ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, May 29, 2015

Scientistry is not scientody

And as for those who claim that I am anti-science because I am anti-corrupt scientistry, I've got two appeals to scientific authority that will trump yours right here:
In the past few years more professionals have come forward to share a truth that, for many people, proves difficult to swallow. One such authority is Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet – considered to be one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world.

Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false.

“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.”

This is quite disturbing, given the fact that all of these studies (which are industry sponsored) are used to develop drugs/vaccines to supposedly help people, train medical staff, educate medical students and more.

It’s common for many to dismiss a lot of great work by experts and researchers at various institutions around the globe which isn’t “peer-reviewed” and doesn’t appear in a “credible” medical journal, but as we can see, “peer-reviewed” doesn’t really mean much anymore. “Credible” medical journals continue to lose their tenability in the eyes of experts and employees of the journals themselves, like Dr. Horton.

He also went on to call himself out in a sense, stating that journal editors aid and abet the worst behaviours, that the amount of bad research is alarming, that data is sculpted to fit a preferred theory. He goes on to observe that important confirmations are often rejected and little is done to correct bad practices. What’s worse, much of what goes on could even be considered borderline misconduct.

Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), which is considered to another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, makes her view of the subject quite plain:

“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”
I note that it isn't any of the pro-vaxxers, the climate change scammers, the "I fucking love science" crowd or the True Believers in evolution that are calling out this vast quantity of scientific fraud, but rather the science skeptics, like me, who have repeatedly and reliably observed that the human element of the profession has indelibly tainted all confidence in the process.

And then recall that this is what Sam Harris believes can and should replace philosophy and traditional morality as an effective guide to human behavior.

Labels:

61 Comments:

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 May 29, 2015 9:21 AM  

For everyone who thinks this isn't a big deal or that it doesn't affect you, keep in mind that much of modern government policy is derived from these scientific studies.

Because traditional morality didn't cut it.

Anonymous Usualjay May 29, 2015 9:40 AM  

"data is sculpted to fit a preferred theory"

Or as SJWs call it, applied lying.

Blogger IrishFarmer May 29, 2015 9:44 AM  

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracist(?) I tend to think this is top down. Not a conspiracy per se but rather an infection of ideology. There's a power to science and power attracts corruption. I also tend to think part of the problem is the globalization of science especially in medicine. A doctor recently co fired in me that both the WHO and the feds are directing medical care in the form of dictating pay via patient satisfaction and deciding how all doctors the world over will treat things lime ear infections (or not treat them in this case). Homogenous care is ripe for group think and ideological infection and I think that's where a lot of this careless scientistry is coming from.

OpenID notebuyer May 29, 2015 9:46 AM  

Don't forget the PLOS article from 2005 by Ioannidis on the same theme (a little more statistical, but the same result): http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Blogger dc.sunsets May 29, 2015 9:47 AM  

It isn't what we don't know that's the problem, it's what we think we know that just ain't so.

Blogger Nate May 29, 2015 9:50 AM  

The Lancet is fantastic. It really is. But anyone that's ever done work researching in the medical field knows you can find studies that say anything you want to assert.

I found studies that showed the dangers of wearing seat belts.

And found studies that showed the dangers of not wearing seat belts.

and this was back in the early 2000s. I imagine its gotten exponentially worse since. Its a systemic problem driven by this insane requirement to PUBLISH PUBLISH PUBLISH!!!! Which is really just marketing for universities.

Anonymous Brother Thomas May 29, 2015 9:53 AM  

"Science" is mostly politics and business.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 29, 2015 9:53 AM  

Back in the 1980's I worked in a physiology lab doing basic science, discovering the pathways autonomic nerves take from the brainstem to the heart. The guy for whom I worked was the immediate past-president of the American Physiological Society, and I saw with my own eyes what were the facts, in a living animal.

The Textbook of Medical Physiology, the book from which every medical student learned physiology, had it WRONG. The guy for whom I worked and its author couldn't even be in the same room together, because the latter refused to change his textbook, refused to incorporate data showing he was wrong.

Science is something undertaken by people, and thus like all systems of people organization, suffers all the weakness and frailties of the human condition. Holding it up as though somehow it transcends the limits of fallible human beings sounds suspiciously like the rationalizations for handing all of human social organization to the political system, AKA the Total State under which we now live.

Anonymous Brother Thomas May 29, 2015 9:57 AM  

9 times out of 10 you don't have to read the research to know its conclusions. You just have to know who funded the research, you have to know who performed the research, and you have to understand the relationship between the two to know the conclusions reached.

It's that simple.

Anonymous Roundtine May 29, 2015 10:00 AM  

One way to clean out a university would be to fire any professor who published or reviewed and approved, junk research.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer May 29, 2015 10:04 AM  

"For everyone who thinks this isn't a big deal or that it doesn't affect you, keep in mind that much of modern government policy is derived from these scientific studies."

Climate Change is part of the Common Core curriculum.

Anonymous RedJack #22 May 29, 2015 10:08 AM  

When my brides water broke early, (PPROM) at 15 weeks, we were told "You will lose the baby". Our Doctor, a wonderful woman, did not do the typical recommended thing and induce labor. A year ago, my youngest was born. She spent some time in the NICU, but is doing great.

Our Doctor has been trying to publish the findings from our case. She followed a protocol from Nigeria of all places in treatment (bed rest, antibiotics for infection, heavy fluid intake), and it not only worked, it worked better than expected. This wasn't her only case.

It won't be published. The editors don't want it to be, because they are stuck on "Abort and try again". One even attacked her saying the psychological damage for my bride was more than a doctor should allow.

It wasn't the data, there were multiple cases in multiple locations. It was the worldview. So our Doctor is using her connections to quietly get the method spread.

Blogger Zaklog the Great May 29, 2015 10:10 AM  

A nihilist (either in name or practically so) cannot be a good scientist because a good scientist must have an absolute dedication to the truth, regardless of how it fits his preconceptions. If a man believes there is no absolute truth, how can he be so dedicated to it? A generation of nihilists has entered the profession, and this is the result. It's like Wright said on EveryJoe sometime ago, not only is Christianity not anti-science; Christianity is the only environment science can flourish in.

Anonymous The Gray Man May 29, 2015 10:11 AM  

I wish you would link to the real source instead of the bad Infowars copy\paste job.

http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf

There are a lot of people who refuse to read anything that is citing an Infowars link. I used to be an Infowars person, but these days I take anything from there with a grain of salt -- it's just not consistently reliable or they put their own spin on everything.

Blogger Salt May 29, 2015 10:20 AM  

I wish you would link to the real source instead of the bad Infowars copy\paste job

What do you find objectionable in the InfoWars article? Is it misrepresenting anything?

Anonymous WhiteKnightLeo May 29, 2015 10:26 AM  

....... This is plenty disturbing. I've heard stuff like this before, but *this* is quite the damning admission.

Blogger VD May 29, 2015 10:27 AM  

I wish you would link to the real source instead of the bad Infowars copy\paste job.

There are multiple sources at the linked article, there is no one "real source". And I believe in linking to the place that provided the information. It's good Netiquette.

And finally, HTML links are preferred to PDF links.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 29, 2015 10:29 AM  

not only is Christianity not anti-science; Christianity is the only environment science can flourish in

You could say the same about political systems. No men are angels; structuring social organization around a monopoly on coercion presupposes they become so upon elevation to office, but especially when majority vote is involved the scum rises to the top.

People who do not fear judgement are free to let their inner Sade run wild.

Blogger Nate May 29, 2015 10:29 AM  

"....... This is plenty disturbing. I've heard stuff like this before, but *this* is quite the damning admission."

its also courageous as hell. So remember The Lancet when you're burning down broken town of bad science.

These were the guys who told the truth.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 29, 2015 10:32 AM  

AIDS and AGW are two of numerous scandals awaiting revelation, and when social mood is aligned for it, they will be part of the flood that washes away most of the narrative underlying "Scientific Management of Society," which is most of Progressivism's foundation for trying to bring about the Gnostic Heresy: Heaven on Earth.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 29, 2015 10:41 AM  

These were the guys who told the truth.

