New England Journal of Medicine: Baden et al

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
February 24, 2022 | 7 Comments


  1. This really does stand out

    “Do you think we erred in publishing the results of a life-saving vaccine because the authors do not wish to share the data they paid to generate?”

    I am sorry that we will not be able to publish your recent letter to the editor regarding the El Sahly article of 04-Feb-2021.  The space available for correspondence is very limited, and we must use our judgment to present a representative selection of the material received.  Many worthwhile communications must be declined for lack of space.
    Thank you for your interest in the Journal.

    Repeat after me

    Dear Mrs. Dressen:

    I am sorry that we will not be able to publish your recent letter to the editor.  The space available for correspondence is very limited, and we must use our judgment to present a representative selection of the material received.  Many worthwhile communications must be declined for lack of space.

    “I am not sure what limits your ability to understand …..

    Covid-19 vaccines: In the rush for regulatory approval, do we need more data?

    Our Censored Journals

    David Healy, MD, FRCPPsych*

    Questions That This Paper Raises

    1. Why are journals apparently unwilling to ensure that publications relating to pharmaceutical products conform to the norms of science in making data available?
    2. Why are academic meetings unwilling to ensure that presentations of pharmaceutical company data conform to the norms of science by making data available?
    3. Do our medical publications still deserve the sobriquet journals or should they be renamed periodicals?
    4. Is it time to rebrand our academic meetings as trade fairs? Even if not entirely given over to marketing, the presence of non-company presentations and material at such meetings helps generate an impression of science that is useful for marketers.
    5. Would the marketing departments of pharmaceutical companies prefer the public at large to think that the real issues center on undeclared conflicts of interest or on the failures of journal editors and academic meeting organizers to ensure that journals and meetings are in fact scientific?

    Dr. Eric Rubin

     “We are never going to learn how safe this vaccine is unless we start giving it.”

    Longo’s way of putting things is jaw-dropping …

  2. It’s a Small World

    Why does Dan Longi refer to the Baden et al report as “the El Sahly article of 04-Feb-2021”?

    Could this be to deflect attention from Lindsey R. Baden, MD? Linsey Baden is the first-named author of this report. Lindsey not only works alongside Dan at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston but is also a Deputy Editor at the New England Journal of Medicine.

    Dan Longi states (above):

    “My interpretation of the “may be available” statement is that interested investigators should contact the authors directly for any requests. It is unfortunate that you find this confusing. I suggest you contact the authors directly”

    It is unfortunate that Dan can’t have a word with Lindsey – who as an author of the article presumably has access to the raw data – to find a solution. Otherwise Lindsey Baden’s role in the NEJM might seem an unsurmountable conflict of interest.

    To quote Dan again (my parenthesis):

    In a perfect [yet small] world, other qualified researchers would have access to deidentified data, a situation which is the norm in the basic science world where my lab operates. But getting there will require the cooperation of researchers and funders and we’re not there yet.”

    Can’t he get his colleague to cooperate?

    • Well spotted. Why El-Sahly? Baden is the first author. This truly is weird. Maybe Long and Baden aren’t on speaking terms and it would stick in his craw to even write the name, even though they both seem Handmaidens (is there a male version of this – perhaps just servants) of Pharma.


  3. Memories

    Data scientists = research parasites?

    Vinay K. Prasad, MD, a noted hematologist-oncologist, was one outspoken critic of Drazen’s editorial. In an interview with Medscape Medical News, Dr. Prasad pilloried the editorial as being “probably the worst editorial written this year in any journal.”

    Dr. Prasad argued that testing another researcher’s data is not a threat. Rather it is what science needs to move forward. He cites the reanalysis of the data from Genentech’s Tamiflu trials which eventually demonstrated Tamiflu is only marginally effective.

    Drazen quickly authored a second editorial which noticeably watered down his criticism of researchers who use data collected by others. “In the process of formulating our policy, we spoke to clinical trialists around the world…Some of them spoke pejoratively in describing data scientists who analyze the data of others…In our view, however, researchers who analyze data collected by others can substantially improve human health,” Drazen wrote. 

    Priggish NEJM Editorial on Data-sharing Misses the Point it Almost Made

    However, by saying that the ‘parasites’ may “use the data to try to disprove what the original investigators had posited”, NEJM has crawled into an unwise hole of infallibility of its own making.

    Are Made Of This…

  4. The main medical journals are another group of organizations that have crossed the Rubicon. No longer are they performing the function for which they were created. Former editor Richard Smith of the BMJ felt frustrated enough that after he retired he wrote an article about it. [1] Having a large part of their income coming from the pharma industrial complex, they only allow the fringes of skeptical debates to appear on their pages now. So realistically, I think it would be unwise to waist too much time communicating with them, if such time could be better spent elsewhere.

    Before getting to Moderna I’ll take a step back. Early in 2020, I watched a live podcast by virologist James Lyons-Weiler discussing with another virologist the surprising number of new mutations the SARS CoV-2 virus had. This lead James to be one of the first to suggest that it had been genetically engineered (built bit by bit) but had changed his mind after finding these sequences already on the Wuhan data base (when it could still be accessed). The main snippet of information I found interesting at the time, was that of all the viral proteins they could have chosen to make a vaccine from, they choose the most pathogenic. This spike protein also had the potential to create problems like autoimmunity and ADE further down the line. [2] As other virologists had also warned about the danger of ADE, I quite expected a lively debate but as soon as the vaccines rolled out, mention of this was only rarely mentioned in the main medical journals and even that was only by a few readers emailing in comments to articles.

