“Peer Reviewed” Scientific Research Losing Credibility As Studies Show They are Rigged or False
As a practicing licensed medical doctor for almost 17 years, I have been asked whether the research and subsequent products I have invented are “peer-reviewed”. In the name of good science, the label of being “peer-reviewed” is somewhat considered as a “mark of good quality & credibility” here in the country and globally. The reality is, a lot of so-called “good scientific research” now are mainly frauds, never seen the reviews of colleagues in the industry, or worse, science that has been bought by Big Pharma and other multinational corporations to look “legit” and credible.
In my line of work which involves healing the sick with science and compassion, I would rather have my patients decide if my work and products are good and effective enough to be used and recommended to their family members, friends, and colleagues.
Science today is plagued by corruption, not only in the medical industry but other industries as well which utilize the cold, hard, repeatable, and empirical facts of science. Even though I do believe that good science should be reviewed at some point, using only “peer-reviewed” materials deprive people of a lot of good and useful information that can heal their sicknesses and improve their daily lives.
So what are the fields that are losing credibility now by way of the “peer-reviewed” standard?
Many people are lamenting over the politicization and corporatization of science. Is there really a very serious “climate change” issue right now? Or is it mainly a case of various companies wanting to piggyback on the climate change bandwagon and be considered one of the more “socially responsible corporations” out there?
Various members of the scientific community have spoken up against the corporatization of science. Swedish climatologist and former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg Professor Lennart Bentsson asserted his concerns regarding some scientists “mixing their scientific roles with that of being a climate activist”. He also said that climate science is slowly being “politicized”.
Even the Australian prime minister’s chief business advisor has spoken about the negative effects of combining science and politics, as well as Senator James Inhofe, chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Unfortunately, the politics of climate science and the manipulation of data seem to go hand in hand these days – and it happens for all kinds of science today.
Medical Science/Health Science/Food
In all of the science-based fields in the 21st century, medical science is the one highly targeted by fraudsters and those who want to manipulate the science for their own use and purpose.
And who else could notice this so blatantly than the editors-in-chief of several of the major medical journals and news magazines now? Take a look at what some of the great editors have to say in the following quotes:
“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 an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”
̶ Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), one of the most prestigious, peer-reviewed medical journals in the world along with The Lancet.
Here is another quote:
“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”
– Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard professor of medicine and former Editor-in-Chief of The New England Medical Journal
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”
̶ Dr. Richard Horton, the current Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet
And a widely read and accessed article in the history of the Public Library of Science (PLoS) entitled “Why Most Published Research Findings are False” was written by Stanford University School of Medicine epidemiologist John Ioannidis. This article astutely hits the nail on the head and presents the arguments against the prevalence of published “false research” findings.
Presenting “fake” or “set-up” research that makes certain pharmaceutical companies’ products or clinical trials look good has become more common these days. So here are a few examples:
- Pharmaceutical Drugs
Irving Kirsch, a Harvard Medical School lecturer in medicine, published a study referring to how certain analyses of published and unpublished data hidden by drug companies actually reveals that most if not all of the benefits are “due to the placebo effect”.
Another study conducted by Nordic Cochrane Center researchers in Copenhagen, Denmark and published in the British Medical Journal revealed that pharmaceutical companies were not reporting all information regarding the results of their drug trials. The researchers investigated documents from 70 different double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI), and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI). The surprising discovery: the researchers found that the full extent of serious harm or danger in the clinical studies went unreported.
Lead author of the study and Ph.D. student at Cochrane Tamang Sharma commented on the study results: “We found that a lot of the appendices were often only available upon request to the authorities, and the authorities had never requested them. I’m actually kind of scared about how bad the actual situation would be if we had the complete data.”
Finally, Dr. Peter Gotzsche, a co-author of the study and a co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration (the world’s foremost body in assessing medical evidence), discovered in a separate analysis that 100,000 people die in the U.S. annually from the side effects of “correctly used” prescription drugs. Cochrane commented that “it’s remarkable that nobody raises an eyebrow when we kill so many of our own citizens with drugs”.
One of the best examples of how political influence holds sway over scientific publications involves a study on Genetically Modified Maize and some rodents popularly known as The Seralini Affair (taken from the name of the lead study author who was Dr. Gilles-Eric Séralini of the University of Caen, in France).
The rodents were given a diet of GMO maize (corn that is genetically resistant to the infamous Roundup herbicide, a product of Monsanto) over a 90-day period. The study’s co-authors listed no ill effects from the GMO maize diet on the lab mice. The results were thought to be conclusive during that time.
Given the fact that there are no long-term studies on the health effects of GMOs then, independent researchers decided to conduct the same study with one major difference: their study lasted over a year rather than just 3 months (90 days). And that was when the researchers found instances of severe kidney and liver damage, as well as hormonal disturbances, and the development of large tumors and death among the treated rat groups.
The study was published in November 2012, in the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology, and then instantly retracted by the authors allegedly due to pressure from the publication to retract the study. After hundreds of scientists condemned the retraction, the U.S. did not publish it. The study was then re-published in multiple peer-reviewed scientific journals in Europe last 2014. Because of the Seralini study, several European Union governments banned the growing of GM crops in the EU.
In 1996, Steven M. Druker, a public interest attorney and the Executive Director of the Alliance For Bio-Integrity then, initiated a lawsuit in 1998 that forced the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to reveal its files on genetically engineered foods.
One of the more controversial cases of “peer-reviewed”, credible information are vaccines and vaccine clinical trials. One of the biggest questions people are still asking the U.S. FDA and national governments is, “If vaccines are engineered to protect us from diseases and have been ‘peer-reviewed’ and went through clinical trials before a commercial release, why do people still die from the effects of vaccines?”.
In fact, a definite example of how fraud has riddled almost every vaccine that was released to the public is the existence of what they call a “Vaccine Court”. This court tries every vaccine complaint that has been lodged with the U.S. government regarding vaccine use. It is so popular that to date, the U.S. Vaccine Court managed to disburse more than US$3 billion in terms of damages to the families whose children and loved ones have died or physically harmed by vaccines.
In fact, there is so much concern about what they really insert into our vaccines that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Chairman of the World Mercury Project (WMP) has announced a US$100,000 challenge which aims to put an end to the inclusion of “mercury” in vaccines administered in the U.S. or globally.
Where do We go from Here?
Scientific fraud is everywhere – and not just in the medical sciences, agriculture, or climate change. It is in our food, our cleaning supplies, our homes, and even in our cosmetics. But like with GMOs and vaccines, we need to educate and enlighten ourselves and our loved ones about scientific fraud because we owe it to ourselves.