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.” (source)
This is quite distrubing, 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” (source)
I apologize if you have seen it before
in my articles, but it is quite the statement, and it comes from someone
who also held a position similiar to Dr. Horton.
There is much more than anecdotal
evidence to support these claims, however, including documents obtained
by Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD, from the Neural Dynamics Research Group in
the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences at the University of
British Columbia, which reveal that vaccine manufacturers,
pharmaceutical companies, and health authorities have known about
multiple dangers associated with vaccines but chose to withhold them
from the public. This is scientific fraud, and their complicity suggests
that this practice continues to this day. (source)
This is just one of many examples, and
alludes to one point Dr. Horton is referring to, the ommision of
data. For the sake of time, I encourage you to do your own research on
this subject. I just wanted to provide some food for thought about
something that is not often considered when it comes to medical
research, and the resulting products and theories which are then sold to
us based on that research.
It’s truly a remarkable time to be
alive. Over the course of human history, our planet has experienced
multiple paradigm shifting realizations, all of which were met with
harsh resistence at the time of their revelation. One great example is
when we realized the Earth was not flat. Today, we are seeing these
kinds of revelatory shifts in thinking happen in multiple spheres, all
at one time. It can seem overwhelming for those who are paying
attention, especially given the fact that a lot of these ideas go
against current belief systems. There will always be resistance to new
information which does not fit into the current framework, regardless of
how reasonable (or factual) that information might be.
Here are just a few of the CE articles related to this subject:
Sources:http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964337/
Please share this.
No comments:
Post a Comment