Chief Stipe

Covid19 – the final nail in coffin of medical research 215 Replies 28th June 2021 “The lamps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them lit again in our life-time.” Edward Grey Several years ago, I wrote a book called Doctoring Data. It was my attempt to help people navigate their way through medical headlines and medical data. One of the main reasons I was stimulated to write it, is because I had become deeply concerned that science, especially medical science, had been almost fully taken over by commercial interests. With the end result that much of the data we were getting bombarded with was enormously biased, and thus corrupted. I wanted to show how some of this bias gets built in. I was not alone in my concerns. As far back as 2005, John Ioannidis wrote the very highly cited paper ‘Why most Published Research Findings are False’. It has been downloaded and read by many, many, thousands of researchers over the years, so they can’t say they don’t know: ‘Moreover for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.’1 Marcia Angell, who edited the New England Journal of Medicine for twenty years, wrote the following. It is a quote I have used many times, in many different talks: ‘It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.’ Peter Gotzsche, who set up the Nordic Cochrane Collaboration, and who was booted out of said Cochrane collaboration for questioning the HPV vaccine (used to prevent cervical cancer) wrote the book. ‘Deadly Medicine and Organised Crime. [How big pharma has corrupted healthcare]’. The book cover states… ‘The main reason we take so many drugs is that drug companies don’t sell drugs, they sell lies about drugs… virtually everything we know about drugs is what the companies have chosen to tell us and our doctors… if you don’t believe the system is out of control, please e-mail me and explain why drugs are the third leading cause of death.’ Richard Smith edited the British Medical Journal (BMJ) for many years. He now writes a blog, amongst other things. A few years ago, he commented: ‘Twenty years ago this week, the statistician Doug Altman published an editorial in the BMJ arguing that much medical research was of poor quality and misleading. In his editorial entitled ‘The scandal of Poor Medical Research.’ Altman wrote that much research was seriously flawed through the use of inappropriate designs, unrepresentative sample, small sample, incorrect methods of analysis and faulty interpretation… Twenty years later, I feel that things are not better, but worse… In 2002 I spent eight marvellous weeks in a 15th palazzo in Venice writing a book on medical journals, the major outlets for medical research, and the dismal conclusion that things were badly wrong with journals and the research they published. My confidence that ‘things can only get better’ has largely drained away.’ Essentially, medical research has inexorably turned into an industry. A very lucrative industry. Many medical journals now charge authors thousands of dollars to publish their research. This ensures that it is very difficult for any researcher, not supported by a university, or a pharmaceutical company, to afford to publish anything, unless they are independently wealthy. The journals then have the cheek to claim copyright, and charge money to anyone who actually wants to read, or download the full paper. Fifty dollars for a few on-line pages! They then bill for reprints, they charge for advertising. Those who had the temerity to write the article get nothing – and nor do the peer reviewers. It is all very profitable. Last time I looked the Return on Investment (profit) was thirty-five per-cent for the big publishing houses. It was Robert Maxwell who first saw this opportunity for money making. Driven by financial imperative, the research itself has also, inevitably, become biased. He who pays the paper calls the tune. Pharmaceutical companies, food manufacturers and suchlike. They can certainly afford the publication fees. In addition to all the financial and peer-review pressure, if you dare swim against the approved mainstream views you will, very often, be ruthlessly attacked. As many people know, I am a critic of the cholesterol hypothesis, along with my band of brothers…we few, we happy few. In the 1970s, Kilmer McCully, who plays double bass in our band, was looking into a cause of cardiovascular disease that went against the mainstream view. This is what happened to him: ‘Thomas N. James, a cardiologist and president of the University of Texas Medical Branch who was also the president of the American Heart Association in 1979 and ’80, is even harsher [regarding the treatment of McCully]. ”It was worse than that – you couldn’t get ideas funded that went in other directions than cholesterol,” he says. ”You were intentionally discouraged from pursuing alternative questions. I’ve never dealt with a subject in my life that elicited such an immediate hostile response.” It took two years for McCully to find a new research job. His children were reaching college age; he and his wife refinanced their house and borrowed from her parents. McCully says that his job search developed a pattern: he would hear of an opening, go for interviews and then the process would grind to a stop. Finally, he heard rumors of what he calls ”poison phone calls” from Harvard. ”It smelled to high heaven,” he says.’ McCully says that when he was interviewed on Canadian television after he left Harvard, he received a call from the public-affairs director of Mass. General. ”He told me to shut up,” McCully recalls. ”He said he didn’t want the names of Harvard and Mass. General associated with my theories.’ 2 More recently, I was sent a link to an article outlining the attacks made on another researcher who published a paper which found that being overweight meant having a (slightly) lower risk of death than being of ‘normal weight. This, would never do: ‘A naïve researcher published a scientific article in a respectable journal. She thought her article was straightforward and defensible. It used only publicly available data, and her findings were consistent with much of the literature on the topic. Her coauthors included two distinguished statisticians. To her surprise her publication was met with unusual attacks from some unexpected sources within the research community. These attacks were by and large not pursued through normal channels of scientific discussion. Her research became the target of an aggressive campaign that included insults, errors, misinformation, social media posts, behind-the-scenes gossip and maneuvers, and complaints to her employer. The goal appeared to be to undermine and discredit her work. The controversy was something deliberately manufactured, and the attacks primarily consisted of repeated assertions of preconceived opinions. She learned first-hand the antagonism that could be provoked by inconvenient scientific findings. Guidelines and recommendations should be based on objective and unbiased data. Development of public health policy and clinical recommendations is complex and needs to be evidence-based rather than belief-based. This can be challenging when a hot-button topic is involved.’ 