Showing posts with label scientific fraud. Show all posts
Showing posts with label scientific fraud. Show all posts
Thursday, 12 July 2012
Dr Mercola today explains about the drug industry's widespread corruption of scientific research
Dr Mercola today explains the widespread corruption of science: that drug companies invent data, fabricate research, falsify results,cover up adverse effects...
Saturday, 10 March 2012
Medical Research Fraud? Cancer Research Fraud?
Want to know more about Medical Research Fraud? Cancer Research Fraud? I suggest you check out this article by Dr Mercola.
Friday, 25 November 2011
Pfizer Research Scandal: FDA debars fraudster doctor, Scott Reuben
He was accused of faking research for a dozen years in published studies suggesting after-surgery benefits from Vioxx and Celebrex. Last year, he was sentenced to six months in jail plus three years supervised release after pleading guilty to fraud. The former chief of acute pain at Baystate Medical Center received grants from various drugmakers but never performed the studies, fabricated patient data and submitted info to journals that was unwittingly published. Now, the FDA has permanently debarring [sic] him from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product application, according to the debarment order, which was published today in The Federal Register.
Read article at pharmalot.com
Personally, I favour avoiding painkillers. - I've had two major operations and I refused painkillers for both of them. Yes, it hurts a lot when you come round from the anaesthetic, but you know the pain will gradually get less severe and you can steel yourself to cope with it. But with painkillers - especially the 'strong' ones - there are always adverse side-effects. And, as in this case, you cannot be sure that you have been given the facts about drugs. Drug companies indulge in criminality, including bribing key opinion leaders such as Scott Reuben was, to recommend their drugs, falsifying drug trial data, corrupting medical journals, etc. Painkiller drugs in particular seem to be problematic. The most recently publicised settlement for criminality of a drug company of which I am aware is the Merck/Vioxx scandal reported on the BBC News website last Tuesday. (Vioxx was a prescription painkiller.) Sadly, although Merck have had to pay almost $1bn (£640m) in settlement, this will not deter them from their criminal practices. That huge sum is insignificant in comparison to the colossal profits they garner from the sales of their dangerous products. Criminals, in my opinion - criminals whose crimes destroy the lives and health and happiness of millions of innocent people the world over - should be punished with the utmost rigour of the law, and that should, of course, mean imprisonment for the people at the top of the company, the people who instigate, fund and perpetuate the criminality.
Read article at pharmalot.com
Personally, I favour avoiding painkillers. - I've had two major operations and I refused painkillers for both of them. Yes, it hurts a lot when you come round from the anaesthetic, but you know the pain will gradually get less severe and you can steel yourself to cope with it. But with painkillers - especially the 'strong' ones - there are always adverse side-effects. And, as in this case, you cannot be sure that you have been given the facts about drugs. Drug companies indulge in criminality, including bribing key opinion leaders such as Scott Reuben was, to recommend their drugs, falsifying drug trial data, corrupting medical journals, etc. Painkiller drugs in particular seem to be problematic. The most recently publicised settlement for criminality of a drug company of which I am aware is the Merck/Vioxx scandal reported on the BBC News website last Tuesday. (Vioxx was a prescription painkiller.) Sadly, although Merck have had to pay almost $1bn (£640m) in settlement, this will not deter them from their criminal practices. That huge sum is insignificant in comparison to the colossal profits they garner from the sales of their dangerous products. Criminals, in my opinion - criminals whose crimes destroy the lives and health and happiness of millions of innocent people the world over - should be punished with the utmost rigour of the law, and that should, of course, mean imprisonment for the people at the top of the company, the people who instigate, fund and perpetuate the criminality.
Friday, 5 November 2010
CEOs should be prosecuted when pharmaceutical companies break the law
CEOs should be prosecuted when pharmaceutical companies break the law.
See this NewScientist article by Paul Thacker, an investigator at the Project On Government Oversight, a non-profit organisation exposing waste, fraud and abuse in federal government.
