Wikipedia’s-Culture-of-Institutional-Bias

Wikipedia: Silicon Valley’s Cult of Medical Misinformation

Wikipedia’s-Culture-of-Institutional-Bias

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Richard Gale & Gary Null
Progressive Radio Network, June 28, 2019

Americans are spending more money on diagnostic tests, surgeries and other medical procedures than ever before.

They are also consuming more pills and medications and will receive more treatments than at any other time in US history. Daily we are inundated with television drug advertisements with the reassuring message, “you don’t have to fight this battle alone. We are with you.” Commercials project image of laboratories, medical research, a handsome physician and sanitized clinics with happy patients in order to strengthen viewers’ faith that medical science is progressing. We are left with the feeling that the big drug companies are diligently working on our behalf to discover new and promising cures for life-threatening diseases.

As pharmaceutical public relations and the mainstream media keep this visual charade burnt into our minds, the US is spending a minimum of $3.5 trillion on healthcare. Then there is the citizens’ and the economy’s burden of an additional $1.5 trillion loss in work and wages due to illness. Five trillion dollars total. Approximately 18 percent of the US GDP. On top of this debt, tens of millions of additional dollars will be spent advertising Big Pharma’s message.

And herein lies the fundamental problem. There are more doctors, more hospitals, more drugs and medical procedures than ever before and yet we have not conquered nor made any significant progress in curing any major disease. Instead of making efforts to fund disease prevention and educate the public, prevention has been abandoned altogether. There are volumes of excellent peer-reviewed studies documenting research and clinical experience showing a healthy diet, nutrient supplementation as needed, physical exercise and stress and anxiety management regimens can either completely prevent illnesses or be incorporated into medical treatment protocols successfully. However, there is no profit to be made in prevention.

It is understandable that the pharmaceutical industry would make every effort to keep our medical regime in the forefront; what is less comprehensible on the face value is why Silicon Valley firms such as Google, Wikipedia and Facebook, and the mainstream media, are in league with the drug companies and the CDC to promulgate a false message about health through the internet.

How did we reach this threshold where trillions of dollars have been tossed into an abyss? One reason is that few voices have been able to reach the public to address the widespread corruption in corporate science, especially medicine, agriculture, and environmental issues. Honest, independent science is ignored in favor of proprietary pharmaceutical drugs and genetically modified foods. Fraudulent research has been used to justify nuclear power as a clean green energy. Political officials working on behalf of fossil fuel interests convince us with junk science that hydro-fracking poses no health risks and is environmentally friendly. A single Big Pharma corporation with thousands of employees and billions of dollars in sales and profits is deeply connected to investors, public relations firms, federal health officials and the media. All these external invested parties are in turn dependent upon corporate revenue streams. Money is spent to dominate medical schools to push the conventional drug agenda’s regime, or to front groups and foundations to buy off so-called experts to debunk critics. Revenues and pay-to-play donations received by Wikipedia and others are one crucial incentive to account for the corruption and deceit in these Silicon firms. Similarly, drug advertisements to mainstream media networks are little more than payoffs to assure drug companies that objective reporting is negligible that would otherwise put the pharmaceutical company and its medical products into a bad public light.

The benefit Big Pharma receives from hijacking the federal regulators and legislators is protection from the nation’s judiciary.

So, when a drug like Merck’s anti-arthritic Vioxx conservatively kills over 60,000 patients and injures an additional 130,000, there is no immediate FDA recall and deaths are permitted until the crisis reaches a tipping point and health officials are forced to step in. However, seldom are drug executives prosecuted. Vioxx sales earned $18 billion and Merck only had to pay a $5 billion settlement. Everyone who knew Vioxx was a defective product had engaged in malice aforethought with no deleterious consequences. The company merely paid a fine and returned to business as usual. And the media simply whitewashed the seriousness of Merck’s crimes about Vioxx.