3 Those who lead the attacks on her were my very favourite researchers, Walter Willet and Frank Hu. Two eminent researchers from Harvard who I nickname Tweedledum and Tweedledummer. Harvard itself has become an institution, which, along with Oxford University, comes up a lot in tales of bullying and intimidation. Willet and Hu are internationally known for promoting vegetarian and vegan diets. Willet is a key figure in the EAT-Lancet initiative. Where is science in all this? I feel the need to state, at this point, that I don’t mind attacks on ideas. I like robust debate. Science can only progress through a process of new hypotheses being proposed, being attacked, being refined and strengthened – or obliterated. But what we see now is not science. It is the obliteration of science itself: ‘Anyone who has been a scientist for more than 20 years will realize that there has been a progressive decline in the honesty of communications between scientists, between scientists and their institutions and the outside world. Yet, real science must be an area where truth is the rule; or else the activity simply stops being scient and becomes something else: Zombie science. Zombie science is a science that is dead, but is artificially keep moving by a continual infusion of funding. From a distance Zombie science looks like the real thing, the surface features of a science are in place – white coats, laboratories, computer programming, PhDs, papers, conferences, prizes etc. But the Zombie is not interested in the pursuit of truth – its citations are externally-controlled and directed at non-scientific goals, and inside the Zombie everything is rotten… Scientists are usually too careful and clever to risk telling outright lies, but instead they push the envelope of exaggeration, selectivity and distortion as far as possible. And tolerance for this kind of untruthfulness has greatly increased over recent years. So, it is now routine for scientists deliberately to ‘hype’ the significance of their status and performance and ‘spin’ the importance of their research.’ Bruce Charlton: Professor of Theoretical Medicine. I was already pretty depressed with the direction that medical science was taking. Then COVID19 came along, the distortion and hype became so outrageous that I almost gave up trying to establish what was true, and was just made up nonsense. For example, I stated, right at the start of the COVID19 pandemic, that vitamin D could be important in protecting against the virus. For having the audacity to say this, I was attacked by the fact checkers. Indeed, anyone promoting vitamin D to reduce the risk of COVID19 infection, was ruthlessly hounded. Guess what. Here from 17th June: ‘Hospitalized COVID-19 patients are far more likely to die or to end up in severe or critical condition if they are vitamin D-deficient, Israeli researchers have found. In a study conducted in a Galilee hospital, 26 percent of vitamin D-deficient coronavirus patients died, while among other patients the figure was at 3%. “This is a very, very significant discrepancy, which represents a big clue that starting the disease with very low vitamin D leads to increased mortality and more severity,” Dr. Amir Bashkin, endocrinologist and part of the research team, told The Times of Israel.’ 4 I also recommended vitamin C for those already in hospital. Again, I was attacked, as has everyone who has dared to mention COVID19 and vitamin C in the same sentence. Yet, we know that vitamin C is essential for the health and wellbeing of blood vessels, and the endothelial cells that line them. In severe infection the body burns through vitamin C, and people can become ‘scrobutic’ (the name given to severe lack of vitamin C). Vitamin C is also known to have powerful anti-viral activity. It has been known for years. Here, from an article in 1996: ‘Over the years, it has become well recognized that ascorbate can bolster the natural defense mechanisms of the host and provide protection not only against infectious disease, but also against cancer and other chronic degenerative diseases. The functions involved in ascorbate’s enhancement of host resistance to disease include its biosynthetic (hy-droxylating), antioxidant, and immunostimulatory activities. In addition, ascorbate exerts a direct antiviral action that may confer specific protection against viral disease. The vitamin has been found to inactivate a wide spectrum of viruses as well as suppress viral replication abd expression in infected cell.’ 5 I like quoting research on vitamins from way before COVID19 appeared, where people were simply looking at Vitamin C without the entire medico-industrial complex looking over their shoulder, ready to stamp out anything they don’t like. Despite a mass of evidence that Vitamin C has benefits against viral infection, it is a complete no-go area and no-one even dares to research it now. Facebook removes any content relating to Vitamin C and COVID19. As of today, any criticism of the mainstream narrative is simply being removed. Those who dare to raise their heads above the parapet, have them chopped off: ‘Dr Francis Christian, practising surgeon and clinical professor of general surgery at the University of Saskatchewan, has been immediately suspended from all teaching and will be permanently removed from his role as of September. Dr Christian has been a surgeon for more than 20 years and began working in Saskatoon in 2007. He was appointed Director of the Surgical Humanities Program and Director of Quality and Patient Safety in 2018 and co-founded the Surgical Humanities Program. Dr. Christian is also the Editor of the Journal of The Surgical Humanities. On June 17th Dr Christian released a statement to over 200 of his colleagues, expressing concern over the lack of informed consent involved in Canada’s “Covid19 vaccination” program, especially regarding children. To be clear, Dr Christian’s position is hardly an extreme one. He believes the virus is real, he believes in vaccination as a general principle, he believes the elderly and vulnerable may benefit from the Covid “vaccine”… he simply doesn’t agree it should be used on children, and feels parents are not being given enough information for properly informed consent.’ 6 When I wrote Doctoring Data, a few years ago, I included the following thoughts about the increasing censorship and punishment that was already very clearly out in the open: …where does it end? Well, we know where it ends. First, they came for the communists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist Then they came for the socialists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist Then they came from the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist Then they came for me, and there was no-one left to speak for me Do you think this is a massive over-reaction? Do I really believe that we are heading for some form of totalitarian stated, where dissent against the medical ‘experts’ will be punishable by imprisonment? Well, yes, I do. We are already in a situation where doctors who fail to follow the dreaded ‘guidelines’ can be sued, or dragged in front the General Medical Council, and struck of. Thus losing their job and income… Where next? The lamps are not just going out all over Europe. They are going out, all over the world. 1: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 2: https://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/10/magazine/the-fall-and-rise-of-kilmer-mccully.html 3: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033062021000670 4: https://www.timesofisrael.com/1-in-4-hospitalized-covid-patients-who-lack-vitamin-d-die-israeli-study 5: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14383321_Antiviral_and_Immunomodulatory_Activities_of_Ascorbic_Acid 6: https://off-guardian.org/2021/06/25/canadian-surgeon-fired-for-voicing-safety-concerns-over-covid-jabs-for-children/

