Anyone who has taken an interest in the dark side of the profit-driven pharmaceutical industry is most probably familiar with the name of Danish Professor Emeritus of Medicine Peter Christian Gøtzsche. Gøtzsche can be regarded as one of the greatest figures of evidence-based medicine of our time. There are probably not many people in the world who know and understand the pharmaceutical industry, clinical trials, the regulatory oversight of medicines and the whole system surrounding the field better than Gøtzsche. He holds Master’s degrees in chemistry and biology. He started his career at the Astra Group and continued in Astra-Syntex, a joint venture between the Swedish pharmaceutical company Astra and the U.S. pharmaceutical company Syntex. Astra is the same company that later merged with the British Zeneca group in 1999, so the first half of the AstraZeneca name is its direct descendant. At Astra-Syntex, Gøtzsche established a medical department responsible for conducting clinical trials and submitting applications for the registration of new medicines.
“My employment in the drug industry when I had been educated as a biologist and knew very little about drugs, opened my eyes quickly to all the fraud I observed in clinical research and marketing. Healthcare is much more corrupt than people think, and industry money goes everywhere, to politicians, medical journals, newspapers, other media, etc.,” Gøtzsche comments in an interview with Freedom Research.
Co-founder of Cochrane
While working at Astra-Syntex, Gøtzsche also started pursuing a medical degree and became a specialist in internal medicine. His thesis, written after he left the pharmaceutical company, examined the claims of clinical trials for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, a group that includes ibuprofen and aspirin, and showed their bias. Gøtzsche also strongly criticised the marketing practices of his former employer, Astra-Syntex, pointing out that no good evidence existed for their claim that the higher the dose, the better the effect. After leaving the pharmaceutical company, he worked at hospitals in Copenhagen, the capital of his native Denmark.
In 1993, Gøtzsche was one of the co-founders of Cochrane Collaboration and founder of the Nordic Cochrane Centre. These are organisations whose aim is, via analyses of medical research, to help health professionals, patients and policymakers make evidence-based health decisions. Cochrane’s meta-analyses, which show what dozens and sometimes hundreds or more studies conclude about a treatment, a medical problem or a medical intervention, are considered the gold standard in the field. The network has currently thousands of members from 190 countries around the world. In fact, many of Cochrane’s best-known conclusions – for example, that the placebo effect may in fact be a myth, or that mammography is unlikely to reduce breast cancer mortality and turns healthy women into cancer patients because of overdiagnosis – come from Gøtzsche’s research.
In 2010, Gøtzsche became a Professor of Clinical Research Design and Analysis at the University of Copenhagen. He has published more than 100 papers in the world’s five leading medical journals, including the British Medical Journal (BMJ), the Lancet and JAMA. He has also been one of the most influential medical voices in the media for the past many years, exposing and criticising the oftentimes dishonest and corrupt working practices of large pharmaceutical companies.
“Much of what the drug industry does fulfills the criteria for organised crime”
Gøtzsche has also written several books on this dark side of the pharmaceutical industry. His most widely acclaimed book to date is Deadly medicines and organised crime: How big pharma has corrupted health care. It is a painful read that describes how large pharmaceutical companies systematically buy off doctors and scientists as well as officials in regulatory agencies responsible for allowing drugs on the market and making sure they are safe. Or, alternatively, the drug companies are simply so intertwined with these agencies through the ‘revolving door’ phenomenon, whereby specialists and senior managers working in regulatory agencies are offered high paying jobs in drug companies, that the whole system becomes corrupt. Recruiting former officials also allows the finding and exploiting of loopholes in the regulatory system by the very people who helped build it and have valuable personal contacts there. “Much of what the drug industry does fulfills the criteria for organised crime in the U.S. law. And they behave in many ways like the mafia does. They corrupt everyone they can corrupt. They have bought up every type of person, even including Ministers of Health in some countries. So there is a huge amount of corruption,” Gøtzsche has said.
The result is a situation in which clinical trials of drugs are carried out in a sloppy, shoddy and flawed way, sometimes illegally, and with no regard for the health – or lives – of the subjects. But even if the trials follow the rulebook, it is important to note they have anyhow lost much of their meaning, being a priori designed to show the drugs to be effective, and hence, as Gøtzsche has highlighted in his book, very few patients actually benefit from the drugs that are recommended to them. He has a simple example of this in his book in the case of antidepressants. When antidepressants are prescribed to patients suffering from depression, 60% of them report feeling better after six weeks. Yet half of those given a placebo say the same in the same time period. Gøtzsche also points out though that this is not even a case of a placebo effect, since if one leaves the patients untreated and talks to them again when six weeks have passed, many of them will have recovered, or in other words, the illness will have simply run its natural course. Antidepressants do not have clinically meaningful benefits and they double the risk of suicide, says Gøtzsche.
As medicines always have side-effects, i.e., they potentially do harm to the patient instead of good, it is quite natural that any intervention with medicines should always be carefully considered. However, the interests of the pharmaceutical companies are at odds with this, because their aim is to maximise the profits from the sale of their products. “Drug regulation is hugely dysfunctional. If it worked as intended, our drugs would not be the leading cause of death, which I have documented they are,” Gøtzsche writes to us. While back in 2013 he estimated that drugs were the third leading cause of death, he has now concluded in his recent article that they are the leading cause, ahead of heart disease and cancer.
Expelled from Cochrane because of criticism
In the autumn of 2018, his vocal criticism also brought him a personal setback – Gøtzsche was forced to resign from the board of Cochrane by a narrow majority. A few months earlier, he and colleagues had analysed a Cochrane review on the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which had found that the vaccine was effective and had no risks of serious side-effects. An analysis by Gøtzsche and colleagues showed that the Cochrane review was incomplete and ignored important evidence of bias. Similarly, Gøtzsche had previously criticised the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which had already said in 2015 that the HPV vaccine did not cause complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) or postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) in young women. The issue had been raised with the EMA by the Danish Health and Medicines Authorities, and Danish doctor Louise Brinth submitted a comprehensive response to the EMA’s decision, and Gøtzsche supported this criticism. Neither the EMA nor Cochrane were up to the task in Gøtzsche’s view and turned a blind eye to the serious side-effects of the HPV vaccine. The real reason, however, for his expulsion from Cochrane was not his criticism of the Cochrane HPV vaccine review but of psychiatric drugs, he explains to us. Psychiatric drugs alone are the third leading cause of death, he says.
Commenting on expelling Gøtzsche, Cochrane cited “the Governing Board’s decision” “based on an ongoing, consistent pattern of disruptive and inappropriate behaviours by Professor Gøtzsche, taking place over a number of years, which undermined this culture and were detrimental to the charity’s work, reputation and members”. They also mentioned that he had erred against the organisation’s spokesperson policy, which requires spokespersons to clearly identify whether they are speaking on behalf of themselves or Cochrane. Gøtzsche writes in an email that he has documented that these allegations are untruthful in two books (e.g. see The decline and fall of the Cochrane empire). A documentary about Cochrane’s moral downfall is also under way, he says. To Undark Gøtzsche has commented that Cochrane is now bending to industry influence and overlooking important documentation of harms. He said the organisation has become “a servant to industry, which passively promotes what industry wants Cochrane to promote: messages that are very often untrue”.
Criticism of Covid policies
Of course, Gøtzsche was also vocal in his criticism of the policies used in the Covid pandemic, and rushing the Covid vaccines onto the market under emergency rules and without proper safety trials. Whistleblowers have subsequently described in detail the shoddy and sloppy way in which these trials were conducted, including the falsification of data. Adverse reactions to the vaccines were not properly addressed and often not properly documented. At the same time, the pharmaceutical companies, the national regulators who authorised the drugs on the market, and, in their wake, most of the press, repeated that the vaccines were safe and effective.
However, as is now well known, these vaccines are associated with very serious side-effects that can cause permanent injury and even death to people. Gøtzsche’s work has also demonstrated the seriousness of this problem. He points out that when an Associate Professor at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy and senior editor at the BMJ, Peter Doshi and colleagues reanalysed the pivotal mRNA trials, they found that one serious adverse event occurred for every 800 people vaccinated with the vaccine. “Drug companies behaved during Covid as they always do, published flawed clinical trials in major journals of the vaccines,” Gøtzsche comments to us now, with hindsight.
