‘The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.’
So what happens when the system put in place to advance Science into the future is incompetent at best and corrupt at worst?
Inaccurate and fraudulent science is what happens, science which has a determined result prior to studies is what happens, pharmaceuticals which provide no benefit to those taking it and in many cases can be a danger to the health of those taking it, is what happens.
Reproducibility of Studies Rare
The most accurate way to determine if a study is accurate or not is by attempting to reproduce the results of the study. However it turns out few studies are successfully repeated, the BBC reports:
‘According to a survey published in the journal Nature last summer, more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments. ‘
This is all well and good if the reproducibility attempts are publicised and thus allowing for the industry to take note and update their practices accordingly, but this is simply not the case. Such studies are rarely published and never reach the light of day, thus allowing the original study to circulate unquestioned in the medical industry.
A paper in the US Library of Medicine appropriately identifies this issue of bias positive reporting of scientific studies:
‘Studies with positive results are greatly more represented in literature than studies with negative results, producing so-called publication bias. This review aims to discuss occurring problems around negative results and to emphasize the importance of reporting negative results. Underreporting of negative results introduces bias into
meta-analysis, which consequently misinforms researchers, doctors and policymakers.’
Being wrong in Science is healthy, this is how science evolves into more accurate data which can benefit us all, but its only useful if we know it’s wrong. If new studies disprove or place former studies under the spotlight for further research are not reported and published we end up with pseudoscience, we end up with placing our faith in literature that is false and potentially damaging.
So the obvious question is, who benefits from these biased and at times
Universities benefit because the ease at which a study can be produced and published in a respected scientific journal (as long as the results are positive). The amount of studies a University has published is paraded as a badge of honour and prestige to the public.
The Scientific Journals benefit greatly as the number of papers submitted for publication each year are in the millions giving them unlimited content for their publications.
The most troublesome beneficiary though of this problem is the pharmaceutical industry itself. When we have studies being funded by the producer of a new drug, with a desired conclusion in mind and little chance of any reviews countering the conclusion you have the perfect recipe to make money. Meanwhile preventing people from getting the correct medical care they need through other methods which may produce better results, and in many cases making the patient sicker because they are being prescribed a drug which has flawed safety trials.
A study entitled ‘Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality‘ in the US Library of Medicine concluded that:
‘Systematic bias favours products which are made by the company funding the research. Explanations include the selection of an inappropriate comparator to the product being investigated and publication bias.’
The Industry Recognises the Issue, Accept for Vaccines
So it is clear the industry has recognised they ho what happens when the system put in place to advance Science into the future is incompetent at best and corrupt at worst?ave an issue with their own peer-review system and the way in which studies are funded, disregarded and selected for publication, however it would seem they remain silent to whether this applies to the Vaccine industry also. Which it clearly does.
Vaccines go through the same process, in fact, they go through a quicker less vigorous process and we are supposed to not question the ‘Vaccines are Safe’ and ‘Vaccines are effective’ mantras we keep hearing from mainstream science.
How can we really trust anything we are being told is beneficial to us and our children when only 30% of all studies are reproducible?
How can we confidently trust a Vaccine that has its studies funded by its own manufacturer?
How can we trust anything when it’s clear the Scientific process is so spectacularly flawed through to its very core?
We believe in Science, but this is not Science.