Rule Number(s): 632(1)Following the running of Race 1 (Aquaholics Plumbing 3yo), Information A14452 was filed with the Judicial Committee. The Informant requested a ruling as to whether BUTLER received a fair start. (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(1)(d)Following the running of Race 7 (Team Wealleans Tauranga Classic), Information A14453 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It was alleged by the Informant that Mr BR Jones, the Rider of KATIE PERRIE permitted his horse to shift out near the 175m when not sufficiently clear, this resulted in WHOSHE’S ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 649(1)(a)Following the running of Race 1 (Happy 5th Birthday Lucas Brosnan), Information A14426 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It was alleged that Mr Donoghue changed his boots and added spurs after weighing out. Mr Donoghue said that he understood the Rule, charge and confirmed that he admitted the breach. ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(3)(b)(ii)Following the running of Race 3 (Sir Slick The Peoples Champion 1600), Information A14427 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It was alleged that Ms Fawcett used her whip excessively prior to the 100m. Ms Fawcett said that she understood the Rule, charge and confirmed that she admitted the breach. ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 636(1)(d)Following the running of Race 5 (J Swap Contractors Te Aroha Cup), Information A14428 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It was alleged that Mr Yuill failed to ride his mount out over the final 75m when there was a reasonable chance of finishing 4th (RISING RANSOM finished 6th). Mr Yuill said that ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Perhaps they are counting on a positive result and then can laud the victory as part of the new organisation. Or the anticipate a negative result and can then assign it to the old regime.

What's the bet that NZTR will try and argue that they need a bigger slice of the pie over and above what direct revenue they earn because "we are the dominant code, have a higher cost structure and need to spend more on marketing"?

