Fraud in Scientific Literature

by , under Contemporary Cancer Topics, Conventional Treatments, The Cancer Industry

I knew that there was an element of fraud in scientific literature, but this story that I came across from the Health Ranger, Mike Adams, demonstrates that it is not just an anomaly, but is a part of ‘business as usual’ with Big Pharma.  I have mentioned these elements in my writings.  The bottom line is that when there is money on the table, researchers and physicians are highly motivated to just ‘go along to get along’ rather than go against the modern medical dogma, and suffer the pain and punishment for such heresy.

A great example of this is the way in which physicians in previous days were paid, and actually promoted cigarettes.  There were no scientific studies performed to actually determine if there was a scientific basis for the safety of cigarettes.  They basically just took the money and said exactly what the cigarette companies wanted them to say!  Unfortunately, this is about the level of scientific study performed for a lot of drugs and treatments.  In my research, I found that of all the routine procedures that physicians perform in their practice, around 80% of them have not been proven to be safe and effective by ‘randomized double-blind studies’, which is the scientific standard for an experiment.

So it is an illusion, a fairy tale, to be totally trusting of the medical establishment.  Unfortunately, the majority of people will never question the methods, the veracity and the paradigm being promoted by medical professionals.  It is very unsettling to most people to have to even question the quality of information being given out by physicians and other medical professionals.  But the facts point to the well-known fact that trust is fine, but business requires verification.  We have trusted the medical establishment with our lives, and are paying them huge amounts.

Unfortunately, their pay is directly proportional to how sick we are.  The more people that are sick, the more money they make.  On this issue, I think that it would make more sense to pay them when we are well,  because when we are sick it means that they are failing to keep us in good health.  So why should we reward failure?  The old saying is that whatever you pay for, you get more of.  That seems to be very true in medicine, especially cancer.  The more we spend, the higher the cancer rates go.  It makes perfect sense when you analyze it in this manner.

The researcher in Mike Adams’ story (a Dr. Scott Reuben) had been publishing fraudulent papers for over 13 years!  If there were actually an honest, scientific process for analyzing papers and their conclusions, this would not be possible!  This is allegedly the total reason for the peer-review mechanism in science.  But this one incident is very revealing, and is, in fact, showing the ‘soft underbelly’ of the medical brotherhood.  How many other frauds are being perpetrated?  I think we can safely say that this is the rule, rather than the exception. Although you won’t find the ‘authorities’ making this public, there is information out there on this.

Leave a Reply