The Solution For Disease FREE Health...
Prevent Alzheimer's With Natural Remedies!
World's #1 Publisher of Information About Alternative
Cancer Treatments Cancer Defeated
How Bogus Scientific Studies Are Created
Over a period of 42 years, the tobacco industry spent over $220 million
funding over 1,500 scientific studies, yet not a single one of these studies
could find a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer, heart disease, etc.
The point ismentioning this fact was that scientists are more than willing
to accept money to do bogus scientific studies.
In fact you can almost always predict what conclusions a "scientific" study
will come to by knowing just one key fact: "who funded the study." The person
who funded the study will always get the conclusion they want. People who
loosely call themselves "scientists" will always make sure of that.
The pharmaceutical industry, with their total control over the National
Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI), Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), etc. have also funded many, many millions of dollars of
bogus scientific studies. In fact, their budget is in the billions of dollars
every year!! Couple this with their control of the media and you have the
situation we are in today.
It is the Prime Directive of medical research to do two things:
First, make it appear there is "scientific evidence" for orthodox cancer
treatments, orthodox heart disease prevention treatments, etc., and
Second, make it appear there is "no scientific evidence" for alternative
cancer treatments, alternative heart disease prevention treatments, and so on.
But how can a scientist not find value in a nutrient that treats cancer or
heart disease when the truth of the matter is that this substance does have
value? That is what this article is about.
This will summarize a number of different tactics and tricks thatscientists
can use to insure that their masters who fund their studies getexactly what
Tactics, Tricks and Fraud in Scientific Studies...Using Synthetic
Versions of a Nutrient In the Study.
In many studies of nutrients, especially vitamins, synthetic versions of the
nutrient were used in the study. Synthetic versions of a vitamin do not have
nearly the effect on a disease as a quality-processed natural version of the
same nutrient. For example:
"A new landmark study suggests that pregnant women should ask their
physicians for a prenatal supplement that contains natural vitamin E for
optimal health insurance. According to this new research, the human placenta
can deliver natural vitamin E to the fetus in much greater concentration (3.5
to one) than the synthetic supplement.
Natural and synthetic vitamin E are not the same. Previous research has
shown natural vitamin E is better retained and more biologically active than
synthetic. To identify the kind of vitamin E in a supplement, it is necessary
to read the ingredients listed on the label. Natural vitamin E begins with
"d," as in "d-alpha-tocopherol." The synthetic version begins with "dl.""
The Dosage is Too Low
When the news media blasts to the world that a particular vitamin or other
nutrient "does not work" at preventing or treating a disease, they may mention
the dosage of the product used by the orthodox scientist, but they won't
mention the real world dosage used by alternative medicine practitioners.
Frequently, the orthodox "study" only used a small fraction of the dosage
generally used by alternative medicine.
Isolating a Natural Substance That Works in Synergy With Other Nutrients
Scientists like to study one nutrient at a time, ignoring that in raw, whole
foods, this nutrient may be the best nutrient in isolation, but in fact this
nutrient only works in combination with several other key nutrients in the
raw, whole food. For example, orthodox scientists may study Vitamin A, by
itself, instead of the effect of fresh, properly prepared carrot juice. By
isolating one substance, they can then generalize that they have proven that
the entire natural food has no effect on prevention or treatment.
Isolating and Studying the Wrong Nutrient
There are many thousands of phytonutrients in plants. No one has a clue how
many of them there are. Most of them have not been identified or isolated. Few
of them have ever been tested for treating cancer. With glyconutrients, the
situation may even be worse. Glyconutrients may some day be found to be more
effective at curing cancer than phytonutrients.
When massive evidence suggests that carrot juice is one of the best treatments
for cancer, scientists quickly try to guess what it is about carrots that
kills cancer cells so well.
It might be beta carotene, it might be alpha carotene. No one knows for sure.
It might be a combination of 20 different things, only 4 of which have been
isolated and identified as of this date.
Nevertheless, such a possibility will not stop scientists from trying to prove
that carrots cannot cure cancer. They will select one or two nutrients in
carrots, claim that they know that these nutrients are the only cancer-
fighting nutrients in the carrots, and then use every trick and tactic they
can come up with to "prove" that carrot juice cannot cure cancer.
No one knows the truth about why it works, but many people do know that
carrotjuice is a major part of many alternative cancer treatments. That is a
So is Essiac Tea, but know one knows for sure why. Doctors have known for
overa hundred years that the herb Sheep Sorrel kills cancer cells, but no one
can truthfully say they know what it is about Sheep Sorrel that kills cancer
But scientists don't want you to know how complex the synergy is between
multiple nutrients. They want you to think that they know what the nutrients
are that work, and that they have proven that since these nutrients cannot, in
isolation, cure cancer, that carrot juice (or whatever) cannot cure cancer.
Contaminating the Substance Being Tested
In one case, at least, the NIH contaminated an already bogus pill being used
in a study. Natural laetrile cannot and has never given a patient the symptoms
of cyanide poisoning. It simply is impossible. The NIH refused to allow an
alternative laetrile vendor to supply natural laetrile for the study - so they
could create a custom pill for the study.
In creating their custom bogus laetrile pill, it was not enough for them to
not have any natural laetrile in the pill. A worthless pill would not have
given any patient the symptoms of cyanide poisoning. They also had to lace
thepill with inorganic cyanide so that the patients would have the symptoms
of cyanide poisoning.
In other words, since they could not make a natural laetrile pill big enough
to induce the symptoms of cyanide poisoning, they provided a pill with no
natural cyanide, but laced it with inorganic cyanide to induce the symptom.
Modify the Complete Treatment Plan
Generally, when the federal government wants to make sure a study it funds
will kill all of the patients, in order to make some natural substance look
ineffective, they will use multiple techniques. For example, when doing a
study of laetrile they created a totally bogus "laetrile pill" and laced it
with inorganic cyanide, as just mentioned. But that was not enough. They
alsodid not give the patients the standard cancer diet used by alternative
practitioners in a complete laetrile treatment. This was easy to see because
this cancer diet, by itself, even without laetrile, would have produced a
survival rate significantly higher than orthodox medicine.
Particularly with regards to "survival time," scientists frequently use
worthless statistical techniques to come to the conclusions their funding
sponsors want them to come to. For example, rather then measure the total
survival times of two groups, they may measure the percentage of people
who are still alive after a short length of time. My "Introduction" article
goes into this trick in more detail.
Choosing the Confidence Interval
A "confidence interval" is a number used in statistics which provides the
level of confidence that the results of the study are valid. In trying to find
"evidence" that an orthodox treatment works, another statistical trick is to
use a low confidence interval combined with a large number of studies. In
other words, if you use a low confidence interval and fund a lot of studies,
eventually one of the studies will give you a "statistically valid" study. But
it is not because the product works, it is because of the nature of statistics
On the other hand, when looking at alternative studies, there is no confidence
interval high enough that will convince the FDA to approve an alternative
treatment. As I show in my eBook, applying statistics to the results of one
alternative doctor yielded a confidence interval equivalent to more than a
thousand standard deviations (three standard deviations yields a commonly
accepted confidence interval in science, using more than three standard
deviations is too high for most studies). But more than one thousand standard
deviations is not enough evidence for orthodox medicine.
Continued on 01/01/14
God Bless Everyone & God Bless The United States of America.
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513