Half of All the [Medical] Literature is False

I came across this article discussing Dr. Richard Horton, Editor in Chief of "The Lancet" (which is apparently the "World's Best Known Medical Journal"), and his statement about medical literature being, in many cases, fraudulent yet accepted as pure fact. This is a bold statement and one I'd like to open up a discussion about here on ATS.

Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false.

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

No wonder we see Class-Action lawsuits against all of these medical devices/drugs shortly after their use by the public. Bearing this in mind, I will definitely think twice before trying any new medications/treatments.

This is quite disturbing, given the fact that all of these studies (which are industry sponsored) are used to develop drugs/vaccines to supposedly help people, train medical staff, educate medical students and more. It’s common for many to dismiss a lot of great work by experts and researchers at various institutions around the globe which isn’t “peer-reviewed” and doesn’t appear in a “credible” medical journal, but as we can see, “peer-reviewed” doesn’t really mean much anymore.

Another respected physician, and Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal commented on this issue:

Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), which is considered to another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, makes her view of the subject quite plain: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine”

www.collective-evolution.com... (I'm having trouble getting the link to work - I think it is because of the slash symbols - sorry!)

Also, from the Wikipedia page on Dr. Horton:

The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong

For the Wikipedia article on Dr. Horton, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ "Richard_Horton_(editor)" (couldn't get the URL to work within the thread)

Just wow... what do you guys and gals think about all this? The fact that this is being publicly stated by reputable individuals is horrifying. The implications are... well, very frightening.

a reply to: FamCore

People are waking up.

The Fascists are responding. First with mandatory vaccines, then with all sorts of other government endorsed medical "treatments".

Creating medical totalitarianism is the long term goal of the Pharmaceutical industry.
Dr.s and technocrats playing violin while flesh burns.

P.S. Avoid vaccines containing human DNA and retroviruses like your life depends on it.

Human DNA found to be 10-200x the "safe" limit set by the FDA and WHO

I study the evidence all the time in medicine and Pharmacuticals. I can say I believe these people. I can't believe that people will believe evidence with out researching the parameters of the testing. A lot of this research is used to create policy that it does not even apply to. It also fuels fad medicine, like people thinking all fats are no good for you. People don't understand moderate fat consumption of all kinds won't hurt most people.

Just like testing cholesterol, it's a joke. If you were working hard before the test, your ldl will be elevated. If you are dehydrated and experiencing low blood volume temporarily, your levels will test high also. It's a joke. There are some instances where cholesterol can be a cause of something going on, but the thing is that the high levels are just an indicator of something that is off. That something can be many things from diet to improper enzyme formation. It could be a kidney disorder, the kidneys are supposed to pee out some lipids occasionally when enough sulfur is present. This gives bubbles when you pee into water that isn't chlorinated. For some strange reason the chlorine eliminates the bubbles. This can go astray and you pee out too much lipids and that can be a problem on it's own.

Sorry for getting off topic with an example. I just want to say a lot of the evidence out there is no better than the saying. " this has been shown to cause cancer in the State of California." I know how to neutralize some of the effects they talk about, if your cravings work right you will crave companion food chemistry. Our ancestors knew a lot about companion food chemistry but people did not listen to their parents.

originally posted by: FamCore
I came across this article discussing Dr. Richard Horton, Editor in Chief of "The Lancet" (which is apparently the "World's Best Known Medical Journal"), and his statement about medical literature being, in many cases, fraudulent yet accepted as pure fact. This is a bold statement and one I'd like to open up a discussion about here on ATS.

Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false.

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

No wonder we see Class-Action lawsuits against all of these medical devices/drugs shortly after their use by the public. Bearing this in mind, I will definitely think twice before trying any new medications/treatments.

This is quite disturbing, given the fact that all of these studies (which are industry sponsored) are used to develop drugs/vaccines to supposedly help people, train medical staff, educate medical students and more. It’s common for many to dismiss a lot of great work by experts and researchers at various institutions around the globe which isn’t “peer-reviewed” and doesn’t appear in a “credible” medical journal, but as we can see, “peer-reviewed” doesn’t really mean much anymore.

