Reporting & Testimony
Select bolded summary statements to go to the original source, and to get more information:
- 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.
- How Pharma-Funded Research Cherry-Picks 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.”
- Selective Reporting / Publication Bias Leads to Skewed & Incorrect Conclusions — British Medical Journal reminds readers of publication bias.
- “The Very Framework of Medical Investigation” Leads to Findings That are Unproved 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.”
- “The Corporate Money Train” — Studies funded by corporations & government agencies with vested interests instead of by independent researchers.
- Whistleblowers from 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.”
- “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.
- 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.
- 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.”
- Medical Research Corrupted — “There is no concerted will nor ethical standard to improve the peer-reviewed system because too much profit is generated.”
- “Why Almost Everything You Hear About Medicine Is Wrong” — Jan 23, 2011 Newsweek article
- Many “Experiments” Where Things are “Isolated” Are Just Extreme Treatments with Chemicals & Heat — They don’t actually represent anything about life.
- COVID-19 Virus Testing, Measurement, Reporting, Censorship — Censorship of independent reports related to testing, measurement and reporting of COVID-19 related research.
Readings & Resources
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
Selective Reporting / 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.– April 29, 2011
“The Very Framework of Medical Investigation” Leads to Findings That are Unproved 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 January 23, 2011
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
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
Research is Widely Corrupted, Resulting in Medical Treatments That Do More Harm than Good
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.– Peter Gøtzsche
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
Studies Funded by Corporations & Gov’t Agencies with Vested Interest 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.– Why Don’t People “Trust The Science?”
The Scientific Method Is Not Coldly Objective, Nor Free From Bias
[In the forward to a book called Stalking the Wild Pendulum]… 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.” If this requires a positive, negative, or neutral mental or emotional bias, then so be it… The human mind and human intention alter the very substratum in which our physical laws operate.– William A Tiller, Professor Emeritus, Stanford University
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.– Colin A Ross MD, CIA Mind Control Doctors: From Harvard to Guantanamo
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
“Proof” and Disproving Wrong Ideas
Despite propaganda to the contrary, science can never “prove” anything. Science uses a reproducible methodology to gain evidence in order to learn something. Most often, a controllable environment is created which, by necessity, must be a vastly scaled-down approximation of something in the real world.
The purpose of scientific research is to test a hypothesis about how something works. Based on the outcome, theories are proposed. A theory is another name for model. It’s a proposal that endeavors to explain how the thing likely works.
The results of testing within a scaled-down, controlled environment, provides evidence. And then humans (called scientists) tell a story (create a theory) to account for the evidence.
While science can never definitively prove anything, it can, however, disprove theories. All it takes is evidence that something about the theory doesn’t work in a particular situation. While this may be called an anomaly, it is, in fact, proof that the theory is inaccurate or incomplete.
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
If and when new evidence is found that contradicts a theory or model, the model needs to be set aside and efforts realigned not toward doubling-down on the model but toward understanding what is actually happening. The model isn’t explaining it. If one cannot yet envision a model that would account for all the evidence, then the task is to ask questions and test hypotheses while awaiting the lightbulb moment where a theory arises that accounts for all evidence. This becomes the next hypothesis to be tested.
Assumptions & Opinions Can Become Dogma (misinterpreted as “science”)
Of key importance is seeing for yourself how assumptions and opinions have been passed off as science. See Disproven Science & Research, Wrong Assumptions, Overcoming an Outdated Worldview for more vital examples. Following is a brief excerpt.
Here are some examples of the “science” dogma which have 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.
Evaluating Research for Integrity & Validity
The examples above show the corruption of mainstream research. But at the same time, independent researchers continue to exhibit integrity in their work. The implication isn’t that we should reject data and research, which are key forms of evidence, but rather that we discern integrity and validity of that which we take in. There are many strategies that can be quite effective in helping you to do that:
- Lay the Groundwork for Evaluating Truth & Proof — Get clear on the components of research and truth: facts, proof, partial and competing truths, meaning and story, and authorities on truth.
- Discernment Introduction — Review an overview of the components of discernment and delve into whichever topics interest you most: the scientific method, evaluating facts and partial truths, learning to trust yourself in the process, etc.
- Evaluating Individual Testimony — Whistleblowers provide key evidence. Review strategies for evaluating their integrity and truthfulness.
- Evaluating Numbers & Statistics — Learn how to spot deception. “Statistics, because they are numbers, appear to us to be cold, hard facts. It seems that they represent facts given to us by nature and it’s just a matter of finding them. 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… Sometimes, the numbers are simply wrong.”
What You Can Do
The only time you have control over is Now. A person can only feel or act or pay attention in the Now.
And with each Now moment, it’s possible to pause and take a conscious breath, observing what’s happening with a sense of curiosity. One moment at a time, you can peacefully choose to be in the power of you heart, to be free of subconscious programming, and to make your own choices.
- Begin quietly, with an inner focus. — What You Can Do and Where to Start: Proactive Empowerment & Human Resilience
- Get perspective. — The World as it Really Is. Making Sense of What Doesn’t Make Sense. The Great Awakening.
- Realize your power and take it back, step-by-step. — Become Aware of Where You’ve Given Your Power Away to Authorities & Systems That Shouldn’t Have It. Decide to Reclaim It.
- Go local. — The Failure of Systems. The Power of People. The Case for Going Local.
The End of a Cycle, and the Beginning of a New One — The One We Choose to Create
Prophecies from the Mayan Calendar, Nostradamus and the Bible indicate that we are now living in ‘the end times’. Not necessarily the end of time, but certainly the end of time as we know it, the end of a cycle. Many of the ancient seers were able to see so far into the future and then no more. We are coming to a blank page, the beginning of a new chapter which we are yet to write. What this new chapter looks like is up to us.”– A New Chapter by Dana Mrkich