Science creates new solutions through genetic engineering of crops, viruses, bacteria, artificial intelligence, geoengineering, 5G wireless technology, etc. These are held in the public’s eyes as great achievements. On the other hand, you will not find Wikipedia nor the mainstream media ever highlighting their flaws and greater risks above advertised benefits; and certainly, private corporations will never leak evidence about their risks and dangers. In the medical field, there are FDA requirements that a drug maker provide all the clinical trial results for a new drug or vaccine. If twenty trials are conducted and only five are favorable for getting the product approved, that is all the company is required to provide. The remaining 15 can be kept sealed and hidden.

We are also led to believe that if a scientific invention or studies for a new drug appear in the peer-reviewed literature, they have reached a gold standard. Any controversy has been settled. Consequently, a peer-reviewed paper becomes a scientific law unto itself. However, now it has been confirmed repeatedly that the peer-reviewed journal system is also corrupt. In fact, as we will recount, it is filled with fraud, and it will worsen without any efforts made to reform it. Quite simply there is no concerted will nor ethical standard to improve the peer-reviewed system because too much profit is generated.

Wikipedia editors take full advantage of flawed medical literature if the conclusions serve their purpose and agenda. Google, through its algorithmic modeling to censor voices challenging private medicine’s status-quo leave people with no way to determine whether scientific literature is bogus or not. Nor whether the science supporting evidence that a natural product can contribute to treating a disease or that studies and analysis implicating vaccines with a wide range of neurological disorders are accurate. Conclusions, regardless of how unsound and erroneous, is all that matters for Google to protect the global medical regime — not just private drug companies but also government health bodies and international organizations such as the World Health Organization.

Google today is not only a weapon for promoting the pharmaceutical agenda but now also a drug company itself.

During the past six years, Google’s parent company Alphabet has launched two pharmaceutical companies. In 2013, it founded Calico, run by Genentech’s former CEO Arthur Levinson. Calico operates an R&D facility in the San Francisco Bay Area for the discovery of treatments associated with age-related diseases. Two years later, Alphabet founded Verily Life Sciences (previously Google Life Sciences). Both pharma companies are partnering with other drug corporations. Recently, Verily has partnered with the European pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline to form a new drug company, Galvani Bioelectronics for the development of “bioelectronic medicines.” The collaboration is costing the companies $715 million, and the new firm is being chaired by Glaxo’s former chairman of its global vaccines business.

In January 2019, Google’s president of Customer Solutions Mary Ellen Coe joined Merck’s Board of Directors. Formerly at the corporate consulting McKinsey and Company, her role at Google includes overseeing the firm’s global advertising for contracted companies. Merck’s chairman Kenneth Frazier remarked in a press release that Coe “will be a significant asset to Merck.”[01]

The conflicts of interest are obviously clear. As the world’s most advanced search engine, Google has gained control over the internet’s most technically sophisticated surveillance systems and algorithms. Therefore, the company has positioned itself as becoming a potential threat to human health.

During the past five years, the pharmaceutical industry has shown a growing interest in the concept of virtual pharmacies, whereby drug companies can leverage their influence over consumers. Social media, notably Wikipedia, YouTube and Facebook have become consumers’ most utilized resources for gaining knowledge about disease, drugs and health. In a University of Sydney survey, Wikipedia was the first source of choice for gaining information about unfamiliar health topics, even among medical professionals.[02] According to a 2013 joint analysis about this emerging trend, conducted by the University of Zurich and the Big Pharma giant Johnson and Johnson, drug companies can use these virtual platforms to tackle the challenges they face on the market and even within the medical communities. However, the analysis also recommended that the best strategy is for Big Pharma to invest heavily in virtual companies and form collaborations. This strategy, laid out 6 years ago, has picked up steam whereby now companies such as Google and Facebook have been absorbed into the pharmaceutical machinery. The dire results from this marriage already being felt as Wikipedia and other virtual social media have become just another mouthpiece for Big Pharma.

