Skip to content

Thorp: Medical Journal Bias and Pharma Capture

Day 3 · 4:53:38 · James Thorp

  • 📰 Thorp argues mainstream media absence mirrors publication bias, with ~15,000 journals mostly owned by five companies that retract dissenting papers.
  • 💰 Editors-in-chief of NEJM, Lancet and BMJ have long admitted entanglement with pharma; reviewers of top journals received $1.06 billion in payments.
  • 🏦 He cites apparent HHS funneling of $426,000 via Massachusetts entities to NEJM as evidence of captured narrative control.

Opening presentation on why peer-reviewed literature and AI outputs are biased.

← Dr. James Thorp Sworn: Credentials in Maternal-Fetal Medicine | Thorp: Miscarriage Data and NEJM Study Flaws →

Transcript

James Thorp · 4:53:38

Thank you very much, Councillor Attorney Shawn Buckley, and thank you so much, Chairperson Dean Allison the, and thank you for all of the other Members of Parliament. It's an honor and a privilege for me to be here. What I'd like to accomplish today is to focus on some of the discrepancy between the published medical literature and that of fact-checkers and the bias of the medical literature and why that exists. So I'm, I'm really grateful to see that I— by my count, there's about 16 alternate media sites covering this. And thank you for each of you for, for being here. But, um, what's really missing is where's all the legacy media?

James Thorp · 4:54:43

Where's the mainstream media? I don't see them. It's a very similar situation with regard to the mainstream media not being present here and the medical literature and the bias of the medical literature. The mainstream media is ignoring this event. I believe that this event is— and that event of Senator Ron Johnson in the United States of America. I believe, it's my opinion, that this is, this is one of the most important hearings in the history of Canada, and Senator Ron Johnson's, in the history of the United States of America, because this has been the most egregious medical disaster in the history of, of medicine. So, so why is that? I want to say, if you go on AI ChatGPT, or if you go on Grok, you say, hey, what's the effects?

James Thorp · 4:55:53

What's the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine in pregnancy? You're going to get about 100 articles that say it's safe and effective. 100 Articles in peer-reviewed medical journals. Interestingly, not one of those will cite the data that I'm about to present to you. So medical journal publication bias, why does it exist? Well, let's start from the top. There's about 15,000 peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. The vast majority of these are owned by 5 companies. The rest, medical organizations, universities, Private companies, private companies like the New England Journal of Medicine. So in other words, these institutions that are— I'll show you— terminally captured, they have the power to determine what is published, what is not published, and if it does get through the publication process into the journals, it'll get retracted if it's against their narrative.

James Thorp · 4:57:05

And to prove that, you can go to retractionwatch.com, and you'll see over the last 20 years the number of journal articles retracted was very linear, very linear. Before the pandemic, there was a logarithmic increase in the number of retractions. For example, Dr. Peter McCullough's article on autopsy proven causes that the COVID-19 vaccine killed individual, autopsy proven, retracted. So there's a lot of bias here, and that's got to be acknowledged. The four most influential medical journals in the world— New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, British Medical Journal, and Journal of the American Medical Association— probably in that order. Now I want you to focus on this slide because this slide is self-evident and it really is convicting.

James Thorp · 4:58:15

It is a conviction and testimony of the major editors-in-chief of these journals. Who testify, who go on record, editors-in-chief of their own journal, the New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Marshall Angel, Dr. Arnold Relman. And I'll paraphrase them, but you can read what they've said. This is a quarter of a century ago that basically New England Journal of Medicine is terminally kleptocratically entangled with the pharmaceutical industry. And medical device companies. That's editors-in-chiefs of the New England Journal of Medicine. It's not Jim Thorpe. It's, it's not others. It's their own top brass. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, same sentiments. And then you have 3 high-ranking officers of the British Medical Journal.

