Thursday, February 08, 2018

Fake Medical Research Is Real!


Fake Medical Research is a Huge Problem

The Event Is coming soon
Published on Jul 15, 2017

10 Fake Medical 'Facts'

Published on Jun 30, 2011
Fake Medicine: "Randomized" drug trial protocols are frequently altered by industry sponsors who selectively remove participants that get sick
by: Lance D Johnson
Tuesday, February 06, 2018
(Natural News) When it comes to making and approving pharmaceutical drugs, the science and procedure behind the process is readily corruptible. It can be manipulated to fulfill the wishes of pharmaceutical companies. A team of researchers from the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Copenhagen has exposed widespread corruption in drug trial protocols.
The research, first published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, exposed widespread redactions in drug trial protocols for commercially sponsored drug trials received from research ethics committees. The trial protocols are necessary for the proper assessment of drug trial reports, which ultimately relay the adverse events and side effects associated with the drug. By redacting trial protocols at will, pharmaceutical companies are able to hide selective information about new drugs they wish to market. The redactions enable Big Pharma to withhold important data from independent researchers and regulatory agencies. This data is important for assessing patient outcomes.
Professor Peter Gøtzsche, director of the Nordic Cochrane Centre, came forth with the findings: “We wished to compare the information in the protocols with the information provided to the patients in order to evaluate whether the trials were ethical and necessary and whether essential information about the benefits and the harms of the drugs had been hidden from the patients.”
Using the Danish Freedom of Information Act, Professor Gøtzsche and his team were able to access 78 drug trial protocols approved by a research ethics committee from October 2012 to March 2013.
Of the drug trials they investigated, 36 were not commercially sponsored by the drug industry. Almost every single one of these drug trials was not tampered with. Just two of the trials were redacted. In contrast, there were 34 drug trials sponsored by the drug industry and half of these studies (17) were redacted. Worse yet, the redactions were prominent in the protocol “where there is empirical evidence of substantial problems with the trustworthiness of published drug trials.” In essence, drug companies have the power to hide drug trial results they do not like by tampering with the scientific protocol used to study the drugs.
More specifically, the redactions were widespread when adverse events were detected, when side effects were analyzed, and in determining the definition of patient outcomes. By redacting the protocol, drug companies can make a drug look safer than it really is, artificially reducing the number of adverse events or side effects associated with the drug. Redactions were also made by drug company sponsors whenever they felt that their “access to incoming data” invalidated the protocol. This is an open door for drug companies to manipulate the science for their benefit, blinding the public to the potential harms of new drugs.
Professor Gøtzsche iterated: “The amount of redactions in the protocols we received was so vast that it made them rather useless for assessing the ethical justification for the studies and to identify discrepancies with subsequent publications.”
The Professor said that there was no legitimate rationale for the redactions either. “The current mistrust in industry-sponsored drug trials can only change if the industry offers unconditional access to its trial protocols and other relevant documents and data,” he warned.
When pharmaceutical drugs come out, people are merely lab rats. Even common drugs, such as Tamiflu, cause deadly and debilitating effects that are kept hidden by redacting drug protocols. Across the U.S., children are experiencing severe hallucinations and other mysterious nervous system defects after taking Tamiflu. As families lose their loved ones to drug reactions, we must wonder how much information is being withheld about the drugs, and will anything ever be done to hold malicious medicine and bought-off science accountable?
For more on investigations of science fraud, visit 
Sources include:
“Fake Science” Has Arrived
by Petter Bae Brandtzæg, Torkel Brekke and Lars Wenaas
Posted May 26, 2017
How did we get into a situation where “the press is lying” and “research is rubbish”?
Society is now experiencing a “storm of distrust” that is “powerful and unpredictable”, with growing resistance to established institutions, if we are to believe the 2017 Edelman Trust Barometer, published in January. This distrust also affects research.
Climate researchers have long encountered distrust, but researchers in other fields – particularly fields relating to immigration and health – are also encountering growing scepticism. Their research is often criticized on ideological or political grounds.
Fake science is an expression of this growing distrust of research. Fake science is alternative research that has not been subjected to a professional peer-review process. Such “research” is published in an alternative undergrowth of fake research journals that oppose the established research community on ideological grounds.
This trend is reminiscent of what is happening in the media, with the growth of the alternative media and websites disseminating fake news. These sources attack supposed left-leaning and “lying” established media. Like alternative research journals, alternative media sites are generally run by amateurs. Such people often fail to exercise editorial responsibility or comply with codes of editorial ethics.