See this NewScientist article by Paul Thacker, an investigator at the Project On Government Oversight, a non-profit organisation exposing waste, fraud and abuse in federal government.
Friday, 14 May 2010
Similarities Between Lysenkoism and Prevailing Obesity Advice
Wikipedia defines Lysenkoism thus:
Lysenkoism is used colloquially to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism)
Wikipedia informs us that Lysenko was a Russian agronomist who, in 1928, "claimed to have developed an agricultural technique, termed vernalization, which tripled or quadrupled crop yield by exposing wheat seed to high humidity and low temperature." His many ideas/theories were politically popular with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, but because the theories did not stand up in practice when the farmers tried to achieve the successful results claimed by the theory, the theories were eventually discredited, but that was only after decades of serious harm to agriculture and Russian science, and after terrible unjust punishments, including executions and being sent to labour camps, had been meted out to Russian geneticists who disagreed with Lysenko's claims.
I suggest there are strong similarities between 1) Lysenkoism, which made the already unsuccessful forced collectivisation of Soviet agriculture at the time catastrophically worse, and 2) the already huge problem of obesity on the increase throughout much of the world being made very, very much worse by the harmful and incorrect misinformation and advice being given to the public and in particular to the overweight and obese people themselves.
In the main, the advice can be summed up as something approximating to 'eat less food/fewer
calories/smaller portions/less fat and do more exercise'. When their clients/patients/victims try to lose weight by following this advice very few succeed. For most of them, following the advice causes weight gain, not weight loss, because when a fat person eats insufficient food for the body's needs, the body has to feed on itself. This makes the skin and the walls of the blood vessels become thinner and weaker, with the result that the fluid retention that has initiated the excess weight increases, along with further weight increase. See how to lose weight safely.
When these innocent subjects of this vast, damaging, unscientific worldwide 'experiment' report back that they have genuinely tried hard to lose weight but have not succeeded in so doing, the usual response is not to believe them and to say that they are mistaken or lying or have not followed the instructions properly, and they have really been eating more calories, which accounts for the weight gain. - You get the idea. - And so the failures of the results of following the conventional advice do not get accepted. - To exclude these results, which are the results for most obese people who try to follow the advice, is obviously Bad Science, like the propaganda machine in Soviet Russia, which also omitted mention of failures.
Now when obese people lose weight the fast, easy, safe way by seriously reducing their intake of salt/sodium but not their calorie intake and they report this welcome result to their advisers, their reports too are manipulated/doctored/distorted. The researchers who studied the fact that when children cut down on salt intake they lose weight, refused to believe that the weight loss was because of reduction in fluid retention. They introduced an unnecessary and unscientific explanation for the result.
Cutting down on salt intake reduces weight because it reduces thirst and so subjects drink less and fluid retention (excess weight) is reduced. But the researchers claimed that the reduction in weight was because when their thirst was reduced they stopped drinking so many fizzy drinks and that the fizzy drinks were sugary and contained a lot of calories, so weight loss was really caused by calorie reduction! That is Bad Science, like the Soviet propaganda, distorting the evidence and leading to a predetermined conclusion. The researchers in this instance recorded the data correctly, as far as I know, but then extrapolated from it to invent the explanation of the calories in drinks that were assumed to have been drunk.
If you have a pet dog or cat that is obese, it is obese because it has been habitually given salty food to eat - for example the last bit of its owner's takeaway meal. If you give it food that contains no added salt it will rapidly lose weight by excreting more water in the urine. - Hands up anyone who gives their pet dog or cat sugary fizzy drinks instead of water? - No hands up for that, I suspect. So losing weight by reduced salt intake occurs because of sodium reduction, not because of calorie reduction.
Failure to admit the truth about how best to reduce obesity is causing weight gain in the obese people who try to lose weight by dieting and reducing calories. And lying about salt reduction as a means of losing excess weight and claiming it is really calorie reduction resembles the history of Lysenkoism in its damage to Science and in the massive harm it is doing to millions of innocent obese people.