James Thorp · 4:59:16

You have Fiona Godlee, former editor-in-chief. Richard Smith, former editor-in-chief, and you also have Doug Altman, chief statistical officer for the, for the British Medical Journal. These are the top 3 most influential medical journals in the world. So if they're— this is 25 years ago, it's gotten a lot worse since then, and I'll show you that. By the way, this would be equivalent to Let's say the CNN or Fox News or MSNBC, their CEOs coming out and saying, oh, everything we're published is horribly biased and is fraudulent. That, that's basically what it would be roughly equivalent to. It's gotten worse. This is a quarter of a century ago. This is just not even 2 years ago. This is published to their credit in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

James Thorp · 5:00:16

David Dan Nguyen and colleagues. This is October 10th of 2020, and what these authors published is nothing short than astounding. Excuse me. What they published just 2 years ago is that they looked at the main reviewers, medical journal reviewers like I was, Um, for the four major medical journals that I've described, the four major medical journals— BMJ, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and the Journal of the American Medical Association— and they match their primary reviewers with private pay databases in the United States of America. So this is just four medical journals Just the United States of America, just 2 years, uh, 3 years, 2020, 2021, and 2022.

James Thorp · 5:01:16

These allegedly private, uh, independent reviewers, they were paid $1.06 billion from the pharmaceutical companies. This is, this is, uh, a, a horrible conflict of interest. And, and how can we How can we trust this peer review process? I mentioned that I've reviewed— I was a journal reviewer for multiple different journals my entire career. I've never received a dime. So this is really concerning. But it gets worse. It gets much worse. Not only are the independent— allegedly independent reviewers not independent, they're paid off by Big Pharma and device manufacturers, but the journal editors themselves are also paid off. Look at the mean payment, $37,000. That's not chump change.

James Thorp · 5:02:17

So they're all paid off, they're incentivized. So what can you believe? You go to ChatGPT, it's no wonder you go to ChatGPT and you get an extremely biased review. Because any AI will only generate articles from peer-reviewed publications. This is even worse. This is published in one of our papers, uh, co-authors, uh, prominent co-authors who you recognize. And I, I have to acknowledge attorney Maggie Thorpe, JD, for pulling this up. But this sure Looks like money laundering to me through Rochelle Walensky and Janet Woodcock at the HHS. Appears to be funneling money through the Massachusetts Department of Health, through the Massachusetts Medical Society, which is a private organization which, by the way, owns the New England Journal of Medicine.

James Thorp · 5:03:21

$426,000. For what reason? What? Wait a minute. Why is a government organization paying the New England Journal of Medicine $426,000? Well, I'll tell you why on subsequent slides. It's very clear that the government needed a mouthpiece to the most influential medical journal in the world. This is the way medical journal writing works. It's corrupt. I've detailed here in the slide just 12 levels, hierarchical levels, of medical journal bias. It's atrocious. Let me give you a personal example. If essentially every institution, academic center in Canada and in the United States of America have protocol for authorship.

James Thorp · 5:04:22

Any doctor in that system or researcher is not allowed to submit anything for publication unless it's approved by their department chair, their division director, or the director of research of that institution. Well, guess what? They're never allowed to publish something that goes against this current protocol of these hospitals, which is pushing the COVID-19 vaccine not only in all their employees and their patients, but their pregnant women. So they would never allow that to be published. So is it any wonder? And to attest to this, exactly why I was fired from SSM Health hospital because I testified in the United States Senate. I was on Tucker Carlson before he was fired from Fox News. I probably contributed to that since he interviewed me.

James Thorp · 5:05:24

Um, and of course Fox News gains their revenue, huge amount of revenue from the pharmaceutical advertising. So that's not tenable. You can't do that. So I was fired for the same reason. From SSM Health Hospital. Now there's— we alluded to this earlier— there's the corruption goes much beyond this. I've listened in tears here listening to some of the witnesses here. It's horrible. Many of these witnesses had their COVID-19 vaccine and their adverse events within 2 weeks of the vaccine. Guess what? Canada, your databases, your societies, your hospitals, American, mine, they counted those individuals that were killed or injured by the vaccine, they counted them as unvaccinated until 2 weeks after the vaccine, some cases 3 weeks.

James Thorp · 5:06:26

Horrible.