I've seen quite of few comments recently about providing PROOF to back up some of our claims and the Validity behind some of the Studies that are offered as that PROOF and I thought that this Interview might help some of y'all. I watched this interview almost 4 years ago, but I was just reminded of it in this article...

[articles.mercola.com]
157 Peer Reviews Fail to Catch Fake Cancer Study
March 27, 2014 | 142,326 views
1:44 Minute Video
By Dr. Mercola

Story at-a-glance
• A “crisis of science” is upon us, as fraudulent studies are being published by both peer-reviewed and open access journals alike to a greater degree than ever before
• Open Access journals are a phenomenally positive movement that benefits the public. However, you need to beware that just because a study was published, that is not a guarantee of research quality
• A journalist devised a “sting operation” to test how likely it might be for fraudulent research to be published, and half of the Open Access journals accepted the fake study for publication; half did not
• Recent research revealed that nearly one million people died over five years in Europe through the inappropriate prescription of beta-blockers for non-cardiac surgery
• The research serving as the basis for this deadly prescription guideline was published in prestigious peer reviewed journals, showing peer review flaws are not limited to Open Access journals

...

[articles.mercola.com]

Here is the Video followed by some of my notes...

Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Beatrice Golomb on Big Pharma (Part 1 of 7)
9:27 Minute Video
[www.youtube.com]

Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Beatrice Golomb on Big Pharma (Part 2 of 7)
9:34 Minute Video
[www.youtube.com]

Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Beatrice Golomb on Big Pharma (Part 3 of 7)
10:08 Minute Video
[www.youtube.com]

Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Beatrice Golomb on Big Pharma (Part 4 of 7)
9:26 Minute Video
[www.youtube.com]

Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Beatrice Golomb on Big Pharma (Part 5 of 7)
8:52 Minute Video
[www.youtube.com]

Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Beatrice Golomb on Big Pharma (Part 6 of 7)
6:38 Minute Video
[www.youtube.com]

Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Beatrice Golomb on Big Pharma (Part 7 of 7)
8:15 Minute Video
[www.youtube.com]

JR's Notes:

7:28 MM in 5 of 7
DG: So, I think those issues do begin in medical school. I will say that for both medical school and also graduate school, there really is very limited training on how to evaluate evidence. There is very limited training in epidemiology methods, forms of bias confounding, selection of facts and also logical fallacies, which are frankly rife in medical articles.

DM: This is somewhat surprising that you were able to, I guess, garner your expertise because as you mentioned this is really not traditionally taught. You have to acquire in some other fields because they’re not going to teach you this in almost every medical school.

To me, this seems one of the most foundational skills to learn because I remember from my medical education, they said that 95% of what you’re going to learn in school is going to be outdated by the time you’re practicing. So you really do need a skill set to help you evaluate all these new research and yet they aren’t giving you the tools and training on how to evaluate the data sets.

DG: I absolutely share that conviction with you. In fact, it’s my opinion that it should start in grade school. Like English and Math, it should be one of the key things that is taught and it should be taught and upgraded essentially throughout one’s education much less for people who have a career in science or in medicine. I completely agree with you on that. 8:52 MM EOT


2:57 MM in 7 of 7
DG: There was a researcher who gave a talk, a researcher from a European country that I won’t specify because I haven’t been given permission by him to share this story but who had presented some information that was unflattering to this class of drugs. I actually approached him after his talk and asked if he had received any (inaudible 58:02) [pushback] from this.

And he said that he had received a call from a vice president of one of the major drug companies telling him that if he persisted in presenting this kind of information, they would sue him, that their lawyers were bigger and better than his lawyers and that if he persisted, and that even if he won the case, it would destroy him financially.

And he did something far more savvy than I would have had the brains to do, he said, “I’ve been taping your call and we’re passing the threat out to my lawyer at the end of the call” because that’s legal in the country he’s in and I didn’t ask if he actually did that or if he was just smart enough to say it because I don’t want to know. But it was either way a very smart thing for him to do.

