"All the world's a stage we pass through." - R. Ayana

Friday, 4 May 2012

Cancer industry total fraud exposed

Cancer industry total fraud exposed:
Nearly all 'scientific' studies fail to be replicated

http://healthfreedoms.org/files/2011/08/000510-titleimage.jpgThe vast majority of so-called scientific studies focused on cancer research are inaccurate and potentially fraudulent, suggests a new review published in the journal Nature. A shocking 88 percent of 53 "landmark" studies on cancer that have been published in reputable journals over the years cannot be reproduced, according to the review, which means that their conclusions are patently false.

C. Glenn Begley, a former head of global cancer research at drug giant Amgen and author of the review, was unable to replicate the findings of 47 of the 53 studies he examined. It appears as though researchers are simply fabricating findings that will garner attention and headlines rather than publishing what they actually discover, which helps them to maintain a steady stream of grant funding but deceives the public.

"These are the studies the pharmaceutical industry relies on to identify new targets for drug development," said Begley about the false studies. "But if you're going to place a $1 million or $2 million or $5 million bet on an observation, you need to be sure it's true. As we tried to reproduce these papers we became convinced you can't take anything at face value."

Begley says he cannot publish the names of the studies whose findings are false. But since it is now apparent that the vast majority of them are invalid, it only follows that the vast majority of modern approaches to cancer treatment are also invalid.

Back in 2009, researchers from the University of Michigan's Comprehensive Cancer Center also published an analysis that revealed many popular cancer studies to be false. As can be expected, one of the primary causes of false results was determined to be conflicts of interest that tended to favor "findings" that worked out best for drug companies rather than for the people (http://www.naturalnews.com/026314_cancer_research_studies.html).



Published research for other conditions also found to be invalid


studiesThe Nature study also confirms what was previously uncovered by Dr. George Robertson from Dalhousie University, who found the same inconsistencies in published research studies on Parkinson's disease and other neurodegenerative disorders. Just like with cancer, it appears that the foundation upon which drugs for these conditions have been developed is fallacious as a result of phony research.

And scientists working for drug giant Bayer have run into similar problems in other areas as well, which they outlined in a 2011 paper entitled Believe it or not. According to their findings, much of the published data with which they were expected to develop new drugs could not be reproduced, either.

"The scientific community assumes that the claims in a preclinical study can be taken at face value," add Begley and his colleague Dr. Lee Ellis in their review. This published research also assumes that "the main message of [papers] can be relied on [...] Unfortunately, this is not always the case."

Ironically, the only thing all these scientists have been able to successfully reproduce over the years is research showing that much of modern science is unsound. Whether it is funded by drug companies or by agenda-driven federal grants, the so-called "gold standard" of science has been debunked as a greed-driven myth.

Medical research proven to be mostly flawed

http://vaccineresistancemovement.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Medical-Mafia_.L.jpgInternationally recognized as the foremost expert in assessing the credibility of medical research, Dr. John Ioannidis made a most disturbing discovery. Up to 90 percent of published medical information directly relied on by doctors to determine treatment is misleading, exaggerated, or quite often flat out wrong. Even more unsettling, the medical community agrees with his assessment.

Starting his medical career at the beginning of the evidence based medicine movement, Ioannidis gravitated away from undertaking new research towards assessing the validity of previous research. Systemic inaccuracy emerged consistently at every level, and began to paint the picture that most studies were biased. Uniquely positioned as an expert statistician, Ioannidis carefully assembled a team, which spent a decade exploring the problem before publishing a landmark paper. It concluded:

With natural levels of researcher bias, generally imperfect research techniques, and a common tendency to focus on novel rather than plausible theories, wrong findings will be the norm. At the same time the scientific journals are strongly biased towards publishing the most novel claims and lack effective safeguards for filtering out inaccurate studies.

The paper showed both theoretically and empirically that 80 percent of non-randomized studies (the most common type), 25 percent of the "gold-standard" randomized trials, and nearly 10 percent of the "platinum-standard" large randomized trials were incorrectly executed.

To highlight the inability to weed out bad research, they focused on the 49 most highly regarded and cited research papers published in the past 13 years. Of those, 41% had later been disproved when tested, while 24% hadn't even been retested. Upon further examination, 3 of these studies, which were later firmly disproved, they found scientists were more likely to cite the original inaccurate study, in one case for at least 12 years after it was discredited.

Economics appears to be an underlying cause of the research inaccuracies. A successful scientific career depends upon your research being funded and published. This intellectual conflict of interest motivates scientists to pursue and produce results that will be funded. Scientific journals are naturally biased towards publishing new, exciting research; they rely upon a vetted peer review process that is frequently commandeered by scientists in pursuit of career advancement. Worst of all are drug studies, funded by pharmaceutical companies and commonly corrupted by a much stronger financial conflict of interest.

It thus should come as no surprise that many medications originally shown to be both safe and effective in numerous large randomized control trials were later found to be dangerous. Vioxx, Zelnorm, and Baycol all were taken off the market for safety concerns, while the anti-depressants Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil are now known to be no more effective than placebos.

Science, by definition, relies upon continual retesting of previous results by other scientists to protect against erroneous conclusions. Yet, this does not occur. In Ioannidis' own words, the "odds that anything useful will survive from any of these studies are poor."

Help This Unique Site Survive
Donate any amount and receive at least one New Illuminati eBook!
Just click in the jar - 

For further enlightening information enter a word or phrase into the search box @  New Illuminati or click on any label/tag at the bottom of the pagehttp://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

And see

 New Illuminati on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/the.new.illuminati

New Illuminati Youtube Channel - http://www.youtube.com/user/newilluminati/feed

The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com

This material is published under Creative Commons Fair Use Copyright (unless an individual item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a tiny donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

1 comment:

  1. Look up "Clinical Trials". The whole article is a moot.


Add your perspective to the conscious collective