As a board-certified subspecialist in practice for over 30 years, I have witnessed the corrosive effects of pharma’s influence over clinical medicine. It is as bad as Dr. Wojak says.
I wrote an article back in December on this very subject. People are totally unaware of how corrupt and bereft of scientific integrity the medical industry really is. You cannot trust a word they say.
See my article The Medical Profession is a Cesspool of Fraud, greed, Corruption and Bad Science.
Excellent post. For me as a practicing physician and psychiatrist, the bad news is that I can trust nothing that is printed in journals about pharmaceuticals. Nothing! The good news is that the malfeasance you describe motivates me and others to provide "alternative," non-pharmaceutical treatments that are safe and effective and which, because they are non-patentable and therefore unprofitable to use, can prompt (one hopes) more honest studies of their effects.
Most of these people should also be tried for GENOCIDE and duly executed. Them and medias like Fox News and CNN journalists which indeed promote and promoted the biggest mass murder in humanity.
Not endorsing everything the people I quote say—just highlighting quotes from insiders and authority figures that challenge mainstream medical narratives. Given many people worship credentials, I’ll use their own high priests to expose the cracks.
Excellent review! I'm reminded of the Mark Twain quote, "those who don't read the papers are uninformed; those who do read the papers are misinformed."
This is the current sad state of affairs in medical literature. Reading journals is a waste of time. You are much better off reading medical textbooks, the older the better.
I’m so tired of this reflexive contrarianism that paints every researcher as corrupt, every study as bought, and every journal as a mouthpiece for pharma. It’s lazy and dangerous.
Yes, there are real problems in academic publishing. Bias exists. Industry influence needs to be fixed. But the vast majority of researchers are not chasing fame or cash. They are trying to answer difficult questions, and many are underfunded, underpaid, and overworked. Articles like this contribute to their burnout.
And if you’re going to tear the whole system down, fine. But at least offer a solution. What do you suggest instead? YouTube? Substack threads from people with people peddling miracle cures?
We should absolutely push for better science, more transparency, and higher standards. But writing off the entire scientific process because it’s imperfect does nothing to protect patients. It only leaves them more vulnerable to misinformation.
Critique is essential, but this just cynicism without a path forward.
Pointing out systemic corruption doesn’t mean I believe every individual within the system is corrupt.
I do offer a solution in the article—under the section titled “What Real Peer Review Looks Like”:
"Real peer review isn’t a behind-the-scenes approval process run by nameless gatekeepers in industry-captured journals.
Real peer review happens out in the open—on platforms like Substack, X, independent blogs, and open-access journals—where anyone can read, critique, and engage with the material directly. No anonymous panels or backroom deals.
More researchers are publishing in open-access and preprint journals, where findings are freely available and subject to public scrutiny. There’s also growing pressure on institutions to publish all results, including negative ones—not just the ones that serve commercial interests.
Unlike the corrupt medical journals propped up by pharmaceutical money, real peer review is decentralized and transparent. It thrives where ideas rise or fall based on merit, not brand-name journals or insider networks."
You’re tired? Tired of seeing your industry attacked?
Take a deep breath and acknowledge that you’re taking this personally while missing the big picture. This isn’t about any one researcher getting rich or one study conducted fraudulently.
This is about the systemic real world harm of an entire medical and scientific community that is structured to benefit corporate interests at the expense of humans.
The harms starts in útero, continues before the newborn baby leaves the hospital, then is continued at almost every childhood we’ll visit.
The harms are real. Life long autoimmunity, cancer, autism, ADHD, allergy and most mental health disorders have their roots in the very medicine and science you defend.
Yes. I am saying the cure is the biggest part of the chronic disease problem.
Although disease origin is multi factorial, the biggest contributor to disease is medicine and science.
Then you should do a better job policing yourselves. Your process and institutions are undermining their own credibility. It’s your problem and their problem not that of those bringing it to light. Besides outright dishonesty and continuing marketing and propaganda, the reason it remains is that we all participate in it- we go to the doctor, we take the drugs or treatments, we want to believe because the alternative, even if it is reality is too disturbing for most of us, although having some disastrous medical experiences will foster distrust and healthy skepticism.
I can tell something made you lose trust, and I’m sorry for whatever that was.
The system isn’t perfect, but it’s made up of people—real people—most of them doing their best. I work with them every day. Doctors, nurses, scientists, researchers… they care deeply about their patients.
If you believe we’re all part of some grand plan to cause harm, I think something in you is still hurting. And I really do hope that one day you find some peace in all of this.
You state “i can tell something made you lose trust…” as if this is merely a personal reaction to a unique event.
That is not the case. What we are describing is a feature not a bug. The entire medical system is designed to cause more harm than benefit except perhaps acute care.
Although there may be some triggering event that causes any one of us to question the system, it’s not that event that drives us to write comment posts on Substack.
It’s learning that the system is designed to create chronic desease, not cure.
The total capture and corruption isn’t unique to medicine. It’s everywhere.
And because that capture and corruption is top-down, you will always find real people doing their best in all fields.
In no way does anyone believe that all are part of the plan to cause harm, but by maintaining the captured and corrupted system, you guarantee the continuation of real harm to real people.
The only viable solution is to remove yourself from the captured and corrupted system. The people who are being harmed as well as the people who are inadvertently contributing to that harm.
“If you believe we’re all part of some grand plan to cause harm,…..”
No, simply you are useful pawns for the financial predator class. If you honestly believe your profession saved lots of lives during COVID despite horrifically inappropriate protocols….your cognitive dissonance is at a frightening level.
I’m not here to defend a broken system. I am not naive to its flaws. But that’s not why I do this.
I’m here to serve God by caring for the sick, easing suffering, and showing up with compassion, even for those who do not trust the system.
If you want to villainize doctors, that’s your choice.
If you want to help, start by seeing the humanity in the people who are still showing up every day to do this work. Offer something constructive. Share a path forward.
I appreciate the response, but what you’re describing isn’t peer review. It’s open discussion. That can be valuable, but it’s not the same as rigorous scientific review by people trained to evaluate data, methods, and bias.
Substack and X are great for conversation, not for validating evidence. As a physician, I need to make decisions that affect people’s lives. I can’t rely on comment threads or opinions. I need data that’s been through a structured process.
Let’s push for more transparency and better systems.
The problem is that the structured process you’re referring to has been captured and doesn't function as a reliable filter for truth.
What people call "rigorous peer review” often amounts to anonymous insiders gatekeeping dissenting views, protecting industry interests, and rewarding conformity.
Open, transparent critique by a range of independent thinkers isn’t a replacement for rigor. It is rigor. And it’s often more honest, because it’s not bound by the perverse incentives that plague institutional science.
Not every Substack article or thread on X is high quality, but the same is true of what's published journals. The difference is: when science happens out in the open, everyone can see the debate play out. The process becomes visible, challengeable, and accountable.
So yes, I agree we should push for more transparency and better systems—not more gatekeeping disguised as rigor.
Your inability to read this article and parse the core issue is symptomatic of the exact issue being discussed. You are probably desensitized like many in your profession by the suffocating hypocrisy of your professions alleged oath and its unethical and at times criminal practices. Finance has castrated the ability of doctors to practice good medicine. You have what appears to be that unearned sense of entitlement by referring in a patronizing tone the comments in substack and discussion as woefully inadequate substitutes of “official corrupted science”. Aware patients are becoming their own advocates as the profession you reside in demonstrated an unfathomable amount of complicity and a lack of immunological education to excuse. The trust has almost vanished and deservedly so.
As a board-certified subspecialist in practice for over 30 years, I have witnessed the corrosive effects of pharma’s influence over clinical medicine. It is as bad as Dr. Wojak says.
I wrote an article back in December on this very subject. People are totally unaware of how corrupt and bereft of scientific integrity the medical industry really is. You cannot trust a word they say.
See my article The Medical Profession is a Cesspool of Fraud, greed, Corruption and Bad Science.
https://stephenmcmurray.substack.com/p/the-medical-profession-is-a-cesspool
Your article looks fantastic. Thanks for sharing. I'll give it a proper read later.
This should be required reading for every student of every age, beginning in high school. This is not widely understood and it should be.
Excellent post. For me as a practicing physician and psychiatrist, the bad news is that I can trust nothing that is printed in journals about pharmaceuticals. Nothing! The good news is that the malfeasance you describe motivates me and others to provide "alternative," non-pharmaceutical treatments that are safe and effective and which, because they are non-patentable and therefore unprofitable to use, can prompt (one hopes) more honest studies of their effects.
Journal articles are propaganda tools used by the medical system to maintain the interests of their own groups.
Fantastic article! Would you be interested in recording a podcast with me on this topic? Thank you
Thank you very much for the invite—unfortunately I won't be able to do a podcast anytime soon. Maybe at some point in the future
I got in said doctors face saying this is bullshit but you can't say that, to which he said, can't fight it, needless to say that doctor is dead 2me
Forget About It! Peer is Piss! Med Experts are Puppets! Patients are Pussies!
Most of these people should also be tried for GENOCIDE and duly executed. Them and medias like Fox News and CNN journalists which indeed promote and promoted the biggest mass murder in humanity.
Goldacre put his name to this paper, along with many others during 'covid' year....
https://www.fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR206900
Which starts with this statement....
"COVID-19 vaccines reduce illness and save lives..."
Not endorsing everything the people I quote say—just highlighting quotes from insiders and authority figures that challenge mainstream medical narratives. Given many people worship credentials, I’ll use their own high priests to expose the cracks.
Rip there throats out, I want every orifice flowing red
Excellent review! I'm reminded of the Mark Twain quote, "those who don't read the papers are uninformed; those who do read the papers are misinformed."
This is the current sad state of affairs in medical literature. Reading journals is a waste of time. You are much better off reading medical textbooks, the older the better.
And yes, let us publish our data on Substack!
I’m so tired of this reflexive contrarianism that paints every researcher as corrupt, every study as bought, and every journal as a mouthpiece for pharma. It’s lazy and dangerous.
Yes, there are real problems in academic publishing. Bias exists. Industry influence needs to be fixed. But the vast majority of researchers are not chasing fame or cash. They are trying to answer difficult questions, and many are underfunded, underpaid, and overworked. Articles like this contribute to their burnout.
And if you’re going to tear the whole system down, fine. But at least offer a solution. What do you suggest instead? YouTube? Substack threads from people with people peddling miracle cures?
We should absolutely push for better science, more transparency, and higher standards. But writing off the entire scientific process because it’s imperfect does nothing to protect patients. It only leaves them more vulnerable to misinformation.
Critique is essential, but this just cynicism without a path forward.
Pointing out systemic corruption doesn’t mean I believe every individual within the system is corrupt.
I do offer a solution in the article—under the section titled “What Real Peer Review Looks Like”:
"Real peer review isn’t a behind-the-scenes approval process run by nameless gatekeepers in industry-captured journals.
Real peer review happens out in the open—on platforms like Substack, X, independent blogs, and open-access journals—where anyone can read, critique, and engage with the material directly. No anonymous panels or backroom deals.
More researchers are publishing in open-access and preprint journals, where findings are freely available and subject to public scrutiny. There’s also growing pressure on institutions to publish all results, including negative ones—not just the ones that serve commercial interests.
Unlike the corrupt medical journals propped up by pharmaceutical money, real peer review is decentralized and transparent. It thrives where ideas rise or fall based on merit, not brand-name journals or insider networks."
You’re tired? Tired of seeing your industry attacked?
Take a deep breath and acknowledge that you’re taking this personally while missing the big picture. This isn’t about any one researcher getting rich or one study conducted fraudulently.
This is about the systemic real world harm of an entire medical and scientific community that is structured to benefit corporate interests at the expense of humans.
The harms starts in útero, continues before the newborn baby leaves the hospital, then is continued at almost every childhood we’ll visit.
The harms are real. Life long autoimmunity, cancer, autism, ADHD, allergy and most mental health disorders have their roots in the very medicine and science you defend.
Yes. I am saying the cure is the biggest part of the chronic disease problem.
Although disease origin is multi factorial, the biggest contributor to disease is medicine and science.
Then you should do a better job policing yourselves. Your process and institutions are undermining their own credibility. It’s your problem and their problem not that of those bringing it to light. Besides outright dishonesty and continuing marketing and propaganda, the reason it remains is that we all participate in it- we go to the doctor, we take the drugs or treatments, we want to believe because the alternative, even if it is reality is too disturbing for most of us, although having some disastrous medical experiences will foster distrust and healthy skepticism.
I can tell something made you lose trust, and I’m sorry for whatever that was.
The system isn’t perfect, but it’s made up of people—real people—most of them doing their best. I work with them every day. Doctors, nurses, scientists, researchers… they care deeply about their patients.
If you believe we’re all part of some grand plan to cause harm, I think something in you is still hurting. And I really do hope that one day you find some peace in all of this.
You state “i can tell something made you lose trust…” as if this is merely a personal reaction to a unique event.
That is not the case. What we are describing is a feature not a bug. The entire medical system is designed to cause more harm than benefit except perhaps acute care.
Although there may be some triggering event that causes any one of us to question the system, it’s not that event that drives us to write comment posts on Substack.
It’s learning that the system is designed to create chronic desease, not cure.
The total capture and corruption isn’t unique to medicine. It’s everywhere.
And because that capture and corruption is top-down, you will always find real people doing their best in all fields.
In no way does anyone believe that all are part of the plan to cause harm, but by maintaining the captured and corrupted system, you guarantee the continuation of real harm to real people.
The only viable solution is to remove yourself from the captured and corrupted system. The people who are being harmed as well as the people who are inadvertently contributing to that harm.
Except in medicine it Kills !!!
The “ safe and effective “ made a lot of us lose trust !!
https://www.kqed.org/futureofyou/443087/fda-increasingly-approves-drugs-without-conclusive-proof-they-work
“If you believe we’re all part of some grand plan to cause harm,…..”
No, simply you are useful pawns for the financial predator class. If you honestly believe your profession saved lots of lives during COVID despite horrifically inappropriate protocols….your cognitive dissonance is at a frightening level.
I’m not here to defend a broken system. I am not naive to its flaws. But that’s not why I do this.
I’m here to serve God by caring for the sick, easing suffering, and showing up with compassion, even for those who do not trust the system.
If you want to villainize doctors, that’s your choice.
If you want to help, start by seeing the humanity in the people who are still showing up every day to do this work. Offer something constructive. Share a path forward.
I appreciate the response, but what you’re describing isn’t peer review. It’s open discussion. That can be valuable, but it’s not the same as rigorous scientific review by people trained to evaluate data, methods, and bias.
Substack and X are great for conversation, not for validating evidence. As a physician, I need to make decisions that affect people’s lives. I can’t rely on comment threads or opinions. I need data that’s been through a structured process.
Let’s push for more transparency and better systems.
The problem is that the structured process you’re referring to has been captured and doesn't function as a reliable filter for truth.
What people call "rigorous peer review” often amounts to anonymous insiders gatekeeping dissenting views, protecting industry interests, and rewarding conformity.
Open, transparent critique by a range of independent thinkers isn’t a replacement for rigor. It is rigor. And it’s often more honest, because it’s not bound by the perverse incentives that plague institutional science.
Not every Substack article or thread on X is high quality, but the same is true of what's published journals. The difference is: when science happens out in the open, everyone can see the debate play out. The process becomes visible, challengeable, and accountable.
So yes, I agree we should push for more transparency and better systems—not more gatekeeping disguised as rigor.
Your inability to read this article and parse the core issue is symptomatic of the exact issue being discussed. You are probably desensitized like many in your profession by the suffocating hypocrisy of your professions alleged oath and its unethical and at times criminal practices. Finance has castrated the ability of doctors to practice good medicine. You have what appears to be that unearned sense of entitlement by referring in a patronizing tone the comments in substack and discussion as woefully inadequate substitutes of “official corrupted science”. Aware patients are becoming their own advocates as the profession you reside in demonstrated an unfathomable amount of complicity and a lack of immunological education to excuse. The trust has almost vanished and deservedly so.