How did we get to a situation where “the press is lying” and “research is rubbish”?
Psychologist Jonathan Haidt at New York University 
believes that while the storm of distrust is partly the result of growing economic inequality, it is also caused by the rise of social media, which is spreading alternative sources and mounting criticism on a large scale, making it more difficult to maintain confidence in established institutions, including those involved in research.
At the same time, it has become incredibly easy to publish and disseminate fake research. This year we are celebrating the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther nailing his Theses to the church door in Wittenberg. Innovative technology in the form of the printing press was decisive for the rapid spread through Europe of Luther’s uprising against established elites. Our equivalent of Reformation technology is of course the internet.
The existence of social media and the internet mean that fake science may quickly come to represent a serious threat. Research-based knowledge is a crucial collective global good. We are dependent on such knowledge in all crucial areas of society: health, education, technology and social development in general. Accordingly, it is extremely important to expose fake science before it becomes a major problem.
One example of fake science is the work of the self-styled Danish “researcher” Emil Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard has founded at least two open-access journals: Open Quantitative Sociology & Political Science; and Open Differential Psychology. Both journals appear reputable at first glance. In these journals, Kierkegaard and others in the alternative research community, publish articles “proving” that white people are superior to other racial groups. Like fake news, Kierkegaard’s research circulates in social media where it is superficially indistinguishable from research published in more reputable journals.
Today anyone can call him- or herself a researcher. It is also easier than ever to get something published and disseminate one’s own research. This short cut to publication is highlighted in the Norwegian report “National guidelines for open access to research results”, which reveals a growing number of illegitimate journals which use the open-access model to obtain money fraudulently. According to the journal Nature, more than half-a-million articles had been published in such journals in the years up to and including 2015. Alternative “fake science” journals use the open-access model, while lacking the stringent peer-review criteria applied by reputable journals, and operate along lines that are ideological rather than financial.
The dissemination and exploitation of fake science is a problem that will grow. To combat the problem, we must make genuine scientific knowledge as widely accessible as possible. Accordingly, we must raise researchers’ perception of the status of research dissemination. To some extent this is about awareness and a sense of responsibility among researchers, but it is also about how rapidly we can achieve a sustainable transition to open access and an open science system, and about how we structure incentives for researchers so that it becomes worthwhile for them to disseminate research and participate in the public debate.
In other words, fake science, like fake news, is a problem that needs a political solution. If Norway is to be a frontrunner for open access and open science, in accordance with stated government policy, then we must understand that fake science is a challenge we have to address.
A Norwegian version of this text was first published in VG 3 May 2017:Fake Science kommer for fullt
Translation from Norwegian: Fidotext
Science Fraud - Dishonesty and Forgery in Research
Martyn Shuttleworth
(Jun 24, 2009). Science Fraud. Retrieved Feb 01, 2018 from
As scientists, we like to think that science is a bastion of virtue, untouched by science fraud.
The perception is that, other than junk science, science should be beyond reproach, unsullied by lies and propaganda. Results should always be regarded as valid and completely unbiased.
Human nature dictates that scientists are human and are always going to be prone to bias and error. Most such mistakes are subconscious, and a result of looking too hard for patterns that are not there.
Unfortunately, there are a number of more sinister cases, where scientists deliberately fabricated results, usually for personal fame. With the advent of corporate and politically funded research grants, poor results are becoming more dictated by policy than by scientific infallibility.
Some of the More Common Types of Science Fraud
There are many types of science fraud, from minor manipulation of results or incorrect causal connections to full-blown fabrication of results and 
plagiarism of the work of others.
There have been cases of researchers stealing the work of their students to obtain all of the credit and kudos.
There is a well-documented rumor of a scientific referee delaying the work of a rival, to ensure that he received the acclaim and a Nobel award. These allegations are often difficult to prove, as institutions often cover them up and try to sweep science fraud under the carpet.
Citations are one area of the scientific process that is coming under increased pressure, especially with the easy availability of information on the internet.