If Google’s transformation into a drug company is not disturbing enough, the world’s largest open source site for medical information has become Wikipedia.

Moreover, Google and Wikipedia are tied together at the waist. Earlier this year, Google dumped $3.1 million into Wikipedia, which now brings total contributions to over $7.5 million during the past decade. Curiously, the announcement of Google’s endowment was made at the World Economic Forum at Davos last January. The donation also includes Google’s intention to provide Wikipedia editors with its high-tech learning tools. Wired Magazine published an article that provides further details about the Google-Wikipedia relationship over the years. With respect to Google’s generous contribution, journalist Louise Matsakis writes, “but the decision isn’t altruistic… Google already uses Wikipedia content in a number of its own products…. The company also has used Wikipedia articles to train machine learning algorithms, as well as fight misinformation on YouTube.” Now with Jimmy Wales’ intention to take on the cause of fighting “fake news” — which is according to his personal Skeptic ideology — his Skeptic editors and trolls will have free access to more advanced algorithmic tools to proceed with their agenda to scrub Wikipedia of content favorable towards alternative medicine or content critical of pharmaceutical regime.

When one first visits Wikipedia’s home page, front and center we read “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.” But it is an ideal that has failed dismally. Content about medical products and therapeutic regimens are penned by completely unqualified editors with no medical background, many who prefer to remain anonymous.

Yet Wikipedia editors state with authority that there are no proven health benefits for non-conventional and natural medical therapies. Reading any Wikipedia entry about chiropractic, acupuncture, homeopathy, Chinese medicine, naturopathy or energy medicine, the reader will walk away believing it is all pseudoscience or quackery. However, collectively there are hundreds of thousands of studies to support these therapies’ efficacy and safety. Legitimate scientific inquiry has already shown their efficacy. Independent board-certified physicians have been using complementary and alternative medicine for a long time with excellent results. But this information is either censored or scrubbed from Wikipedia.

Before the internet, it was very difficult for the average person to access reliable consumer information about diseases, mental disorders, drugs and treatments, medical procedures, and surgery. It was equally difficult to find reliable information about alternative medicine as well. A person had to go to great lengths to find actual scientific literature. The internet changed that forever, and companies such as Google and Wikipedia came forward to bring this literature into our homes. All a person has to do is perform a simple query on Google’s search engine. Almost always, the inquirer will be directed to Wikipedia in the top several listings. The average person then believes the content will be unbiased and neutral, an accurate and balanced description of the subject matter. However, for medical issues, nothing could be farther from the truth.

For example, we accessed Wikipedia pages for each of the vaccines recommended on the CDC’s childhood immunization schedule. In every case, adverse effects were undermined by emphasizing a vaccine’s benefits. Not a single entry had a complete list of adverse effects as found on the vaccine maker’s manufacturing package insert — which is also easily accessed on the CDC’s website. Nor was there to be found a list of vaccine ingredients, many of which are scientifically proven to be toxic. Consequently, a visitor to any Wikipedia vaccine page will only gain a very incomplete and twisted understanding of the vaccines’ actual safety and efficacy. Wikipedia hides the toxicity of the drugs and vaccines it promotes.

So where exactly in the cesspool of modern medicine, food science, and the agro-chemical industry are we to discover truth. Few in the scientific and federal health agencies can be trusted anymore. Most are compromised. Rarely is a mainstream journalist trustworthy, and no one can be certain whether a paper appearing in a peer-reviewed science journal or a medical entry on Wikipedia is reliable or not. Even clinical physicians on the front lines of healthcare work in the dark. It is only after large numbers of deaths and injuries, such as with Agent Orange, DDT, aspartame, Vioxx, opiate drugs, etc., that a light goes on. But only for a short time before going dark again.

Our research shows that the majority of pharmaceutical corporations have settled laws suits. At the same time our analysis confirms that up to 900,000 Americans die annually from iatrogenic causes. How is it that the pharmaceutical industry and medical establishment has killed more Americans than those who died in Vietnam without any serious consequences? Now wrap your mind around this. If we take a conservative figure of preventable deaths from medicine, 500,000 per year during the last four decades, that would account for approximately 20 million deaths. And where is the outrage and outcry?

We can compare iatrogenic deaths from modern medicine with deaths reported due to supplements, which is usually certain botanical herbs. In 2017, the Journal of Medical Toxicology reported 34 deaths that year from supplements, yet most were due to Ephedra (illegally used because the FDA banned it in 2003), the African herb yohimbe that is often improperly used as a natural Viagra, and energy drinks. On the other hand, no deaths are reported for vitamin supplementation. although parental overdosing small children with vitamins is responsible for approximately 80% of adverse vitamin reactions — due to hypervitaminosis from very high and abnormal doses of vitamin A, B3, B6 and D. But nowhere on Wikipedia will you find an accurate accounting of supplements’ safety record compared to pharmaceutical drugs.

The reason for American medicine turning into the nation’s largest and deadliest battlefield is because scientific corruption is legally protected to proceed with impunity. The Surgeon General, the heads of federal health agencies, drug makers, the insurance industry, medical schools and professional associations, Google and Wikipedia, and the media operate as a single voice that the American health system is the best in the world when it is surely not. Corporate interests control everything. Modern medicine has morphed into a religious cult that is incapable of self-reflection about its own vulnerabilities and failures. And numerous patients have been played for fools.

The fact is that all players in the architecture of our medical system are vulnerable to corruption. Private industry and government know this perfectly. The checks and balances between private and public interests have collapsed. Today, the medical regime is a single entity. All of its parts are consolidated and entwined into a monolithic behemoth to prevent injury to its bottom line. The media and Silicon Valley firms such as Google and Wikipedia have been co-opted to serve as the guardians of Big Pharma’s culture of corruption.

If modern medicine was consistently responsible for positive results that vastly improving our nation’s quality of heath, we might be more tolerant of its limitations. However, as corruption or incompetence throughout the medical establishment and federal health agencies increases, so has the health of the nation substantially decreased. The nation’s health statistics and the annual rise in preventable diseases proves the case.

The US is the world’s most medicated country and ranks at the bottom of the pack of developed nations for quality of health. It is also the only nation in the developed world with its average lifespan in decline. A Consumer Report survey estimates that 55 percent of Americans regularly take a prescription drug, and among those most take four drugs on average. In 2016, over 4.5 billion prescriptions were filled, earning the pharmaceutical industry over $200 billion.[1] An earlier estimate conducted and published by the Mayo Clinic found that 70 percent of Americans are on at least one prescription drug and over 50 percent are on two. Twenty percent of patients are on five or more.[2] Over 17 percent of citizens 45 years and older take antidepressants, including one in four women.[3] A multi-year population-based survey conducted by the University of Illinois at Chicago found that 32 percent of adults diagnosed with depression were taking medications with depression listed as an adverse effect! These drugs include proton pump inhibitors, analgesics, beta blockers and synthetic hormone contraceptives.[4]

For anyone who cares to take a broad, objective and panoramic view of the illnesses plaguing the American landscape, the situation is shocking. Clearly it needn’t be this way. Most people enter the sciences for noble reasons and possess either passion for discovery or to improve the well-being of their fellow citizens. So then why do they often emerge from the other end of the institutionalized treadmill as proponents of products that create more harm than good?
The Dismal State of Modern Science

There have been prophetic voices in the past who have warned about the future travesties of modern scientific advancement. In his 1924 essay “Icarus or the Future of Science,” the British mathematician and moral philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote, “I am compelled to fear that science will be used to promote the power of dominant groups, rather than to make men happy. Icarus, having been taught to fly by his father Daedalus, was destroyed in his rashness. I fear that the same fate may overtake the populations whom modern men of science have taught to fly.” Later in his essay Bertrand continues, “whether, in the end, science will prove to have been a blessing or a curse to mankind, is to my mind still a doubtful question.”

