More on “Scientific” Studies
I have talked about how Big Pharma makes a worthless substance look good. They use scientists who masterfully compare one type of toxic sludge to another type of toxic sludge. Or they compare how the toxic sludge does at treating symptoms. Or they use fancy statistical tricks. Or they design the study to insure no substantive information comes out of the study. An so on and so forth.
But the “scientific” industry (they are certainly not real scientists, they are more of an industry) are frequently given another assignment: make a good substance look bad. In other words, they are sometimes assigned to make a bad substance look good, but in other cases they are assigned to make a good substance look bad.
Let us talk more about the Vitamin C treatment of Cameron and Pauling. Their study was profound, and it could have led to treatments that saved many, many lives. But it was not profitable and it did not make doctors look like heroes.
What do you think the reaction of orthodox medicine was to this great discovery? Do you think they tried to find ways to use this discovery and even enhance it? Don't be absurd. Their reaction was identical to their reaction to all of the other great discoveries in alternative medicine, they wanted to bury the truth.
But one of the participants of the Vitamin C study was a two-time Nobel Prize winner. Linus Pauling had already won a Nobel Prize in chemistry and he won the Nobel Peace Prize. His integrity was unquestioned. They had made a great discovery. Thus orthodox medicine could not simply bury his studies. They decided to use a tactic to destroy truth that had been refined and perfected by the tobacco industry. That tactic was to create new “studies” that were designed to distract attention from the truth. In this case, however, they had to make a good substance look bad.
But how in the world do you make a good substance look bad? Orthodox medicine called upon Dr. Moertel of the Mayo Clinic to design three bogus “studies,” which did not, by any stretch of the imagination, follow the same treatment protocol, or the same patient selection protocol or the same statistical evaluation protocol, as Cameron and Pauling had used (actually, Dr. Moertel was not involved in the third study).
Now note this carefully, if the Mayo Clinic wanted to know the truth about the Cameron/Pauling studies, they would have taken great care to follow their treatment protocol, patient selection protocol and statistical evaluation protocol exactly. To use high school students again, a group of high school students could have followed the Cameron/Pauling protocols perfectly.
But Dr. Moertel was assigned to make a good substance look bad, thus he could not follow the same protocols as Pauling and Cameron, he had to modify the protocols in order to come to a different conclusion. The Mayo Clinic took great care to make sure they did not follow the Cameron/Pauling protocols. Since they didn't follow protocols, they didn't come to the same conclusions.
So who do you think that orthodox medicine, the government, the media, quackwatch, etc. quotes when the subject of Vitamin C and cancer comes up? Obviously, they quote the Mayo Clinic studies, not the three studies (done in Scotland, Canada and Japan) that did follow the same treatment and evaluation protocols.
Here is the key point – how can they disprove a study unless they follow the same protocols and come to a different conclusion? They can't. If you don't follow the original protocol exactly, and if you come to a different conclusion, you have not proven anything. If you want to disprove something you must follow the exact protocols. Moertel and company didn't do that, yet they claimed to have disproven Cameron and Pauling.
With three bogus studies to tell the world about, the Cancer Industry claimed that Moertel and company followed the “right” protocol, and because Pauling and Cameron did not follow the Moertel protocols that therefore the Pauling and Cameron studies were false. If your brain just exploded, I fully understand.
Do you understand what they did? They agreed that a person should follow the same protocol in order to disprove something. However, they made it appear that the Moertel protocol was superior and that because Pauling and Cameron did not follow the Mortel protocol the results of the Cameron and Pauling study were false. I have an entire chapter in my other free, online eBook on the Pauling/Cameron/Moertel studies.
My point is that for all bad substances (e.g. tobacco) there are two kinds of studies: studies that make the substance look bad (because it is bad) and studies that make the substance look good, or at least not harmful (because they are funded by Big Tobacco or Big Pharma). Likewise, for all good substances (e.g. Vitamin C) there are two kinds of studies, those that make the substance look good (because it is good) and those that make it look bad, or worthless (because they are funded by Big Pharma). This gives the FDA a blank check to approve or disapprove any substance, whether it is good or bad.
In addition, Congress has given the FDA, NIH, NCI, etc. a big club to legally stop any study (that is not totally under the control of orthodox medicine) that compares alternative treatments to chemotherapy. This means item #2 above is impossible to accomplish for any type of alternative treatment, meaning that without item #2, the gathering of item #3 statistics are impossible to accumulate. The charts mentioned previously can never be made.
If anyone thinks for one minute that the FDA is corrupt and Congress is a group of saints, they need to have a reality check. Congress created the FDA, Congress lets them do what they want, and Congress only criticizes the FDA when the media cannot suppress what they have done. In other words, Congress only criticizes the FDA when their re-election might be threatened. And that never happens.
But let us not forget the “scientists” who bow to Big Pharma. Lest you think that “scientists” cannot be corrupted by the pharmaceutical industry, as they were by the tobacco industry, consider this quote:
In 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 [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.
But even this quote does not pinpoint how the pharmaceutical industry has achieved total suppression of truth.
Think for a moment about the difference between how the tobacco industry suppressed the truth between 1954 and the 1990s, and how the pharmaceutical industry is suppressing the truth today. Try to isolate and pinpoint the huge difference between their tactics before reading on .
With the tobacco industry, the tobacco sponsored studies did not find a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer, and other diseases. On the other hand, non-tobacco industry studies did consistently find a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer, etc.
Likewise, the pharmaceutical industry studies on aspartame did not find any health problems with aspartame. On the other hand, the non-pharmaceutical industry studies did find health problems with aspartame.
As you might suspect, the pharmaceutical industry studies on orthodox treatments do not find any problems with orthodox cancer treatments (how can you find a problem by comparing your “old” toxic sludge to your “new” toxic sludge). However, and here is the difference, because of the FDA, NCI and AMA there are no scientific studies on alternative cancer treatments. They are not legal. They are not allowed.
Do you see the difference? Anyone who wants to find the truth about alternative cancer treatments are not allowed to do studies. The pharmaceutical industry has gone a giant leap beyond what the tobacco industry was able to do. There are NO truthful studies to dilute.
For example, during the 42 years the tobacco industry was funding their many hundreds of bogus scientific studies, suppose a government agency had the authority to block ANY study that was not funded by the tobacco industry? That is exactly the level of suppression of truth that the pharmaceutical industry has achieved – they have been able to block all cancer studies that are not funded by the pharmaceutical industry or our corrupt government. It is not that these studies are not being done, it is that the government does not give them any official status (more will be said about this below).
You have now heard a few of the good things about alternative cancer treatments (truth table #3) and a few of the bad things about orthodox cancer treatments (truth table #4). Let's analyze why, throughout your life, you have only heard the items in truth table #1 and truth table #2.