citation, or reference, is supposed to credit past research that influenced the current research. Now, a bibliography and list of works cited often becomes a list to impress, readers assuming that the longer the list, the better the paper.
For example, most academics have had a tutor assign an essay and instructed them to use ‘at least twenty references.’ Most students then use 3 or 4 sources and throw in the other 16 to fill the quota, a problem in every academic area, not just science.
It is better to use a few reliable primary sources than rely upon secondary sources, all often saying the same thing. Supervisors and referees are becoming stricter about quality rather than quantity, so attitudes should slowly change.
Conversely, not citing the research of others, and stealing ideas, is another common science fraud. It is very easy to ‘spin’ the words of others, and pass it off as the researcher’s own.
Most scientific papers, especially during the literature review, use other sources, but they need to be properly cited.
A related type of fraud is where supervisors and funding bodies, who had little direct involvement in the work, often appear in the title whereas lab assistants, typists and translators are missed out. To try to evade this practice, it is common to include an 
acknowledgements page, to avoid cluttering up the title too much.
Some Famous Science Frauds
Dr. Hwang Woo Suk
For those who remember, this South Korean announced, to a fanfare, that he had successfully cloned a dog, and also had some success in human cloning. This research was published, passed the tests and then he was subsequently suspected of fraud and ethical violations.
He withdrew the paper and, as yet, there is no consensus as to whether the fraud was deliberate or the result of a badly written paper.
The Piltdown Hoax
This is probably one of the most famous science frauds of all time, which persisted for many years. A fossilized skull, apparently of the ‘missing link’ between apes and humans, was discovered in a quarry in Piltdown, Sussex, England. The find was taken to a distinguished paleontologist, Arthur Smith Woodward, head of the Geological Department at the British Museum.
He declared the find authentic, but almost straight away, questions were asked, and it gradually came to light that it was made up from bones of at least 3 hominid species, including the jawbone of an Orangutan with filed down teeth. Poor Woodward was the victim in this fraud, and his otherwise notable career became forgotten, his name forever linked with the fraud.
The perpetrators remain unknown, although the discoverer, Charles Dawson is suspected as an attempt to find fame and fortune.
Institutional Problems
Institutions are often reluctant to discipline wrongdoers, ignoring it, quietly shifting the fraudster to another department or even disciplining the wrongdoer.
Science has a problem that people are reluctant to risk losing their careers to report science fraud.
The problem is that it is difficult for reviewers to isolate flawed results without repeating the experiment themselves.
The Grey Area
The problem is defining what fraud is and what is honest. Scientists, like anybody, can make genuine mistakes, or be a little eager to see a correlation amongst the randomness.
This is not really fraud, but experimental error, and it would be unfair to be overly critical about this process. Unfortunately, a scientist’s wages and career are possibly on the line unless they produce results, and this crosses the line.
Another example of a grey area is in images. Scientists in cell biology, for example, would often use false color in an image to enhance areas, making it easier for their results to be seen.
With the increasing sophistication of graphics programs, there have been implications that this image enhancement has actually been used to manipulate images and show what is not there. Many scientific bodies now advise against enhancing images, because it leaves the researcher open to accusations.
The Review Process – Is it Flawed?
The fact is that, despite a few high profile cases, the scientific peer review process is fairly sturdy.
Reviewers pick out the worst of the fraud and replication of the experiment will pick out the aberrations and cases where genuine mistakes have been made.
A major shift in scientific beliefs does not happen with one paper, however groundbreaking the research. Hundreds of papers are required for the scientific community to accept something as ‘proof’.
A paper selectively using a few citations will eventually caught out and copyscape and other tools are making it easier to detect plagiarism.
Journals are starting to encourage an 
acknowledgments page, where the many people contributing to the research can have some recognition, from the copywriter to the lab technician.
A far more sinister process than failures in the system is the increasing amount of private research funding in the quest for research grants.
The Global Warming debate is one area where the genuine science has been swamped in a sea of conflicting interest, and it has moved into politics rather than science. The quest for grants has lead to the over exaggeration of the significance of proposals and often research tied to areas with mass appeal, driving out pure science.
Scientists are paid according to the number of papers that they produce, and this leads to rushed and shoddy science, as well as discriminating against female researchers who take maternity leave or work part time to juggle bringing up children and work.
Also See:

Propaganda Promotes Fake Science!

06 September 2017

Besides Fake News, There Is Fake Science!

23 August 2017

Fake Scientists Include Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking!?

31 July 2017