Corruption of Top Medical Journals

Big name medical journals have been biased in favor of COVID vaccines

I spend many hours a day reading medical research articles. Over the past pandemic years it became apparent that the best medical research results were not being published in the big name, most prestigous medical journals but, instead, were getting published in lesser known journals. By best I especially mean research results that were showing COVID vaccines as not being effective or safe. Conversely, those articles getting published in the big name journals were making explicit statements about how good the vaccines performed.

In my view these top medical journals were allies of the vaccine makes such as Pfizer. And also the public health and medical establishments.

Recently, an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the top medical journals caught my attention because of the glaring deficiencies of the work. The title is “Stroke, Myocardial Infarction, and Pulmonary Embolism after Bivalent Booster.”

The data from France was for people who got booster shots. What struck me was that the data was only for those 50 years old or more, only looked at vaccine impacts at 21 days, and only looked at cardiac impacts as the title indicates. And the people examined only received a booster shot between “October 6 and November 9, 2022.”

I thought how remarkable it was that these limitations did not stop the article from being published. Consider this statement in the article:

“our results provide reassurance regarding the continued use of this bivalent vaccine.”

And the main findings was “we found no evidence of an increased risk of cardiovascular events among the recipients of the bivalent vaccine as compared with recipients of the monovalent vaccine.”

My initial reaction was how could such research make it into a top journal. Certainly, negative vaccine impacts could hit younger people. could occur at times longer than 21 days, and could include many different health impacts than the few considered in the project. My point being that the positive conclusion about the continued use of the most widely used boosters was ridiculous. But that conclusion was key to getting the article published in this highly acclaimed journal.

Around the time I got upset about this published article I was spending time on articles published in obscure places.

For example, one article was “Is there a Link between the 2021 COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake in Europe and 2022 Excess All-Cause Mortality?” It was published on preprints.org. Here is a key finding: “one percentage point increase in 2021 vaccination uptake is associated with an increase in 2022 monthly mortality by 0.105 percent.” In other words, the greater the vaccine use, the great the death rate. It is doubtful that this article would get published in a top journal.