Are peer reviewed studies influenced by funding?
It is generally accepted that peer-reviewed studies are more credible and reliable than other forms of research because they have been carefully reviewed and evaluated by other experts in the field. Peer review is a crucial part of the scientific process, as it helps to ensure that research is rigorous, well-designed, and based on sound scientific principles.
However, it is possible for funding to influence the outcome of a peer-reviewed study. In some cases, the research may be funded by a company or other organization with a vested interest in the outcome of the study, and this funding may bias the research in favor of the funder’s interests. In other cases, the researchers themselves may have a financial stake in the outcome of the study, which could also influence their findings.
To minimize the influence of funding on peer-reviewed research, it is important for researchers to disclose any potential conflicts of interest, and for peer reviewers to carefully consider the potential impact of funding on the research. Additionally, it is important for the scientific community as a whole to be aware of the potential influence of funding on research and to take it into account when evaluating the credibility and reliability of a study.
How can we be sure that peer reviewed studies do not have conflicts of interest?
To minimize the influence of conflicts of interest on peer-reviewed research, it is important for researchers to disclose any potential conflicts of interest, and for peer reviewers to carefully consider the potential impact of funding on the research. Additionally, it is important for the scientific community as a whole to be aware of the potential influence of conflicts of interest on research and to take it into account when evaluating the credibility and reliability of a study.
What is GAVI?
GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, is a public-private global health partnership that works to increase access to immunization in low-income countries. It was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland.
GAVI brings together governments, international organizations, the private sector, and civil society to provide funding for vaccines and immunization programs in low-income countries. It also provides technical support and assistance to these countries to help them improve their vaccination coverage and strengthen their immunization systems. GAVI works with a number of partners, including the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank, and UNICEF, to achieve its goals.
Who funds GAVI?
GAVI is a global health partnership that brings together a number of different organizations and stakeholders to provide funding for immunization in low-income countries. It is supported by governments, international organizations, the private sector, and civil society, and it receives funding from a number of sources.
Some of the primary funders of GAVI include:
- Governments: GAVI receives funding from a number of governments, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
- International organizations: GAVI also receives funding from international organizations, such as the World Bank, the World Health Organization (WHO), and UNICEF.
- The private sector: GAVI also receives funding from the private sector, including pharmaceutical companies, foundations, and other organizations.
- Civil society: GAVI is also supported by civil society organizations, such as NGOs and charities, which provide funding and other forms of support for its programs.
In total, GAVI receives funding from a diverse range of sources, and these funders play a critical role in supporting its work to increase access to immunization in low-income countries.
Looking into conflicts of interest:
- Bill Gates and GAVI are number 2 and 3 donors, and have a large invested financial interest in vaccines. Mandating them puts massive returns into their pockets. Bill is on record of saying 20-1 ROI on his 10 Billion dollar investment.
- Healthcare in the US has massive conflicts of interest. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18982834/
Healthcare in Canada is now primarily funded by Big Pharma
The 10 largest pharmaceutical companies in Canada gave more than $151 million to doctors and hospitals across the country over the last two years.
But unlike the U.S. and many European countries, Canada has no legislation compelling drug companies to reveal which health-care providers got money or what it was for.
Now, experts and medical researchers are calling for greater transparency around the millions of dollars shelled out each year, as multiple studies have shown that even small transfers of value can have an effect on how physicians prescribe certain drugs.
Quinn Grundy, an assistant professor at the University of Toronto who studies corporate influences on health, said that without so-called sunshine legislation in Canada, it’s impossible to gather data to produce studies similar to those done in the U.S. and track how pharma dollars are influencing the health-care sector.
“It’s important for me to know what is happening behind the scenes.”
When you investigate conflicts of interest, you will note that our own Prime Minister has been convicted of 2 conflict of interest violations and brought up on several more investigations, none of them removing him from office.
What have we learned?
Most of our healthcare systems worldwide have been infiltrated with conflicts of interest.
Most of our universities are funded by the institutions that benefit financially from the outcome of the peer reviewed studies
Our government is full of conflict of interests, and it is easy to see why they mandated federal workers to get these vaccines, and bribed corporations across the country to force their employees to get it. It was never about your health. It was about $$$$$
Canadians have been lied too perhaps by the most corrupt government in power since Canada has been around, but maybe not. What is really happening worldwide is people are awakening to learn that our world is much more corrupt that previously thought to be.
Leave A Comment