Can we trust the Science? (Censorship and corruption)

posted in: Advice, General | 0

Today, science is up on a pedestal, a new god has appeared his high priests conduct their rituals, with nuclear reactors moon probing rocket ships, cathode tubes and laser beams. And their territory is sacrosanct; laymen are denied entry.”

Bruce Cathie

For many people the idea of peer review occupies a special even sacred territory; a holy grail in the world of science. A common misconception often openly declared is that one is either “following the science” or “trusting the science.” (in matters of health and medicine). Science has replaced religion for some to the point of dogma. Consider that science has now become the new doctrine.

However with further investigation of suppressed innovations, inventions, effective medical treatments, non toxic cures etc, it becomes apparent that the peer review system is arguably better at one thing above all others; Censorship.

Whether this is censorship of opposing viewpoints, or innovations that render favoured dogmas or products, services obsolete, and pose economic threats, (depending upon circumstances), regardless the problem is now recognised by many critics as endemic and many scientists have had to learn this the hard way. The defects in the peer review system have been the subject of a profusion of editorials and literature over recent years; clearly there is a problem and denial won’t solve it, as Dr David Kaplan professor at the Cleveland University tells us “peer review is known to engender bias, incompetence, excessive expense, ineffectiveness and corruption”. A surfeit of publications has documented the deficiencies of this system. As Australian physicist Brian Martin comments on this theme in his excellent article Strategies for Dissenting Scientists;

Certain sorts of innovation are welcome in science when they fall within established frameworks and do not threaten vested interests. But aside from this sort of routine innovation, science has many similarities to systems of dogma. Dissenters are not welcome. They are ignored, rejected and sometimes attacked” Brian Martin Australian social scientist

The failure of peer review has been one of science’s most embarrassing open secrets for some time.

In the spirit of transparency, shouldn’t science be an open playing field of differing opinions to discuss or even publish new theories without suppression? In a fair and ethical world, scientists should be given the platform to speak freely and disagree with the mainstream narrative without fear of censorship, being struck off and losing their medical license or being stripped of funding.

An uncomfortable fact is that the law of economics dictates to us that science is reliant upon finance for research and investigation. Given the vital importance of science as an endeavour with strong ethical requirements, we expect the principles to be of the highest standards. Yet science is so dependant and intertwined with financial imperatives and the pharmaceutical industry which is driven by profit and owned by powerful people that it is inevitably compromised on so many levels.

Death by medicine is a twenty-first century epidemic, and America’s war on drugs is clearly directed at the wrong enemy.” –Dr. Joseph Mercol

Prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer according to the

It’s no secret that Prescription drugs kill over 100,000 people each year, half who die have taken their medication correctly and the elderly population are the most at risk due to the unquestioning trust of their doctors’ orders. Medical mishaps are only just the tip of the iceberg. Many medications such as statins; one of Pharmas biggest cash cows which raked in $29 billion just in back in 2013. Despite the inefficiency of statins being well documented not only are statins questionable in their efficacy but their safety is in question contributing to muscle wastage, weakened immunity and neurological problems.

The most profitable industry in the world, ‘the top 10 largest pharmaceutical companies in the world are contributing to exponential growth and driving critical innovation for the healthcare and pharmaceutical industry’ according to industry reports.

The global pharmaceutical industry was worth $934.8 billion in 2017 and will reach $1170 billion in 2021, growing at 5.8%. Current estimates that global pharma spending will exceed USD 1.5 trillion by 2023. Science and the pharmaceutical industry have become inextricably linked in the pursuit of innovation and profit but at what greater cost?

The pharmaceutical giant Pfizer has paid more than $4.7 Billion in fines for damages and corruption since 2007 and yet they have been given the contract for ‘saving the world. And people say they trust the science..?

This level of wealth in one sector allows a very large amount of power to a very small elite group of people, if science errs and is questioned, you directly oppose and challenge the people in power and their vested interests. Hence why anyone who speaks out or against unscrupulous methods or products are labelled as dissidents and demonised by the industry.

If one theory is promoted and one theory suppressed, it is difficult to not draw the conclusion that the people in power and powerful institutions have a preference about which theory is given prominence. Which potential truth is given most value? This has now become the accepted norm in society.

The electric universe research at world thornhill states that plainly that the peer review system amounts to censorship. Fellow Independent scientist Gary Novak is also scathing saying that “peer review is a form of censorship that is tyranny over the mind. Censorship does not purify it corrupts….There is a lot of junk science and trash that goes through the peer review process.” Martin also asks; “what do (scientists) have to gain by spending time helping an outsider? Most likely, the alleged discovery will turn out to be pointless or wrong from the standard point of view. If the outsider has made a genuine discovery, that means the outsider would win rewards at the expense of those already in the field who have invested years of effort in the conventional ideas.”

Commonplace In the scientific community, the influential and powerful on the inside of the old boys club can and do become gatekeepers or threshold guardian of studies for peer review. Dissidents are often demonised by the establishment who are threatened by novelty. Scientists are prone to being attached to their pet theories and opinions. Especially if associated with rewards, status and accolades as a result, who would want to put that at risk after all? Scientists just like all people are given by their egos partially due to their expertise, academic titles, qualifications, and theories

Dr Malcolm Kendrick comments in Doctoring Databy definition anyone who is an expert in an area of medicine will be a supporter of whatever dogma holds sway. A close study of power dynamics in medicine bears this out and we should never forget the golden rule whoever has the gold, makes the rules

Corporations increasingly dominate oversight and funding of so called scientific research. Consider the words from the Lancets Editor; Richard Horton; “The mistake of course is the thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability not the validity – of a new finding, we portray peer review to the public as a quasi sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.” Richard Horton

Peer review as a quasi sacred process which supposedly transcends the foibles and follies of human nature has long since unconsciously taken on sacred ritual status. Has the paper been blessed by the peer review priest? If not then it is epistemologically contaminated.

Richard Horton writes that a symposium on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research at the Welcome Trust in London, in 2015 where attendees where discouraged from reporting on what was said, discussed one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with science one of our greatest human creations. 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. According to Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, a United Kingdom-based medical journal,” the apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. At best, telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world or retrofit hypotheses to fit their data.

Vol 385 April 11, 2015 by Richard Horton Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma? (PDF) “’A lot of what is published is incorrect.’ I’m not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted, since the forthcoming UK election meant they were living in ‘purdah’—a chilling state where severe restrictions on freedom of speech are placed on anyone on the government’s payroll. Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution? Because this symposium—on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last week—touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations.

One anonymous attendee scientist declared that a lot of what is published is incorrect acknowledging what is termed as science amounts to little more than toilet paper. Horton as the veteran editor of a prestigious scientific journal is scathing he says “the case against science is straight forward, much of the scientific literature, as much as half, may simply be untrue. Studies with sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses and flagrant conflicts of interests, together with the pursuit fashionable trends of dubious importance this has taken a turn towards darkness”. Poor methods get results as one participant put it.

What he is criticising here is not the scientific method but the poorly conducted misleading studies masquerading as real science. Method and facts are two distinctly separate entities.

As scientist Jordan Grant states ; “Science is simply a method of enquiry the scientific method, natural science, the purpose is to adjudicate the cause in the natural and physical world that’s it, it is simply a method it does not speak it isn’t consensus nor does it have much to do with correlative studies which is most research today. If anyone claims this is scientific and it has not gone through the scientific method then it is pseudo science which is what we are seeing taking over the academic stage. Jordon hit the nail on the head here speaking of nails, the herbalist Stephen Behner also makes the point succinctly clarifying linguistic problem here as he says ; “ Nearly all people in the sciences or its admirers tend to refer to the practise of the scientific method not as a technique or an arena of study but more in godlike terms such as; “ I found an insect new to science..” “We did it for science” in other words linguistically the practice of scientific method is not spoken of as a human pursuit rather as a service to a divine being known as Science which is not a living being it is a tool like a hammer Science is spoken of with a religious mentality of rampant dogmatism that surrounds scientific endeavour

A meta analysis review in the PLOS journal asking how many scientists fabricate and falsify data or commit other forms of conduct came to these conclusions:

To standardize outcomes, the number of respondents who recalled at least one incident of misconduct was calculated for each question, and the analysis was limited to behaviours that distort scientific knowledge: fabrication, falsification, “cooking” of data, etc… Survey questions on plagiarism and other forms of professional misconduct were excluded. The final sample consisted of 21 surveys that were included in the systematic review, and 18 in the meta-analysis.

A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others.

Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

Harvard Medical School’s Dr Marcia Angell is the editor in chief at the respected New England Journal of medicine and she is quoted saying;

It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authorative 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 Marci Angell

BMJ the corruption and Politicisation of science article Kamran Abbasi wrote: ( full article in the reference footnotes) ”Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health.1Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science

Consider all of this carefully in light of the latest and greatest experimental emergency injections being foisted upon us at high speed, without proof of safety or efficacy. A reminder of Hortons words about editors who “aid and abet the worst behaviours our love of significance pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy tale “ Using statistical manipulation the high priests of the church of modern medicine can turn any unfavourable results into apparent life saving breakthroughs worthy of the 6pm news they can turn water into wine few lay people seem to be aware of the various methods of manipulation that the public is a victim of and indeed many professionals seem oblivious of it also. Most experts in mainline medicine are psychologically speaking just engaged in well paid group think in confirmation bias exercises, confirming their ego profitable construction of the world. Many are little more than shills for the pharmaceutical industry. Medicine and science in general to paraphrase the physicist Max Planck ;

“Science advances one funeral at a time”, once the public has accepted the scientific establishments truths, narratives and the designated experts then researchers whose results or methods deviate from the accepted norm can be immediately branded as a crackpot, lunatics, pseudo scientists and so on no matter how meticulous and rigorous their scientific method and irrefutable their results, the media is crucial in this control of the dynamic because it sells the establishments reality while raging a psychological war against consumer programming them to passively accept the weakest evidence and most illogical arguments and contradictions without question. Big tech platforms have been co-opted into this endeavour.

A very good example of this is illustrated by health journalist Lynne McTaggert in her blog Just Do the Math on the censorship of Americas frontline doctors who had discovered an effective and cheap treatment for Covid-19 back in March 2020 but were censored heavily by the mainstream media and social media (is it because their treatment is too cheap and does not render massive profit for big pharma?) this excellent article is in the footnotes and worth a read. The mainstream media are highly skilled at pushing a narrative while restraining all of the voices of scientists who disagree with that narrative.

The opinions and advice of expert panels rank the lowest on the 7 level hierarchy of medical evidence and yet this is how a large amount of public policy is generated including when so called epidemics occur whether real or figments of statistical manipulation and bogus diagnostics thus is the politically correct status quo maintained, rocking the boat with unwanted paradigm busters or innovations that can cure diseases such as cancer for example just isn’t how to get ahead in the world of science or mainline medicine. There is no profit to be found in cures. Cures do not generate repeat business.

Peer reviewed censorship exemplifies the need for phobia in the world of science who are there to protect the status quo rather than improve knowledge by weeding out dubious ideas, methods and data, this supposed mechanism of quality control has resulted in the dismissal of not only masses of important highly credible and important research but allows fraudulent research be published in its place.

Papers that appear to support fashionable ideas or entrenched dogmas are likely to fair well, even if they are flat out wrong.

Dr Kaplan states

Peer review is broken. It needs to be overhauled, not just tinkered with. The incentives should be changed so that others are more satisfied and more likely to produce better work, the reviewing more transparent and honest and journals do not have to manage an unwieldy and corrupt system that produces disaffection and misses out on innovation

Dr David Kaplan

The scientific method was used even in ancient times, but it was first documented by England’s Sir Francis Bacon (1561–1626) who set up inductive methods for scientific inquiry. The scientific method can be applied to almost all fields of study as a logical, rational, problem-solving method.

Medical science was born of one view from Louis Pasteur and another from a monopolist John D Rockerfeller. Is it any surprise that it has become the Frankenstein’s monster it is today? Without question we do not advance which is one of the fundamental human needs. Consider that without the spiritual, mental and dietary/nutrition facet that are fundamental to the healing process needed to be included in any healthcare regime if we are to have any hope of resolution.

Without a more open, inclusive, transparent and holistic approach in science and healthcare, consider one of many dystopian views the film Wall E film paints a very sobering thought, isn’t it time we woke up to the corruption and censorship so embedded in the matrix of our healthcare system and mainstream media before it’s too late?

Leave a Reply