“There is a difference between Science and Fraud. Learn it.” See for yourself how research is manipulated and dogma is called science. Get better at validating research and integrity.

Research Corruption: Key Points

Use the contents to jump to your area of interest. Some key points expanded on below include:

1. Medical research is corrupted at its core. “It isn’t just an individual study here and there that’s flawed… the very framework of medical investigation may be off-kilter.” [Newsweek, 2011]
2. “I’ve witnessed the decline of medical journals firsthand. Once forums for open debate and intellectual rigour, they’ve morphed into gatekeepers, more concerned with preserving a narrow orthodoxy than pursuing truth.” [Maryanne Demasi PhD]
3. “Any time you incentivize something, you’re creating a bias.” [Dr. Lynn Fynn]
4. “Big Pharma paid over $1 billion to influence medical research from 2020-2022 in BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine. 59% of journal reviewers received pharmaceutical industry payments.” [Jon Fleetwood and JAMA]
5. Publication bias is a common strategy for making fraudulent conclusions. [Dr. John Briffa]
6. “Pharma-funded research cherry-picks positive results. Clinical trial data on new drugs is systematically withheld from doctors and patients, bringing into question many of the premises of the pharmaceutical industry—and the medicine we use.” [Scientific American, 2013]
7. “Many times, people who arrive at unwelcome results are being asked to change their results for political reasons, or to not publish them lest their funding disappear.” [Dr. Peter C. Gøtzsche MD]
8. Independent journalists reveal the “ethical collapse” of the peer review process. [Yaakov Ophir and Yaffa-Shir-Raz] See also: Amid Growing Evidence of Conflicts of Interest and Obdurate Groupthink in Medical Journals, Researchers Must Entertain Contrarian Ideas See also: Are medical journals dead? Former editor of The BMJ says, “It’s interesting to me in a way that journals are still alive, because I think there are a lot of reasons why they should be dead.”
9. Specific examples of flawed and corrupted research are provided below. Specific examples of flawed and corrupted research are provided below. For example, as described in The Epoch Times article, “Gross Misconduct: The Nail in the Coffin for Antidepressants”, the claim that antidepressants work for nearly 7 in 10 patients is clearly based on scientific misconduct and fraud. [Dr. Joseph Mercola]
10. A former editor of BMJ: “Stop assuming that research actually happened and is honestly reported.” [Richard Smith, BMJ]
11. “There is a difference between Science and Fraud. Learn it and support Science.” [James Lyons-Weiler PhD]

Research Publishing is Significantly Corrupt

“The Very Framework of Medical Investigation” Leads to Findings That are Unproven and “Dangerously Wrong”

If you follow the news about health research, you risk whiplash. First garlic lowers bad cholesterol, then—after more study—it doesn’t. Hormone replacement reduces the risk of heart disease in postmenopausal women, until a huge study finds that it doesn’t. But what if wrong answers aren’t the exception but the rule? More and more scholars who scrutinize health research are now making that claim. It isn’t just an individual study here and there that’s flawed, they charge. Instead, the very framework of medical investigation may be off-kilter, leading time and again to findings that are at best unproved and at worst dangerously wrong. The result is a system that leads patients and physicians astray—spurring often costly regimens that won’t help and may even harm you. Even a cursory glance at medical journals shows that once heralded studies keep falling by the wayside. A major study concluded there’s no good evidence that statins (drugs like Lipitor and Crestor) help people with no history of heart disease… “Positive” drug trials, which find that a treatment is effective, and “negative” trials, in which a drug fails, take the same amount of time to conduct. But negative trials took an extra two to four years to be published. With billions of dollars on the line, companies are loath to declare a new drug ineffective. As a result of the lag in publishing negative studies, patients receive a treatment that is actually ineffective.

Newsweek, Why Almost Everything You Hear About Medicine Is Wrong, Jan 23, 2011

“Many times, people who arrive at unwelcome results are being asked to change their results for political reasons, or to not publish them lest their funding disappear.”

Scientific freedom, honesty and integrity are constantly under attack, particularly in healthcare, which is dominated by the drug industry and other economic interests. As I have documented in my books and elsewhere, the result of this is that our prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death, after heart disease and cancer, and that the use of psychiatric drugs does more harm than good. Science journalist Robert Whitaker has shown that, in all countries where this relationship has been examined, the amount of people on disability pension because of mental health problems has increased at the same time as the use of psychiatric drugs has increased. Psychiatrist Peter Breggin has shown that likely all psychiatric drugs can cause long-lasting brain impairment, which may explain why the use of these drugs makes it difficult for people to live a normal life. Problems with the trustworthiness of research are not limited to healthcare. They abound everywhere, and many times people who arrive at unwelcome results are being asked to change their results for political reasons, or to not publish them lest their funding disappear.

Dr. Peter C. Gøtzsche MD

Selective Reporting (also called Publication Bias) Leads to Skewed & Incorrect Conclusions

An article in the British Medical Journal reminds us of the issue of publication bias, and the fact that “when important evidence is unavailable, the conclusions reached by these research summaries may be wrong.” The article cites a couple of pieces of research which appear to show that failure to publish data or selective reporting has led to there being a skewed view of the value of anti-depressant medication.

Dr. John Briffa, British Medical Journal seeks to re-evaluate medical ‘evidence’, Apr 29, 2011

“Any time you incentivize something, you’re creating a bias”

Any time you incentivize something, you’re creating a bias. And when you create a bias, there’s an element of truth that’s removed from the equation. When a pharmaceutical company gets to pour money into a program, the curriculum is going to reflect what they want it to reflect, to make it a profitable transaction for them. It’s a return on investment.

Dr. Lynn Fynn

Many Studies are Funded by Entities with Vested Interests Instead of by Independent Researchers

Science is often politicized to serve an agenda. This is not conspiracy theory, this is provable fact. That’s not to say that all science is to be mistrusted. The point is, no science should be blindly accepted without independent examination of ALL the available facts. This is the whole point of science, after all. Yes, there are idiotic conspiracy theories out there when it comes to scientific analysis, but there are a number of scams in the world of science as well… The mainstream and government narrative [is] that THEIR scientists, the scientists they pay for and that corporations pay for, are implicitly correct and should not be questioned. They are the high priests of the modern era, delving into great magics that we dirty peasants cannot possibly grasp. It is not for us to question “the science”, it our job to simply embrace it like a religion and bow down in reverence. Most people have the capacity to sift through scientific data as long as it’s transparent. When the facts are obscured or spun or omitted, this causes confusion, and of course only the establishment scientists can untangle the mess because they are the ones that created it… [For example,], the vast majority of cases GMO studies are funded by two sources – GMO industry giants like Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta, or, government agencies like the FDA and EPA. Very few studies are truly independent, and this is the problem. Both the government and corporations like Monsanto have a vested interest in preventing any critical studies from being released on GMO’s.

Brandon Smith, Why Don’t People “Trust The Science?”

Small Sample Sizes, Invalid Analyses, Flagrant Conflicts of Interest

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.

Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet, 2015

“Ethical Collapse” of the Peer Review Process

This article tells the story of one of the most disturbing breaches of scientific ethics we’ve encountered in our academic careers—buried in the peer-review process of one of the world’s leading vaccination journals, in the midst of a global health crisis… Peer review is meant to safeguard [scientific] standards—to ensure that critique is met with openness, and that scientific claims are tested, not protected. What happened here violated all of that.

Ethical Collapse in the Peer Review of a Leading Vaccine Journal Apr 20, 2025

Previous Editor of BMJ: “Stop Assuming that Research Actually Happened and is Honestly Reported”

I’ve been concerned about research fraud for 40 years. I… think that the time may have come to stop assuming that research actually happened and is honestly reported, and assume that the research is fraudulent until there is some evidence to support it having happened and been honestly reported.

Richard Smith, BMJ, Jul 5, 2021

The Extreme Value of Freedom of Speech on the Internet: Independent Researchers Can Tell Us Real-Time When They Identify Fraud

A more grave and serious issue with the paper is the overt fraud that was put into the paper at the last minute. This detail was not present prior to Dr. Richard Fleming being helicoptered in as the lead author of the study. Upon his arrival the paper was redecorated to claim SV40 was not found in the study. This is mentioned 3 times in the paper including in the opening Abstract. This WAS NOT discussed in the original work initially posted by the Czech team. It only appeared upon Dr. Flemings arrival as the lead author.

Kevin McKernan, Anandamide, May 15, 2025

Silence is Complicity

Science communications across the internet are lamenting that that “brave” clinicians are withdrawing from public discourse because they are afraid—afraid that their words might be misunderstood, misused, or lead to institutional punishment. But the framing is dishonest. These professionals are not withholding their voices to protect patients. They are doing so to protect their careers, funding, reputations, and access to institutional power. Let’s be clear: silence in science is not harm-reduction. It is complicity.

James Lyons-Weiler PhD

In the following curation, select bolded summary statements to get more detail from the original source.

1. Pharma-Funded Research Cherry-Picked Positive Results — Scientific American reports on a 2013 book showing “clinical trial data on new drugs is systematically withheld from doctors and patients, bringing into question many of the premises of the pharmaceutical industry — and the medicine we use.”
2. Selective Reporting / Publication Bias Leads to Skewed & Incorrect Conclusions — British Medical Journal reports on publication bias.
3. “The Very Framework of Medical Investigation” Leads to Findings That are Unproven and “Dangerously Wrong” — “It isn’t just an individual study here and there that’s flawed… The system… leads patients and physicians astray—spurring often costly regimens that won’t help and may even harm you. Even a cursory glance at medical journals shows that once heralded studies keep falling by the wayside… Negative trials took an extra two to four years to be published. With billions of dollars on the line, companies are loath to declare a new drug ineffective.”
4. Much of the Published Research is Untrue Due to Invalid Methods & “Flagrant Conflicts of Interest” — “Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.” (Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet, a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal founded in 1823)
5. Whistleblowers from Health Agencies Report Weak Data & Bad Science — ” ‘People are getting bad advice and we can’t say anything.’ … ‘I used to be proud to tell people I work at the CDC. Now I’m embarrassed.’ Why are they embarrassed? In short, bad science. The longer answer: that the heads of their agencies are using weak or flawed data to make critically important public health decisions.”
6. “The Illusion of Evidence-Based Medicine: Exposing the Crisis of Credibility in Clinical Research” — “The pharmaceutical industry is manufacturing all of these medical journal articles behind the scenes for basically marketing purposes and I was astounded because I had enormous trust in medical journals… We’re sold a lot of pharmaceuticals where the risk benefit ratio is not in favor of taking the drug and we have all sorts of instances where people who really didn’t need to be on these drugs took these drugs and then had serious adverse events.” Link to book here.
7. “The Corporate Money Train” — Studies funded by corporations and government agencies with vested interests instead of by independent researchers.
8. Doctor Blows Whistle on Big Pharma Ghostwriting in Top Medical Journals to Trick Doctors — “Big Pharma is secretly ‘ghostwriting’ articles in top medical and oncology journals to trick doctors into buying their drugs.”
9. “Vaccine Scientist” Advocating for Forced Vaccinations Profits from Compliance — “The latest ‘expert’ to call Covid-19 “just the warm-up act” and to absolutely promise us another pandemic … is none other than “vaccine scientist” Dr. Peter Hotez… Hotez, you may or may not be aware, holds several vaccine-related patents… At the risk of insulting any of my critically thinking readers’ exceptional intelligence, that means the schlock doc has a vested financial interest in promoting them. HE MAKES MONEY WHEN WE COMPLY, voluntarily or not. How incredibly convenient — and lucrative — would it be for P-Ho if there was, say, a newly minted division of NATO that would make vaccine hesitancy punishable by, for example, massive fines, or better yet, imprisonment? That would boost uptake a bit, don’tcha think? Cha-ching!”
10. Research Results That Don’t Support Establishment Are Attacked — Professor Chris Exley was researching aluminum toxicity. With findings that threaten big business, his funding was taken away. See also this article on the research and this article by The Times on the researcher’s dismissal.
11. Scientific Freedom Overtaken by Corruption — “Scientific freedom, honesty and integrity are constantly under attack, particularly in healthcare, which is dominated by the drug industry and other economic interests. Many times people who arrive at unwelcome results are being asked to change their results for political reasons, or to not publish them lest their funding disappear.”
12. Medical Research Corrupted — “There is no concerted will nor ethical standard to improve the peer-reviewed system because too much profit is generated.”
13. Many “Experiments” Where Things are “Isolated” Are Just Extreme Treatments with Chemicals and Heat — They don’t actually represent anything about life.

Examples of Misconduct, Fraud, “Major Errors”, Ethical Failure

In the following curation, select bolded summary statements to get more detail from the original source.

1. “The Widely Made Claim that Antidepressants Work for Nearly 7 in 10 Patients is Based on Scientific Misconduct and Fraud” — “Had the study protocol been followed, the cumulative remission rate would only have been 35 percent, not 67 percent. Moreover, the STAR*D report omitted the stay-well rate, probably because only 3 percent of the 4,041 patients who entered the trial and went into remission were still in remission at the end of their one-year follow-up.”
2. “Flawed Vaccine Study to Cover Up Damage from Aluminum” — Dr. Stoller exposes the phony science used by very clever researchers in order to keep the profits coming in.” See also: Calls Grow for Journal to Retract Danish Study After Corrected Data Show Link Between Aluminum in Vaccines and Autism: “The authors of a recent study of 1.2 million children claimed they found no link between the aluminum in vaccines and autism. However, corrected data now added to the study show the opposite is true, according to scientists with Children’s Health Defense. The authors did not respond to requests by The Defender to explain why they haven’t revised their conclusions based on the release of the corrected data.” See also: Study Claiming No Link Between Aluminum in Vaccines and Autism Riddled with Flaws, Critics Say See also: Flog a Dead Horse: Industry supported lies are peer reviewed published science apparently “The data modelled were hand-picked with a view towards proving the null hypothesis, that being, nothing to see here. Part of the process of peer review is to be helpful and informative assuming the authors of the research are unaware of possible deficiencies… I would emphasise the critical importance of the cellular transport of aluminium, for example, loaded in white blood cells such as macrophages. … I would go even further in insisting that the authors consider cellular transport of aluminium in their modelling and I would point out that the evidence now suggests that the brain damage observed in autism is caused by the transport of aluminium adjuvant from a vaccine injection site to the brain in white blood cells such as lymphocytes.”
3. “Researchers plan to retract landmark Alzheimer’s paper containing doctored images” — “Senior author acknowledges manipulated figures in study tying a form of amyloid protein to memory impairment.”
4. Professionals Push Back on JAMA, Elucidating “Major Errors” in Published Paper on Water Fluoridation — “A recent cost-benefit analysis, published in JAMA Health Forum, which claimed that stopping water fluoridation in the US would lead to increased levels of tooth decay and higher costs, is facing strong criticism from scientific and dental experts. In a formal letter to the journal editors, the experts called for the paper’s retraction, citing serious flaws, outdated data, and misrepresentation of evidence. According to the critics, newer studies show that water fluoridation provides minimal dental benefit today, largely due to widespread use of fluoridated toothpaste, while exposing children to neurotoxic risks and dental fluorosis.” [Alliance for Natural Health] See also: Yet Another Epidemiological Hatchet Job on Causality Fails to Exonerate the Exposure via Hidden Collider Bias. This Time, It’s Fluoride. “We are not fooled that easily.” See also: A Federal Judge Ruled Fluoridated Water is an “Unreasonable Risk”
5. Unethical & Nullifying Research: Instead of an Inactive Placebo, Girls in Vaccine Study Were Injected with A Heavy Metal; Several Girls in the Placebo Group Suffered Chronic Disabling Symptoms — “A study published in the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine, explains how Merck significantly misled the clinical trial participants for its HPV vaccine. Participants in Merck’s Gardasil study were led to believe that the study’s placebo was saline, which is harmless. But instead of injecting saline, the placebo in this trial contained an adjuvant called amorphous aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulphate (AAHS)… As you can see in the image below, the trial consent form stated that “One half of the participants will receive the active vaccine, while the other half will get the placebo vaccine (meaning a vaccine without active substance)” leading the participants to falsely believe the placebo was inactive… A number of trial participants experienced chronic disabling symptoms, including some randomized to the adjuvant ‘placebo’ group… Aluminum has no place in biology. It’s an extremely toxic substance… While fact checkers have often misled the public stating things like ‘the amount of aluminum in a vaccine is equivalent to canned food’ this is misinformed. The aluminum we ingest through food is discarded via digestion, whereas aluminum injected into the body or bloodstream is treated entirely differently… Using a placebo that can independently produce adverse effects confounds the trial results and ‘nullifies the very concept of a placebo-controlled trial,’ the researchers wrote, making it impossible to evaluate vaccine safety.”
6. Paper that Claims “Plant-Based” Oils are Better than Butter” is not Science. It is Closer to Propaganda.” — Despite extensive propaganda, replacing natural fats with manufactured “vegetable oils” has never been proven to lower the risk of heart disease or death. In fact, extensive research has showed the opposite. So a 2025 study claiming “plant-based oils” are superior to butter doesn’t make sense. A doctor who investigated and reported here elucidates the primary research flaw that obviously invalidates the findings: researchers did not distinguish olive oil from seed oils. This is nonsensical. Those are completely different oils with opposing effects, and therefore need to be compared, not merged where the effects are confounded.
7. Covid-Related Data Integrity Issues and Censorship — Data integrity issues and censorship of Covid-related information.

Fraud Dressed Up as Nutrition “Science”

In a recent editorial, independent journalist Nina Teicholz rightly asks: “What kind of dystopian world has nutrition ‘science’ whereby a university, a peer-reviewed journal, and one of the field’s most influential leaders legitimize advice telling the public to eat more Lucky Charms and fewer eggs?” Perhaps the fact that Tufts Friedman School of Nutrition receives funding from 60 companies has something to do with it? – Chris Kresser, Email Feb 10, 2023

How Does Science “Prove it” ?

The scientific process is the testing of a hypothesis (a theory) about how something in our world works. Scientific research uses a reproducible methodology to gain evidence in order to learn. Research is often conducted by creating a controlled environment which, by necessity, must be a vastly scaled-down approximation of something in the real world.

The challenge is to design research precisely enough to be able to support or deny a hypothesis. However, it’s difficult to be certain about what research results mean since the amount of variables in real life can be nearly impossible to control for in a research environment. Nevertheless, with a well-designed study, incredibly valuable evidence can be (and has been) amassed. Based on the outcomes from research, a theory is bolstered or disproven, and supporting theories may be proposed.

Despite extensive propaganda to the contrary, science can never “prove” anything as it’s not possible to test for every possible scenario in the real world.

Ideas Cannot be Definitively Proven, only Disproven

Keep in mind the well-known dictum that a right idea can never get definitively proven. The best that science can ever hope to achieve is to disprove wrong ideas. There have been many attempts to discredit the new ideas elaborated in this book by scientists with good credentials and testing methods, but thus far, no one has been successful. Until they are disproven or refined, the findings of these scientists stand as valid.”

– Lynne McTaggart, The Field

All it takes is evidence that something about a theory is contradicted by evidence (in a verifiable, reproducible research study) to disprove a theory. While evidence that contradicts a common belief is sometimes called an anomaly, and imply that it’s somehow less important than the belief, an anomaly is, in fact, proof that the theory is inaccurate or incomplete.

While research cannot “prove” something, it can do something very valuable: provide evidence.

To Extinguish Debate & Independent Thinking is Not Science

The burden of proof in science doesn’t end just because someone has… published a brilliant peer-reviewed paper.. . The burden of proof also includes the responsibility to find the right words to be able to take others along on that journey of discovery, whether that discovery was made yesterday or centuries ago. It is about finding ways to make evidence accessible to others, giving them the freedom to make up their own minds, and perhaps most importantly of all, giving them a fair hearing if they don’t come to the same conclusions that you do. Science is the exact opposite of memorization and acceptance of facts – something that’s often forgotten because of the illusion created by high school science tests. Science is a way of asking questions, a set of principles to guide our thinking, a way of testing and retesting evidence, and a way of stimulating new questions that might someday expand the frontiers of knowledge or overturn establishment beliefs. In this process, debate with honest critics is just as important as the initial hard work done by the trailblazing researcher. Science cannot function without debate. It is the gauntlet that forces accountability from established players. It is the process that sorts truth from falsehoods and exposes weaknesses in theories… The greatest enemies of science are scientists who refuse to debate their critics, and the scientists and politicians who use politics to stifle debate. “The science is settled,” they often say as they wave their credentials in your face or make reference to consensus. Of all the crimes against science, the worst is this phrase and these two anti-scientific arguments used to legitimize it. These chilling words extinguish the habit of independent thinking.

When Scientific Minds Abandon Scientific Principles

The Scientific Method Is Not Coldly Objective, Nor Free From Bias

We have come to think that the renowned “scientific method” is to be coldly objective… However, the scientific method is really “to provide the necessary and sufficient protocol for anyone, anywhere, to successfully duplicate the experimental result.” … The human mind and human intention alter the very substratum in which our physical laws operate.

William A Tiller, Professor Emeritus, Stanford University

Establishment Medicine is Not Evidence-Based

It’s been drilled into our heads that modern, Westernized medicine is synonymous with science. The propaganda has been relentless. While those who profit from establishment medicine claim it is evidence-based, this is verifiably untrue. In fact, the bulk of establishment medicine’s standard of care is not backed by unbiased, reproducible science. The following research disproves the statement that establishment medicine’s standard of care is evidence-based:

1. Medical Treatments Not Evidence-Based, Study Finds — This study found only one in ten treatments supported by reliable sufficient evidence. A BMJ study (summarized in readings below) reported that only 13% of common medical treatments were found to be beneficial and an additional 23% “likely to be beneficial.”
2. 17-Year Time Lag in Implementing Evidence-Based Changes in Doctor’s Medical Practice — “A 2013 study published in the respected Mayo Clinic Proceedings confirmed that a whopping 40 percent of current medical practice should be thrown out. Unfortunately, it takes an average of seventeen years for the data that exposes inefficacy and/or a signal of harm to trickle down into your doctor’s daily routine, a time lag problem that makes medicine’s standard of care evidence-based only in theory and not practice.” – Dr. Kelly Brogan MD
3. Study Reveals the Fraud of “Serotonin Theory” and Debunking Antidepressants — “A recent systematic umbrella review of the existing evidence for the so-called ‘serotonin theory’ of depression, which is typically treated with SSRI antidepressants, has found that there is no causal relationship between serotonin and depression, meaning that widely prescribed antidepressants have no medical benefits.”
4. Hundreds of Scientific Literature Examples of Natural Remedies Being More Safe & Effective than Pharmaceuticals, but Establishment Medicine Standard of Care is the Use of Industrial Products, Particularly Synthetic Drugs — “One of the greatest triumphs of biomedical science today is its role in validating ancient healing modalities that long before the advent of science, and even recorded history itself, were passed down from generation to generation in the vast body of folkloric medical knowledge that still forms the basis for the majority of the world’s primary health care system. These so-called ‘natural’ or ‘alternative’ modalities, which our species owes its present day survivorship to after eons of dependency on them, are increasingly gaining the attention of men and women in white lab coats intent on unlocking the mysteries of how they work, and in many cases, why they work better than patented, synthetic, chemical-based medications…. See Natural Substances vs. Drugs” [which contained 559 Abstracts at the time of this writing]. For example, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials published in 2018 found that “Saffron was effective in the treatment of major depressive disorder and had comparable efficacy to synthetic antidepressants.”]

See more here.

Whistleblowers from CDC & Other Health Agencies Report on the Weak Data & Bad Science

‘People are getting bad advice and we can’t say anything.’ … ‘I used to be proud to tell people I work at the CDC. Now I’m embarrassed.’ Why are they embarrassed? In short, bad science. The longer answer: that the heads of their agencies are using weak or flawed data to make critically important public health decisions.

U.S. Public Health Agencies Aren’t ‘Following the Science,’ Officials Say

Many “Experiments” Where Things are “Isolated” Are Just Extreme Treatments with Chemicals & Heat; They Don’t Actually Represent Anything About Life

What molecular biologists and biochemists call isolation is actually identification and documentation of the byproducts generated after application of chemicals and some kind of heat on biological matter… This applies not only to DNA but also to different types of Protein, Vitamins, RNA etc… Dead or decomposing matter which is chemically treated can only reveal what and how something destroys and kills life not what creates it and how… It looks like a very destructive and cruel branch of science. I don’t feel that whatever scientists find in their test tubes after all the mentioned procedures holds any answers to life, but it definitely shows how chemicals and unnatural procedures destroy and kill anything living… If I needed to describe in one sentence all that I’ve read to write this article it would be: “let’s mix dead or living matter with chemicals, spin, boil, burn and document what happens”.

DNA discovery, extraction and structure. A critical review, Dec 15, 2021

Weaponization of “Research” to Get Outcomes Favorable to Corporations

Your vitamins are under attack once again. Coincidentally released days after the introduction of Senator Dick Durbin’s (D-IL) anti-supplement legislation, a new botanical-bashing study in JAMA Network Open plays all the hits: according to the authors, supplements are an unregulated, disease-causing public health menace. The implicit solution is that we need to treat supplements more like drugs… This follows the blueprint developed by European regulators years ago—with the results being a severely restricted market for supplements where you will struggle to get anything but the most basic products…

A recent study, coincidentally released after anti-supplement legislation was introduced, claims that certain herbal supplements like turmeric and green tea cause liver damage. The study argues that supplements should face stricter regulation… The study cites national survey data to highlight potential risks from supplements but admits that the sample size is inadequate for determining any causal relationship between supplement use and liver damage. The authors have disclosed ties to pharmaceutical companies, raising questions about bias. The article appears to be intended to justify more regulation for botanicals, likely following the incredibly restrictive European model, and proposes “increasing regulatory oversight on how botanicals are produced, marketed, tested, and monitored in the general population.”

Alliance for Natural Health

Dogmatism vs. Evidence-Based Decision-Making

No matter how long a belief, theory or standard prevails, if and when new (reliably reproducible) evidence is found that contradicts it, the model is proven to be incorrect or incomplete. In such cases, doubling-down on the model is nonsensical and is an example of dogmatism.

If one cannot yet envision a model that would account for all the (reliable, uncorrupted) evidence, then the task is to ask questions and test hypotheses while awaiting the light bulb moment where a theory arises that accounts for all evidence. This becomes the next hypothesis to be tested with research.

To use the full scope of evidence available is called “evidence-based” decision making.

Assumptions & Opinions Can Become Dogma (but called “Science”)

Of key importance is seeing for yourself how assumptions and opinions have been passed off as science. See Dogmas & Consensus Science for important examples such as these dogmatic beliefs that have been called “science” but proven to be incorrect (from the article, The Ten Dogmas of Science).

• Nature is mechanical, or machine-like. Animals are machines, plants are machines and we are machines.
• Matter is unconscious. The Universe, Nature, our bodies, are all made of unconscious matter. For some strange reason our brains became conscious, and that is a major problem for materialist science.
• Your mind is inside your head, it is only an aspect of the electrical activity of the brain.
• All psychic phenomena is illusory. It appears to exist, but it doesn’t. The mind is inside the head and cannot have any effect on the outside world.
• Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that truly works. Alternative and complementary therapies may appear to work, but that’s only because people have got well anyway, or it’s due to the placebo effect.

Integrity in Science Has these Qualities: Objective, Comprehensive, Empirical and Transparent

A true Scientific Assessment will have four key characteristics: 1) objective, 2) comprehensive, 3) empirical, and 4) transparent.

John Droz

Mainstream Media & Gov’t Agencies Don’t Publish Research That Doesn’t Benefit Corporations

The world’s largest open source site for medical information is Wikipedia.  Content about medical products and therapeutic regimes are penned by completely unqualified editors with no medical background, many who prefer to remain anonymous. Yet Wikipedia editors state with authority that there are no proven health benefits for non-conventional and natural medical therapies. Reading any Wikipedia entry about chiropractic, acupuncture, homeopathy, Chinese medicine, naturopathy or energy medicine, the reader will walk away believing it is all pseudoscience or fraud.  However, collectively there are hundreds of thousands of studies to support these therapies’ efficacy and safety. Legitimate scientific inquiry has already shown their efficacy. Independent board-certified physicians have been using complementary and alternative medicine for a long time with excellent results. But you will not find any of these qualified physicians being invited to lead a committee at the FDA, CDC or any other national health agency or department. Nor do we find special reports about successful advances in natural health regimens appearing on Dateline, Sixty Minutes, CNN, nor in the New York Times and Washington Post…

Those who can sincerely call themselves scientists pursue their discipline out of a love for knowledge. Science is supposed to improve conditions necessary to foster our well-being and happiness, and to preserve the planet’s environment in an ethical manner. A scientist who truly pursues knowledge out of love, Bertrand Russell argues, will desire the fruits of his work and craft to be expressions of kindness for the greater good. On the other hand, science is perverted when knowledge is pursued solely for power and domination over others. He warned about the trends of his day increasing whereby the holders of scientific knowledge become “evil” and science solely serves the ambitions of the powerful and those who control scientific inventions’ utility. “Scientific knowledge,” Russell wrote, “does not make men more sensible in their aims, and administrators in the future will be presumably no less stupid and no less prejudiced than they are at present.”

Feb 24, 2019

University Research Corrupted by Secretive CIA Control

My book, The CIA Doctors, is based on 15,000 pages of documents I received from the CIA through the Freedom of Information Act and dozens of papers published in medical journals… The CIA funded top secret research at many leading universities including Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Johns Hopkins and Stanford. There was a series of CIA mind control programs including BLUEBIRD, ARTICHOKE, MKULTRA, MKSEARCH and MKNAOMI… The core purpose of MKULTRA and related programs was to learn how to enhance interrogations, erase and insert memories, and create and run Manchurian Candidates. All of this is described clearly and explicitly in the declassified CIA documents… The CIA mind control experiments were interwoven with radiation, chemical and biological weapons experiments conducted on children, comatose patients, pregnant women, the general population and other unwitting groups who had no idea they were subjects in secret experiments. 

Dr. Colin A Ross MD, CIA Mind Control Doctors: From Harvard to Guantanamo

Summing it Up

American science does not do much actual science. They do marketing, regulatory capture, and mass poisonings but not much actual “science” as that word is usually understood… The proper way to understand American science and medicine today is to see them as criminal cartels. They aren’t making mistakes, these aren’t innocent misunderstandings, the white coat class is engaged in organized crime… American science and medicine have merged with the state, Big Finance, the pharmaceutical industry, the military, and the intelligence agencies to create a new form of fascism… From everything we can see, American science and medicine are incapable of reforming themselves.

Toby Rogers

Evaluating Research Validity & Integrity

The examples in the sections above show the corruption of mainstream research. But at the same time, independent researchers continue to exhibit integrity in their work. Revealing the corruption is not intended to imply that we should reject data and research, which are key forms of evidence, but rather that we must actively validate the integrity of research we consult. There are many strategies that can be quite effective in helping to do that:

1. Get context. — The vast majority of corrupted research is quickly identifiable with the simple technique of reviewing related research and information. If other research appears to invalidate it, that’s a sign to look more closely. A 2025 study claiming “plant-based oils” are superior to butter is a perfect example. One look at the context makes it clear that this doesn’t make sense. Despite extensive propaganda, replacing natural fats with manufactured “vegetable oils” has never been proven to lower the risk of heart disease or death. In fact, extensive research has showed the opposite: seed oils cause chronic inflammation, diabetes, fatty liver, harm to the brain and hypothalamus, dysregulated immunity, allergies, blood clots, autoimmune reactions, increased fat, obesity, depression, cardiovascular disorders, skin diseases, and oxidative stress. [links to research here] So this research is immediately suspect. A doctor who investigated and reported here elucidates the primary research flaw that obviously invalidates the findings: researchers did not distinguish olive oil from seed oils. This is nonsensical. Those are completely different oils with opposing effects, and therefore need to be compared, not merged where the effects are confounded.
2. Look at the methods and assumptions. — Research comes in many forms, such as reviewing existing research papers, investigating past medical records, or conducting a trial comparing an intervention to placebo. Some research is designed to be exploratory—to learn something about the factors involved in the subject at hand. Some research endeavors to determine statistical prevalence. Sample size can vary from a case report of one to a study of hundreds or a review of tens of thousands of records. Just as important as those factors are the assumptions built into the research design. The importance of clarifying assumptions cannot be overstated.
3. Learn how to spot deception in numbers. — Be informed about how numbers can be manipulated and be prepared to spot deception. “Statistics, because they are numbers, appear to us to be cold, hard facts… But it’s important to remember that people gather statistics. People choose what to count, how to go about counting, which of the resulting numbers they will share, and which words they will use to describe and interpret those numbers. Statistics are not facts. They are interpretations.” See also: Evaluating Numbers and Statistics
4. Investigate the source’s motive and agenda. Follow the money. — It’s now more widely understood that corruption can often be identified through a bit of sleuthing to identify where the money behind the research comes from. While this can never be a thoroughly reliable way to evaluate research, it’s a valid consideration that can suggest a need for closer inspection. Integrity is more likely when a source offers transparency (not hidden agendas) and accessibility to the data (not persuasion or propaganda). See also: Should you Trust Us?
5. Deconstruct the conditioning that has weakened our ability to discern truth and evaluate individual testimony. — Whistleblowers provide key evidence. Review strategies for evaluating their integrity and truthfulness. See also: Evaluating Individual Testimony & Entertaining Possibility and Discernment Introduction
6. Become more knowledgeable on truth, proof and “authorities” on truth. — Consider spending a little more time to understand the components of research and truth: facts, proof, partial and competing truths, meaning and story, and authorities on truth. See also: Truth, Facts, Proof, Partial & Competing Truths, Authorities on Truth

Skepticism of Establishment Agenda

The elimination of dissent and the marginalisation of scientists sceptical of the establishment’s scientific and medical agenda will destroy the scientific process – unless reversed. Find out how the concept of ‘scientific misinformation’ has been deliberately spun to make it the primary weapon aimed at protecting the interests of the status quo. As well as what we can do about it.

Alliance for Natural Health

Sources by Date

1. Jul 28, 2025 — Part 13, A flawed vaccine study to cover up damage from aluminum — Anne Dachel link
2. Jul 28, 2025 — JAMA Modeling Study Claims Covid-19 Vaccines Saved Lives: Seven Threats to Validity; Debunked by Flawed Assumptions, Uncontrolled Confounding, and Institutional Bias — Dr. Peter A. McCullough MD, MPH link
3. Jul 28, 2025 — Latest Ioannidis paper claiming millions of lives saved is nothing more than “Turtles All The Way Down”: The new Ioannidis paper claiming millions of lives saved is built on garbage inputs. Ioannidis refuses to look at the record-level data that shows he’s wrong. — Steve Kirsch link
4. Jul 27, 2025 — The antidepressant trial that misled a generation of teens: For years, doctors relied on the ‘TADS’ trial to prescribe antidepressants to teens. Now, a reanalysis reveals serious harms that were never disclosed. — Maryanne Demasi PhD link
5. Jul 24, 2025 — Calls Grow for Journal to Retract Danish Study After Corrected Data Show Link Between Aluminum in Vaccines and Autism — Suzanne Burdick PhD, Children’s Health Defense link
6. Jul 22, 2025 — Yet Another Epidemiological Hatchet Job on Causality Fails to Exonerate the Exposure via Hidden Collider Bias. This Time, It’s Fluoride. You cannot adjust for correlates of the exposure, direct or indirect, to exonerate the exposure. Smoking, lead, thimerosal, aluminum, glyphosate… and now fluoride. We are not fooled that easily. — James Lyons-Weiler PhD link
7. Jul 17, 2025 — Study Claiming No Link Between Aluminum in Vaccines and Autism Riddled with Flaws, Critics Say — Suzanne Burdick PhD, Children’s Health Defense link
8. Jul 8, 2025 — ‘Never Seen Science So Compromised’ Scientist Tells Germany’s Public TV — Michael Nevradakis PhD, Children’s Health Defense link
9. Jun 4, 2025 — Science Communication in 2025 Requires Integrity—Not Silence, Not Compliance, Not Branding: A message to those involved in “Science Communication”. Perception manipulation failed. Narrative enforcement may be your paycheck now, but there is no future for the commonplace practice of lying. — James Lyons-Weiler PhD link
10. May 29, 2025 — How Numbers Can Lie in Scientific Research: Dr. Lynn Fynn — American Thought Leaders, The Epoch Times 44-min video
11. May 28, 2025 — Harvard “Honesty” Researcher Fired for Dishonesty: Counterintuitive study about “making ethics salient” apparently bolstered with bogus data. — John Leake link
12. May 28, 2025 — Health Secretary Says Government Plans to Launch New Medical Journals; ‘We’re probably going to stop publishing in The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA and … other journals because they’re all corrupt,’ Kennedy said. — Zachary Stieber, The Epoch Times link
13. May 25, 2025 — This is a VERY BIG DEAL: Critically Thinking about what Science actually is. — John Droz link
14. May 15, 2025 — The Slovakian Prime Minister is being led to Scientific Slaughter: Scientific Misconduct and Plagiarism plague his seminal study — Kevin McKernan, Anandamide link
15. May 2, 2025 — Why You Shouldn’t Trust Peer Review: From a Former Duke MD — Dr. Andrew Kaufman MD, YouTube 32-min video
16. Apr 29, 2025 — Flog a Dead Horse: Industry supported lies are peer reviewed published science apparently — Dr. Christopher Exley link
17. Apr 20, 2025 — Ethical Collapse in the Peer Review of a Leading Vaccine Journal —  Yaakov Ophir & Yaffa-Shir-Raz, The Vaccine Reaction link
18. Apr 19, 2025 — Rebuilding Trust the Right Way: Why Trust in Science Can’t Be Marketed—It Must Be Earned. Narrative reset is not going to do it. — James Lyons-Weiler PhD link
19. Apr 14, 2025 — The silencing of scientific curiosity: Medical journals have became enforcers of orthodoxy—retracting genuine hypotheses while protecting proven fraud. — Maryanne Demasi PhD link
20. Jan 24, 2025 — The peer-review process needs a fix: COIs and groupthink are bad things — Jessica Rose PhD link
21. Jan 23, 2025 — Amid Growing Evidence of Conflicts of Interest and Obdurate Groupthink in Medical Journals, Researchers Must Entertain Contrarian Ideas — Raphael Latater & Peter Parry, Cureus link
22. Jan 23, 2025 — Medical Journals as Gatekeepers: A Broken System: Research challenging the safety of Covid-19 vaccines is being silenced by medical journals, stifling critical debate. — Maryanne Demasi PhD link
23. Dec 19, 2024 — Science Misinformation, Its Origins and Impacts, and Mitigation Strategies Examined in New Report; Multisector Action Needed to Increase Visibility of, Access to High-Quality Science Information — National Academies link
24. Nov 22, 2024 — Learning to Communicate Analytically & Logically: Understanding Assumptions: Questioning someone’s assumptions can be quite rude, because it sometimes conveys that you have missed the nuanced point of an argument. — James Lyons-Weiler PhD link
25. Oct 27, 2024 — An Urgent Call to All Scientists – We Must Reframe Scientific Priorities for the Future of America with A Unified Approach to Learning Well — James Lyons-Weiler PhD link
26. Oct 11, 2024 — Big Pharma Paid Over $1 Billion to Influence Medical Research from 2020-2022 in BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine: 58.9% of journal reviewers received pharmaceutical industry payments, revealing massive conflict of interest. — Jon Fleetwood link
27. Oct 10, 2024 — “Assume all health research is fraudulent” until proven otherwise? — Karl Kanthak link
28. Oct 10, 2024 — Payments by Drug and Medical Device Manufacturers to US Peer Reviewers of Major Medical Journals — David-Dan Nguyen MPH et al, JAMA
29. Sep 18, 2024 — The FDA simplifies experimentation on children without parental consent — Sasha Latypova link
30. Sep 17, 2024 — What Does it Mean for the Public to “Trust Science”? For the second time in its history, Scientific American has endorsed a political candidate. They do not see or do not care to see the issues with that. We do. — James Lyons-Weiler PhD link
31. Sep 4, 2024 — Big Pharma is secretly “ghostwriting” articles in top medical and oncology journals to trick doctors into buying their drugs. — Dr. Russell Blaylock MD, The Vigilant Fox link
32. Aug 30, 2024 — The Nuremberg Code Prohibits Unethical Experiments on Humans. Maybe It Should Also Prohibit Gain-of-Function Research? — George J. Annas, The Conversation (Children’s Health Defense) link
33. Aug 29, 2024 —  $3,000 and a Toy: Novavax Dangles Incentives to Fill Clinical Trials on Covid Shots for Babies, Kids — Brenda Baletti PhD, Children’s Health Defense link
34. Aug 23, 2024 — Pharma-Backed Study: Herbs Are Destroying Your Liver — Alliance for Natural Health link
35. Aug 22, 2024 — The 1980 Bayh-Dole Act, the 1986 NCVIA, and the 2005 PREP Act destroyed American science and medicine: We need to rebuild American science and medicine from the ground up — Toby Rogers link See also: Pharma’s Cash Cow: Child vaccine schedule + liability protection
36. Aug 12, 2024 — Debunking The China Study Myth: It’s a HUGE LIE. — Brucha Weisberger link
37. Aug 6, 2024 — What is Needed Now: Unbiased Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature and Discourse: As the world grapples with realities warped by faux science, stand up and say “Science is not broken. Fraud is illegal”. There is a difference between Science and Fraud. Learn it-and support Science. — James Lyons-Weiler PhD link
38. Jul 7, 2024 — What should we do when Experts Disagree? This simple question is never asked by pundits and thought leaders today. To them the answer is self-evident: whoever is backed by the most powerful interests wins. — Dr. Madhava Setty MD link
39. Jun 10, 2024 — Anatomy of a science meeting: How controversial pesticide research all but vanished from a major conference — Rebecca Raney, U.S. Right to Know link
40. Apr 29, 2024 — Disturbing FDA Loophole Allows Scientists To Do Experiments On Humans Without Informed Consent — Informed Consent Action Network link
41. Jun 12, 2023 — How the Nobel Prize Summit sold out on real science — Alliance for Natural Health link
42. Jun 4, 2024 — Researchers plan to retract landmark Alzheimer’s paper containing doctored images — Charles, Piller, Science.org link
43. May 16, 2024 — Lies, Damn Lies, and Causality — Eyal Shahar, Brownstone Institute link
44. Mar 14, 2024 — TFTC: Decentralize Peer Review: Dis-intermediate the captured and parasitic journals — Kevin McKernan, Anandamide link
45. Mar 6, 2024 — Math is hard. We should leave it to the experts.: There are deaths. And then there are “excess deaths.“; “Call it fudging the numbers, cooking the books, Enron Accounting, or full fledged fraud; a festering pile of skunk carcasses by any other name stinks just the same.” — Jenna McCarthy link
46. Feb 2, 2024 — Gross Misconduct: The Nail in the Coffin for Antidepressants — Dr. Joseph Mercola, The Epoch Times link
47. Jul 26, 2023 — Are medical journals dead? Former editor of The BMJ says, “It’s interesting to me in a way that journals are still alive, because I think there are a lot of reasons why they should be dead.” — Maryanne Demasi PhD link
48. Mar 2, 2023 — Don’t trust their plan to rebuild our trust in science — Rob Verkerk PhD, Alliance for Natural Health link
49. Jul 5, 2021 — Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise? — Richard SMith, BMJ link
50. February 13, 2013 — Trial sans Error: How Pharma-Funded Research Cherry-Picks Positive Results [Excerpt]: Clinical trial data on new drugs is systematically withheld from doctors and patients, bringing into question many of the premises of the pharmaceutical industry—and the medicine we use — Ben Goldacre, Scientific American link
51. Apr 29, 2011 — British Medical Journal seeks to re-evaluate medical ‘evidence’ — Dr. John Briffa link
52. Jan 23, 2011 — Why Almost Everything You Hear About Medicine Is Wrong — Sharon Begley, Newsweek link