandemic and Vaccines and the Antibody Myth- https://stephenmcmurray.substack.com/p/vaccines-and-the-antibody-myth)
In 2006 Eric Poehlman, a professor at the University of Vermont, was sentenced to a year in jail for data fraud. It was discovered, via a whistleblower, that he had been fabricating data for over ten years in his research on obesity and aging. The fraudulent research enabled him to obtain grants for millions of dollars during that time.
An Australian doctor, Anna Ahimastos, had to resign in 2015 after she admitted to fabricating data in clinical trials. She listed patients that did not exist to prove the drug Ramipril was effective in aiding patients with peripheral artery disease to walk pain free. The paper was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and a journal published by the American Heart Association and had to be retracted. Ironically, Ahimastos was a member of an institute that promotes scientific excellence.
Another case of falsifying clinical data results occurred in Miami where two researchers were recently convicted for fraud with regards to trails involving drugs for clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea. They had used the real names of individuals but falsely claimed they had taken part in the trials. They falsified hundreds of pages of documents and then added the false information onto clinical trial databases. The fraud had had resulted in them being awarded over a quarter of a million dollars for the fake research.
In 2018, Ching-Shih Chen, a professor of medical chemistry at Ohia University was forced to resign after he was found guilty of manipulating images and publishing fraudulent data in at least ten research papers. He had previously been awarded the Innovator of the Year award from the university.
Joachim Boldt was a highly regarded German anaesthetist. In 2009 he published a paper comparing two bypass pump priming solutions. On the surface all the data seemed to be consistent and significant. However, after reading the paper, another professor of anaesthesiology suspected the results were too perfect and that the data had been manipulated. As a consequence, the journal that it was published in, Anaesthesia and Analgesia, started an investigation and discovered that much of the data had been manipulated. On further investigation, it transpired that in 91 of his other research papers there was no documentation or only partial documentation. In some of the studies, he had fabricated the number of patients on the trial and the time points. In the end 18 different journals had to retract a total of 88 papers, showing just how easy it is to have fraudulent research papers accepted by medical journals.
An even more egregious case is that of psychiatrist, Richard Borison and his colleague, Bruce Diamond. They were found guilty of falsifying research data for 8 years in order to promote the efficacy and safety of the drugs they were testing on behalf of numerous pharmaceutical companies including Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson, Smith Kline Beecham and Zeneca. None of the companies did anything to stop the fraud, resulting in a number of highly toxic drugs being allowed onto the market and patient’s lives being put at risk. Even the FDA failed to stop the fraud despite having evidence that Borison had carried out fraudulent research previously.
In 2006, Borison was sentenced to fifteen years in jail and Diamond was given a five-year sentence.
One of the worst cases of using fraudulent data is that of Sami Anwar, a doctor who ran research centres testing various drugs such as ones for heart diseases, diabetes, cirrhosis, arthritis and asthma. The results of the drug tests were not only manipulated, sometimes he never even handed out the drugs at all and simply fabricated results. He falsified electrocardiogram readings and stole blood from patients. He even resorted to threatening witnesses from his own company that were due to testify against him. One of the trial subjects died because his medical condition was not monitored and this was never reported to the drug company.
He had made 6 million dollars from his drug trials until his arrest and conviction on 47 counts of fraud related offences.
Failure to publish results
It has been estimated that trials resulting in positive results are two to three times more likely to be published than negative ones. In the United Kingdom this is unlikely to change as, unbelievably, there is no legal obligation to publish trial results.
The failure to publish negative results is known as publication bias.
One example of this is a study that found that 31% of trials testing antidepressants in the US never reported their results, nearly all of which were negative. This, of course, make it look like the drugs are actually effective and safe when there is evidence to the contrary.
According to the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry - “Publication bias has been highlighted as a profound problem in scientific research many times previously with a particular emphasis on the potential clinical harm which may be caused, and the research funding which is wasted by the incomplete publication or incomplete availability of research data sets.”
Ultimately, the reason why negative results are not published is that medical journals’ real purpose are to promote drugs and medical devices because, in the words of the British Medical Journal –
‘Many medical journals have a substantial income from pharmaceutical companies from the purchasing of advertising and reprints and the sponsoring of supplements.’
If a journal were to publish the negative results for a drug the pharmaceutical company is likely to withdraw its funding.
During the covid era, the group Transparency International UK discovered that of 86 registered clinical trials for covid vaccines, only 45%of results had been published and only 12% of the actual trial protocols had been made public making it impossible to tell what criteria or methods were being used in the trials.
The report concluded by saying –
“The lack of transparency of many clinical trials combined with the huge financial incentives for producing effective treatments leaves the door wide open for selective reporting of results or outright data manipulation.”
However, a far worse crime than failure to publish results that show a drug is ineffective is failure to disclose findings that prove a drug is dangerous. After analysing 49 trials related to an antiviral drug therapy, it was discovered that only 33% had reported the full list of adverse reactions.
One of the worst cases of concealing adverse effects involves the drug Vioxx (Rofecoxib) . Vioxx creators, Merck, marketed the drug as an analgesic and a treatment for arthritis. What they never revealed at the time, although it was known in advance, was that a study had shown that Vioxx increased the risk of severe heart attacks by 400% compared to the use of another similar drug. The study was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, but Merck had omitted the data concerning the increased risk of heart attacks.
Merck eventually paid out 4.85 billion dollars to 27,000 individual lawsuits and were also fined 321.6 million dollars. It is estimated that the drug caused up 140,00 severe heart attacks with 38,000 fatalities.
Another case of a pharmaceutical company’s failure to report adverse reactions is that of GlaxoSmithKline’s drug Avandia. Avandia is a drug used to treat diabetes and, once again, increases the likelihood of a heart attack. The FDA concluded that the drug was responsible for at least 83,000 heart attacks. GlaxoSmithKline eventually had to pay out 500 million dollars in lawsuits and a three billion dollar fine for withholding trial results that proved the drug increased the risk of heart attacks.
When a placebo is not a placebo.
One of the most insidious tricks the pharmaceutical companies stoop to is the use inappropriate placebos in their trials. Drug companies test their drug against a placebo to test for effectiveness and safety. The placebo must be inert.
However, to fake their results, vaccine manufactures use aluminium as a placebo when testing vaccines.
Merck were guilty of this deception when they tested their Gardasil vaccines in Denmark. The participants in the trial were unaware that they were receiving a ‘reactogenic’ placebo containing aluminium as they had been informed the placebo was an inert saline substance.
Administering a reactogenic substance as a placebo makes the trial completely null and void as there is no genuine control sample. The whole idea behind the placebo is to see if the drug has more adverse reactions, then an inert substance. If a vaccine containing aluminium is tested against a substance containing aluminium, then the difference in reported adverse reactions will be minimal whereas it would be far more substantial if tested against an inert placebo which shouldn’t cause any ill effects.
In the words of the authors of the article in The International Journal for Risks and Safety in Medicine –
“In our view, the administration of a reactive placebo in Gardasil clinical trials was without any possible benefit, needlessly exposed study subjects to risks, and was therefore a violation of medical ethics. The routine use of aluminum adjuvants as “placebos” in vaccine clinical trials is inappropriate as it hinders the discovery of vaccine-related safety signals.”
Notice that the Authors mention that aluminium is routinely used as an adjuvant and this is, indeed, the case. In a study looking at the adverse effects of various covid vaccines, the authors discovered that aluminium hydroxide was used in 18 different trials as a placebo whilst in two trials they actually used a meningitis vaccine as control.
Considering aluminium can cause ‘desquamative interstitial pneumonia, pulmonary alveolar proteinosis, granulomas, granulomatosis and fibrosis, toxic myocarditis, thrombosis and ischemic stroke, granulomatous enteritis, Crohn’s disease, inflammatory bowel diseases, anemia, Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, sclerosis, autism, macrophagic myofasciitis, osteomalacia, oligospermia and infertility, hepatorenal disease, breast cancer and cyst, pancreatitis, pancreatic necrosis and diabetes mellitus,’ it cannot be considered inactive. Therefore, comparing the adverse effects of a vaccine against aluminium will give a completely warped result that makes the vaccine look much safer than it actually is. Which is why, of course, pharmaceutical companies resort to such deception, because they know their products aren’t safe.
Using another vaccine as a placebo is downright fraud. All vaccines have potential serious side effects so comparing the side effects of one to the side effects of another bears no resemblance whatsoever to comparing it to an inert placebo. Again, the actual risk of adverse reactions will be completely concealed by this deception.
