When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
lol. you know you are desperate when a really old story debunked story is the best platform you got.
There was a promo on NBC in the 90s which said "If you haven't seen it, it's new to you!"
Anyway...
Interesting paper published last week in the Journal of the American Medical Association by Dr. David-Dan Nguyen entitled "Industry Payments Common for Physician Peer Reviewers of Top Journals." It's what it sounds like - tracking cash payments from Pharma companies to individuals who review articles about Pharma companies.
The paper in its entirety is paywalled, but there are some interviews and reviews freely available. One such excerpt:
ㅤ
ㅤ
Between 2020 and 2022, 1155 peer reviewers (58.9%) received at least one industry payment. More than half (54.0%) of reviewers accepted general payments, while 31.8% received research payments.
Reviewers received $1.06 billion in industry payments between 2020 and 2022, including $1.00 billion (94.0%) to individuals or their institutions and $64.18 million (6.0%) in general payments. Consulting fees and speaking compensation unrelated to continuing medical education programs accounted for $34.31 million and $11.80 million, respectively. Over the three years, the median general payment was $7,614 (IQR, $495-$43,069), and the median research payment was $153,173 (IQR, $29,307-$835,637) among reviewers receiving such payments.
Male reviewers had significantly higher median total payments ($38,959 vs $19,586) and general payments ($8,663 vs $4,183) than female reviewers. Statistically significant differences in payments existed between specialties.
ㅤ
ㅤ
If any industry group out there would like to pay me tens of thousands of dollars to write about them, then, just like TicToc influencers, I promise to be completely fair and impartial in my promotion review of their products.
Mao's Revolution called anyone a "counterrevolutionary" who didn't toe the line . That word could get you kicked out of your home, castigated by the community, killed. Nowadays, Democrats use the word "racist" in the same way. You can be REALLY stupid and still be taken seriously if you call a person "racist."
Except the shine has worn off the word. "Racist" is so overused that no one cares. What's that one word that still might have some juice? Hitler.
He campaign strategy was assassinate her competition. So it's hard to do anything else but name call at this point -- especially when you were installed as the candidate because of how morally corrupt you are and willingness to be another puppet.
If any industry group out there would like to pay me tens of thousands of dollars to write about them, then, just like TicToc influencers, I promise to be completely fair and impartial in my promotion review of their products.
A half billion a year paying for reviews. Who knows how much a year to DC lobbying. And we wonder why the cost of medicine is so high.
But just as an afterthought, if the product is so good, why do you have to pay so much to get it endorsed?
Also, whatever happened to all those guys who knew so much about vaccines and horse medicine that were on this thread 3 years ago?
Define "real" in this context. I'm actually serious - I have no idea what you are talking about here. (I assume that I am missing some unstated context.)
Anyway, we (the hipster, indie-media) gave JD Vance a full hour last night to proselytize, something which we have not done (and do not plan to do) for Walz. Yet more damning evidence that we are liberal shills working to promote the Democrat party.
Define "real" in this context. I'm actually serious - I have no idea what you are talking about here. (I assume that I am missing some unstated context.)
it was a joke -- showing CNN **** all over Kalama. The MSM usually doesn't do that to their own and you try to convince us of that so I was suggesting it was a fake video.
But honestly, Kamala really pissed off CNN -- unlike the Guardian who's BFF with Kamala and will write whatever trash to help her.
All the morning shows are heavily sponsored by Pfizer. Does it matter that the drug they're advertising has a market of less than 1% of the population? Seems expensive.
But that's not the goal. When the **** hits the fan, those morning shows know where their bread gets buttered. They won't say anything bad about Pfizer because their paycheck depends on it. Plus the government paid for most of the Covid ads in the last four years anyway.
2
