top of page

Peter Doshi - "Marketing vaccines by marketing disease"

If there is one person I believe deserves a Sainthood throughout all of this propaganda-induced-pandemic, it is the associate editor of the British Medical Journal - Peter Doshi.

"He is also an assistant professor of pharmaceutical health services research at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy. His research focuses on policies related to drug safety and effectiveness evaluation in the context of regulation, evidence-based medicine, and debates over access to data...

...Doshi completed a fellowship in comparative effectiveness research at Johns Hopkins and received his Ph.D. in history, anthropology, and science, technology and society from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology."

There are several thousand researchers, doctors and experts that have also been calling out this fraud. However, Peter is doing it from inside the main beast, and has gone vastly unrecognised. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the BBC interviewed him?

He has been so consistent in his work, look back at this article in 2013 during his work at Maryland University - "Influenza: marketing vaccine by marketing disease."

Read the first paragraph:

"The CDC pledges “To base all public health decisions on the highest quality scientific data, openly and objectively derived.” But Peter Doshi argues that in the case of influenza vaccinations and their marketing, this is not so.

Promotion of influenza vaccines is one of the most visible and aggressive public health policies today. Twenty years ago, in 1990, 32 million doses of influenza vaccine were available in the United States. Today around 135 million doses of influenza vaccine annually enter the US market, with vaccinations administered in drug stores, supermarkets—even some drive-throughs. This enormous growth has not been fueled by popular demand but instead by a public health campaign that delivers a straightforward, who-in-their-right-mind-could-possibly-disagree message: influenza is a serious disease, we are all at risk of complications from influenza, the flu shot is virtually risk free, and vaccination saves lives. Through this lens, the lack of influenza vaccine availability for all 315 million US citizens seems to border on the unethical. Yet across the country, mandatory influenza vaccination policies have cropped up, particularly in healthcare facilities, precisely because not everyone wants the vaccination, and compulsion appears the only way to achieve high vaccination rates. Closer examination of influenza vaccine policies shows that although proponents employ the rhetoric of science, the studies underlying the policy are often of low quality, and do not substantiate officials’ claims. The vaccine might be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and the threat of influenza appears overstated."

I'd seriously consider reading the rest. Actually, no, I insist you read the whole thing. Because we are living this in real time. Read it. In my opinion, he is absolutely correct.

Another important part is the following:

"So how could these studies—both published in high impact, peer reviewed journals and carried out by academic and government researchers with non-commercial funding—get it wrong? Consider one study the CDC does not cite, which found influenza vaccination associated with a 51% reduced odds of death in patients hospitalized with pneumonia (28 of 352 [8%] vaccinated subjects died versus 53 deaths among 352 [15%] unvaccinated control subjects). Although the results are similar to those of the studies CDC does cite, an unusual aspect of this study was that it focused on patients outside of the influenza season—when it is hard to imagine the vaccine could bring any benefit. And the authors, academics from Alberta, Canada, knew this: the purpose of the study was to demonstrate that the fantastic benefit they expected to and did find—and that others have found, such as the two studies that CDC cites—is simply implausible, and likely the product of the “healthy-user effect” (in this case, a propensity for healthier people to be more likely to get vaccinated than less healthy people). Others have gone on to demonstrate this bias to be present in other influenza vaccine studies. Healthy user bias threatens to render the observational studies, on which officials’ scientific case rests, not credible.

Yet for most people, and possibly most doctors, officials need only claim that vaccines save lives, and it is assumed there must be solid research behind it. But for those that bother to read the CDC’s national guidelines—a 68 page document of 33 360 words and 552 references—one finds that the evidence cited is these observational studies that the agency itself acknowledges may be undermined by bias. The guidelines state:

“. . . studies demonstrating large reductions in hospitalizations and deaths among the vaccinated elderly have been conducted using medical record databases and have not measured reductions in laboratory-confirmed influenza illness. These studies have been challenged because of concerns that they have not controlled adequately for differences in the propensity for healthier persons to be more likely than less healthy persons to receive vaccination.”

CDC does not rebut or in any other way respond to these criticisms. It simply acknowledges them, and leaves it at that."

You think the Government-funded science do not lie? It's only the corporate-medical establishments? Sorry to burst your dreamworld - we live in the real world, and Government's lie even more than corporations. I wonder what could happen if they worked together?.......May be, replace "influenza" with "covid-19".....

Read the rest!

It may surprise some people that libertarians would be the first to condemn this manipulation of health, this racket-industrial-complex. But, we do. As soon a company lies and are proved to do so, they are responsible. Not the company - the owners and funders.

This also answers the questions: "But, why would so many Doctors go along with it?" They do, because they don't know. They're just listening to their superiors and assume the research is carried out. They're just like everyone else - blindly following the authorities.

I have no idea what politics Peter Doshi follows and it doesn't matter. He probably disagrees with my solutions (complete decentralisation of the medical complex.) But, I appreciate everything he is doing at the moment and what he has done. He's trying to show the public there's a lot more to this current "pandemic" than meets the eye. If I ever get the chance to meet this hero, his beers are all on me.

Whilst people seem to be living in dream world and (unbelievably to me) blindly believing Governments and Big Pharmaceutical Corporations at every turn, people like Peter recognise skeptism and clarification of data is always of the upmost importance. I, on the other hand would simply call you insane for not questioning these two institutions, especially when their entire history of existence is riddled with lie, after lie.

Let's finish off with his final paragraph:

"But perhaps the cleverest aspect of the influenza marketing strategy surrounds the claim that “flu” and “influenza” are the same. The distinction seems subtle, and purely semantic. But general lack of awareness of the difference might be the primary reason few people realize that even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the “flu” problem because most “flu” appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive. (fig 2).

All influenza is “flu,” but only one in six “flus” might be influenza. It’s no wonder so many people feel that “flu shots” don’t work: for most flus, they can’t."

So, next time you're asked for your annual flu shot, what should you say? "Jog on!"



1. Maryland University -

2. BMJ - Influenza Marketing -

3. The man - Peter Doshi -

4. World Doctors Alliance -

bottom of page