Gøtzsche, along with several other doctors and scientists, was also among the authors of a public letter published in December 2021 in the medical journal BMJ, opposing vaccine mandates, i.e., directly or indirectly forcing people to vaccinate. The letter stated that there is no evidence-based argument in favour of those mandates. “However, there is considerable uncertainty about the effectiveness of the Covid vaccines, some serious short-term complications, and a lack of data on long-term harms. In this situation, it is imperative that people are able to make a fully-informed choice about whether to have the vaccine or not,” the authors of the letter noted at the time.
However, Gøtzsche considers the most damaging Covid policy to be the lockdowns. “The lockdowns were the most damaging aspect of the Covid pandemic. Sweden did not lock down and had one of the lowest excess mortalities in the world. They did the right thing and were heavily criticised for it,” he notes. Gøtzsche has discussed the question more elaborately with the former Harvard Medical School Professor of Medicine and one of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration Martin Kulldorff here.
Founder of The Institute for Scientific Freedom
In January 2019, Gøtzsche founded The Institute for Scientific Freedom. According to the institute’s website:
Democracy, scientific freedom and freedom of speech are constantly under attack because of financial, political, religious and other special interests. These essential values get eroded if we do not constantly work on preserving them. Censorship of science is common. Unwelcome research results are often published with considerable delay, if at all, and often only after the researchers have modified their results or conclusions to accommodate the interests of sponsors or peers. Self-censorship is also common. Researchers may fear losing funding if they report honestly what they found, or they might never embark on science that is likely to lead to unwelcome results. It is far easier to get funding for main-stream projects that run no risk of changing the status quo than for innovative projects that might be of great public benefit. … Research that threatens industry’s profits is being shut down and censored.
Gøtzsche adds, describing his institute’s mission, that it was during the Covid pandemic that the restriction of scientific freedom and freedom of expression manifested itself on an unprecedented scale. “Freedom of research and speech have been seriously limited during the Covid pandemic. I work to make people aware that we are approaching a situation that reminds me of the Middle Ages where the King approved or rejected new books,” he comments.
First published by Freedom Research. Subscribe here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
You had the editors of The Lanet and the BMJ saying five years ago that published results could not be trusted and they were looking backwards. That is before ven looking at the history of this industry. Thankfully more people are looking at this than ever. The very notion of health beiong the absence of a pathogen is itself completely absrd on many levels. As he says the consewuences of the lockdowns will never be addressed. Children were already in a hypersensitised state and they lost a few years of their development for nothing. Not to mention that it was the biggest transfer of wealth upwards in history with the billionaires becoming 40 percent richer while the rest of us became 40 percent poorer. Look at the numbers there is an exact match. England adopts a more conformist view than most countries. Given that two thirs of England is slum country I doubt that there will be a reaction.
See also the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee concerns on research integrity.
For example, from a 2018 report:
Curious then that a lightning-fast experimental product roll-out would be so readily accepted.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmsctech/350/350.pdf
I only discovered genuine healthcare and the nature of health itself through my own efforts. If I had stuck to the system it would’ve weakened me. Bear in minf the wholeness, health, holiness all have the same stem. If you know nothing of other realms then how can you possibly oppose the enemy.
All that crap that the dentists put in your mouth. It is hard to admit that we just went along with an industry.
How many ineterventions have you come across in the course of your life that acutally cure something once and for all. Because of course that would be the highest medical ideal. The answer is zero. There is no search for that, merely for symptomatic relief or short term alleviation, Tell me one drug other than antiobiotics that deals with a condition forever. I will keep you sick and desparate and ill-informed and you become the perfect customer. If you understand the predatory nature of things then this should be no great surprise.
TS Eliot said that mankind cannot bear very much reality. I don’t doubt it, Either you are up for it or you aren’t in terms of your own spirit. There is nothing to say or teach. Those of us who fight on might be looked on as animals. Doesn;t matter. I still hold this country dear. You either have a bit of spunk and enthusiasm or you don’t that is your business.
I suffered to get to the opinion I now hold.
It wasn’t pleasant: I got into disputes with friends; people treated me like I was crazy; I fell out with my family.
It took effort and research. I read much more than I actually believed. There’s a fuzzy boundary around what I know, what I’m fairly sure about, what I’m concerned might be true, etc. When speaking to others, I’ve tried to stick to what I can prove. My credibility matters to me, not in how other people think of me, but on whether my internal logic and mental model is as complete and coherent as I can make it. If people drop me, they weren’t my friends.
