Is Science broken? (Especially in medicine)

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.

However investigation of suppressed innovations, inventions, effective medical treatments, non toxic cures etc, rapidly reveals 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 the professor of 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

The electric universe stated plainly that the peer review system amounts to censorship.and the independent scientist Gary Novak also is 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.”

This means that the influential and powerful on the inside of the old boys club can and do become gatekeepers. 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 and academic titles, qualifications, theories etc etc. Dr Malcolm Kendrick comments in Doctoring Data “by 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 and 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 epistimogically unclean and tainted.

In 2015 Horton attended a secretive symposium on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research at the Welcome Trust in London. Attendees where strongly discouraged from reporting on what any government agency said or reports or to take photos of the slides presented, the symposium touched on one of the most sensitive issues today is that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations- that being science itself . 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. The apparent endomicity of research behaviour is alarming. At best telling a compelling story Scientists sculpt out to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retro fit their hypothesis to fit their data.

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 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, this should be kept in mind when over hearing people saying they are following, trusting or believing in the science. Once science has become conflated with indefinable divinity then it is of course a heresy to challenge it. When Horton says that science has turned towards darkness, he means that those presumed to be practising science have themselves turned towards darkness and ceased to employ rigorous scientific method usually in order to serve the agenda of those who pay their salaries. As one of Horton’s colleagues put it “poor methods get results“

If this is the case one is not really practising science anymore, but are engaged in Psuedo science prepared for PR and marketing purposes to perhaps help your job or get a new product to market.

Horton also says; “Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet their worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy tale we reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics such as high impact publication. National assessment procedures…incentivise bad practises. And individual scientists including their lost senior leaders do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct ” Richard Horton ( What is medicine’s 5 Sigma?)

Those on the inside in the know are aware that science has taken a turn into darkness and peer review is broken. Much of the general public still think of peer review not only as professionally viable but it is held as a transcendent almost magical force occurring in the heavenly ivory towers of science. A divine force that is above falling prey to human weaknesses by virtue of the lofty qualifications of the masters of science. Something beyond the layman’s reach we see these highly qualified scientists with their doctorates as the chosen ones the righteous and holy. The high priests of secular modern culture. Their holy dispensations are not to be questioned.

Unfortunately the popular view of peer reviews is misleading but some of the most prestigious publications are some of the worst offenders. Significant scientific publications for example the journal Nature have a well documented history of prejudice against findings or hypotheses that run contrary t to established scientific dogma. Ironically treating many scientists of today the way the Catholic church treated Galileo Copernicus and Bruno.

In the British Medical Journal in May 2000 the Canadian Researcher David Sacker said that he “would never again lecture, write or referee anything to do with evidence based clinical practise” over his concerns that experts are stifling new ideas, he wants the retirement of experts to be made compulsory “as the progress towards the truth is impaired in the presence of an expert ( gatekeepers) Trusting experts in oncology for example is generally a very good way to artificially speed your trip to the grave , correctly prescribed medication is one of the leading causes of death in the US today and those are just the correctly prescribed ones and yet never ones to let unbiased research get in the way of profitable theology establishment experts are now on a rarefied level that only celebrities can understand and are virtually promoted as demi gods today the cult of celebrity is alive and well. We seem to be replacing evidence and logic with popularity authority and feelings. And replacing orthodox religion with the cult of scientism and church of modern medicine, in the main , experts are those people in the establishment who espouse the mainstream dogma and redefine the politically correct belief structure that profit vested interests experts are lionised because the world that made them experts promotes and validates them when they affirm the already established beliefs.

And the mainstream media are not just complicit in this, is absolutely instrumental in indoctrinating great swathes of humanity into whatever expert approved field of theology that holds sway. While all the dissident and equally qualified experts are deliberately excluded from coverage. If you want to be extremely misled on any number of important issues, just head straight to the mainstream media via print or TV or even some of the big tech social media platforms and listen to the establishments experts or ‘fact checkers’

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

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 conformation 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 consumers 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. 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 load 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

There fore is it any wonder that Dr John Eneades reported in it his famous 2005 paper that “most research findings in most fields are false” but sadly that does not stop them from being published and distributed widely.

Claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias, this is exactly what Kendrick, Sackert, Aplin, Martin and many others are indicating.

Dr Marc Girard a mathematician on bias and censorship; “The reason for this disaster is too clear the power of money in academic institutions, the current dynamics of research is more favourable to the ability of getting grants – collecting money and spending it than to Scientific imagination or creativity.”

The pharma giant Pfeizer has paid more than $4.7 Billion in fines for damages and corruption since 20071 and yet they have been given the contract for saving the world.

64 articles were retracted from the Journal of Nature due to being fake and untrue fake peer reviews are commonplace.

Medical science was born of one view from Louis Pasteur and another from a monopolist, John D Rockerfeller, is it any wonder it’s become the Frankenstein’s monster it is today without question we do not improve, which is one of the fundamental human needs, IMO the spiritual/mental and dietary fundamental causative areas need to be included in any healthcare regime

Big Pharma never lets truth get in the way of profit.

In the words of Gary Novak;

“If peer review were open and accountable, there might be a small chance of correcting some of the corruptions through truth and criticism; but the process is cloaked in the darkness of anonymity..Due to the exploitative and corrupt process, nearly everything in science has official errors within it a culture of protecting and exploiting the errors creates an official reality which cannot be opposed”

Now disturbingly we see big tech suppression of free speech aiding and abetting the official errors and frauds in mainstream medical science. Shutting down any heretics foolish enough to criticise the benevolent offerings of Big Pharma with disastrous social and economic results worldwide. We have even closed national and state borders on the flimsiest of evidence in case some one gets a cold.

“Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry” wrote Richard Horton editor of the Lancet in March 2004 in the same year, Marcia Angell former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine lambasted the industry for becoming “ primarily as a marketing machine” and co-opting every institution that might stand in its way”

Jerry Kassirer another former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, argues that “The industry has deflected the moral compasses of many physicians and the editors of PLOS Medicine have declared that they will not become part of the cycle of dependency…between journals and the pharmaceutical industry.” PLOS Magazine2.

In the words of John Eanis “Most scientific studies are wrong and they are wrong because most scientists are interested in funding and careers rather than truth”

Clearly the problem of corruption and conflicts of interest has been on the radar of professionals for some time now. So much so that it has been the subject of an increasing amount or articles in journals conveying the sheer depth and breath of deception to the uninitiated this presents a big challenge, its not just conflict of interests and corruption to blame for the failure of science and the peer review, there is human bias shoddy review work and fake reviewers, fraud and varying other human interests to factor in.

We need to wake up to the fact that the institution of science is broken and the old boys club in charge of peer review is not the least bit interested in evidence or truth, especially in mainstream medicine. Truth transparency, Innovation and progress is being sacrificed by the high priests of academic training at the alter of the church of modern medicine, as much as half of what is published as science is likely considered to be junk and any number of large bio medical corporations have no qualms about selling the masses their junk science to push their latest unnecessary product and please their stockholders, keep that I mind next time the government and media presents the next life saving drug or pill in a world of pathological function they often turn out to be the opposite of what is advertised.

In conclusion we have got to take responsibility of our own lives and wellbeing

ake editio

I am text block. Click edit button to change this text. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.