How to create fake scientific studies
As mentioned in my Introduction to Alternative Cancer Treatments Over a 42-year period, the tobacco industry spent more than $ 220 million on more than 1,500 scientific studies, however none of these studies could find a link between tobacco cancer and lung cancer, heart disease, etc. As I mentioned in that article, a group of high school students with a phone book could demonstrate a relationship between smoking and lung cancer. My point to mention this fact was that scientists are more than willing to accept money to make false scientific studies.
In fact, you can almost always predict what conclusions a Scientific Study will come to know only one key fact: Who funded the study. The person who funded the study will always get the conclusion you want. People who freely call themselves, the scientists – Always make sure that.
The pharmaceutical industry, with its full control over the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), etc. have also funded many, many millions of fake dollars Scientific studies. In fact, your budget is in the billions of dollars every year. Couple this with your control of the media and have the situation we are in today.
It is the Primary Directive of medical research to do two things:
- First, make it look like there’s scientific evidence For orthodox cancer treatments, orthodox treatments for heart disease prevention, etc., and
- Second, make it appear that there is no scientific evidence For alternative cancer treatments, alternative treatments of heart disease prevention, and so on.
- But how can a scientist not find value in a nutrient that treats cancer or heart disease when the truth of the matter is that this substance has value? That is what this website is about.
- This web page will summarize a number of different tactics and tricks that scientists can use to make sure their teachers who fund their studies get exactly what they want.
Tactics, tricks and fraud in scientific studies
Use of synthetic versions of a nutrient in the study
In many nutrient studies, especially vitamins, synthetic versions of the nutrients were used in the study. Synthetic versions of a vitamin have almost no effect on a disease as a processed quality natural version of the same nutrient. For example:
A new study indicates that pregnant women should ask their doctors for a prenatal supplement that contains natural vitamin E for optimal health insurance. According to this new research, the human placenta can deliver natural vitamin E to the fetus in a much higher concentration (3.5 to one) than the synthetic supplement.
Natural and synthetic vitamin E are not the same. Previous research has shown that natural vitamin E is better preserved and more biologically active than synthetic. To identify the type of vitamin E in a supplement, you need to read the ingredients listed on the label. Natural vitamin E begins with D, As in d-alpha-tocopherol. The synthetic version begins with Dl.
The dosage is too low
When the media exploit the world that a particular vitamin or nutrient does not work In the prevention or treatment of a disease, they may mention the dosage of the product used by the orthodox scientist, but they have not mentioned the actual dose of alternative medicine doctors. Frequently, orthodox study It only uses a small fraction of the dose usually used by alternative medicine.
Isolate a natural substance working in synergy with other nutrients
Scientists like to study one nutrient at a time, ignoring that in whole raw foods, this nutrient may be the best nutrient in isolation, but in fact this nutrient only works in combination with several other key nutrients in the raw, Whole meal For example, orthodox scientists can study vitamin A alone, rather than the effect of fresh and well-prepared carrot juice. By isolating a substance, they can then generalize that they have shown that all natural food has no effect on prevention or treatment.
Isolate and study the wrong nutrient
There are many thousands of phytonutrients in plants. No one has any idea how many of them there are. Most of them have not been identified or isolated. Few of them have been proven to treat cancer. With glyconutrients, the situation may even be worse.
Glyconutrients someday can be found to be more effective at curing cancer than phytonutrients.
When mass testing suggests that carrot juice is one of the best treatments for cancer, scientists quickly try to guess what it is about carrots that kills cancer cells as well.
It may be beta carotene, it could be alpha carotene. Nobody knows for sure. It can be a combination of 20 different things, only 4 of which have been isolated and identified as of this date.
However, this possibility will not prevent scientists from trying to prove that carrots can not cure cancer. They will select one or two nutrients in carrots, claim that they know these nutrients are the only nutrients that fight cancer in carrots and then use all the tricks and tactics they can come up with & 8220; Try That carrot juice can not cure cancer.
No one knows the truth about why it works, but many people know that carrot juice is an important part of many alternative cancer treatments. That is a fact. This is Essiac , but I know you know for sure why. Doctors have known for over a hundred years that grass kills cancer cells, but no one can honestly say that they know what it is about Sorrel sheep that kills cancer cells.
But scientists do not want you to know how complex the synergy between multiple nutrients is. They want you to think that they know what nutrients they are that work and that they have proven that since these nutrients can not, in isolation, cure cancer, that carrot juice (or whatever) can not cure cancer.