It could have been less stressful if I’d gone along with it all like most others did. I’ve always forged my own way, never worried if my opinions differed from others, and I’ve always disliked the current fads. But my career history has been built on disbelieving what I’m told and this fits my temperament. I think I may have suffered more if I’d overlooked the inconsistencies and lies.
If there is one area of pharmacology that I think has been massively manipulated into becoming an extremely lucrative industry it is that of psychiatric medicine, because it very effectively creates Big Pharma customers for life and it medicalizes perfectly normal emotions and pathologizes behaviours. I’ve lost count of the amount of people I’ve known ( and still know ) personally and professionally who have been started off on either antidepressants, mood stabilizers or antipsychotics, they’ve tried to get off of them and they just can’t. The withdrawals are way worse than the problems they were presenting to the doctor with in the first place. These things alter the chemistry of the brain, you become addicted/dependent, experience all manner of unpleasant physical and mental side effects and it becomes a serious struggle to get off these meds, oftentimes people never do.
”A patient cured is a customer lost”, as they say.
I’d recommend reading anything by Dr Peter Breggin or Robert Whitaker ( medical journalist: ‘Mad In America’ ), the latter is all over You Tube, and he does excellent talks on this particular topic. A small segment ( 7mins ) from one such presentation;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao3kHmjuZj8&ab_channel=TheRealTruthAboutHealth
I’m pretty sure that the reason more and more people are being put on antidepressants, or medication for other psychiatric conditions, is that the diagnostic criterion for these condition has been massively reduced due to lobbying from drug companies to make it look like more people have a mental health problem and need medication. As an example most people at some point in their lives will face redundancy, relationship breakdown etc. that makes them feel pretty low and negative about the future. At what point do these normal feelings cross the line and become clinical depression? Obviously if the line is moved more people will be diagnosed with depression and prescribed medication thus boosting the profits of big pharma.
If it’s more corrupt than I think, then it’s really baaaad…
Off-T
https://www.globalresearch.ca/bill-gates-wants-block-off-sun/5857121
Billy adds another string to his bow. He has decided to take on the sun.
Off topic but I’ve heard that the Slovakian president has been shot !! ?
Soz The Prime Minister !!!…
Correct.
Fishy sent his Best Wishes. That should help.
He was a critic of the jab and Ukraine war, so lots of enemies in the West then!
A fascinating article by Hannes Sarv about that courageous Danish Professor Gotzsche standing up for truth and justice, trying to warn the world. I’m glad he wasn’t hounded out of his profession and even his own country like the heroic Dr. Andrew Wakefield was by a so-called journalist backed by Big Pharma and the medical profession.
The medical profession did the same thing to the great Hungarian obstetrician, Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, to their everlasting shame. History has exonerated Dr. Semmelweis, as it will also exonerate Dr. Wakefield.
On a semi-related topic which might have been posted already: there’s an interesting New Yorker article on Lucy Letby that is blocked in the UK. David Davis has raised this in Parliament.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it
404
Yes you’ll need to jump through usual hoops to get it.
403 would be more appropriate.
Thanks for that interesting information, which MP David Davis is right to raise. The weird thing about her conviction is that the Ethnic Indian Tamil Brahmin caste doctor in charge was called a “hero” for raising suspicions about her, denouncing her to others, and saying he saw her near one baby who later collapsed, which she denied. All possible blame was deflected away from himself.
I hope the “hero” Tamil Dr. Ravi Jayaram will himself be investigated, to make absolutely sure that justice has been done. After the scandal of the 1400 Rotherham children raped by Pakistani Muslims while police turned a blind eye for fear of being accused of “racism”, I hope that “lessons have been learned”, and police investigations in future will be thoroughly professional and fearless with regard to any such false or political accusations against them.
There is a strong bias that nobody seems to talk about. Medical symptoms come and go naturally, and it is natural to try an intervention when symptoms are severe, then the symptoms improve, but this will often be the natural variability rather than the intervention.
Downtickers are unusually busy on this.
Almost as though a cohort of bigpharma has suddenly found us. Can’t have us praising an honest and honourable expert medic can we.
Cochrane used to be honest
Now it’s as corrupted as most.