I actually was taken aside by a researcher who had shown untoward effects of lowering cholesterol in an animal model. He took me aside after the talk he gave when I was at UCLA because he thought that I should know that they had…the chair of his department had gotten a call from a vice president of one of the major drug companies telling him it would be, and this was represented by him to me, “dangerous for them to continue to pursue this line of research.”

So, there are these examples of apparent pushback by industry. Right, they have a lot of money on the line and perhaps it’s unreasonable to suppose that you can go to have a publicly traded company where, on the one hand, there is a perceived obligation to stockholders and simultaneously expect them to have patients’ best interests at heart. The two are sort of fundamentally incompatible. 4:46 MM

DM: That is the basic crux of the problem. I mean, these are corporations whose sole commitment is really not towards public health but towards the bottom line of that corporation. Science evolves and develops and we learn more and more but what many people don’t appreciate is the amazing science and it truly is a science of marketing and they have been able to really carefully identify the way to modify, mold and impress upon a vast large percentage of it, if not the vast majority of the professional community, how to change and modify their positions on their supported topics.

DG: Right and you could argue to the degree that their stockholders are their obligation, that if you or I were put in charge of those companies and it was our job to improve the bottom line, we too would be putting into place all of these multiple strategies toward improving market share for our drug.

DM: That’s true but I’m not sure all of them would do that because there does seem to be some really significant ethical breaches in many of the scenarios you described.

DG: I think there are very serious problems associated with them and again, the expectation is that you can somehow manage the duality of interests with the one being the stockholder and the profit line, which keeps the company alive and vibrant, and the other being the best interest of the patient. Perhaps, the assumption that these two are compatible needs to be reexamined.

JR: This is Adam Smith’s “those who live by profit” do NOT have the best interest in society.

JR Insert from “Adam Smith” file…
The interest of this third order, therefore, has not the same connection with the general interest of the society as that of the other two.
End of JR Insert from “Adam Smith” file.

Peace and Love..........John

I saw a TED talk once of a doctor who was explaining how fraudulent the studies of many drugs are... that a drug can get tested say 30 times, fail 28 of those times, and get approved because it "worked" a very small percentage of the time. Then of course there's all the side effects.

It's a scam. And these people are all puffed-up and act like they have all the answers. Some even mock those who believe that there is a spiritual dimension to life because we can't "prove" it.

I had a graduate-level introduction to research course and my professor actually stated that the connection to hyperactivity due to sugar consumption in children had been disproved to the extent that no further studies are conducted. Not only does that make no sense to me, but all that would suggest is that the sugar lobby is so strong that they can put the kibbosh on this. Needless to say, I dropped out of both that class and grad school in general (it is all about reading these research "findings".

Scientists are merely theorizing. The idea that they have a handle on the nature of anything is a joke. They THINK they do--that doesn't mean that they do.

...as can be witnessed and known now by their temples and will be judged as so by future civilizations' historians.

Many doctors are not scientists at all. They wear a white coat but that's it. They are part of the money wheel and love it the way it is. They don't like when other people raise waves of doubts that shows the scam.

[nutritionfacts.org]

[articles.mercola.com]


"They typically charge hundreds of dollars a year for a subscription to 12 or fewer issues of their journal, and to top it all off, they charge you $20-$50 or more for just ONE full article."


I used to find this so frustrating that I asked several doctors if I could hook into their subscriptions to see articles. Guess what. Not one of them were subscribers. One told me he had subscribed the first year he was in practice but found the articles very questionable and pretty worthless so he didn't bothered to resubscribe or even buy accesses to any articles ever again.

"science"

"science has proven...."

"science states...."

as if science were ONE entity

I would say that it is the PSEUDO-science and MISINTERPRETATION-of-science. Proofs do not exist in empirial sciences. All empirical studies tend to include the words "perhaps", "maybe" etc. These somehow get lost in translation. Science has nothing to do with dogma. Those who misrepresent it, certainly do.



RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams