French science writer: "Don't EVER believe ANYTHING you read in the press about medicine"

A French science writer admitted that whenever the pharmaceutical company who pays her has a new drug coming out, she writes a glowing story about it, regardless of the necessity, safety and efficacy of the product.

She then submits her ad disguised as independent journalism (without conflict of interest declaration) to a long list of publications, who are generally happy to get a free story to fill their publication.

NB: The goal of many media organization seems to be provide content as cheaply as possible to readers/listeners/viewers in between the REAL content, which are the advertisements. Even for publications that are funded in other ways, such as through subscriptions, free content helps to keep the costs low and the profit higher.

The science writer says that the other part of her job is to figure out possible competitors to the drug and then trash those, e.g. by spreading misinformation (could be outright lies or framing) about their safety and/or efficacy. If you look at what was done to HCQ ('aquarium cleaner') and ivermectin ('horse paste'), you will have a good clue what she means.

The writer said she's embarrassed about her behavior but did it anyway, because she needed the money.

Why do the pharmaceutical companies insist on Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) as the ONLY valid evidence and the evidence which is strictly required before any measure or medication is approved, regardless if it needs to be authorized and regardless of how safe it is?

The answer is twofold.

First, RCTs can be rather easily manipulated, through design, fraud, manipulation and a whole suite of other tools. The pharmaceutical industry are experts at this. They have been improving their craft of deception for over a century. In fact, RCTs should be called RESULTS Controlled Trials.

Results Controlled Trials are not the scientific method, but The $cience™, i.e. marketing disguised as the scientific method.

NB: RCTs can not only be used to make YOUR product look good (designed to succeed), but also to trash a COMPETING product (designed to fail). They start with the conclusion (your product is good, competing product is bad). Then by magic, the 'trial' 'proves' the conclusion.

Second, RCTs are prohibitively expensive and time-consuming. This means that low-cost competing products, which also tend to be off-patent, thus with little profit, won't be able to afford this research. Also, often universities and other research institutions may be required, who will be loyal to their pharma friends.

Many prominent journals and media will refuse content on off-patent medications for the same reason. The big money coming from big pharma buys loyalty.

SOURCE

Media Bias and the Illusion of Consensus: FLCCC Weekly Update (June 14, 2023)
https://rumble.com/v2ue56g