NY Times Corrects Gina Kolata Re: Alzheimer’s
Five weeks after publishing a grossly dis-informative front-page report by Gina Kolata about Alzheimer’s research,The New York Times published a lengthy three paragraph correction.
Five weeks after publishing a grossly dis-informative front-page report by Gina Kolata about Alzheimer’s research,The New York Times published a lengthy three paragraph correction.
"The study started out with 20 subjects…For about a week there were 14 subjects. Then they started dropping…Now, we’re down to 7."
New York Times reporter Gina Kolata, broadcasts medical hype on the front page of the paper much the way Judith Miller broadcast hype fed to her by Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraq war lobby.[1]
"any slipshod work involving volunteers in clinical trials sends a shudder through the field," said Dr. Gary Small, a professor of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at UCLA
"The vote is an enormous blow to Avandia and GlaxoSmithKline. The vast majority of panel members voted either to withdraw the drug or to allow continued sales only if strict controls are added"
The system has provided companies an opportunity to make spectacular profits from the widespread use of defective drugs and vaccines that have caused irreversible harm.
One after another of the recently proclaimed Flu “pandemics” has turned out to be a fraudulent marketing hoax to promote flu vaccines.
Evidence of harm has been linked to various vaccines challenging prevailing public recommendations.
"Radical restructuring, not merger mania, is the need of our time." Dr. William Haseltine
Complaint about a surge of FDA administrative approvals for expanded use of highly toxic antipsychotic drugs for children. Approvals were determined by Dr. Thomas Laughren after secret deliberations–without disclosure of scientific data, without an advisory panel or open public discussion.
“No general counsel or CEO wants to have to explain to his board why the company's name is appearing on the front page of a news article in a scandal…"
Readers of the New England Journal of Medicine should be forewarned: The information in the pages of the NEJM is tainted by industry influence, its professional and scientific integrity are tainted.