    Being something of a beginner in virology I wanted to start at the beginning and understand the problems Professor Bengt Fadeel could foresee back in 2012 about this nano delivery technology and the many hurdles which would have to be overcome before it could be used therapeutically. [3] He is a full Professor of Medical Inflammation Research at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, and Head of the Molecular Toxicology Unit at the Institute of Environmental Medicine, therefore seemed a good source. In the absence of any ‘authoritative’ discussion of this in any of the main journals I had to dive deeper into google scholar and medRxiv.

    This lead to a tin foil hat moment when I found a that a patent expert Dr. David Martin PhD was piecing together together what was already sitting uncomfortably at the back of my mind and being posited by others outside of the MSM and main medical journals. He sounded very convincing and over the last year others have been taking note. This brings us back to Moderna. This and other pharmaceutical companies that use the same licenced nano-lipid technology are all inter connected by other patents too and in a worrying way.
    Make up your own mind about Moderna and the other vaccine makers by watching or reading the transcript of David Martin giving testimony at the German Corona Inquiry Committee. He covers so many things that it is difficult to sum it up in a sentence. The other references I have placed here is just to be thorough, so need not be read by you but I do urge you to watch David’s testimony as it serves as the main reason for writing this my post. [4]

    David E. Martin testifies at the German Corona Inquiry Committee July 9th, 2021

    This was in July. Since August, Moderna shares have been steadily declining (despite a $ 1 Bn share buyback starting August 2021) as if the big investors have sensed something is amiss or it could be as Moderna’s CEO says that they over estimated their sales projections but that seems some over estimate. Click for the 1Y graph top right)
    On 21 February 2022 a research team published in Frontiers in Virology a hypothesis pointing out the unlikely match between a sequence of spike protein and Moderna’s own patent US patent 9,587003
    “Conventional biostatistical analysis indicates that the probability of this sequence randomly being present in a 30,000-nucleotide viral genome is 3.21 ×10−11” they comment. [5]

    I imagine getting down into this level of detail for many would be boring. However, I thought I would add this paper for those whom would like to, as Dr Mobeen Syed M.D, MS (who teaches medical students and thus explain things very clearly) has recently given his unbiased views in very easy to understand way regarding this new hypothesis concerning Moderna’s patent which predates the pandemic and its uncanny match with this ‘novel’ SARS CoV-2 virus.
    Mobeen Syed. Spike Genes Have Patented DNA Sequences. This is Dangerous.


    [1] Smith R (2005) Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies. PLoS Med 2(5): e138.

    [2] Pathogenic priming likely contributes to serious and critical illness and mortality in COVID-19 via autoimmunity

    [3] Bengt Fadeel (June 2012) Clear and present danger? Engineered nanoparticles and the immune system
    Swiss medical weekly: official journal of the Swiss Society of Infectious Diseases, the Swiss Society of Internal Medicine, the Swiss Society of Pneumology 142:w13609

    [4] David E. Martin (July 9th, 2021) testifies at the German Corona Inquiry Committee

    [5] Ambati BK, Varshney A, Lundstrom K, Palú G, Uhal BD, Uversky VN and Brufsky AM (2022) MSH3 Homology and Potential Recombination Link to SARS-CoV-2 Furin Cleavage Site. Front. Virol. 2:834808. doi: 10.3389/fviro.2022.834808

    [6] Mobeen Syed. Spike Genes Have Patented DNA Sequences. This is Dangerous.

  5. Over on DavidHealy, the injuries in vaccine trials post has led to a marvellous new concept that seems completely appropriate here



    Addressing Vaccine Inequity — Covid-19 Vaccines as a Global Public Good – NEMJ Editorial 23 Feb 2022

    “And a new challenge to the global vaccine supply has emerged: data from multiple in vitro and real-world studies published in the Journal have shown that antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 wane over a matter of months after vaccination, findings that underscore the need for a booster to restore high antibody levels both to reduce infection with new variants and to minimize hospitalization and death.5 In developed countries, the rapid emergence of the omicron variant has increased the urgency of these booster doses. Israel, a front-runner in providing booster doses, is now testing the efficacy of yet a fourth vaccine dose, and further boosters and redesigned vaccines are likely to be needed over time.”

    Written by ALL the usual suspects

    David J. Hunter, F.Med.Sci.,
    Salim S. Abdool Karim, M.B., Ch.B., Ph.D.,
    Lindsey R. Baden, M.D.,
    Jeremy J. Farrar, M.D., Ph.D.,
    Mary Beth Hamel, M.D., M.P.H.,
    Dan L. Longo, M.D.,
    Stephen Morrissey, Ph.D., and
    Eric J. Rubin, M.D., Ph.D.

    United they may stand but how can this gang claim credibility and editorial independence when they ALL have such a pro-vaccine stance. Divided they will fall; and the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

Leave a Reply