Another respected physician, and Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal commented on this issue:

Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), which is considered to another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, makes her view of the subject quite plain: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine”

www.collective-evolution.com... (I'm having trouble getting the link to work - I think it is because of the slash symbols - sorry!)

Also, from the Wikipedia page on Dr. Horton:

The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong

For the Wikipedia article on Dr. Horton, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ "Richard_Horton_(editor)" (couldn't get the URL to work within the thread)

Just wow... what do you guys and gals think about all this? The fact that this is being publicly stated by reputable individuals is horrifying. The implications are... well, very frightening.

originally posted by: MasterKaman

originally posted by: FamCore
I came across this article discussing Dr. Richard Horton, Editor in Chief of "The Lancet" (which is apparently the "World's Best Known Medical Journal"), and his statement about medical literature being, in many cases, fraudulent yet accepted as pure fact. This is a bold statement and one I'd like to open up a discussion about here on ATS.

Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false.

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

No wonder we see Class-Action lawsuits against all of these medical devices/drugs shortly after their use by the public. Bearing this in mind, I will definitely think twice before trying any new medications/treatments.

This is quite disturbing, given the fact that all of these studies (which are industry sponsored) are used to develop drugs/vaccines to supposedly help people, train medical staff, educate medical students and more. It’s common for many to dismiss a lot of great work by experts and researchers at various institutions around the globe which isn’t “peer-reviewed” and doesn’t appear in a “credible” medical journal, but as we can see, “peer-reviewed” doesn’t really mean much anymore.

Another respected physician, and Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal commented on this issue:

Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), which is considered to another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, makes her view of the subject quite plain: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine”

www.collective-evolution.com... (I'm having trouble getting the link to work - I think it is because of the slash symbols - sorry!)

Also, from the Wikipedia page on Dr. Horton:

The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong

For the Wikipedia article on Dr. Horton, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ "Richard_Horton_(editor)" (couldn't get the URL to work within the thread)

Just wow... what do you guys and gals think about all this? The fact that this is being publicly stated by reputable individuals is horrifying. The implications are... well, very frightening.

This is a real revelation / admission since both those Journals are regarded as top class supposed reliability. And the chief editors know what they are saying if anyone in the world does.

These statement are completely unreliable until they have been peer reviewed by a reliable and reputable scientific journal, or the like. Lol.

So why is it, that when people say the medical industry is wrong, because of special interests in money...

They are considered heroes......

But if you place the same argument, despite both are based off of science......and place it on man made global warming....

USING THE SAME ARGUMENT

You are considered a science denier?

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

You make a good point - I think both the medical and scientific communities will have a tough time accepting this simply because of the status quou and people thinking that "they are experts so they must be right", regardless of people like Dr. Horton coming out and saying a lot of peer-reviewed material shouldn't be taken for face value.

Thanks for bringing that up - people are just so stuck in their beliefs... even when the facts stare them in the face they refuse to accept.

Important article. Hope it gets the attention it deserves.

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

You make a good point - I think both the medical and scientific communities will have a tough time accepting this simply because of the status quou and people thinking that "they are experts so they must be right", regardless of people like Dr. Horton coming out and saying a lot of peer-reviewed material shouldn't be taken for face value.

Thanks for bringing that up - people are just so stuck in their beliefs... even when the facts stare them in the face they refuse to accept.

absolutely agree

a reply to: FamCore

At best, all medical science is based upon empirical evidence and is therefore never "true" as such. So I give them some leeway on impugning the whole of a developing set of techniques. What bothers me is the stream of major public campaigns that proved completely wrong from smoking is good for you to eggs are bad for you.

This ridiculous idea that majority opinion, tradition or any other particular political sensitivities du jour should be enshrined in public health propaganda (nor misleading advertising for illness hobbyists) is unconscionable.

Of course every hypothesis or study is neither conclusive nor valid. That is how it has always been since the days of snake oil and uranium toothpaste. Not much has changed since then except that now there are fewer competitors making smaller advances.

We seem to have forgotten that along the way.

The vast majority of false medical information is on the interwebs...I've told many patients to NOT Google the information, but instead, to use trusted, legit sources of information.

It sounds like the OP issue is directed towards the clinical research literature. Research can be affected by so many different variables, which is unfortunate. When the big companies use these skewed results as fact, it hurts no one but the consumer.

What do I think about it?

Thanks for asking.

I think the same as I did when I was a child; medical industry is a scam for profit, not trustworthy, most medicines and prescriptions are temporary fixes that install new ailments or biological issues.

Nothing about big pharmacy, profit, corporations, or amazing pay and vacations for doctors will convince me otherwise.

I'm in my mid 20's and have only been to doctors when they stabbed me with injection against .y honest consent, otherwise I was a dirty outcast and could not go to school.

Never been to a dentist, have flawless teeth.

End of story.

Good day sir.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

But if you place the same argument, despite both are based off of science......and place it on man made global warming....

USING THE SAME ARGUMENT

You are considered a science denier?

Because the so called science of climatology is in its infancy...and they want the general public to "buy in". The financial implications are more staggering than the medical/pharma $.

anticorruptionsociety.com...

On a tactical level, Cap and Trade does three things: it suppresses productivity and thus increases unemployment; it drives a biofuel agenda (for carbon credits) that is destroying the earth’s ecosystem, and, if continued, will destroy the very air we breathe; and it creates a massive new international Ponzi scheme that has the international banks orgasmic with delight.

Five “climate exchanges” have already been set up that deal in the buying and selling of carbon credits. The two larger exchanges are the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), which is the only U.S. firm that claims to trade carbon credits, and Europe’s European Climate Exchange (ECX), which is half owned by CCX.

There is the stock market, where stocks and bonds are traded, and a commodities market where things like gold and silver and corn, wheat and soybeans are traded. Now comet the carbon exchanges where carbon credits in the form of derivatives will be bought and sold.

The same Banksters that bought about the 2008 financial crisis are eating at the trough again.

a reply to: greencmp

That is how it has always been since the days of snake oil and uranium toothpaste

I started looking at the margarine industry (canola oil) before I got onto ATS and saw how dubious "science" was used to stigmatize butter; now people are wising up to Trans Fats and that the body needs cholesterol to metabolize fat and keep the body healthy.

How about the top ten false facts? If 50% is false then that should be a rather easy list to make....

I was reading this article about how scientists used to think that neurogenesis, the growth of new neurons, after maturity was impossible. They could not find it happening in test subjects, so they deemed it impossible. It was not until one researcher tried letting the monkeys live in a natural environment that they were able to detect neurogenesis. Testing animals in a caged environment is generating completely false information.

Also, most experiments only involve males to avoid the variability of the female hormone cycle. So essentially all of our research is only applicable to men in cages; which I guess simulates the average couch potato.

a reply to: Xtrozero

The Food Pyramid...the biggest lie in the history of medical science, and the primary driving force in poor human health.

That a low fat diet is the key to good health. That is possibly the #2 lie that leads to the greatest amount of ailments. You need moderate fat intake, so should give up carb calories. You get trace nutrients from carbs....you don't need a whole lot of grains.

Reducing salt to help in congestive heart issues and high blood pressure....its sugar you should be reducing. Salt actually plays a role in your body...dietary sugar really doesn't.

That you need to treat diabetes with medication and insulin. Type II, that is. This isn't always true, and it more like the exception. Diabetes is a dietary response in almost all people. Same as the heart diseases....reduce your daily sugar intake to less than 30g/day, and you will most likely correct the diabetes.

That is 4, and they are all related: diet.



RE: the OP...i completely buy it.

My doctor is one my wife used to work for. There are things about his practice that are somewhat off putting. But I am smart enough to know when I need to manage my care vs letting my doctor manage it. He has yet to argue with me...so it hasn't been a problem. I chose him as my doctor because I knew him from my wife. Great diagostician, and is insightful enough to know when to refer you off to a specialist. But the most important part: he is amenable to making my treatment a partnership, where I have an obvious stake i the end result and thus have a big voice in how we proceed.

Reading this....and seeing some of the things I have seen over the last 30 or so years....I cannot stress enough how important it is that everyone become at least minimally knowledgeable about human anatomy and basic body/food chemistry.

i'm growing hair back on my bald spot as a side effect of medicating with cayenne

you'd think they would put a caution on the bottle