Replies

Excellent!! Thank you for posting.

FTA....

....Harper studied the PDF of the paper, wanting to learn the identity of its “ghost” author. “The hope was that some artifact on the PDF would reveal something, maybe a font was different, maybe there was a hidden comment, maybe some tracked changes had been saved to the document,” said Harper. “None of those lines of inquiry came to anything.”

Then it came to him. Was it in the PDF’s metadata? And indeed, it was. Harper writes:

“The ‘v1_stamped’ version of the paper did indeed have metadata. It even had author information inside the metadata. Expecting to see Andrew Hill listed as the author, instead, I saw a name I recognised. Andrew Owen.

“Unless someone used his computer, Andrew Owen has his digital fingerprint on the Andrew Hill paper.” ...

....Harper compared a version of the pre-print paper dated 14 January to the version that was published dated 18 / 19 January. “That was when I could see these differences. Suddenly we had a paper in transition … I could see additional sentences that had been put into the paper between those two dates … as you mentioned [Dr. Kory] the forensic consultant had looked at the paper already” and the discovery of the version dated 14 January confirmed his findings of sentences inserted by “new voices” to “weaken the paper,” Harper said. This would suggest, Harper explained, that other findings by the forensic consultant were also credible, such as a ghost contributor for whom English was not a first language.

“[But] it’s not just about one person because through this one particular connection you can see how this pharmaceutical lobby works. We have a network of academics who receive research money, this is key. The research money is key because once an academic is in receipt of research money they’re in a prominent position within their university to get that research money for their university again.

“The second thing to note about Andrew Owen, like many other academics in the research medical literature, he’s in receipt of consultancy fees and lecture fees from pharmaceutical companies … this is considered normal inside medical research.

“The table is stacked towards high value pharmaceutical products.” ...

THIS ^ is what good old fashioned sleuthing (much like the work of folks like Duckhead, etc., produces!!

Great work, The Digger/Phil Harper!!

Shame on BigPharma and paid $hot $hills 😡 This SHOULD be criminal.