Thacker: Leading Medical Journal Busted With Huge Conflict Of Interest Over 'Medical Misinformation' Expert
A leading medical journal, JAMA, recently published an essay lamenting that the National Institutes of Health would be slowing awards for "misinformation research," aka, studies to justify censorship.
Written by JAMA reporter Rita Rubin, the piece cites one Dr. Richard Baron, president and CEO of the American Board of Internal Medicine.
Yet, what journalist Paul Thacker uncovered in a recent article in The Disinformation Chronicle is mind-numbingly par for the course given the propaganda we've seen from leading 'experts' over the last 3.5 years; Baron is totally conflicted.
According to Thacker, Baron has been collaborating with Pfizer and Moderna's PR firm, Weber Shandwick.
But wait, there's more!
And here comes a shocker: Richard Baron’s concern about “misinformation” was first triggered when physicians spoke out against COVID vaccine safety, efficacy, and side effects. Of course, these are the same concerns held by Weber Shandwick, who Pfizer and Moderna are paying big buck to promote their vaccines.
What a surprise.
...
Now that I’ve explained what Richard Baron views as “misinformation” let me explain what Weber Shandwick views as “medicine.” Some years back, Weber Shandwick was caught aiding Forest Pharmaceuticals in their illegal promotion of Celexa for treating children and adolescents suffering from depression. Forest later pleaded guilty and paid $313 million in 2010 to resolve this with the Department of Justice.
And why would Baron collaborate with Weber Shandwick on "misinformation"? Because it's become a central focus for vaccine makers and, of course, their PR firms! Hence the massive, undisclosed conflict of interest contained within the JAMA article.
3) Here's the questions I sent to JAMA EIC @KBibbinsDomingo. She failed to respond. pic.twitter.com/Dnp4SztbGR
— Paul D. Thacker (@thackerpd) August 16, 2023
6) Weber Shandwick is also the PR firm contracted to staff the CDC's vaccine centre to promote vaccines. pic.twitter.com/gjUpSjSLlO
— Paul D. Thacker (@thackerpd) August 16, 2023
After taking her sweet time, Bibbins-Domingo finally responded - saying in a statement:
"Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We initiated our internal investigation earlier this week, in accordance with our standard processes for allegations of non-disclosure of conflicts."
More via The Disinformation Chronicle...
Congress started investigating university misinformation researchers after the Twitter Files exposed some of the academics who cloak censorship under the rubric of “misinformation research”—people such as Stanford’s Renee DiResta, formerly with the CIA, and Brown University’s Claire Wardle. Due in part to this pressure, the NIH has been slowing down awards for research that helps the government censor Americans.
As JAMA’s Rita Rubin reported:
As stated by the Common Fund, the program’s objectives were to “investigate, develop, test, and disseminate new approaches for effective and equitable health communication,” an effort that would include addressing misinformation. The 5-year program would partner its research with technology and social media platforms, marketing experts, and health information communicators. The budget was set at $154.3 million, a tiny share of the NIH’s 2023 fiscal year budget of $47.5 billion but a windfall for health communications researchers.
One of the experts Rubin cites to explain why the NIH should keep funding medical “research” that runs afoul of First Amendment protected speech is Dr. Richard Baron. In Baron’s mind, this is all about politics, not free speech.
“They’re backing away from research that could save lives because there’s some political agenda they’re afraid they’re going to run afoul of.”
In this case, Baron said, the political agenda appears to center on the debate over whether people who make claims on social media that go against public health recommendations are simply exercising their First Amendment right to free speech.
At the bottom of the Rubin’s JAMA essay, the journal discloses the conflicts of interest of anyone named or mentioned in the essay. But at no point does JAMA disclose that Baron is collaborating with Weber Shandwick in his crusade against “misinformation.”
I first brought to light Baron’s collaboration with Weber Shandwick last November: “PR Firm Repping Vaccine Manufacturers Now Promotes Doctors Group Denouncing Alleged COVID Vaccine Disinformation.” Weeks before uncovering Baron’s ties to Weber Shandwick, I had discovered that the PR firm was repping Pfizer and Moderna while staffing the vaccine office at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Read the rest (and there's a lot more) here...