If you want to lose excess weight, do it the fast, easy, safe way by avoiding salt and salty food.
See Obesity and the Salt Connection and Sodium in foods.
Lysenkoism is used colloquially to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism)
Wikipedia informs us that Lysenko was a Russian agronomist who, in 1928, "claimed to have developed an agricultural technique, termed vernalization, which tripled or quadrupled crop yield by exposing wheat seed to high humidity and low temperature." His many ideas/theories were politically popular with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, but because the theories did not stand up in practice when the farmers tried to achieve the successful results claimed by the theory, the theories were eventually discredited, but that was only after decades of serious harm to agriculture and Russian science, and after terrible unjust punishments, including executions and being sent to labour camps, had been meted out to Russian geneticists who disagreed with Lysenko's claims.
I suggest there are strong similarities between 1) Lysenkoism, which made the already unsuccessful forced collectivisation of Soviet agriculture at the time catastrophically worse, and 2) the already huge problem of obesity on the increase throughout much of the world being made very, very much worse by the harmful and incorrect misinformation and advice being given to the public and in particular to the overweight and obese people themselves.
In the main, the advice can be summed up as something approximating to 'eat less food/fewer
calories/smaller portions/less fat and do more exercise'. When their clients/patients/victims try to lose weight by following this advice very few succeed. For most of them, following the advice causes weight gain, not weight loss, because when a fat person eats insufficient food for the body's needs, the body has to feed on itself. This makes the skin and the walls of the blood vessels become thinner and weaker, with the result that the fluid retention that has initiated the excess weight increases, along with further weight increase. See how to lose weight safely.
When these innocent subjects of this vast, damaging, unscientific worldwide 'experiment' report back that they have genuinely tried hard to lose weight but have not succeeded in so doing, the usual response is not to believe them and to say that they are mistaken or lying or have not followed the instructions properly, and they have really been eating more calories, which accounts for the weight gain. - You get the idea. - And so the failures of the results of following the conventional advice do not get accepted. - To exclude these results, which are the results for most obese people who try to follow the advice, is obviously Bad Science, like the propaganda machine in Soviet Russia, which also omitted mention of failures.
Now when obese people lose weight the fast, easy, safe way by seriously reducing their intake of salt/sodium but not their calorie intake and they report this welcome result to their advisers, their reports too are manipulated/doctored/distorted. The researchers who studied the fact that when children cut down on salt intake they lose weight, refused to believe that the weight loss was because of reduction in fluid retention. They introduced an unnecessary and unscientific explanation for the result.
Cutting down on salt intake reduces weight because it reduces thirst and so subjects drink less and fluid retention (excess weight) is reduced. But the researchers claimed that the reduction in weight was because when their thirst was reduced they stopped drinking so many fizzy drinks and that the fizzy drinks were sugary and contained a lot of calories, so weight loss was really caused by calorie reduction! That is Bad Science, like the Soviet propaganda, distorting the evidence and leading to a predetermined conclusion. The researchers in this instance recorded the data correctly, as far as I know, but then extrapolated from it to invent the explanation of the calories in drinks that were assumed to have been drunk.
If you have a pet dog or cat that is obese, it is obese because it has been habitually given salty food to eat - for example the last bit of its owner's takeaway meal. If you give it food that contains no added salt it will rapidly lose weight by excreting more water in the urine. - Hands up anyone who gives their pet dog or cat sugary fizzy drinks instead of water? - No hands up for that, I suspect. So losing weight by reduced salt intake occurs because of sodium reduction, not because of calorie reduction.
Failure to admit the truth about how best to reduce obesity is causing weight gain in the obese people who try to lose weight by dieting and reducing calories. And lying about salt reduction as a means of losing excess weight and claiming it is really calorie reduction resembles the history of Lysenkoism in its damage to Science and in the massive harm it is doing to millions of innocent obese people.
