
Bad theory or bad data?
The 40-Year suppression of the results of the huge Minnesota Coronary Experiment
Critical analysis of corrupt science.
Subscribe:.rss.atom.json.md.m3u.pls
Overdue Last read · last published · next check
Last read 4 days ago, longer than this feed's 2 days schedule.
Saves to your Listen queue, to pick up on another day or another device.

The 40-Year suppression of the results of the huge Minnesota Coronary Experiment

I’ve written a few articles in which I have discussed the futility - or even dangers - inherent in attempting to predict and / or control the complex systems which govern our lives.

Resigning FDA advisors: "the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history".

The idea that it might be is going mainstream, and the same analysis applies to many "conditions".

I recently published an article which simply reproduced quotes from four former editors of top medical journals:

Guidance to make them ill, as well as guidance to kill.
“….the specific report you are referencing does not exist”

What over a million confidence intervals tell us about scientific integrity

Note 1.

Substitute pill for jab, and the headlines below (from 2004 / 2005) are indistinguishable from those referring to Ozempic and its sibling GLP-1 agonist injections:

I have a few longer articles currently in draft form, but I thought I’d get a quickie - largely the product of Gemini - out there.