Scientific Misconduct Rages On At World’s Top Medical Journals
The Journal of the American Medical Association just published a study in order to bury a severely disturbing truth – that Covid vaccine policy victimized pregnant women by killing an untold number of their babies
As my long-time readers know, my post-academic medical career has been driven by an unwavering commitment to exposing medical fraud in the world’s high-impact journals.
This one has me so outraged I cannot contain myself (because they are targeting babies and pregnant women, my God).
This is a brief post, “inspired,” more accurately, “triggered” by yesterday’s absolute masterclass of a post from my colleague Jack Lyons-Weiler, entitled “How To Bias A Study On Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnancy” (Ed: you HAVE to subscribe to his Substack, one of the most erudite on Substack IMO).
What happened is that JAMA just published a study that purportedly compared the rates of fetal malformations in mothers who got the COVID jab versus the fortunate ones who did not. In the study, they purposely:
- Only looked at live births, not all pregnancies – misses 32 percent of them
- Only looked ’til one year old: misses another 10-40 percent
- Only looked at billing codes: misses another 20-40 percent
Doing the above (and propensity weighting the groups, which invites immense additional opportunity for chicanery), they happily arrived at the following conclusion:
In this cohort study of pregnancies exposed to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the first trimester, exposure was not associated with an increased risk of any major congenital malformations.
Problem: Thalidomide (yes, thalidomide) and other major teratogens were not discovered to be toxic to babies… until they looked at all births, not just the live ones. Happened over and over, to the point that the WHO and EMA both emphasize the necessity of including prenatal losses in teratogenicity surveillance.
So, was it a simple oversight in the trial design phase (whoops!), or maybe they were amateurs who were untrained in designing a proper teratogenicity surveillance study?
Hmm, how can we answer that question? I am sure that it was a bunch of random residents and interns publishing their first paper, right?
Wrong:
I then asked AI: “Would you say these are highly accomplished, esteemed authors?
Just check out the bolded descriptions in the below:
A: Yes — by most academic and regulatory standards, the group behind that JAMA Network Open paper would be considered highly accomplished and credible:
- Institutional standing:
They are based at EPI-PHARE, a joint initiative of the French medicines regulator (ANSM) and the national health insurance fund (CNAM). That is the premier pharmacoepidemiology unit in France, with direct responsibility for drug/vaccine safety surveillance at the population level. - Expertise:
Several authors hold dual qualifications (MD/PhD or PharmD/PhD) and are senior research directors at INSERM (the French equivalent of the NIH’s intramural research arm). For example, Rosemary Dray-Spira is Deputy Director of EPI-PHARE and Research Director at INSERM, which is a very senior career track. - Track record:
These authors routinely publish in high-impact journals (BMJ, JAMA, Lancet regional, Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety). Their work shapes French and EU public health policy, particularly around medication and vaccine safety. - Roles in the study:
The guarantor (Clément Bernard) had full access to the national health database (SNDS) — which is only granted to trusted investigators. Others are leading national pharmacovigilance centers (e.g., Laurent Chouchana at Cochin Hospital).
How can a study with such blatant evidence of being “designed with a pre-determined result” (i.e., not to find problems) get published in JAMA, one of the top medical journals in the world?
Of course, we know the answer – the game is so completely rigged, the only thing that boggles the mind is just how brazen it has become.
Recall one of the definitions of the famous Disinformation Playbook Tactic called “The Fake:”
Description of “The Fake”
To evade these standards, some companies choose to manufacture counterfeit science—planting ghostwritten articles in legitimate scientific journals, selectively publishing positive results while underreporting negative results, or commissioning scientific studies with flawed methodologies biased toward predetermined results. These methods undermine the scientific process—and as our case studies show, they can have serious public health and safety consequences.
Did you get that last part? “These methods can have serious public health and safety consequences.” You don’t say. Like causing deaths to unborn babies and traumatizing women? I am so ****ing sick of this s***, I want to scream (and punch a wall).
My interpretation of this data, knowing how modern “Science” operates, is that “they” know there has been a massive increase in congenital malformations among the vaccinated.
Thus, the “esteemed” researchers (whores, sorry) were tasked with publishing a “negative study” to counter the data emerging from around the world, thus making any assertion that Covid vaccines are teratogenic a “controversial” topic with “conflicting data.”
Welcome to modern science, folks. Any doctor reading this who belongs to the AMA should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.
See more here pierrekorymedicalmusings.com
Header image: Healthcare IT News
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About Covid 19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Carbon Bigfoot
| #
Reminds me of early AMA quackery in early 1900s. Refreshing that nothing has changed.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
“Modern science.”
The problem is that medical experts — particularly physicians, including Dr. Pierre Kory — often present and promote themselves as scientific authorities. However, they lack the credentials and expertise in true science, which is grounded in chemistry and physics. By definition, they could be described as “ghost scientists” — individuals claiming scientific authority without possessing the necessary foundation. Naturally, one would expect ghost writing and fraudulent publications to follow from such a system.
Even the article in question is not a true scientific publication, but merely a survey study — given a fancy name like epidemiology to sound credible.
There is little point in discussing such a study when it has no merit as a valid scientific investigation to begin with. Thousands of such so-called “studies” exist, and they continue to be accepted — not because they are scientific, but because they serve the appearance of science rather than its principles.
The system must root out the ghost scientists if it is ever to address the issue of false and fraudulent science and the publications that arise from it.
Reply