Friday, January 3, 2014

Big Pharma, Bad Science!


                             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

By Nathan Newman


I n June, 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 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. An independent 1996
study found that 98 percent of scientific papers based on research sponsored
by corporations promoted the effectiveness of a company's drug. By comparison,
79 percent of independent studies found that a new drug was effective. This
corruption reaches from the doctors prescribing a drug to government review
boards to university research centers.

There have long been worries about the advertising and promotional gifts given
to doctors to influence which drugs they prescribe. But it turns out that even
deeper financial ties extend to the medical experts setting nationwide
professional guidelines for treating conditions ranging from heart disease to
diabetes. Surveys have found that nine out of ten experts writing such
guidelines have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry, yet those ties
are almost never disclosed in the treatment guidelines, which are often
published in medical journals and endorsed by medical societies.

The Food and Drug Administration, for reasons similar to those of the
medical journals, routinely allows researchers with ties to the industry to
sit on drug approval advisory committees. In many cases, half the panelists
on such committees have a financial stake in the outcome, through links to
the drug manufacturer or to a competitor.

Increasingly, the industry has converted academic research centers into
subsidiaries of the companies. The billions of dollars of academic government
funding essentially pays to flush out negative results, while private industry
gets to profit from any successful result. Industry now provides 7 percent of
university research funding, but they are manipulating the system to gain a
far more substantial benefit. At the University of California at Berkeley,
Novartis agreed to pay $25 million to the campus in exchange for the first
right to patent a range of basic plant research produced by the university.

Where once university research was oriented to producing independent knowledge
that any other researcher could access and improve upon, university research
is increasingly being locked up in patents. What's more, scientists at
universities are often allowed to have stock options in companies benefiting
from the research they are conducting. As Dr. Marcia Angell, a former editor
of The New England Journal of Medicine, noted in the Baltimore Sun, "What
would be considered a grotesque conflict of interest if a politician or judge
did it is somehow not in a physician."

And the results are expensive and sometimes tragic for the public.

Experimental clinical drug trials are hazardous to participants and, more
broadly, critical to those with life threatening conditions who need to know
which treatments are fruitless to pursue. Yet researchers on industry payrolls
end up pressured to suppress negative results.

At the most basic level, researchers who defy their corporate sponsors know
they may lose their funding. When one Toronto scientist revealed in 1998 a
serious side effect of deferiprone, a drug for a blood disorder, her contract
was terminated. More dramatically, when a number of researchers concluded
thatRemune, an anti-AIDS therapy, was of little benefit to patients, the
companyfunding their research, the Immune Response Corporation, sued
the scientistsin 2001 for $10 million for damaging its business.

And these are the examples of scientists who spoke out. Many others just go
along with the demands of their corporate sponsors and suppress negative
evidence. In the early 1990s, a pharmacologist at the University of California
at San Francisco, Betty Dong, found that a generic thyroid hormone worked as
well as Synthroid, the brand-name drug made by the funder of the research.

According to the Washington Post, the company, Knoll Pharmaceuticals,
successfully blocked publication of the findings for seven years. Only in 1997
was this fraud discovered, and in 1999 Knoll had to pay 37 states $42 million
to settle a suit for consumer fraud in promoting the superiority of its drug.

This pattern of suppression means that medical knowledge is being stunted and
delayed, as other researchers aren't informed of dead ends that might have
helped steer their own research. And by locking up knowledge produced at
academic centers in patents, what should be free knowledge for the public
(free in both the intellectual and economic sense) instead feeds the profit
margins of the pharmaceutical industry.

Universities once opposed patents for any academic research. Yale University's
1948 policy on patents stated, "It is, in general, undesirable and contrary to
the best interests of medicine and the public to patent any discovery or
invention applicable in the fields of public health or medicine." That policy
was later abandoned and Yale now holds a key anti-AIDS drug patent jointly
with Bristol Myers. Facing massive global protest, Yale last year agreed to
relax its patent rules, but the fact that universities routinely now balance
who will live and die against their own profit motive is a degradation of
their public purpose.

This corruption of academic science is pervasive and the costs are extremely
clear, but what is remarkable is how easy it would be to end. Federal and
state governments still supply the overwhelming percentage of university
research funding. If all such funding was conditioned on ending non-disclosure
agreements and on barring the licensing of government-funded results to
private industry, the public would benefit both scientifically and financially.
We've paid for the knowledge once. We shouldn't have to do soagain in increased
costs of medicine and increased deaths due to suppressedknowledge.

Thank You Nathan Newman


 God Bless Everyone & God Bless The United States of America.

Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513
cancercurehere@gmail.com

Have a great day...unless you have made other plans.

Wednesday, January 1, 2014

BIG PHARMA RESEARCH!


                             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

 Have a great day...unless you have made other plans.

Monday, December 30, 2013

How Bogus Scientific Studies Are Created


                             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


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
they want.

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.""
    http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/63882.htm

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
fact.

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
cells.

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.

Tricky Statistics

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
and probability.

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.

Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513
cancercurehere@gmail.com

 Have a great day...unless you have made other plans.