Paid to Peer-Review: Physicians Reviewing Top Medical Journals Received Billions from Big Pharma

More than half of physicians who peer-reviewed major medical journals received payments from pharmaceutical companies and the medical device industry.

More than half of physicians who peer-reviewed research for the most influential medical journals received substantial payments from pharmaceutical and medical device companies, according to a new analysis. These undisclosed financial ties raise concerns over whether reviewers can remain impartial when evaluating industry-backed studies, the very studies that shape modern healthcare guidelines and treatment standards.

A research letter published on Oct. 10 in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that $1.06 billion in total payments were made to 1,962 peer reviewers between 2020 and 2022. Of this amount, $1 billion was allocated directly to physicians or went to institutional research where the physician served as a principal investigator, while $64.18 million was classified as a general payment. 

A general payment is any payment made by a pharmaceutical or medical device company to a healthcare provider that isn’t tied directly to research activities, such as consulting fees, speaking fees, travel and lodging, or meals and entertainment.  

According to- www.jamanetwork.com" Although conflicts of interest of journal editors and authors have been investigated,1,2 the traditionally opaque nature of peer review has hindered their evaluation among peer reviewers, despite their crucial role in academic publishing. While most journals have established conflict of interest policies for authors, fewer extend these policies to peer reviewers.3 In many cases, journals or editors may inquire about reviewer conflicts of interest and consider these while managing the peer review process, although publicly available reviewer conflict of interest disclosures are rare. Reviewers of leading medical journals may have industry ties due to their academic expertise.

The Scope of Influence

The analysis utilized data from the Open Payments database, a federal transparency program established in 2013, to reveal financial relationships between healthcare providers and the industry. Initially intended to shed light on potential conflicts of interest in clinical care, the database now also serves as a window into peer review.

A peer reviewer is a professional, usually an expert in a specific field, who evaluates the quality, credibility, and accuracy of research submitted for publication in scientific or academic journals. This review process ensures that only high-quality, reliable studies are published, maintaining the integrity of scientific literature.

Peer reviewers examine aspects like the study’s methodology, the accuracy of data, the validity of conclusions, and the overall contribution to the field. They may also check for ethical concerns, potential biases, or conflicts of interest. Based on their assessment, reviewers recommend whether a study should be accepted, revised, or rejected. Their role is crucial because they act as gatekeepers, upholding the standards of scientific evidence that guide medicine, policy, and further research.

But this analysis tells a different story, revealing that the very individuals entrusted to vet industry-funded research are frequently on the receiving end of industry money.

Using the Open Payments database, researchers analyzed industry payments made to peer reviewers of leading medical journals, including The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, and the BMJ from 2020 to 2022.

In particular, payments were heavily concentrated among specialists whose work directly impacts treatment protocols and pharmaceutical recommendations. 

For example, allergists, immunologists, and cardiologists received more than $790 million combined, followed by primary care physicians ($113 million), surgeons ($67 million), and psychiatrists and neurologists ($39 million). These specialties wield substantial influence over the direction of medical guidelines, which heightens the implications of these financial ties.

Big Numbers, Big Implications

To put it in perspective, the median general payment per peer reviewer during this period was $7,614, a striking leap from the $216 median general payment in 2018. Research-specific payments averaged a substantial $153,173. 

Consulting and speaking fees contributed an additional $34 million, and another $12 million went to fees unrelated to continuing medical education. This influx of industry money into peer review is unprecedented, underscoring the sheer scale of financial relationships that may subtly shape which studies are published—and which are not.

Questions of Objectivity and Bias

With male reviewers receiving more payments than female reviewers, some are questioning not just the fairness of these financial distributions but their impact on the quality of peer review itself. Are these financial relationships clouding the objectivity of research evaluations? Critics argue that the rise in median payment amounts and the overall concentration of funds among influential specialists are red flags that demand closer scrutiny.

Without transparency, readers are left to assume that peer-reviewed studies are impartial and guided solely by scientific merit. However, when those who validate these studies receive significant financial backing from the same industry that benefits from favorable results, it calls into question the credibility of these medical publications. Should journals begin requiring reviewers to disclose industry payments in their review notes? Some would argue that transparency measures need a substantial overhaul.

Moving Forward: What’s at Stake?

This study’s findings reignite debates on the ethics of industry involvement in the scientific review process. As the gatekeepers of scientific validity, peer reviewers hold immense power over which studies influence clinical practice and healthcare policy. When reviewers are financially tied to the industry, readers and practitioners alike are left wondering: Can peer-reviewed journals truly serve as an unbiased source of truth?

Ultimately, these revelations underscore the need for reform, either by implementing disclosure requirements in peer review or establishing more stringent rules to ensure the impartiality of scientific research. The stakes are high, as lives are directly impacted by the treatments and protocols derived from these publications. Ensuring transparency and objectivity in peer-reviewed journals is not just about ethics—it’s about the very foundation of trust in modern medicine.