There's a dam protecting the valley of lies, distortions and suppression of truth in which the town of Progressivism nestles. We know the reservoir of honesty behind the dam is overfull, because the truth is lapping over the dam and opening fissures in its face.

Smart people are moving to ever-higher ground because they know that the dam is doomed by its own internally conflicting structure. From Dewey & Bellamy to Marx, Bernard Shaw and our modern quislings, the narrative of the last 150 years was a mass of illogic and nonsense.

This blog is part of the water escaping that dam.

Blogger Nate May 29, 2015 10:54 AM  

"And then recall that this is what Sam Harris believes can and should replace philosophy and traditional morality as an effective guide to human behavior. "

In can't even guide the behavior of the elite professionals of its own field.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus May 29, 2015 11:13 AM  

Not to piss on anyone's wall, but does this mean there's a good chance that the Lancet's claim that half a million Iraqi civilians died as a result of the Police Action for Oil is bogus as well?

Anonymous Porky May 29, 2015 11:20 AM  

So remember The Lancet when you're burning down broken town of bad science.

Well they sure did a hell of a smear job on Andrew Wakefield.

Blogger Scott Rassbach May 29, 2015 11:22 AM  

RedJack #22, could you send the name of your doctor to scottrassbach@scottrassbach.net? My wife is an L&D Nurse, and I'm sure she'd be interested in the technique and the possibilities of saving a baby. Thank you.

Anonymous WhiteKnightLeo May 29, 2015 11:33 AM  

@Nate Indeed it is a courageous thing to do. It tells you a lot about the character of the person who said it.

Anonymous Jack Amok May 29, 2015 11:40 AM  

The Lancet article highlights the cause as well as the effect.

...no-one is incentivised to be right. Instead, scientists are incentivised to be productive and innovative.

Professional Scientists - the word professional is more likely to mean "whore" than "expert" given the financial incentives. I think it's worse in medical science because there's really no ethical way to conduct the sort of rigorous experiments the Scientific Method demands. There always has to be a large element of guesswork and pattern recognition.

Blogger Russell (106) May 29, 2015 11:40 AM  

This is longish, the meat is in the first ~60 minutes: https://vimeo.com/16698764

The TL;DW version is bad science was published, Keith Baggerly et al. spent months of hard work trying to get the original authors to retract and fix, they finally did only after news sources picked up on it and ran the story.

It’s a fascinating look on how people actually behave in the science fields, and it isn't pretty.

Blogger Stilicho #0066 May 29, 2015 11:44 AM  

and this was back in the early 2000s. I imagine its gotten exponentially worse since. Its a systemic problem driven by this insane requirement to PUBLISH PUBLISH PUBLISH!!!! Which is really just marketing for universities.

It's also driven by the money to be had in various ways by using publishing to slap a false veneer of "science" over the opinion you wish push.

I know several doctors who pull down between $1 and $2 million a year for testifying (without any risk of malpractice suits to boot).

Anonymous BigGaySteve May 29, 2015 11:45 AM  

How much bad science is committed by affirmative actions? Retraction Watch has as much die verse city shown as Nicholas Stix

AIDS and AGW are two of numerous scandals awaiting revelation

Don't tell me you are one of those people that thinks white people created AIDS so the US govt owes reparations? Sending charity meds to Africa means that diseases white mans medicine can't cure will rise up to do the job other diseases have in the past to keep Africa an R type evolutionary environment. If we didn't cure all the other diseases they wouldn't have been able to have sex with monkeys, or eat them raw.

Blogger Marissa May 29, 2015 11:48 AM  

The editors don't want it to be, because they are stuck on "Abort and try again". One even attacked her saying the psychological damage for my bride was more than a doctor should allow.

