The Journal Cartel: How Corporate Capture Corrupted Medical Science—and Why Philosophy Matters More Than Ever, By Professor X
In an age of unprecedented access to information, paradoxically, public trust in science is crumbling. This distrust isn't irrational paranoia, it is increasingly grounded in the lived reality of corporate influence, institutional gatekeeping, and the systematic marginalisation of dissent. As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently declared on the Ultimate Human Podcast with Gary Brecka, "We're probably going to stop publishing in the Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, and those other journals because they're all corrupt."
It's a bold statement. These are the top journals, so-called keepers of the truth. But is it wrong?
RFK Jr. is not the first to raise the alarm. Marcia Angell, former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, wrote with sober clarity:
"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published... I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly.'
And Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet, went further still:
"Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue... afflicted by small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest." Paradoxically, here is a technical paper proving exactly that:
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
These are not conspiracy theorists. These are the stewards of the very journals now being accused of systemic corruption. If they don't trust the product they once managed, why should we?
The Covid-19 pandemic put this issue on global display. Consider the "lab leak" hypothesis: early in the pandemic, this theory, suggesting SARS-CoV-2 originated in a Wuhan laboratory, was summarily dismissed by "the science." Anyone advocating the theory was labelled a crank, a xenophobe, or worse. Our university was going total vax until Omicron struck and knocked it all over.
But now? It's on the table, openly discussed in mainstream outlets and under investigation by U.S. intelligence agencies. What changed? Not the evidence. The epistemic permissions changed. Gatekeepers who once ridiculed the idea found themselves outflanked by circumstantial evidence and the growing realisation that their suppression might have been premature, or politically motivated.
This isn't just a crisis of data. It's a crisis of epistemology. Epistemology, the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge, asks: How do we know what we know? And more importantly today: Who gets to decide what counts as knowledge?
In the modern technocratic order, peer-reviewed journals became the de facto arbiter of truth. But when these journals are financially entangled with pharmaceutical giants and reliant on industry-sponsored studies, can they be trusted to self-police? Or are they just dressed-up PR departments for corporate science?
The McCullough Foundation's experience with Elsevier, where a peer-reviewed study on vaccine-related autopsy findings was pulled after publication, underscores this rot. The study was trending #1 globally. Then it vanished. Not for fraud. Not for error. But for being politically inconvenient.
If true, that's not science. That's propaganda.
RFK Jr. has proposed a radical, yet refreshingly practical, solution:
1.Boycott captured journals until they clean house.
2.Allocate 20% of NIH funding to replication studies, restoring scientific scepticism.
3.Make peer review transparent and public, ending anonymous suppression.
4.Create NIH-backed journals across all health institutes as an alternative to the compromised legacy outlets.
This isn't an attack on science. It's a defence of it. Science, properly understood, is a method, not an institution. Institutions can be corrupted. Methods, if protected from ideological capture, remain our best tool for understanding the world.
We must accept that the age of blind deference to "experts" is over. That doesn't mean we discard expertise, it means we interrogate its sources, question its incentives, and remain vigilant against epistemic monopolies. A scientific paper is not holy scripture. It is a claim, one that must withstand scrutiny, replication, and open challenge.
In short: epistemic humility must replace epistemic authoritarianism. And as RFK Jr. and many others now argue, reclaiming that humility may be the only way to save science from itself.
Sources:
- Angell, M. (2009). Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption, New York Review of Books.
- Horton, R. (2015). Offline: What is medicine's 5 sigma?, The Lancet.
https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/rfk-jr-declares-war-on-the-journal
"Today on the Ultimate Human Podcast with Gary Brecka, RFK Jr. stated:
"We're probably going to stop publishing in the Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA and those other journals because they're all corrupt. And even the heads of those journals, like Marcia Angell, who for 20 years was head of the New England Journal of Medicine, says that we no longer are a science journal. We are a vessel for pharmaceutical propaganda."
He's right. These journals have become nothing more than vessels for pharmaceutical propaganda.
Dr. Marcia Angell, who served as Editor-in-Chief of The New England Journal of Medicine for over 20 years, has publicly acknowledged that her journal and others have been captured by industry. Her exact words:
"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine."
RFK Jr. also referenced Dr. Richard Horton, current editor-in-chief of The Lancet, who admitted:
"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."
In the podcast, RFK Jr. laid out a clear plan to remedy this corruption:
1.NIH scientists will stop publishing in these corrupted journals unless major reform occurs.
2.NIH will allocate 20% of its budget to replication studies—restoring scientific integrity.
3.Peer review will become transparent and public.
4.New, independent NIH-backed journals will be launched within each health institute—becoming the new standard for legitimate science.
At the McCullough Foundation, we've encountered the Journal Cartel firsthand. A prime example of this is when Elsevier blatantly violated COPE guidelines by censoring our study "A Systematic Review Of Autopsy Findings In Deaths After COVID-19 Vaccination" — shortly after successful peer review and official acceptance — likely because it demonstrated a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death. Our study had just become the #1 trending research paper worldwide across all subject areas before Elsevier abruptly intervened:
Gatekeeping, targeted censorship, and unethical retractions have suppressed urgently needed, life-saving research—particularly any that challenges pharmaceutical narratives regarding vaccine safety.
RFK Jr.'s comments come as the U.S. Department of Justice launches an investigation into top medical journals over pandemic bias, fraud, and corruption:
For the first time, the federal government appears poised to dismantle the journal cartel that has corrupted and distorted science for decades."
Comments