What If It’s ‘Fake’ Science?



First published on June 15, 2015.

“…“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” …” Robert Horton

Have you ever noticed that as long as a ‘scientist’ says something it is given absolute credibility? The same thing holds true with peer review.  As long as the science has been subjected to ‘peer review’ it has the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, when, quite often the whole term is nothing but a subjective joke.  Our society tends to hold scientists up as some sort of pure entities almost on a mission from ‘god’, the way priests and ministers were once treated.  Dare to disagree with their ‘peer reviewed’ paper, and their ‘science’ and the person who disagrees is derided as a total fool.

“…“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine”…”  Marcia Angell, Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ)

What industry insiders don’t want to admit, and many of them refuse, is how corrupt the system truly is.  This day and age, scientific journals, even those with university presses, and highly prestigious associations have morphed into little more than your average NASCAR driving team, with their corporate sponsorships.  If they were required to wear the corporate logos of the behind the scenes sponsorships, they would look like a NASCAR vehicle.  Fact is, it has reached the point where there is quite a bit of corruption within the system.  That corruption leads to false, fake, faulty, and just plain bad science.  If a person is important enough, they can get just about anything published.  If someone dares take on a controversial subject, the way Melba Ketchum has done, they can literally be destroyed.

One of these years, entire books are going to be written on the way Ketchum has been treated by her ‘peers’ to the point where they have literally destroyed her career.  A ground-breaking and highly respected expert in DNA, she was once considered one of the leading veterinarian DNA forensic experts. Today, she is considered a joke.  When you start delving into the story, little by little, the campaign to destroy her is starting to be uncovered.  Once again, it started with that old peer review canard.  A fairly attractive blond from Texas, she made the mistake of churning out research that was contrary to the leading ‘expert’ in the field, a highly prestigious scientist from Oxford.  She beat him to the punch-line and made him look bad.  Apparently we are starting to discover that he may have been mislabeling his work, and perhaps even falsifying what he was doing.  In order to maintain the charade, and in order to sustain the profitability of highly suspect DNA genealogy ‘test kits’ he has endorsed and partners, Ketchum had to be destroyed. Rumor is her paper had been accepted by a highly prestigious scientific publication, but the Oxford scientist began calling in favors and had her work derided to the point where the ‘scientific’ community considers it a joke.  If she is correct, she has made one of the most important evolutionary discoveries in history.  Her learned opponent just can’t allow that.  Thus ‘science’ has spoken.  Ketchum has been destroyed.

This happens all the time behind the scenes. Today’s world of science is no different than it was when Galileo was destroyed. Catarina Ferreira, researcher at Trent University, has studied the problem, with startling results.

“…”The main weaknesses are currently related to three aspects: the voluntary nature of the peer review, since ‘peers’ only participate in the process if they wish, the disparity of review criteria or guidelines produced by scientific journals, and a lack of tangible recognition of the reviewers for their service to the scientific community. All of the above makes the peer review process slow, highly subjective, and results in reviews of greatly varying quality,” the researcher told SINC.

This is a serious problem, not only for the scientific community, but also for the journals, which in the last few years have openly recognised that it is increasingly difficult to secure the participation of scientists as reviewers -in ecology, the non-acceptance rate for requests to review articles is 49%- and obtain high quality exams….”

In other words, the system is highly subjective and extremely political. Ketchum’s work was accepted when it was subjected to a double blind peer review.  Unfortunately, when the nature of her work was exposed by her competition, no one would touch it.  Once you grasp that simple fact, you begin questioning the entire process.  The hot topics today are vaccines, climate change, and various medical sciences.  If someone even dares deviate from the accepted norms, they are bullied into submission or destroyed.   Robert Horton, editor-in-chief of Lancet, the most important medical publication in the world, recently wrote:

“…The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices…”

This is damning, especially in the field of medical research.  ‘Conventional wisdom’ has told us that obesity is a major factor in Alzheimer’s Disease.  Yet, after a monster study in the UK, using nearly two million people, those who were obese were discovered to have a lower instance of AD.  Yet, no one is even discussing this landmark study.  It goes against conventional wisdom.  The statistical sampling is so large, it cannot be ignored, but it is being ignored.  Medical science has determined, that obesity is a cause of Alzheimer’s Disease, but is ignoring actual statistical results which completely contradict what they have determined is ‘true’.

“…Publication Bias – various industries, governments, and regulatory agencies may severely distort the truth by omission. Nearly half of all research studies never see the light of day. According to Live Science:

“Oftentimes, medical journals or pharmaceutical companies that sponsor research will report only “positive” results, leaving out the non-findings or negative findings where a new drug or procedure may have proved more harmful than helpful.” In other words, the truth is hidden.

An example of this occurred with nearly 100,000 people dying from taking “safe” prescription anti-arrhythmic drugs in the 1980s. Or more recently, when none of the negative studies of the anti-depressant reboxitene were published….”

Currently, the worst offenders are those who damn anyone who dares question the efficacy of various childhood vaccines.  They automatically attack, bully, and attempt to destroy, without bothering to check sources.  Don’t dare even mention that there is evidence between autism and childhood vaccinations.  That’s fake science.  It is about fraud.  Something like 90% of medical research papers submitted to journals are refused.  Why?  The same bullies who tell us that there is nothing wrong with aspartame, promote vaccine safety without actually studying the studies.  They are ignoring some fascinating indications that certain vaccinations do not prevent the spread of disease.   Fascinatingly, one of the top bullies, Alex Berezow, might have ties to the Brother’s Koch Machine. Never mind that one major pharm company falsified tests and results.  It doesn’t really matter.  Just follow the money.  We’re dealing with shills for big money, and evidently there’s a Koch connection in the woodpile.  Like I said, you must read the fine print.

According to one source, there has NEVER been a study about the positive results of vaccines which has not been funded by big pharma.  I am NOT against vaccines and immunizations.  I am against hype and people who refuse to use common sense.  Logic states that people can be allergic to products in various medications.  I am allergic to eggs and cannot take flu shots.  When I was an infant, my first DPT shot nearly killed me.  The doctor would not allow me to have a second one.  I have allergic reactions to tetanus shots. I’m also allergic to acetaminophen, penicillin and all synthetic forms of it, along with all forms of opiates.  This makes me extremely cautious about what I take.  Because of my problems, I stop and examine everything.

I’ve touched on only two fields, both life sciences.  If things are as bad elsewhere as they are within these studies, is it a wonder I’m skeptical about global warming.  Note that I did not say climate change, which is very real.