Do these people not realize what evil and misery they are allowing to spread in the world? They don't care that they let children die, parents' hearts are broken, because their disgusting worldview? Thank God I read your post, because I'm pregnant right now and baby is not yet viable outside the womb, so if such a thing happened to me, I'd have no idea there was an existing protocol to keep baby alive. Partly because gatekeepers literally want more children to die and don't care about the physical and emotional toll it will take on parents, grandparents, etc. Fuck all these people!!!! /pregnancy hormones

Blogger RobertT May 29, 2015 11:49 AM  

I finally found something that puts me at ease about all this incompetence everywhere. A paretian or pareto distribution of any profession proves most are incompetent. Graph out home run hitters, goal scorers, cpa's or attorneys. Competence on the left, Population on the bottom. Tiny number of competent. Very long tail of incompetence.
https://www.google.com/search?q=paretian+distribution&espv=2&biw=1280&bih=899&tbm=isch&imgil=U85ZaNG-07AJqM%253A%253BgLe4mEXDEE5soM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fmarketingmuses.typepad.com%25252Fmarketingmuses%25252F2012%25252F05%25252Fanother-crack-in-the-bell-curve.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=U85ZaNG-07AJqM%253A%252CgLe4mEXDEE5soM%252C_&usg=__Ny9b8-cEtLXZgqyjXuiQeNzXl0w%3D&ved=0CDsQyjc&ei=rYloVcG1AsenyAT6moJY#imgrc=U85ZaNG-07AJqM%253A%3BgLe4mEXDEE5soM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fmarketingmuses.typepad.com%252F.a%252F6a00e5514c487a8834016305383222970d-500wi%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fmarketingmuses.typepad.com%252Fmarketingmuses%252F2012%252F05%252Fanother-crack-in-the-bell-curve.html%3B500%3B215

Blogger RobertT May 29, 2015 11:52 AM  

Original source ... http://marketingmuses.typepad.com/marketingmuses/2012/05/another-crack-in-the-bell-curve.html

Blogger Nate Winchester May 29, 2015 12:05 PM  

I note that it isn't any of the pro-vaxxers, the climate change scammers, the "I fucking love science" crowd or the True Believers in evolution that are calling out this vast quantity of scientific fraud, but rather the science skeptics

Well and the actual... scientists. So more like the "science PR" crowd vs skeptics (with poor scientists stuck in the middle).

Actually kind of reminds me of some of my favorite jokes from Everybody Loves Ted. (and the comic Dilbert as well)

"We've just figured out X!"
"Does it do Y?"
"...uh. No."
"Well marketing has already started a campaign that it does Y. Make it do Y."
"But... *sigh* we'll try."

Also seen in: this PHD comic

Oh and yes, I count Harris as more "PR" than "scientist."

Anonymous Porky May 29, 2015 12:08 PM  

Indeed it is a courageous thing to do. It tells you a lot about the character of the person who said it.
And a quick search shows that Angell also jumped on the effort to destroy Wakefield.

I love how these guys destroyed a doctor because his autism study was funded by the parents of autistic children, yet they continue to publish drug studies funded by the drug manufacturers.

Blogger automatthew May 29, 2015 1:12 PM  

"It wasn't the data, there were multiple cases in multiple locations. It was the worldview. So our Doctor is using her connections to quietly get the method spread."

Vox, sounds like a good panelist for a Brainstorm.

Anonymous BigGaySteve May 29, 2015 1:42 PM  

They don't care that they let children die, parents' hearts are broken, because their disgusting worldview?

There are plenty that would let dozens die so their mistress could get a new piece of jewelry. That said what is being suggested requires the patient to endure some unpleasantness, in an environment that wants no kids born on weekends or holidays. I was actually written up for not wrestling a warm meal away from a homeless man so he could be discharged to the cold street faster in a die verse city.

Blogger wrf3 May 29, 2015 1:47 PM  

Nate wrote: In [sic] can't even guide the behavior of the elite professionals of its own field.

Nothing external to man can. That's why "you must be born again."

Anonymous Earl May 29, 2015 1:59 PM  

So its like scientists have all become government employees?

Blogger SirHamster (#201) May 29, 2015 2:08 PM  

I found studies that showed the dangers of wearing seat belts.

And found studies that showed the dangers of not wearing seat belts.


To be fair ... both of those studies can be true and useful without contradiction.

Blogger Nate May 29, 2015 2:30 PM  

'To be fair ... both of those studies can be true and useful without contradiction. "

actually the two were fairly contradictory. To give another example.. more specific... I found 4 different studies on "walking epidurals". Two which found them to have no effect on delivery times... and two others that claimed they radically increased delivery times.

These 4 studies were published within 3 years of each other in 2 different medical journals.

So if you were pro-epidural and you wanted to give a presentation on it... you could site two studies and claim science was on your side.

if you were anti-epidural... you could do exactly the same.

Which I suspect... is really the point.

Blogger VFM 188* May 29, 2015 2:37 PM  

go into your local book store and tell me how many Mass Market Paperbacks of Wright's that you see on the shelf ...

I did. There was only one. Count to a Trillion. So I bought it. Now there are none of his books on the shelves in that particular Barnes & Noble.

Blogger Iowahine May 29, 2015 3:01 PM  

AIDS and AGW are two of numerous scandals awaiting revelation

Add cancer.

The disappointing reality of doing medical/pharma/government-funded science is the elephant in the room that those doing it see so clearly, they don't see the point nor want to talk about it. Like any other professional, once years into a career, there's no going back. Those who figure out how to secure funding and do research they can stand behind (if ever forced to) are happy to be able to continue. Those who are competitive find ways to get more goodies and enjoy the accomplishment in that - more than the actual research, which few will ever get called on unless there is a peer jealousy, or potential patent/money dispute.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 29, 2015 3:18 PM  

@ BigGaySteve
Don't tell me you are one of those people that thinks white people created AIDS so the US govt owes reparations?

No, I'm in the Peter Duesberg camp, along with anyone else who can recognize politics disguised as science. Whatever AIDS is, it surely is NOT an STD caused by a retrovirus.

Is there a specific logical fallacy that speaks to "just wait; eventually you'll see?"

By this, I mean, lighting up on an HIV PCR test does not correlate any AIDS syndrome disease with Koch's Postulates. That's why the CDC quietly removed Kaposi's Sarcoma from the AIDS spectrum, because too many people with the disease were "testing negative" for HIV. (Of course, this ignores the fact that the guy who invented PCR in the first place says that the test for HIV is simply lighting up on background junk.)

Fitting the facts is a near-certain proof that the theory is wrong. It is a hallmark of junk science.

Testing positive on an AIDS test (any of them) does not correlate to disease. Oh, that's right, "No! Just wait, if we wait long enough EVERYONE who is positive will develop one of the syndrome diseases of AIDS, unless we treat them with a toxic chemical cocktail in which case they'll almost certainly die of one of the listed side effects...most often hepatotoxicity."

Blogger dc.sunsets May 29, 2015 3:22 PM  

@ Iowahine, that's another reason I love to read about Duesburg. When he was basically tossed out of the AAS, and he could obtain NO funding for anything remotely related to AIDS, HIV or such, he turned his attention to cancer, reviving interest in aneuploidy as an important consideration in cancer diagnosis and treatment.

1971 was when Nixon declared war on Cancer. Today it is BIG business....and yielding next to no benefit.

Anonymous RedJack #22 May 29, 2015 3:29 PM  

Marissa,

There are many, many, reasons we are thankful for my brides OB/GYN. The fact that she sees unborn fetuses as children is one of the major ones. Most OB's do not, and will refer to the child as "Product of conception" up to a scheduled delivery.

The blow back we got from some supposidly "Christian" doctors shocked me. I had one get rather upset with me, in church, for "making" my bride go on bed rest and "damaging her self worth". She was on bed rest for four months. Not because she wanted to be, but because it was to save our child. The other lady was annoyed she would even try, and started to bad mouth our doctor for making other OB's "look bad".

They don't care about the devastation they leave, it is only about the narrative.

Anonymous BigGaySteve May 29, 2015 3:37 PM  

dc.sunsets Peter Duesberg camp= American/European AIDS diseases are brought on by the long-term consumption of recreational drugs and/or AZT itself, which is prescribed to prevent or treat AIDS.

If only we had a prison that could keep recreational drugs out of it we could see if blacks on the down low got AIDS as often as regular prison blacks. I do agree that if someone discovered a cure for cancer that was cheap & effective he would be killed off by someone in the billion dollar industry, but it is pretty well settled that HIV is an STD.

Anonymous Athor Pel May 29, 2015 3:38 PM  

" Earl May 29, 2015 1:59 PM
So its like scientists have all become government employees?"



This is very close to the truth.

At the state land grant university I attended the staff and teachers were all state employees. The university's budget was closely tied to the state government budget.

Now, about the research funding. One of the largest sources of research grants is the federal government.

So yes, American universities for all intents and purposes are another arm of the state.

Anonymous RedJack #22 May 29, 2015 3:38 PM  

Scott Rassbach,
Sent

Anonymous RedJack #22 May 29, 2015 3:41 PM  

BGS,

HIV is an STD. AIDS is assumed to be caused by HIV (with some very good evidence) but you and have AIDS (Acquired, Immune, Deficiency Syndrome) with out HIV. There are many things that will cause the symptoms that AIDS does that are not related to HIV. This is big business in Africa, where you will have a hard time getting someone to donate to you if you say you have a bunch of kids with malaria, but if you say AIDS the money starts flowing.

Blogger Danby May 29, 2015 3:46 PM  

Decades ago my wife taught classes for pregnant women at our local hospital. We knew and soemtimes worked with Dr. Tom Brewer, who at the time was the head of obstetrics at a very large county hospital in California.

One of the big problems in pregnancy care is eclampsia, a syndrome marked by hypertension, swelling, convulsions, miscarriage, and in extreme cases, death. It's far more common among poor people and Blacks.

Tom reduced the incidence of eclampsia among the patients at his hospital from 25% (or so) to 0%.

0%

He did this by making sure that every woman under his care got 100g of protein a day. If a pregnant woman came in to the ER, she was given IV albumin. Sometimes it meant driving by the house with a dozen eggs and a cheeseburger. Just 100g of protein proved 100% effective in eliminating the syndrome completely.

He wrote it up and was unable to get it published. He took it to the March of Dimes and they weren't interested. After he retired, the hospital went back to the standard protocol of anti-siezure medications and restricted salt intake.

Because nobody could raise money or make money on his work, it was shut out completely from official science. To this day, there is no official etiology for eclampsia of pregnancy, and the protocol is to treat the symptoms after they arise.

Anonymous dh May 29, 2015 3:50 PM  

And then recall that this is what Sam Harris believes can and should replace philosophy and traditional morality as an effective guide to human behavior.

And what's worse is that this is how bad it is when tiny amounts of money, virtually no power, and little respect are conferred onto the profession.

Imagine the shenanigans when real amounts of money and power are at stake.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 29, 2015 3:51 PM  

pretty well settled that HIV is an STD.
Not settled at all, in my view. http://duesberg.com/faq.html
Yes, I'm well aware that if you ask 100 infectious diseases specialists, it's settled. If you had asked those same dogma-saturated clowns about H. pylori a couple decades ago, they'd have told you it was settled that no bacterial species could survive in the extremely acidic environment of a human stomach.

I've a BA in microbiology, a BS in biology, and a career in research and in pharmaceutical sales. I'm very, very cynical of what tries to pass as science, especially medical science, these days. I could write a book about how ignorant are most physicians about infectious disease, and you of all people should be intimate with how dogma, not science, rules medicine.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 29, 2015 3:55 PM  

I do agree that if someone discovered a cure for cancer that was cheap & effective he would be killed off by someone in the billion dollar industry

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/07/13/burzynski-cancer-film.aspx

The "government" doesn't go to great lengths against you unless you threaten someone's sacred cow. Whether you love or hate Mercola, the trail of lawsuits and harassment is definitely smoke. Where there's smoke....

Blogger SirHamster (#201) May 29, 2015 3:57 PM  

actually the two were fairly contradictory.

