JAMA has ridden roughshod over legitimate physicians, having tangential relationships with the inventors of medical devices or medications about which they write articles.
The chief petitioner/co-author is not even a physician, or as far as I can tell even a nurse, and doesn’t really have the credentials that would normally be expected of a medical journal. Her conflict of interest is manifest and multiple, not merely being chief petitioner for measure 110, but directly financially profiting from measure 110.
She makes the preposterous claim that Oregon’s sudden and disastrous climb in fatal overdoses is unconnected with the fact that police can no longer use any law-enforcement intervention when encountering heroin, methamphetamine, oxycodone, and by extension fentanyl.
The junket to Portugal, which must’ve cost the Drug Policy Alliance (the cartel that funds HER group, the “ Health Justice Recovery Alliance) at least $100,000 is part of a desperate attempt to keep the cash cow that is measure 110 flowing for a small group of special interests.
Keep in mind that $300 million from weed taxes is going to a very small group that includes her and her pals!
My critique of the study is based solely on Wheelock's undisclosed conflicts. I have no idea whether the analysis in the study is sound. Something tells me a neutral or anti-M110 study would come to a different answer to a question posed, but I don't know that.
Given that a medical journal article relies heavily on source data, that is one reason JAMA and other hereto reliable journals have (until now) had very high standards and screened for conflicts of interest. It is near impossible to decipher a medical journal article unless you know about the underlying supportive data.
On the “opioid crisis” there are studies that say a single prescription will addict patients, and others that say addiction occurs in fewer than 1% of patients prescribed potent opioids.
You appropriately called out JAMA and this woman, who is buttering her interests, top, bottom, and on the side!
Indeed, Josh. Anyone with half a lick of common sense can see through the preposterousness of these claims. And yet, JAMA publishes them with a straight face. Unbelievable.
Scientific journals increasingly promote agendas. It is no longer enough to present peer reviewed evidence. The medical elite have convinced themselves that they must appeal to and persuade the greater public of the ‘greater good’ by any means necessary. A greater good only they are divinely inspired to understand.
Oddly the agenda seems to be supportive of so-called recreational drug use. Makes me wonder if there's a relationship with a Cartel. Or just for public money to go to 'treatment' centers.
It's all about money in the end. Maybe it always has been.
I believe there is significant political pressure from Gen Z and Millennials to 'legalize it'. The criminalization of recreational drug use does not make much sense but allowing open-air drug markets doesn't make much sense either .. especially for hard drugs.
This is one small piece of the coming scandal in the nonprofit sector. Tuern over a rock in that pasture--ugly creatures crawl out.
This is the heart of the current Democratic/progressive machine in state and local politics. It always comes down to public money, political connections, sweetheart deals, and laws rewritten to legalize theft.
The result is dodgy deals, lack of transparency, capture of the investigative agencies (starting with the all-important AG's office), and media timidity made worse by layoffs and collapse of readership.
It's one thing to be in trouble; worse, not knowing it.
Result: one of the most heavily-taxed, indebted states (and Portland) with a clotted, clumsy, incompetent government that treats citizens as marks in the con.
Thanks, Richard! The feedback loop between state, M110-funded nonprofits, legislators and media, academia is one that needs to be exposed. I think this is the most egregious example because the loop includes a journal that purports to follow standards that should preclude it. Need to expose this example for people to understand the broader picture.
Jeff, this is an outstanding piece. Besides a response from JAMA, I hope it receives wide distribution. The (continuing) conflict of interest is blatant
Excellent letter by Jeff!
JAMA has ridden roughshod over legitimate physicians, having tangential relationships with the inventors of medical devices or medications about which they write articles.
The chief petitioner/co-author is not even a physician, or as far as I can tell even a nurse, and doesn’t really have the credentials that would normally be expected of a medical journal. Her conflict of interest is manifest and multiple, not merely being chief petitioner for measure 110, but directly financially profiting from measure 110.
She makes the preposterous claim that Oregon’s sudden and disastrous climb in fatal overdoses is unconnected with the fact that police can no longer use any law-enforcement intervention when encountering heroin, methamphetamine, oxycodone, and by extension fentanyl.
The junket to Portugal, which must’ve cost the Drug Policy Alliance (the cartel that funds HER group, the “ Health Justice Recovery Alliance) at least $100,000 is part of a desperate attempt to keep the cash cow that is measure 110 flowing for a small group of special interests.
Keep in mind that $300 million from weed taxes is going to a very small group that includes her and her pals!
My critique of the study is based solely on Wheelock's undisclosed conflicts. I have no idea whether the analysis in the study is sound. Something tells me a neutral or anti-M110 study would come to a different answer to a question posed, but I don't know that.
Given that a medical journal article relies heavily on source data, that is one reason JAMA and other hereto reliable journals have (until now) had very high standards and screened for conflicts of interest. It is near impossible to decipher a medical journal article unless you know about the underlying supportive data.
On the “opioid crisis” there are studies that say a single prescription will addict patients, and others that say addiction occurs in fewer than 1% of patients prescribed potent opioids.
You appropriately called out JAMA and this woman, who is buttering her interests, top, bottom, and on the side!
Indeed, Josh. Anyone with half a lick of common sense can see through the preposterousness of these claims. And yet, JAMA publishes them with a straight face. Unbelievable.
Scientific journals increasingly promote agendas. It is no longer enough to present peer reviewed evidence. The medical elite have convinced themselves that they must appeal to and persuade the greater public of the ‘greater good’ by any means necessary. A greater good only they are divinely inspired to understand.
This is a good opportunity for JAMA to buck the trend you identify, Sebastian. Hope they do.
Oddly the agenda seems to be supportive of so-called recreational drug use. Makes me wonder if there's a relationship with a Cartel. Or just for public money to go to 'treatment' centers.
It's all about money in the end. Maybe it always has been.
I believe there is significant political pressure from Gen Z and Millennials to 'legalize it'. The criminalization of recreational drug use does not make much sense but allowing open-air drug markets doesn't make much sense either .. especially for hard drugs.
Great piece. The corruption is in plain sight.
This is one small piece of the coming scandal in the nonprofit sector. Tuern over a rock in that pasture--ugly creatures crawl out.
This is the heart of the current Democratic/progressive machine in state and local politics. It always comes down to public money, political connections, sweetheart deals, and laws rewritten to legalize theft.
The result is dodgy deals, lack of transparency, capture of the investigative agencies (starting with the all-important AG's office), and media timidity made worse by layoffs and collapse of readership.
It's one thing to be in trouble; worse, not knowing it.
Result: one of the most heavily-taxed, indebted states (and Portland) with a clotted, clumsy, incompetent government that treats citizens as marks in the con.
And the saps vote for more of it.
Thanks, Richard! The feedback loop between state, M110-funded nonprofits, legislators and media, academia is one that needs to be exposed. I think this is the most egregious example because the loop includes a journal that purports to follow standards that should preclude it. Need to expose this example for people to understand the broader picture.
Jeff, this is an outstanding piece. Besides a response from JAMA, I hope it receives wide distribution. The (continuing) conflict of interest is blatant
Thanks, Jack! Share with your friends. The more people know about this, the more likely it is the story has impact.
Fabulous, Jeff! Thanks for again exposing the corruption prevalent among our "elites."
Thanks, Michael!
Wow. Unbelievable. I hope you get a response- at the very least!!
I hope I do too! Share the article with your friends. The more people who know about it the more likely it is to force JAMA to respond.
Damn, you're good, Jeff!
Thanks, Ollie!
well argued
Thanks, Kendall!
Welcome to the monkey house. Kurt Vonnegut is still alive.