For Russell, those who can sincerely call themselves scientists pursue their discipline out of a love for knowledge. Science is supposed to improve conditions necessary to foster our well-being and happiness, and to preserve the planet’s environment in an ethical manner. A scientist who truly pursues knowledge out of love, Russell argues, will desire the fruits of his work and craft to be expressions of kindness for the greater good. On the other hand, science becomes a perversion when knowledge is pursued solely for economic, political or social power. He warned about the trends of his day increasing whereby the holders of scientific knowledge become “evil” and science solely serves the ambitions of the powerful and those who control scientific inventions’ utility. “Scientific knowledge,” Russell wrote, “does not make men more sensible in their aims, and administrators in the future will be presumably no less stupid and no less prejudiced than they are at present.”[5]

Since the days when science broke free from religion during the European Renaissance, the blind faith in perpetual scientific progress as humanity’s best of fortunes has been incanted to our present day. In fact, in the 21st century, scientific materialism has now generally replaced religious beliefs and morals altogether. This is especially evident in the contemporary regressive movements of Skepticism, the New Atheism, Science- and Evidence-based Medicine, genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, Randian Objectivism, and scientific positivism, which have all been chained to corporate capital and science’s bureaucracies.

This perpetual myth in scientific progress, says Russell, “is one of the comfortable nineteenth-century delusions which our more disillusioned age must discard.” In the end, Russell foresaw that science may be the ultimate cause behind “the destruction of our civilization.” From our own perspective, given our governments’ and corporations’ disregard towards climate change, insensitive destruction of the natural world and other species, medical abuse of prescription drugs, and the censorship of cheaper and safer natural remedies that might interfere with pharmaceutical and medical insurance revenues, we have to agree.

Wikipedia’s co-founder Jimmy Wales and his editors who control and administrate the encyclopedia’s pages pertaining to non-conventional medical therapies, parapsychology and its most public practitioners embrace a quasi-religious dogma known as Skepticism. Skepticism embraces a radical material reductionist perspective on medicine that underlies drug discovery and development. On the other hand, Google, besides having formally entered the pharmaceutical business, gave birth to another kind of scientific materialism known as Singularity, a quasi-religious cult with a mission to make artificial intelligence smarter than humans. Singularity’s prophet Ray Kurzweil, Google’s chief science executive, hopes to imbue computers with consciousness. Both Skepticism and Singularity are extreme forms of scientific reductionism and their growing popularity is exactly what Russell warns us about. Both movements are also the harbingers of a draconian medical regime that are becoming the authors of the nation’s health laws.

This trend being promoted by Google, Skepticism and Wikipedia has been termed “scientism,” an incoherent ideology that identifies rationality and reason with science itself. Scientism embraces the premise that science can explain everything. One of the more common criticisms against scientism is its “claims that science has already resolved questions that are inherently beyond its ability to answer.”[8] This scientific hubris particularly plagues the biological disciplines such as mental health, immunology, drug-based conventional medical therapies, neurobiology, the genetic etiology of disease, nanomedicine and genetic modification of plants for industrial agriculture. Because of its reliance on the foibles of reason alone, Skeptics on Wikipedia more often than not simply dismiss natural medicine outright for being “implausible” without elaborating further or making an effort to understand the underlying scientific principles behind non-drug therapies.

One unrecognized consequence of scientism is that it plays directly into corporate hands to advance its’ financial interests and commercial control over a population. By tossing aside philosophical and ethical considerations over natural scientific discoveries, scientific truths stand alone as sterile and amoral tools that have been weaponized for corporate profit. This is most evident in the pharmaceutical industry that pushes questionably ineffective and unsafe drugs to treat physical and mental disorders, or the agro-chemical corporations’ poisoning the public with carcinogenic pesticides and environment-damaging genetically modified crops.
Modern Medicine: The Exemplar of Scientific Nepotism

The state of modern American medicine was accurately summarized in April 2018 when Goldman Sachs released its financial projection report, “The Genome Revolution,” to biotechnology companies. The report doesn’t hesitate to state clearly that for future investment, corporate profits far outweigh the curing of disease.

Goldman Sachs is one of Wall Street’s largest investors in high growth technologies, particularly pharmaceuticals, medical devices and healthcare services. The report presents the frightening question, “Is curing patients a sustainable business model?” Even for the most hardened proponents of natural medicine and opponents of Big Pharma, there are times when a drug developer hits the nail correctly. Such is the case with Gilead Sciences’ drugs Harvoni and Epclusa, which have achieved over a 90 percent cure rate for hepatitis C. This is an extraordinary cure rate. But for Goldman, this is a bad sign for investors and shareholders. The drugs’ success has steadily drained the pool of patients requiring treatment. At their peak in 2015, these drugs earned $12.5 billion. Three years later it is expected to earn under $4 billion, and revenues will continue to decline. Goldman writes, “In the case of infectious diseases such as hepatitis C, curing existing patients also decreases the number of carriers able to transmit the virus to new patients, thus the incident pool also declines … Where an incident pool remains stable (e.g., in cancer) the potential for a cure poses less risk to the sustainability of a franchise.”[6]

Goldman’s report confirms an observation that we have been voicing for many years. That is, modern medicine is no longer about treating disease; rather, it is about managing illness in order to keep patients on drugs for life. How did this trend of an amoral medical philosophy and a betrayal of Hippocratic principles come about since billions of dollars are spent annually to discover cures for disease?

Ronald Reagan, the first Deregulator-in-Chief, opened a pathway for private interests to gain greater control over the sciences. It was also during the Reagan era that pharmaceutical firms infiltrated the halls of the federal government. Through concerted lobbying and persuasion, Reagan signed the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act to protect vaccine makers from financial liability due to vaccines’ adverse effects. Before this bill, only a few firms continued to manufacture vaccines; the financial risks and compensation burden from vaccine injuries were too high for most drug companies. Reagan is therefore credited for launching the current vaccine boom, estimated to be worth $60 billion by 2020, with no legal liability placed upon companies for pushing unsafe and minimally effective products. This trend entered hyper drive disorder under President Clinton, who perceived himself as the first “biotech president” and invited more corporate executives with conflicts-of-interest into his administration than any previous president. If the proliferation of GMOs and the biotechnology boom giving rise to genetic modification are regarded as contagions and curses on human and environmental health, then Clinton is ultimately to be blamed.

There are three primary avenues by which science becomes corrupted and thereby damages the public’s health and the environment. These include: 1) corporate influence over scientific discoveries that are developed into products for public consumption; 2) corruption within the scientific community itself; and 3) the emergence of a positive philosophy towards science that adheres to all of the dogmatic trimmings of fundamentalist religious faith and that seeks full protection from government to become the reigning ideology of the state. Google, Facebook and Wikipedia are leading proponents enabling this third avenue.

According to a report released by the Union of Concerned Scientists, “Corporations attempt to exert influence at every step of the scientific and policy making process, often to shape decisions in their favor or avoid regulation and monitoring of their products and by-products at the public expense.”[9] In order to achieve their goals, private interests make every attempt to win over the White House, Congressional legislators, senior federal agency officials and even the judicial courts. And now we are also witnessing corporations’ successes in hijacking social media companies like Wikipedia and Facebook. One of science-generated industries’ greatest threats is independent evaluation of the scientific research supporting their products. Therefore, winning over or buying the allegiance of the legislative heads of Congressional committees and the executive tiers of federal agency regulators is a prime directive to grease the bureaucracy in order to make the licensing channels for product approval slide through smoothly and to lessen regulatory due diligence and scientific scrutiny.

Charles Seife and his students at New York University undertook the task to determine to what extent the FDA covers up evidence of fraud and corruption in medical drug trials. They reviewed FDA documents for about 600 clinical trials. How often do federal health officials discover flagrant and intentional misconduct and subsequently decide to bury the evidence and prevent it from becoming public to the medical community? Seife discovered such actions to be an official pattern within the agency. Given the high rate of content deleted or blacked out from the documents the FDA provided, the investigators could only determine which pharmaceutical company or drug was involved in 1 of 6 of the reviewed trials. For one trial alone, where FDA inspectors found significant fraud and misconduct, 78 different medical publications printed articles based upon that single study. In an article for Slate, Seife writes,

“Nobody ever finds out which data is bogus, which experiments are tainted, and which drugs might be on the market under false pretenses. The FDA has repeatedly hidden evidence of scientific fraud not just from the public, but also from its most trusted scientific advisers, even as they were deciding whether or not a new drug should be allowed on the market. Even a congressional panel investigating a case of fraud regarding a dangerous drug couldn’t get forthright answers.”[10]

In one case, a new anti-blood clotting drug, rivaroxaban, involved four large trials recruiting thousands of patients in clinical sites in over a dozen countries. According to Seife, one of the trials “was a fiasco.” In half of the sixteen clinical sites, the FDA discovered “misconduct, fraud, fishy behavior or other practices so objectionable that the data had to be thrown out.” One Colorado site falsified data. In the Mexican site, there was “systematic discarding of medical records.” Despite these overwhelming problems, the drug trial was published favorably in the prestigious British journal The Lancet. The FDA found similar problems in the three other trials; in one the data was ruled “worthless.” The FDA advisory committee of “expert” reviewers were only informed that inspectors discovered only “significant issues” at two sites in one of the trials. Rivaroxaban was nevertheless approved in 2011. Since then lawsuits for wrongful death from rivaroxaban continue to increase.[11]

In another case from 2010, Cetero, a private research company that contracts to Big Pharma, faked data for over 1,400 drug safety and effectiveness trials conducted for roughly 100 drugs, mostly generic knock offs, that were being targeted for the US market. Although the FDA had uncovered this fraud, it has refused to make these 100 drugs known to the professional medical community and public.[12]

And let’s be clear that this is the very same culture that Wikipedia, Facebook, YouTube, Google and other Silicon Valley firms have willingly embraced and aligned themselves with.

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries.
Dr. Gary Null is the host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on alternative and nutritional health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including Poverty Inc and Deadly Deception.
NOTES

1 https://www.webmd.com/drug-medication/news/20170803/americans-taking-more-prescription-drugs-than-ever-survey
2 https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/nearly-7-in-10-americans-take-prescription-drugs-mayo-clinic-olmsted-medical-center-find/
3 https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.pn.2017.pp9b2
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2684607
4 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2684607
5 Russell, Bertrand. “Icarus or the Future of Science,”
6 https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/goldman-asks-is-curing-patients-a-sustainable-business-model.html
7 Mark Hersgaard On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency
8 Hughes, Austin. “The Folly of Scientism,” The New Atlantis.
9 https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/how-corporations-corrupt-science.pdf
10 https://slate.com/technology/2015/02/fda-inspections-fraud-fabrication-and-scientific-misconduct-are-hidden-from-the-public-and-doctors.html
11 ibid.
12 https://www.propublica.org/article/fda-let-drugs-approved-on-fraudulent-research-stay-on-the-market
13 http://discovermagazine.com/2007/oct/sciences-worst-enemy-private-funding

o1 https://investors.merck.com/news/press-release-details/2019/Mary-Ellen-Coe-Elected-to-Merck-Board-of-Directors/default.aspx

02 https://www.jmir.org/2016/9/e258/