Contamination of the substance being tested
In one case, at least, the NIH contaminated a fake pill that is being used in a study. Natural laetrile can not and has never given a patient the symptoms of cyanide poisoning. It is simply impossible. The NIH refused to allow an alternative supplier of laetrile to supply natural laetrile for the study. So they could create a personalized pill for the study.
By creating your custom fake laetrile pill, it was not enough for them not to have any natural laetrile in the pill. A worthless pill would not have given any patient the symptoms of cyanide poisoning. They also had to chain the pill with inorganic cyanide for patients to have symptoms of cyanide poisoning.
In other words, since they could not make a natural gas pill large enough to induce symptoms of cyanide poisoning, they provided a natural cyanide-free pill, but tied it with inorganic cyanide to induce the symptom.
Modify the complete treatment plan
Generally, when the federal government wants to make sure that a funded study will kill all patients, in order to make some natural substances seem ineffective, they will use multiple techniques. For example, when doing a laetrile study they created a totally false laetril pill And he tied it with inorganic cyanide, as we just mentioned. But that was not enough. They also did not give patients the standard cancer diet used by alternative physicians in a complete treatment with laetril. This was easy to see because this cancer diet, by itself, even without laetrile, would have produced a significantly higher survival rate than orthodox medicine.
Particularly with regard to survival time, Scientists often use worthless statistical techniques to reach the conclusions their funders want them to reach. For example, instead of measuring the total survival time of two groups, they can measure the percentage of people who are still alive after a short period of time. My Introduction Article goes into this trick in more detail.
Choose the confidence interval
A Confidence interval It is a number used in statistics that provides the level of confidence that the study results are valid. When trying to find evidence That an orthodox treatment works, another statistical trick is to use a low confidence interval combined with a large number of studies. In other words, if you use a low confidence interval and fund many studies, eventually one of the studies will give you a valid statistic study. But it is not because the product works, it is because of the nature of the statistics and the probability.
On the other hand, when looking at alternative studies, there is not a confidence interval high enough to convince the FDA to approve an alternative treatment. As shown in my eBook, applying statistics to the results of an alternative physician gave a confidence interval equivalent to more than one thousand standard deviations (three standard deviations from a confidence interval commonly accepted in science, using more than three Standard deviations is too high for most studies). But more than a thousand standard deviations are not enough evidence for orthodox medicine.
Does not look for the right thing
This was the tactic used over and over again in tobacco studies, and it’s a trick used over and over again in the pharmaceutical industry. For example, to obtain funding from the tobacco industry, one can not directly seek a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer. You have to look for something irrelevant, but apparently relevant, that the skirts Or it avoids the real problem.
As an example of the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA only accepts studies that compare a Old Toxic sludge to a new Toxic sludge. They will not legally allow or accept a legitimate study comparing an alternative treatment with orthodox treatment.
Preaching the importance of Double blind Studies
Scientists Love to Preach the Importance of Double Blind Studies because that way they can compare their age Toxic sludge to your new Toxic sludge in the same study. But in many cases, a double-blind study is meaningless in the world. For example, how could you do a double-blind study comparing a person who rejects all orthodox cancer treatments with someone undergoing chemotherapy? It’s a stupid concept because after a day a person would know what group they were in.
Similarly, how can chemotherapy compare to Vitamin C in a double-blind study? The chemo group would have severe pain, disease, your hair will fall, and so on. The Vitamin C group would have no added pain, no disease (except perhaps diarrhea), and your hair will not fall, etc. A double-blind study, in this case, is nonsense. What are you going to do, secretly put Drano (a toxic sludge used in plumbing to clean drainage pipes) and ipecac (which causes people to vomit) with vitamin C so that the vitamin C group will experience intense pain And disease and not knowing what blind group they are in?
There is nothing more stupid in the world of science that requires a double-blind study in cases where it does not make sense.
But it gets worse. The whole point of a Double-blind Study is to remove any possible Psychological Effect in the study. In other words, since patients do not know which group they are in, there is no psychological psychology at all. Benefit or detriment to treatment caused by your beliefs.
So what is the last situation where there can not be any effect? Using medical records, especially from people who are already DEAD! When a person does not know that their treatment is going to be used in a study long after they are dead, there is certainly no psychology. Effect that influences its result.
As an additional point in this regard, patients who are dead, and now only exist in medical records, could not have known about treatments that did not even exist when they were being treated. So how could there be a psychological effect?
Patient selection (ie selection protocol)
When scientists want to make sure they do not accidentally duplicate successful alternative medicine treatment, they can use an intelligent way to selectively select participants for study. For example, when Pauling and Cameron selected patients for their study comparing vitamin C therapy with chemotherapy, they selected patients who had a wide variety of cancers. When the Mayo Clinic wanted to make sure they did not reach the same conclusions as Pauling and Cameron did not use a wide variety of cancers, they used a small number of different types of cancers. By carefully choosing patients in a study they can greatly control the outcome of the study.
Another trick you can use with patient selection is designed to make alternative medicine look bad. But they usually do not use statistics to do this, but will use one patient at a time to make the alternative medicine look bad.
For example, they may find a patient who was sent home to die, after being mutilated, poisoned and burned so badly that there is no way this patient can survive. They then tell the story of an alternative cancer patient who died, not to mention that he was essentially dead before he started taking the treatments.
Or they may find someone who did not choose the right treatment for their situation and died for it. Because they suppress the truth about alternative medicine, it is easy to find these people. These people probably died because of the lack of truth at their disposal, rather than the ineffectiveness of alternative medicine.
In essence, you can find a lot of people who took alternative treatments that died. By not telling the whole story (whatever the story), they can make it look like alternative medicine is useless.
Give Known Medications to Interact with Treatment
When NIH wanted to try That Hydrazine Sulphate did not treat the cachexia, they had a problem There were already many scientific studies that showed that it worked. So what they did was give 94 percent of the patients in the study a prescription drug that is known to neutralize the effect of hydrazine sulfate. The patients died of course, and the NIH got the data they wanted.
Hide who is funding the study
Many scientific studies are done by Big Pharma. Since these studies are too overtly biased to be taken seriously, Big Pharma will often look for a big name scientist to attach his name to the study, as if they really would have done the study. In fact there are many different ways to hide who really does a study and many medical journals could not care less anyway.
In addition to this, many medical journals are unaware of who is funding a study by scientists who do not belong to Big Pharma. As mentioned in my Introduction Article, with aspartame studies there was a clear correlation between what the studies found and which funded the studies.
Bribing the peer review group
As mentioned in my Introduction Article:
In June 2002, the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most respected medical journals, made a startling announcement. The editors stated that they were abandoning their policy by stipulating that the authors of medical review articles could not have financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies whose drugs were being tested.
The reason? The magazine could no longer find enough independent experts. Pharmaceutical company gifts and consulting fees They are so penetrating that in any given field, you can not find an expert who has not been paid in any way by the industry. So the magazine was set to a new standard: Your reviewers may have received no more than $ 10,000 [per year] from the companies whose work they judge. Is not it comforting?
This announcement of the New England Journal of Medicine is just the tip of the iceberg of a scientific establishment that has been corrupted by conflicts of interests and prejudices, calling into question almost all the scientific claims made in the biomedical field. P
The standard announced in June was for reviewers only. The actual authors of scientific studies in medical journals are often purchased and paid for by private pharmaceutical companies with a share in scientific results. While the NEJM and some other magazines reveal these conflicts, others do not. Unknown to many readers is the fact that the data being discussed were often collected and analyzed by the manufacturer of the drug involved in the test.
Contracts with scientists
Virtually all contracts between a scientist and a pharmaceutical company will include a stipulation that if the pharmaceutical company does not like the study results, they have the legal right to suppress the study results, and the scientist is prohibited from publishing the study results And it is forbidden to submit the study to a magazine.
Very, very few universities have the integrity of signing a contract that does not have this contract clause.
What this means is that when a study finds a dangerous side effect of a prescription drug, or if the drug is found to be useless, the information is legally suppressed.
The Fastest and Fastest Way to Blacklist Pharmaceutical companies come to a conclusion they do not like. Perhaps you have discovered that one of your drugs kills more people than you admit. Perhaps you have found a higher incidence of new cancers in patients who took a particular type of chemotherapy drug. Perhaps you have found that a natural treatment for cancer is superior to all chemotherapy drugs. You may forget to never be financed again.
In short, if you do not give Big Pharma the conclusions you want, you will not win again. Never. Everyone knows that. It is the basic rule of the game.
Flooding scientific journals with false studies
To put all these elements in perspective, it was the ultimate goal of the tobacco industry to flood the market of the scientific journal with fake scientific studies in order to dilute valid scientific studies that they were not able to control (ie, to finance).
The pharmaceutical industry has set even higher goals: to use the corruption of science and government to flood the market of the scientific journal with false scientific studies, in addition to making sure that peer review people are also in their pocket of the Hip, Studies that make alternative treatments look good may be published. They have done well.