Vaccines trials are not the only ones that use active placebos. In the case of antidepressants, atropine is sometimes used as a placebo specifically because its side effect of an elevated heart rate mimic those of the drug. This is done to fool those patients on the placebo into thinking they are receiving the real drug. Since when is this the most important part of drug trial. Safety should be of the utmost concern but how could it be when, according to the Pfizer, ‘the difference in outcomes between the antidepressant and the placebo may be small or not significant.’ In other words, the trial is deliberately rigged to show that there are no added adverse reactions to the drug compared to a placebo which is what then public will be told whilst not being informed of the blatant subterfuge involved.
This sort of fraud highlights the blatant lies behind claims that vaccines tested in this manner are safe.
Manipulating end points
An end point in a medical clinical trial is an outcome that can be measured objectively to determine whether the drug or medical device being studied is beneficial to the patient. They should be established at the outset of the trial and should not be altered once the trial is underway. This, however, is not the case.
An article in the Oxford Academic Journal highlights this tendency to change endpoints –
“It is very disturbing that comparisons of protocols with publications in major medical journals revealed that most studies had at least one primary endpoint changed, introduced or omitted.”
A study analysing clinical trials in Denmark found that in trials designed to measure the efficacy of a drug, 71% had omitted one of the endpoints and for trials to measure adverse events, the figure was 60%. Ninety-two percent of trials had at least 1 incompletely reported efficacy outcome, while 81% had at least 1 incompletely reported harm outcome.
A group in California examined 128 published papers for drugs that were approved by the FDA and discovered that 41 endpoints related to the effectives of the drugs that had been set out in the protocols had been omitted from the final results. This had led to the drugs appearing more effective than what they were. It has been estimated that in 50% of clinical trials endpoints related to efficacy have been omitted or incompletely reported with the figure rising to 65% when it comes to endpoints related to adverse reactions.
Changing endpoints after the trial has started can greatly impact the assessment of a drug’s effectiveness or safety.
For example, if a new cancer drug is being tested the endpoints might be -
1. ‘After a three-year period, how much has the patient’s pain been reduced using the new drug in comparison to patients on a drug already on the market.’
2. ‘After a three- year period, how many patients have survived in comparison to patients on a drug already on the market.’
If there is a significant decrease in patient’s pain but the survival rate is no different to patients on the other drug, the 2nd end point could be removed from the final results making the drug look as if it has achieved its total objective whereas, in reality, it has failed in 50% of its objectives.
Another example may be related to the number of adverse reactions. So, for example, an endpoint for a new drug may be –
The total number of adverse reactions after a one-year period compared to patients using a similar drug.
If, after a year, there is no significant difference, but on analysing the results the trial operator notices that there are far less adverse effects for the new drug compared to the established rug after a three month period, they can then change the end point where the cut-off date is shortened to three months to provide a positive outcome making it look a much safer drug than it actually is.
Then there are surrogate endpoints. This is where the endpoint measures particular biomarker which should lead to a positive clinical outcome. They are used to speed up research as the biomarker in question has supposedly already been established as a significant step towards a positive clinical outcome.
One of the best examples of this is for statins. According to the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology –
“A frequently used example of a successful surrogate endpoint is in the field of cardiovascular disease. In this context, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol is a biomarker used as a surrogate endpoint for cardiovascular morbidity when assessing the efficacy of cholesterol-lowering medications (e.g. statin therapy).”
“There is a well-established understanding of the relationship between elevated LDL cholesterol levels and the risk of cardiovascular events, such as heart attacks and strokes (i.e., lipids and lipoproteins are involved in atherosclerosis). Lowering LDL cholesterol levels is known to reduce the risk of these events.”
Here’s the problem. There is absolutely no link whatsoever between cholesterol levels and heart attacks. It is a myth, a lie that has been repeated over and over again to promote the use of ineffective and dangerous statins. The link has been disproven over and over again. That is why they use the surrogate end point. (see my article -The Cholesterol Myth is Endangering People’s Health).
Surely, if statins really reduced heart attacks their trials would prove this by having less heart attacks as an endpoint with real life positive consequences and they could then shout the results from the rooftops. Instead, they prove that their drugs reduce cholesterol. So what? What benefit does the patient get? Does he have a reduced chance of having a heart attack – no! What he does get is an increased risk of various other illness linked to the drugs toxicity.
Surrogate endpoints are used as means of sleight of hand to fool you into thinking a drug produces a positive clinical outcome for the patient when it does no such thing.
Bribery and corruption
No examination of the dodgy and unethical practices of the medical establishment would be complete without looking at the subject of bribery and corruption. According, the British Medical Journal –
“Corruption in medicine is an open secret and little has been done to tackle it.”
The main culprits are doctors who, for thirty pieces of silver, will betray their patient’s trust and prescribe medication that the pharmaceutical companies bribe them to hand out or else carry out unnecessary procedures and bill the government for them. It is particularly prevalent in the USA.
GlaxoSmithKline were fined 3 billion dollars for bribing doctors to prescribe antidepressants to children that were only suitable for adults due to the increased risk of suicide amongst young people. The doctors were given all expense paid trips to Bermuda, Jamaica and California where they could indulge in fishing, diving and golf trips. GSK also published an article misrepresenting the drug’s safety profile for children.
In 2019, the billionaire John Kapoor of Insys Therapeutics was found guilty of bribery and racketeering. Numerous doctors were more than happy to have their palms greased to prescribe opioids such as the highly dangerous fentanyl to patients who, in many cases, didn’t even need them.
In 2022, fifteen American doctors were convicted of fraud. They handed out opioid prescriptions to drug addicts, who, in return, had to have painful and unnecessary injections in the back so that the doctors could defraud the insurance companies. Some of the ‘patients’ ended up with adverse reactions to the drugs. In another identical case of opioids being given for back injections, a total of six doctors were charged with corruption totalling 450 million dollars.
In another case of exploiting the vulnerable, nine doctors in Brooklyn were charged with fraud. They ran a scheme were people from low-income households and homeless people were lured to medical clinics to have unnecessary tests done on them in exchange for pairs of shoes.
Brooklyn was once again at the centre of another fraud case in 2023. Cardiologist, Niranjan Mittal subjected his patients to unnecessary vascular surgery to allegedly remove blood clots in their legs even though they didn’t have any. He also involved others in the conspiracy by encouraging them to create falsified patient records to justify the surgery so he could fraudulently claim 100 million dollars from Medicare and insurance companies.
However, The worst case in the USA, involving a doctor carrying out unnecessary procedures for money was that of Dr Farid Fata, a Michigan oncologist. He received a 45-year prison sentence for Medicare fraud amounting to 34 million dollars.
It was discovered that Fata had been giving excessive chemotherapy to patients that didn’t require it, some of whom didn’t even have cancer. In some cases, he was prescribing lifelong cancer treatment for patients who had never had cancer. Some patients lost their hair and teeth due to the treatments and another patient had so much damage done to her bladder, bowel and kidneys after 177 unnecessary chemo sessions she could barely function. Overall, he had given chemotherapy to 553 patients that didn’t need it. Considering how toxic chemotherapy is, it can only be guessed at how much long-term damage these patients suffered.
A recent study has found that 57% of US doctors have received money from pharmaceutical companies or medical device manufactures in the last ten years. A total of 12 billion dollars have been paid out to over 800,000 doctors during that period.
Between 2014 and 2018, 2500 physicians in the US received half a million dollars each from Big Pharma, and 700 of them received at least 1 million dollars.
With that level of conflict of interest how could anyone trust the doctors who are being paid these vast sums.
Bribery and corruption is not just an American problem however, The same applies to the United Kingdom.
In 2023, Hasan Abusheikha, who worked for St Albans City Hospital Trust was given an eleven-year jail sentence for theft, fraud and bribery. He was in charge of procuring medical equipment for the hospital and took bribes of £600,00 to ensure that the equipment was purchased from 2 companies from whom he was receiving the payments. He was also found to have stolen medical equipment worth £65,000.
Dr Rumi Chhapia worked for the Portsmouth Primary Care Alliance form which he embezzled over a million pounds to for his gambling addiction. He was sentenced to three years and four months in prison.
In 2016 the medical industry paid £454.5 million to health care professionals. Individual doctors are not the only ones to receive payments, though. Substantial payments are made to the general practices. In 2021 a study showed Bayer had paid out £765,987.77 GP’s surgeries, whilst Pfizer and Eli Lilly paid out £360.556.90 and £271.139 respectively.
In 2015 it was revealed by an insider that UK doctors frequently took bribes from pharmaceutical companies to refer patients to private hospitals for tests, drugs and operations.
Another way doctor’s take money from Big Pharma is to have their travel expenses paid when they go to trade conferences. In 2013, the industry paid out £40 million to UK doctors to cover service fees, flights, hotel and other travel expenses.
Dr Harold Shipman is Britain’s worst serial killer. It is estimated he killed up to 284 patients. Although his motives are not known, it is known that he stole jewellery from his victims and forged one patient’s will so he would receive £386,000 from his murdered victim.
The story of bribery and corruption in the medical profession is the same throughout the world.
In China, the French company Sanofi was accused of paying out 280,000 dollars to doctors to prescribe its products. 503 doctors were alleged to have received the bribes, which were disguised as grants for research.
In Italy, 175 doctors and health managers were found guilty of fraud. The embezzled 2 million euros by ordering expensive tests for patients that weren’t required.
In another case, twelve paediatricians were arrested for prescribing a particular brand of baby milk formula and discouraging mothers to breastfeed despite the known benefits of breastfeeding. In return, the doctors received gifts such as I. Phones, TVs, computers and luxury cruises.
In 2014, it was found that the UK company, GlaxoSmithKline, were bribing Polish doctors to prescribe their asthma drug Seretide. The bribes were disguised as educational training.
German company Bayer, were charged with bribing medical staff in Greece. 800 doctors and nurses were in on the scheme, where they were paid between 1000 to 20,000 euros and offered free holidays in return for prescribing Bayer’s drugs. A further 800 doctors were involved in a similar scheme in Germany where bribes amounting to 2 million euros were handed out.
In the Netherlands a neurologist was found guilty of fraud which netted him £171,000. He falsified 438 records relating to a trial he was allegedly carrying out to test a drug used to treat strokes. The records were changed to make it look as if he had carried out research which never actually n took place.
In Spain, nephrologists at various hospitals throughout the country, took millions of euros from a medical company specialising in equipment and treatments for kidney patients. The doctors had to influence the tender process to ensure the company got the contracts for expensive equipment and to have patients referred to their hospitals for treatment.
In Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary it is estimated that 20% of patients had to use bribes to receive health care during covid.
The covid scam
The biggest ever case of fraud, however, is the covid scam. This didn’t involve a few doctors or a few hospitals. The entire global medical establishment took part. Throughout the world virtually every medical professional claimed there was a global pandemic based on nothing more than a positive result from a PCR test, whose creator and even the manufacturers themselves stated is not meant to be used to diagnose any illness. Worse still, the tests were run at extremely high cycle thresholds which made it inevitable that most people would test positive to a virus which has never even been isolated and exists solely as computer generated model.
The whole point of the scam was to force toxic vaccinations upon us for a disease that didn’t exist whilst making the pharmaceutical companies billions of dollars. That is how far the medical profession will go. They are willing to force their dogy science and dodgy products on us even if it kills an injures millions of people worldwide.
Never trust the medical profession
The medical profession is a cesspool of fraud, greed, corruption and bad science.
It is not of case of a few bad apples but a whole barrel that has been rotting for decades and now stinks to heaven.
It is time to heed the words of Richard Smith the former British Medical Journal editor and assume that all medical research is fraudulent until proven otherwise. Alternatively, as the idea that the medical profession is group of professionals with the patient’s best interest at heart is a complete fiction, perhaps we should take heed of the words of the fictional character Foxy Mulder from the X -files and, when it comes to the medical profession, ‘Trust no one.”
Nice summary of medical fraud and malfeasance. The profession as a whole is becoming a dangerous extension of Pharma with profit as the driving motivation. The danger here is not only fraud, misdirection and deadly interventions, but also in the covid era, the collapse of integrity and trust most of us took for granted. All the fraud you mention shows the need to reject this and build a better system before it's too late. It'll be far worse unless the truth is seen and we decide to change our trajectory into chaos.
This is a truly chilling article. I worked in medicine for forty years, and although I personally witnessed some practices which were unethical, the scale and breadth exposed here is a shock. The Covid Con must surely waken the wider public up to tihis criminality.