If you want to lose excess weight, do it the fast, easy, safe way by avoiding salt and salty food.
See Obesity and the Salt Connection and Sodium in foods.
Tuesday, 5 January 2010
Interesting article about the Climate Change Row
Special Investigation on Climate Change issues and manipulation of the data, published in the Daily Mail. Well worth reading.
Sunday, 14 September 2008
I watched Part 2 of Iain Stewart's BBC2 series "Earth: the Climate Wars" this evening (about Global Warming)
Dr Iain Stewart is an academic geologist who is also an excellent presenter of TV programmes involving geology. Here is a link to a BBC site about these "Earth: The Climate Wars" programmes - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00djvq9
I warmed to Dr Stewart years ago when on one of his geology programmes he mentioned en passant that we do not need to eat ANY salt at all because there is sufficient naturally present in food (and I don't mean because a food manufacturer has already added some). - So he, a geologist, spoke more sense than any doctor I have ever heard speak about salt intake. - And he wasn't scared of telling the truth about salt...(o: - I suppose this is because as a geologist he has a long perspective back in time - vast periods of time - and knows well that our early ancestors did not eat salt other than what was naturally present in their natural food and water, and since that is the low sodium intake with which our bodies evolved, it is the natural healthy intake for our species.
Well tonight he was giving views for and against whether global warming is a fact (and concluded that it is a fact) and on what causes global warming - and he concluded that human activity contributes to it. - And he also drew our attention to some scientific fraud that has been going on, and some cynical chicanery that has also been going on with the intention of constantly stirring up doubt and debate rather than allowing the facts to be accepted - parallels here of the currently promulgated misinformation about obesity and the misinformation about salt.
There are 14 days in which you can watch the first two programmes on that BBC link in my first paragraph.
Whatever the cause/s of the global warming, there is 'revolutionary' information and practical measures that would in part help with the problem of global warming on my webpage here - http://www.wildeaboutsteroids.co.uk/socio.html (The website does not sell anything and has no banners or sponsors or adverts - just helpful information.)
I warmed to Dr Stewart years ago when on one of his geology programmes he mentioned en passant that we do not need to eat ANY salt at all because there is sufficient naturally present in food (and I don't mean because a food manufacturer has already added some). - So he, a geologist, spoke more sense than any doctor I have ever heard speak about salt intake. - And he wasn't scared of telling the truth about salt...(o: - I suppose this is because as a geologist he has a long perspective back in time - vast periods of time - and knows well that our early ancestors did not eat salt other than what was naturally present in their natural food and water, and since that is the low sodium intake with which our bodies evolved, it is the natural healthy intake for our species.
Well tonight he was giving views for and against whether global warming is a fact (and concluded that it is a fact) and on what causes global warming - and he concluded that human activity contributes to it. - And he also drew our attention to some scientific fraud that has been going on, and some cynical chicanery that has also been going on with the intention of constantly stirring up doubt and debate rather than allowing the facts to be accepted - parallels here of the currently promulgated misinformation about obesity and the misinformation about salt.
There are 14 days in which you can watch the first two programmes on that BBC link in my first paragraph.
Whatever the cause/s of the global warming, there is 'revolutionary' information and practical measures that would in part help with the problem of global warming on my webpage here - http://www.wildeaboutsteroids.co.uk/socio.html (The website does not sell anything and has no banners or sponsors or adverts - just helpful information.)
Lose weight, reduce your risk of most cancers, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, stroke, heart disease, heart attack, vascular dementia, osteopenia, osteoporosis, hypercholesterolaemia, depression, liver and kidney problems, and improve your health in many other ways without drugs or expense by eating less salt! - Try it! - You will feel so much better!
Read my Mensa article on Obesity and the Salt Connection
And see Sodium in foods and
Associated health conditions
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