I also invite you to take a look at this site- www.whatfinger.com

Secret Pfizer Document Shows Company Observed 1.6 Million Injuries Following COVID Vaccination

A released confidential Pfizer document from 2022 reveals the company observed 508,351 cases reports and 1,597,673 adverse events following vaccination, yet pretended its shot was safe.

A released Pfizer document shows the pharmaceutical giant in August 2022 was aware of 1.6 million adverse events reported by those who had received it’s COVID vaccine.

The adverse events spanned more than 10,000 different categories and affected nearly every organ system in the body. Yet, Pfizer still concluded its shot was safe and effective.

According to Pfizer’s 396-page “confidential” pharmacovigilance document obtained by the European Medicines Agency, the company observed 508,351 case reports containing 1,597,673 adverse events. One-third of all adverse events were classified as “serious” — a number well beyond the 15% threshold that should trigger a safety signal.

The document shows that adverse events were three times more common in women than men, with 60% of all reports classified as “not recovered” or outcome unknown. The highest number of cases affected the 31-50 year age group.

Because 92% of individuals did not have a comorbidity, it’s unlikey their adverse events could be attributed to anything but Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

The document further categorized the 1.6 million adverse events observed by Pfizer into categories and subcategories based on injury. According to journalist Daniel Horowitz, Pfizer observed more than 10,000 categories of diagnosis, many of which were severe or rare.

For example, 73,542 cases in 264 categories of vascular disorders were reported by individuals after receiving Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, 696,508 cases of nervous system disorders were reported and 61,518 reported eye disorders in 100 different categories.

More than 47,000 ear disorders were reported, including 16,000 cases of tinnitus, 225,000 reports of skin and tissue disorders, 190,000 respiratory disorders, and more than 178,000 reproductive and breast disorders.

There were 77,000 reports of psychiatric disorders reported following vaccination, 3,711 cases of tumors, more than 100,000 reports of lymphatic disorders, and 127,000 reports of cardiac disorders in more than 270 categories.

The document also shows Pfizer was aware of 68 cases of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy — the rare and severe neurological disorder experienced by Maddie De Garay during Pfizer’s clinical trials that left her confined to a wheelchair.

At the end of hundreds of pages of observed injuries, Pfizer concluded the risks of it’s COVID-19 vaccine “evaluated in the context of the benefits” showed the shot had a favorable benefit-risk profile.

"No additional changes to the BNT l 62b2 RSI or additional risk minimisation activities in addition to those in place are warranted at this time,” the company, which made billions off its COVID vaccine, wrote.

To date, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not updated the product label for Pfizer’s COVID vaccine to include a list of its potential adverse events, nor has Pfizer been held accountable for failing to disclose these potental vaccine injuries to the public.

Trump Withdraws U.S From World Health Organization

Apologies for the delay in posting—I've been sick—but that didn’t stop me from watching every moment of yesterday’s festivities with the same optimism and hope I’m sure many of you felt. While I plan to dive deeper into the long list of executive orders signed yesterday, this one deserves immediate attention.

Mere hours after the fanfare and inaugural festivities, Trump went to the Oval Office, and in front of reporters who were finally given direct access to the President, Trump signed an order pulling the U.S. out of the World Health Organization.

“Oooh, that’s a big one,” Trump remarked as he signed the order—a fitting understatement for a move that challenges one of the most corrupt global bureaucracies in modern history.

"The Secretary of State shall immediately inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations, any other applicable depositary, and the leadership of the WHO of the withdrawal," the order states.

Before taking office, Trump made his intention clear:

“The World Health Organization has become nothing more than a corrupt, Globalist SCAM paid for by the United States but owned and controlled by China. When the China virus reached our shores three years ago, the World Health Organization disgracefully covered the tracks of the Chinese communist party ever step of the way. For this reason, it was my great honor to terminate America’s relationship with the World Health Organization.”

“And now Biden is pushing to bypass the United States Senate to enter a pandemic treaty that would surrender American sovereignty to the World Health Organization—again controlled by China,” he added.

I will not allow public health to be used as a pretext to advance the march of global government. That’s what they’re doing. Globalists.”

Bill Gates on Jan. 18 reported that he had an “intriguing” 3-hour lunch with the President to talk about global health initiatives (sans Robert F. Kennedy Jr, Trump’s proposed Secretary of HHS.), leaving many concerned that Gates, a major funder of the WHO, had persuaded President Trump to sign on to his agenda.

As you recall, five minutes ago, the WHO was busy trying to usher in a global government—and Biden was eager to surrender our sovereignty.

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus urged countries to agree to the legally binding “generational commitment” to “help fight future pandemics.” This commitment involved sweeping measures concerning vaccines, censorship, and surveillance. Under the proposals, WHO could enter into contracts with pharmaceutical companies, would control the regulatory process, could declare a pandemic, and issue mandates.

Despite its conflicts of interest, the WHO is not accountable to any jurisdiction, whereas the United States is accountable to its people.

Although the pandemic treaty did not go through as hoped, this has not stopped the WHO from going back to the drawing board to try again.

Trump originally tried to remove the U.S. from the WHO in 2020, but Joe Biden reversed course after taking office.