Once again you use an emotive subjective statement to support your assertion. What constitutes "loaded up with drugs"? Does the administration of a topical anti-inflammatory cream to a joint that has heat in it constitute "loading up with drug"? You honestly have no idea about training a racehorse. I've never ever said that in any post. Doesn't prevent mistakes from happening just because someone has a contract! You keep ignoring one of the key points that I make and that is where are the extensive guidelines on therapeutic treatments per ailment and practical thresholds above zero? That would be as pointless as getting you to write them although in my case I don't profess to be the expert like you do. The responsibility is that of the Chief Vet. What does he do? Other than pitch up at JCA hearings sounding equivocal. Perhaps they should be as it is a chronic problem for horses in training because of high energy feeds. If it is alright for you to take proton inhibitors and half an hour before you porridge in the morning why not for a horse? Again fake news as I've never said either of those things. No I don't put your concept of 'Social License' before the health and welfare of the elite equine athlete. You do.

LOL really? Good luck with that approach. I understand there are rumblings in the Central Districts as well with Levin and Foxton being notified that the chosen training hub is Otaki! Levin and Foxton will always be better race tracks than Otaki and for that matter the turf at Awapuni! Go figure! What's more Levin offers a very low cost model for local trainers - I can't see Otaki doing that. Levin has also invested in new stabling and other improvements WITHOUT any funding assistance from NZTR. I've said it many times before it is sheer lunacy to close down racetracks that provide services to the industry and minimal cost to the industry while moving to a higher operating cost model. The other prediction I made is that the AWT at Awapuni and other Awapuni costs will suck the CD dry just as Riccarton will the South Island. Meanwhile OZ is pumping investment into its provinces and adjusting their racing calendars to provide pathways for provincial horses to progress to metropolitan class while maintaining country and provincial racing.

Fair enough. May I ask was the non-amicable tone from Dargaville or NZTR or both?

Do you have some links to that process? I doubt that will free up much capital and I would have thought that Ruakaka would have some dibs on it.

More pressure will go on Clubs BUT the money isn't there and never was let alone whatever was there being accessible to transfer to NZTR. Of course that option isn't available to Harness or Dogs. The operational costs of the AWT's is starting to kick in now too PLUS the increase in the number of races that they facilitate at what I imagine is a lower yield than others.

Apologies for the changes in this Topic! I was trying to tidy things up and made it worse for a bit!

Well as the industry leaders sit around the table to carve up the revenue from TAB NZ what can we expect? The facts: (Bear in mind that under this regime we have had little transparency so some of the fine details can only be assumed! When was the last time we didn't get a full half yearly report?) The budget for the 20/21 year net profit is $131.7m. Assuming no budgeted top ups from reserves (there aren't any) you have to go back to the year 2011/12 to find an equivalent net profit! TEN years ago. Now we are told that they are up 35% on budget which projecting forward to the end of the year would give a net profit of $176m. That figure looks a bit suspect to me especially when you look at the individual month percentages over budget. Now you may well say YAHOO we are in the money! Wooh up neddy..... Don't forget that TAB NZ was at least $35m in the hole and struggling to pay their bills. That $35m is due to be repaid in full at the end of August. It was recently announced that the Board has approved the immediate repayment of $10m from profits. SO the $176m is down to $166m with still $25m to pay - again we are assuming that TAB NZ didn't borrow any more money. The Government bailout last year kept them solvent. There is still $25m to pay and there is no guarantee that the bank will allow that to roll over - I guess paying $10m would help negotiations. BUT prudent financial management would involve either ring fencing $20m OR paying the debt off. So the $166m now reduces to $141m with no reserves to top up. Of course most of that $141m is already spent - as the net profit is earned it is redistributed to the codes. To the end of May $123 has been distributed up 12% on budget. The total budget is $132m distributed to the codes. If the increase in distribution is maintained then the total distributed will be $137m (which is close to $141m isn't it?). $137m isn't much more than what was paid out a decade ago! But at least it doesn't involve dipping into reserves or borrowing more money or getting a handout from Government does it? BUT WAIT there's more....... Don't forget three very important unknowns that the Industry Administrators have to weigh up: Will the next financial year match this financial year in terms of revenue (net profit)? Can we expect an increase in profit in a highly competitive environment? TAB NZ has pushed off their balance sheet functions that the codes are now expected to fund (e.g. marketing) therefore inflating their profit BUT forcing the codes to make a decision between funding these functions or distributing more in stakes? In summary my conclusion is that there is NO extra money to increase ANY stakes.

Hypocrite. You promote blind folding scared horses so you can WIN on the PUNT!

You'd rather a horse after fastwork who was feeling discomfort to not be treated with an off the shelf anti-inflammatory? You haven't reinforced any points. There are many many legal therapeutics both chemical and non-chemical that have a preventative action. It is in the interests of equine health and welfare to use them. Yet you are happy to bang blindfolds on horses who are scared to actually race. So because a Vet has a contract they are not going to make any mistakes? As it is the industry isn't rife with "mistakes". No matter how much you state it you can't change the facts. But could the Industry and the Feds along with the Chief Vet Grierson do more to list recommended therapeutic medications, their dosage and withholding time - hell yes. Also they could do more about defining thresholds for therapeutic medications rather than having what can only be describe is a cop out lazy zero threshold policy. Even if you had what you want contracted Vets dispensing ALL medications these actions would have to be taken. Otherwise what recommendations does the contracted Vet work with? Of course in an industry with declining real returns to stakeholders you want to add considerable extra cost for no benefit. I've admitted no such thing. I find it incongruous that drugs we humans happily pop down our throats every morning on a regular basis are deemed to be illegal in a racehorse e.g. proton inhibitors like Losec, Omeprazole etc which treat stomach ulcers in horses. Or preventative measures like Lasix to limit the inevitable EIPH. You are a hypocrite when you actively promote the blind folding of horses (blinkers) to make them GO FAST! Hell you even call them GO FAST's! That's an extreme exaggeration. Yes Lasix used in high doses is a diuretic but the level is much less likely when the drug is used as a preventative measure. What would you rather see? A horse drown in its own blood which you could have prevented or a horse urinating a bit more and having to drink a bit more? Do you really believe Winx was "thrashed in hard work"? That just indicates you ignorance of Equine health and welfare. Do you really think that if she had been "thrashed" constantly in hard work that she would have won as many races or raced at the very top of the elite level for so many seasons? As I've said before YOU don't actually care about horse welfare or racing. You constantly want to bring it down albeit from a position of being ill informed and ignorant.

Well at least Turnwald hired a decent lawyer. I fail to see how the RIU can change their mind and seek a higher penalty than what they originally asked for.

With all due respect to Blair Orange some of his behaviour hasn't exactly indicated he has the skill to be a successful trainer. I guess that's why he sticks to what he is good at - driving. If, as you always infer without proof, the elite trainers are cheating then it would appear they are far brighter than the RIU and with far less resources. Get over it - some trainers are miles better than others. In NZ we probably only have one or two Thoroughbred stables that could barely hold their own in OZ yet they are miles ahead of anyone else in NZ. You'd call them out as cheats as well using your criteria.

I didn't say instantly. I said anomalies would be found easily. Are they convicted yet? What substance were they banned for using? Have they been convicted yet? What substance are they alleged to have used? Have any of the alleged drugs been detected in testing? If the drugs have identified then testing should have identified their use. Are you inferring that there is a substance being used and it is being used in OZ and NZ?

Any news on the outcome of the sentencing appeal?

But WHAT "red cell enhancers" are you referring to? EPO? If so human or other mammal EPO? Human EPO is easily detectable with modern methods. I've read the Paulick Report as well and get the impression they are searching for something that isn't there. Of course complicating things with horses is the role of the spleen. At high performance when entering oxygen debt the equine spleen releases a substantial amount of fresh oxygenated blood into the bloodstream. This is a naturally evolved flight response and I believe isn't fully understood. It is probably the source if EIPH as well. The point is when you add up the cost vs return and the number of people that would need to cooperate (I.e. keep quiet), the skill involved in administration and to evade detection plus modern forensic tools it makes it highly unlikely that there is some magical undetectable PED out there. Modern testing techniques would instantly find an anomaly that needed further investigation. Also there are techniques that can find picograms per ml I.e. very very minute amounts of a substance. At the end of the day I'm backing the simplest explanation and that is the top trainers in both codes are just so much better than anyone else.

The crap science being spouted day in day out in the media is driving me insane. I read today that over 60 million children didn't receive their Polio vaccinations last year due to Covid-19. Polio being a disease that they ARE vulnerable to AND for which there is a proven vaccine!

Where have I advocated continual use of NSAID's? If you want a completely closed system like Hong Kong then go to there. I know which environment I'd rather see my horses trained in - OZ and NZ. WINX and Verry Elleegant look very happy horses to me. Thomarse you are a fraud. You have no compassion for the Equine athlete and want the industry closed down.

What you want NZTR to train them as well?