If this is true, it undermines the foundation of not only the entire pharmaceutical industry, but exposes “science” itself as one more put-on for profit. Or, I should say, it makes the practice of science today a mockery of the noble intent of the originators of the 17th century scientific method to actually, and “objectively,” discover how “reality” works.
Of course, “objectivity” is only possible if there is a division between inside and outside, where the scientist (inside) can “observe” the outside (without his observation changing it). Now that this line has dissolved, it’s impossible to keep up the pretense of objectivity.
Moreover, the whole premise of being able to conduct a “controlled experiment” and then “replicate” it appears to be bogus as well, since reality is way too squishy to be contained within any finite set of parameters, no matter how well defined, much less “repeated”!
Maybe that’s the point. The universe keeps on birthing itself, every point in it the center, endlessly expanding, contracting, interacting, spawning dimensions never-ending; mutating, evolving, changing, breathing . . . all according to what appears to be some kind of fractal logic of its own that we puny humans cannot hope to penetrate.
In which case, maybe we shouldn’t be so hard on the pharmaceutical industry; they’re just trying to stay within the old paradigm, and when the paradigm fails to work, trying not to notice, since grants, jobs, entire departments, universities, industries — all depend on the charade continuing.
April 19, 2012
by Robert Benson
The vast majority of so-called scientific studies focused on cancer research are inaccurate and potentially fraudulent, suggests a new review published in the journal Nature. A shocking 88 percent of 53 “landmark” studies on cancer that have been published in reputable journals over the years cannot be reproduced, according to the review, which means that their conclusions are patently false.C. Glenn Begley, a former head of global cancer research at drug giant Amgen and author of the review, was unable to replicate the findings of 47 of the 53 studies he examined. It appears as though researchers are simply fabricating findings that will garner attention and headlines rather than publishing what they actually discover, which helps them to maintain a steady stream of grant funding but deceives the public.
“These are the studies the pharmaceutical industry relies on to identify new targets for drug development,” said Begley about the false studies. “But if you’re going to place a $1 million or $2 million or $5 million bet on an observation, you need to be sure it’s true. As we tried to reproduce these papers we became convinced you can’t take anything at face value.”
Begley says he cannot publish the names of the studies whose findings are false. But since it is now apparent that the vast majority of them are invalid, it only follows that the vast majority of modern approaches to cancer treatment are also invalid.
Back in 2009, researchers from the University of Michigan‘s Comprehensive Cancer Center also published an analysis that revealed many popular cancer studies to be false. As can be expected, one of the primary causes of false results was determined to be conflicts of interest that tended to favor “findings” that worked out best for drug companies rather than for the people (http://www.naturalnews.com/026314_cancer_research_studies.html).
Published research for other conditions also found to be invalid
The Nature study also confirms what was previously uncovered by Dr. George Robertson from Dalhousie University, who found the same inconsistencies in published research studies on Parkinson’s disease and other neurodegenerative disorders. Just like with cancer, it appears that the foundation upon which drugs for these conditions have been developed is fallacious as a result of phony research.
And scientists working for drug giant Bayer have run into similar problems in other areas as well, which they outlined in a 2011 paper entitled Believe it or not. According to their findings, much of the published data with which they were expected to develop new drugs could not be reproduced, either.
“The scientific community assumes that the claims in a preclinical study can be taken at face value,” add Begley and his colleague Dr. Lee Ellis in their review. This published research also assumes that “the main message of [papers] can be relied on […] Unfortunately, this is not always the case.”
Ironically, the only thing all these scientists have been able to successfully reproduce over the years is research showing that much of modern science is unsound. Whether it is funded by drug companies or by agenda-driven federal grants, the so-called “gold standard” of science has been debunked as a greed-driven myth.
Sources for this article include: