SPONSORS
The Solution For Disease FREE Health...
http://bit.ly/RGNZ0i
Prevent Alzheimer's With Natural Remedies!
http://bit.ly/H8y8Uz
World's #1 Publisher of Information About Alternative
Cancer Treatments Cancer Defeated
http://bit.ly/ZVR6Qw
Continued from Monday, 12/30/13
Not Looking For the Right Thing
This was the tactic used over and over again in tobacco studies, and it is a
trick used over and over again in the pharmaceutical industry. For example, in
order to get funding from the tobacco industry, you could not directly look
for a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer. You had to look for some
irrelevant, but seeming relevant, issue that "skirts" or avoids the real
issue.
As an example from the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA only accepts studies
that compare an "old" toxic sludge to a "new" toxic sludge. They will not
legally allow or accept a legitimate study comparing an alternative treatment
to an orthodox treatment.
Preaching the Importance of "Double Blind" Studies
Scientists love to preach the importance of "double blind" studies because in
that way they can compare their "old" toxic sludge to their "new" toxic sludge
in the same study. But in many cases, a double blind study makes no sense in
the world. For example, how could you do a double blind study comparing a
person who refuses all orthodox cancer treatments with someone who goes
through chemotherapy? It is a stupid concept, because after one day a person
would know which group they were in.
Likewise, how can you compare chemotherapy to Vitamin C in a double blind
study? The chemotherapy group would have intense pain, sickness, their hair
will fall out, and so on. The Vitamin C group would have no added pain, no
sickness (except perhaps diarrhea), and their hair will not fall out, etc. A
double blind study in this case is nonsense. What are you going to do,
secretly put Drano (a toxic sludge used in plumbing to clean drain pipes) and
ipecac (which makes people vomit) in with the Vitamin C so the Vitamin C group
will experience intense pain and sickness and not know which blind group they
are in?
There is nothing more stupid in the world of science that requiring a double
blind study in cases where it makes no sense.
But it gets worse. The whole point of a "double blind" study is to remove any
possible "psychological" effect in the study. In other words, since the
patients don't know which group they are in, there is no "psychological"
benefit or detriment to the treatment caused by their beliefs.
So what is the ultimate situation where there cannot possibly be any
"psychological" effect? Using medical records, especially of people that are
already DEAD! When a person doesn't know that their treatment is going to be
used in a study long after they are dead, there certainly is no
"psychological" effect that influences their outcome.
As a further point in this regard, the patients who are dead, and now only
exist in medical records, could not possibly have known about treatments that
didn't even exist when they were being treated. So how could there be a
psychological effect?
Patient Selection (i.e. Selection Protocol)
When scientists want to make sure they do not accidentally duplicate the
successful treatment of alternative medicine, they may use a clever way of
selectively picking participants for the study. For example, when Pauling and
Cameron selected patients for their study comparing Vitamin C therapy to
chemotherapy, they selected patients who had a wide variety of cancers. When
the Mayo Clinic wanted to make sure they did not come to the same conclusions
as Pauling and Cameron they did not use a wide variety of cancer types, they
used a small number of different types of cancers. By carefully choosing the
patients in a study you can largely control the outcome of the study.
Another trick they can use with patient selection is designed to make
alternative medicine look bad. But they usually don't use statistics to do
this, but rather they will use one patient at a time to make alterantive
medicine look bad.
For example, they can find a patient who was send home to die, after being
mutilated, poisoned and burned so bad that there is no way this patient can
survive. They then tell the story of an alternative cancer patient who died,
failing to mention that he was essentially dead before he started taking the
treatments.
Or they can find someone who didn't pick the right treatment for their
situation and died because of that. Because they suppress the truth about
alternative medicine, it is easy to find these people. These people probably
died due to the lack of truth available to them, rather than the
ineffectiveness of alternative medicine.
In essense, they can find a lot of people who took alternative treatments who
died. By not telling the whole story (whatever that story was), they can make
it look like alternative medicine is useless.
Give Drugs Known to Interact With the Treatment
When the NIH wanted to "prove" that Hydrazine Sulphate did not treat cachexia,
they had a problem - there were already many scientific studies that proved it
did work. So what they did was give 94% of the patients in the study a
prescription drug that was known to neutralize the effect of Hydrazine
Sulphate. The patients died of course, and the NIH got the data they wanted.
Hiding Who is Funding the Study
Many scientific studies are done by Big Pharma. Since these studies are too
overtly biased to be taken seriously, Big Pharma will frequently seek out a
big name scientist to attach his or her name to the study, as if they had
actually done the study. There are in fact many different ways to hide who
really does a study and many medical journals couldn't care less anyway.
In addition to this, many medical journals ignore who funds a study done by
non-Big Pharma scientists. As was mentioned in my "Introduction" article, with
aspartame studies there was a clear correlation between what the studies found
and who funded the studies.
Bribing the Peer-Review Group
"In June [2002], the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most
respected medical journals, made a startling announcement. The editors
declared that they were dropping their policy stipulating that authors of
review articles of medical studies could not have financial ties to drug
companies whose medicines were being analyzed.
The reason? The journal could no longer find enough independent experts.
Drug company gifts and "consulting fees" are so pervasive that in any given
field, you cannot find an expert who has not been paid off in some way by the
industry. So the journal settled for a new standard: Their reviewers can have
received no more than $10,000 [per year] from companies whose work they judge.
Isn't that comforting?
This announcement by the New England Journal of Medicine is just the tip
of the iceberg of a scientific establishment that has been pervasively
corrupted by conflicts of interest and bias, throwing doubt on almost all
scientific claims made in the biomedical field.
The standard announced in June was only for the reviewers. The actual
authors of scientific studies in medical journals are often bought and paid
for by private drug companies with a stake in the scientific results. While
the NEJM and some other journals disclose these conflicts, others do not.
Unknown to many readers is the fact that the data being discussed was often
collected and analyzed by the maker of the drug involved in the test."
Contracts With Scientists
Virtually all contracts between a scientist and a pharmaceutical company will
include a stipulation that if the pharmaceutical company does not like the
results of the study, they have the legal right to suppress the results of the
study, and the scientist is forbidden from publicizing the results of the
study and is forbidden from submitting the study to a journal.
Very, very few colleges have the integrity to sign a contract that does not
have this contract clause.
What this means is that when a study finds a dangerous side-effect of a
prescription drug, or if it is found that the drug is worthless, the
information is legally suppressed.
Control By Funding
The fastest and quickest way to get on the "black list" of pharmaceutical
companies is to come to a conclusion they don't like. Perhaps you have found
out that one of their drugs kills more people than they admit. Perhaps you
have found a higher incidence of new cancers in patients who took a particular
type of chemotherapy drug. Perhaps you have found that a natural treatment for
cancer is superior to all chemotherapy drugs. You can forget ever being funded
again.
In short, if you don't give Big Pharma the conclusions they want, you won't
get funded again. Ever. Everybody knows that. It is the basic "rule of the
game."
Flooding Scientific Journals With Bogus Studies
To put all of these items in perspective, it was the ultimate goal of the
tobacco industry to flood the scientific journal market with bogus scientific
studies in order to dilute the valid scientific studies that they were not
able to control (i.e. fund).
The pharmaceutical industry has set even higher goals: use the corruption of
science and government to flood the scientific journal market with bogus
scientific studies, PLUS make sure the peer-review people are also in their
hip pocket, PLUS make sure that no studies making alternative treatments look
good can be published. They have done well.
Thank You CancerTutor webmaster, R. Webster Kehr
God Bless Everyone & God Bless The United States of America.
Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513
cancercurehere@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment