The Politics of Peer Review: Cutting-edge science shows that public health officials spread misinformation

Dr. Bridle condemns the use of subjective rhetoric and faith-based systems that are currently infiltrating peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Remove Ads

In a recent interview with viral immunologist and vaccinologist, Dr Byram Bridle shared his criticisms on the JAMA study which showed exactly what he tried to warn the public about in the spring of 2021 – that the components of the novel COVID-19 injections spread throughout the body.

This prompted the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Pediatrics to issue caution to breastfeeding mothers.

During that interview, Dr. Bridle revealed an important aspect of this unfolding that he described in length on his sub stack as “subjective rhetoric” that is now commonly inserted into medical research that examines COVID-19. 

While discussing how the line between science and faith-based systems has been blurred in recent years, Bridle says that “if you simply present factual, truthful COVID-19 data in a very objective and unbiased way, that is no longer palatable particular to high impact medical journals.”

Dr. Bridle says:

The reason is that the upper tier journals, in many cases, the bulk of their income comes from advertising dollars from Big Pharma. You do not bite the hand that feeds you. Whereas lower impact journals tend to have income come from publication fees that authors pay. They do not depend [as heavily] on Big Pharma.

Therefore – what the scientific community has found – is if you want to present objective COVID-19 science, you [have to] go to the lower impact journals. There seems to be fewer politics involved.

Referring to the JAMA study, Bridle says there is a good solid science sandwiched between rhetoric.

“They used statements like ‘we believe.’ As much as I appreciate people who have faith-based systems, when it comes to science, there is no place for the term believe. That should never have been allowed in there. It’s not about what I believe – it is [about] what the facts tell us. The facts should inform our policies,” Bridle states as he condemns the way that the authors downplayed the findings, that only “trace amounts” of mRNA transfer through breastmilk.

“We are taking tiny baby steps to where the truth lies, which is where many of us were a year and a half ago. Eventually the narrative will match. There is an avalanche coming out and that is the reality,” Bridle concludes, alluding to the real-world data that is continually being collected and analyzed regarding these novel pharmaceutical products.


Remove Ads
Remove Ads

Don't Get Censored

Big Tech is censoring us. Sign up so we can always stay in touch.

Remove Ads