I'll take your word for it.

Was going off your summary - one study could have analyzed the added risks from wearing a seatbelt and the other looked at the added risks of not wearing a seatbelt, and the findings wouldn't necessarily contradict - perhaps the seatbelt reduces overall risk of death; but increases rate of bruising as well as injury risk in very specific scenarios.

But yeah, I agree with your overall criticism that there are studies that prove anything and everything.

Blogger Marissa May 29, 2015 5:16 PM  

RedJack, that's insane. My OB isn't that bad. She says "baby" and "child". I'm happy to hear your wife did the right thing and your child is healthy.

dc.sunsets - I drive by the Burzynski clinic all the time--is that guy for real? I heard he charges a lot, in the hundreds of thousands.

Anonymous Giuseppe May 29, 2015 5:18 PM  

Much like the Red Indians, the last few good scientists are rare and far between. They too died out around the late 1800s.
Now we have trained circus monkeys and apart from a few gentlemen from a more civilised era, one in which duelling was considered the right way to settle disputes of bad character, the rest are just performing for the ring masters.

Anonymous DavidKathome May 29, 2015 7:17 PM  

He did this by making sure that every woman under his care got 100g of protein a day. If a pregnant woman came in to the ER, she was given IV albumin. Sometimes it meant driving by the house with a dozen eggs and a cheeseburger. Just 100g of protein proved 100% effective in eliminating the syndrome completely.

He wrote it up and was unable to get it published. He took it to the March of Dimes and they weren't interested. After he retired, the hospital went back to the standard protocol of anti-siezure medications and restricted salt intake.

Because nobody could raise money or make money on his work, it was shut out completely from official science. To this day, there is no official etiology for eclampsia of pregnancy, and the protocol is to treat the symptoms after they arise.


Next time I order a burger I will tell everyone I am practicing medicine.

Anonymous Samson J. May 29, 2015 7:22 PM  

Hahahahaha... this post gives me that strange, conflicted feeling, where on the one hand you feel vindicated about something you've been saying all along, and on the other, you feel disappointed because now people are going to think you're just jumping on tha bandwagon.

I have been saying the same thing for years. I've said it ever since my undergraduate honours thesis, in which I was supposed to do "research" but in fact I realized that the way research is conducted at modern universities, results can basically be invented by a lazy graduate student and no one will know the difference.

Anonymous takin' a look May 29, 2015 7:35 PM  

-BGS

HIV?AIDS is bu-cu bux. Easily over a trillion has been poured down this hole since 1984-85. Let me let you in on a secret....

We.All.Test.Positive.

Thats why they have extensive questionnaires and want to know your sexual orientation. Everyone has greater or lesser titres of HIV antibodies. EVERYONE. The question is, for WHAT? The answer probably is for an ancient virus that subjected us to severe selective pressure. We carry that legacy.

You seriously need to watch "House of Numbers" by Brebt Leung. Especially the extended interview with Luc Montagnier.

Blogger denizenofgoo May 30, 2015 5:14 AM  

Murray had done the dog’s work of combing through reams of sta- tistical studies of welfare programs, many of them undertaken after Lyndon Johnson launched his War on Poverty in 1965. The typical War on Poverty study, Murray noticed, opened with a hazy but, on balance, optimistic summary—followed by miles of statistics that contradicted it. The statistics were so full of “weighted” numbers, esoteric graphs, and stupefying equations that only a precious few could interpret them. Among them, it so happened, was Murray, who had been chief scientist for the government-backed American Institutes for Research.


Using the very same data, he concluded that not only had the War on Poverty failed to help the poor; it had driven them more deeply into pov- erty, in a direct cause-and-effect sequence, and wiped out any motivation to improve their lot. Welfare, Great Society–style, discouraged marriage and, in fact, encouraged families to break up. As long as she had children but no man in the house—or apparently no man—a single mother’s extra payments, on top of her regular benefits, often added up to as much as her man could make by going out and getting a job.


- Tom Wolfe, Manhattan Institute at 25

Same with the gender-equality in maths study.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts